Signs of life at the New 55 project

[StoneNYC]

Here is the FAQ I was reading. Don't know how hold it is, but it refers to the $6 price point and the sulfite issue. It also discusses product development cooperation by Harman/Ilford, Impossible Project, and others.

And here is a slideshow of New55 photo test examples. Presumably these were made using the early hand-assembled prototypes. They are claiming the process is almost ready for commercialization and all they need is the startup funding to scale it up.

Balanced pos/neg exposures and a Graflok mount sounds like happy portrait days for a Crown Graphic. There were 3 or 4 unused NOS 545 holders on the ugly auction site just last evening. And over a hundred nice used ones, many for about the $20 each quoted by Stone.

[Edit: Click here for an interesting description by Zoe Wiseman of trying out five prototype sheets of New55, and how it compares to the original Polaroid Type 55 film. Side-by-side examples of both are included. This appears to have been published on September 2, 2012.]

Ken

Hope they end up using ilford film that matches something current like FP4+ we shall see...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...a lot cheaper once the film is processed...

That's how I look at it. Six dollars for the exposure, and the processing, AND the printing/proofing, depending on your intended final use.

I can live with that. Especially at the beginning, I might even live with a bit more. I'm not a prolific user of sheet film already. Although granted, having a proof in-hand might nudge me to reshoot once in a while. Besides, if the film were to take off in its niche market, unit cost might even drop a little bit. Well, maybe...

Ken

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Hope they end up using ilford film that matches something current like FP4+ we shall see...

One point made by Zoe is that the New55 sheets are "correct" 4x5-sized films, where the earlier Polaroid variety was just slightly too large to fit into standard negative page sleeves. Which may point more toward an off-the-shelf current film?

Ken

 

[winger]

Ken, don't forget adding shipping for many people. Granted, I don't ship my B&W off for processing, but a fair number do. Once you add all of it up, it might not really be that bad to pay $6/sheet.

Is the #500 holder the same as the 545 for this venture? I may have another holder around, but it's likely about 1000 miles away.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Is the #500 holder the same as the 545 for this venture? I may have another holder around, but it's likely about 1000 miles away.

Not sure, Bethe. I read the FAQ link and they only mentioned 545s. I'm not enough of a Polaroid expert to know, so I just went ahead and picked up a nice 545 holder cuz' it just sounds like too much fun.

I'm not even thinking of using it on a tripod camera. It's the Crown I'm thinking of for street portraits. Maybe with a bucket of sulfite/fixer in the car trunk, and some individual square Tupperware containers filled with water as holding tanks until I get back home?

Hmm. Maybe I should have grabbed a lighter 545i plastic holder instead for hand-holding?

Not really sure about the standard workflow for this kind of stuff when using it in the field. Maybe someone can correct my newbie-ness regarding how it's done?



Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

Ken, don't forget adding shipping for many people. Granted, I don't ship my B&W off for processing, but a fair number do. Once you add all of it up, it might not really be that bad to pay $6/sheet.

Is the #500 holder the same as the 545 for this venture? I may have another holder around, but it's likely about 1000 miles away.

No, not even close...

The one you have is the equivalent of this Fuji one... Holds a pack of 10 sheets/prints.

Fuji PA-45

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/308996-REG/Fujifilm_14250691_PA_45_Film_Holder_for.html

The one you need for new55 is this... Holds a single sheet at a time (just like quick loads)

polaroid 545

http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=190874372491

 

[StoneNYC]

The BIG difference besides individual sheets, is that you should always have the thing loaded IN the camera before you insert the sheet of film, because the back has no dark slide...so don't practice unless you don't care about killing one...

 

[Roger Cole]

It's silly to compare black and white to Velvia. For that matter I don't shoot color in 4x5 except when I get a deal on expired or partially used boxes of film. I shoot it with a rollfilm back if I see something that has to be in color, assuming one of my lenses will frame it on 6x7cm. 4x5 color is just too expensive, but if I did much of it I'd process it myself too.

