schambuk said:
I would also be interested in using type 55 film if the processing of the negative could be deferred. I read somewhere that this could be done but have not satisfield myself how, prior to buying a polaroid back for my Bronica SQ system. The data sheet for type 55 film and an on line description of the Polaroid back for the SQ does not make it clear how.
I haven't actually done it, but I have a Polaroid 500 holder (waiting for me to have a camera it fits) and have read about it. Delaying processing of the 4x5 Polaroids is simple -- after exposure, reinsert the cover sleeve to full depth and return the lever on the holder to the "L" for "load" position, then pull firmly on the same tab you'd use to process immediately. With the rollers retracted, the packet will pull out of the retaining clip at the bottom of the holder and pull out, in the same condition it went in except for the presence of a latent image in the negative.
Now the negative can be processed later, either by reinserting in the Polaroid holder, setting the lever to "P" for "process" and pulling the tab to do it the Polaroid way, or by going into the darkroom, separating the components, and developing the negative in conventional soup in a tray or tube. You can delay processing of any Polaroid packet film this same way, but Type 55 is the only one that can be separated and darkroom processed to produce a printable negative...
Given the cost of the complete Polaroid, one is driven to wonder if Polaroid could be convinced to supply a "neg only" version of Type 55 -- it'd basically be an ISO 32 (or so) ready-load similar to the Kodak and Fuji products, usable in the Polaroid 500 (with care) and 545 family backs, with film similar in character to the old Panatomic-X. It *should* be cheaper to produce than the current product because it would require both less material cost (no chemical pod or print layer) and wouldn't require the "reverse in place" operation that turns the negative to face the print as you pull the tab -- so it should be less costly to assemble (though the economics of manufacturing would likely dictate that it's cheaper to use an identical negative layer and simply leave out the pod and print). Even if it costs more than Quick Load or Readyload, the unique film and the fact that exposure can be field checked, accurately, using a regular Type 55 would produce a market among those who commonly shoot 55 for the negative.