Regular black and white 4x5 is all over the map depending on brand but using Ilford (cheaper than Kodak, more expensive and much better QC than Foma) as the comparison it's about $1.20 to $1.30 a sheet from B&H. That's not too bad. A few cents more for developer and fixer gets a negative. Include the proof - I cut four 4x5s from an 8x10 sheet and print proofs on RC paper, $68.95/100 from B&H. Seventeen and a quarter (rounding) cents for a 4x5. Even assuming I used two sheets including tests (I don't usually) that's $0.34, add a few cents for paper chems. The entire negative plus proof comes out to less than two bucks, easily. Three times as much for the instant is not something I will use much of. Not saying I couldn't, it just wouldn't be worth it to me. For exposure proofing I can continue to use the color Fuji 3.25x4.25 film at a buck a shot or so.

 

[StoneNYC]

It's silly to compare black and white to Velvia. For that matter I don't shoot color in 4x5 except when I get a deal on expired or partially used boxes of film. I shoot it with a rollfilm back if I see something that has to be in color, assuming one of my lenses will frame it on 6x7cm. 4x5 color is just too expensive, but if I did much of it I'd process it myself too.

Regular black and white 4x5 is all over the map depending on brand but using Ilford (cheaper than Kodak, more expensive and much better QC than Foma) as the comparison it's about $1.20 to $1.30 a sheet from B&H. That's not too bad. A few cents more for developer and fixer gets a negative. Include the proof - I cut four 4x5s from an 8x10 sheet and print proofs on RC paper, $68.95/100 from B&H. Seventeen and a quarter (rounding) cents for a 4x5. Even assuming I used two sheets including tests (I don't usually) that's $0.34, add a few cents for paper chems. The entire negative plus proof comes out to less than two bucks, easily. Three times as much for the instant is not something I will use much of. Not saying I couldn't, it just wouldn't be worth it to me. For exposure proofing I can continue to use the color Fuji 3.25x4.25 film at a buck a shot or so.

My biggest issue is temperature, Polaroid stuff can't be frozen, nor heated too much, or pods break etc, but all I shoot in is extreme conditions... So I'm always leaving the film behind in favor of not having to hassle with the film... I've list my interest in instant... I was so going ho but my excitement is waining the longer it takes...

 

[Roger Cole]

No problem with that for me. Anything under 55 or so, no way I'm fooling with LF. I MIGHT take the 35mm or TLR, maybe. I HATE cold.

 

[StoneNYC]

No problem with that for me. Anything under 55 or so, no way I'm fooling with LF. I MIGHT take the 35mm or TLR, maybe. I HATE cold.

I hate it too, I have raynards syndrome, but I still go out and shoot, it's worth it usually...

 

[winger]

No, not even close...

The one you have is the equivalent of this Fuji one... Holds a pack of 10 sheets/prints.

Fuji PA-45

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/308996-REG/Fujifilm_14250691_PA_45_Film_Holder_for.html

The one you need for new55 is this... Holds a single sheet at a time (just like quick loads)

polaroid 545

http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=190874372491

No, my #500 holder holds single sheets - intended for the Type 55. I believe it's the oldest version. But that's why I'm hoping it will also work for the new55.

I also have a version of the Polaroid 405 that holds pack film.


I have this one - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Polaroid-50...k-Load-and-Kodak-Readyload-Film-/281251306123

 

[mgb74]

That's how I look at it. Six dollars for the exposure, and the processing, AND the printing/proofing, depending on your intended final use.

I can live with that. Especially at the beginning, I might even live with a bit more. I'm not a prolific user of sheet film already. Although granted, having a proof in-hand might nudge me to reshoot once in a while. Besides, if the film were to take off in its niche market, unit cost might even drop a little bit. Well, maybe...

Ken

And knowing that you got the shot before you leave - "priceless". Seriously, even with the need to clear in Sodium Sulfite, if you're traveling a distance with your 4x5, it's nice to know what you've got before you drive or fly away.

And I still have a 545 holder and an original clearing tank. Just never got around to selling them after Polaroid went under. Sometimes better to be lucky than smart.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And knowing that you got the shot before you leave - "priceless".

Absolutely. As would be the ability to provide a souvenir of the encounter. When using the Graflite on the Crown I usually pop the (cooled) flashbulb that was used into the subject's hands for them to keep. They always love that. Being able to add an instant print would be just perfect.

That alone would make a $6 cost worth it to me. I would just be careful not to expose 50 sheets a day.

Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

No, my #500 holder holds single sheets - intended for the Type 55. I believe it's the oldest version. But that's why I'm hoping it will also work for the new55.

I also have a version of the Polaroid 405 that holds pack film.


I have this one - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Polaroid-50...k-Load-and-Kodak-Readyload-Film-/281251306123

I can't answer that, I'm already confused now, I'm pretty sure the holder 500 is the older version of 545 but I can't be sure, but it looks the same.

I know someone told me they COULD be used with quick loads but that the quick load holder is technically better since it was designed for quick loads, and the ready loads are I think the correct for 545 but again, the info is sort of scattered.

I think to ME this is one of the main reasons polaroid failed, because all of their equipment and film was a big jumbled mess, pro's who had "been around" knew what was going on but everyone else was confused as f-ck about what goes with what, and prevented a lot of amateur sales that would have kept the company going.

Streamlining your products is an important part of business that Polaroid and many others didn't quite get (even kodak got that you label the camera and the film with the same number...)

IE all "type 100" 3ishx4ish size pack film should have been labeled 100 ... Period... 100 - blue, 100 - sepia, 100 - B 100 - C

All 4x5 pack film should have been 145 labeled... 145 blue, 145 sepia, 145-B 145-C or whatever etc...

The whole 664, 669, T55, T56 etc etc makes no sense and is just confusing to potential new customers...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Stone... 545 holders actually work better with BOTH Quickloads and single-sheet Readyloads than the official holders from either Fuji or Kodak. But there's some heavy junk in the 545 you don't need - namely, you can drop the rollers out and plug the light holes, and end up with a very
reliable holder at half the wt of the original (but no longer good for instant films). A relatively useless academic fact at this point, unless someone is lucky enough to round up a bunch of remaining Quickload or Readyload film. I'm sure going to miss that system for backpacking!

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone... 545 holders actually work better with BOTH Quickloads and single-sheet Readyloads than the official holders from either Fuji or Kodak. But there's some heavy junk in the 545 you don't need - namely, you can drop the rollers out and plug the light holes, and end up with a very
reliable holder at half the wt of the original (but no longer good for instant films). A relatively useless academic fact at this point, unless someone is lucky enough to round up a bunch of remaining Quickload or Readyload film. I'm sure going to miss that system for backpacking!

But the quickload (or maybe ready load?) ... The Kodak one... Is so light and plasticky, I can't imagine the Polaroid one is lighter even with parts taken out.

 

[canuhead]

If Bob can get this going, and the price is not too bad, this will be, imo, a huge deal. I have no problem being a guinea pig for this project whatsoever

 

[swhiser]

Last I read on the blog was that new55 was a side project and was never really meant to be a commercial endeavor, which I interpreted as "only a few lucky folks will ever get to shoot new55, so stop holding your breath". My interest in the project dwindled considerably after reading that, though I do hear there's lots of progress being made, just none towards public availability. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

jcc-

The project is moving toward commercialization now. A possible Kickstarter -- if it were successful -- would ensure that something like 5,000 units (a unit is a box of 5 sheets) would ship to contributors about 8 months from end of Kickstarter project (Kickstarter projects tend to last no longer than 30 days).

After that, full-scale production would depend on the ability of the project to move successfully toward incorporation.

Nothing's granted for sure. Stay tuned on the website or other media feeds & locations.

-Sam Hiser

project CEO
new55project.com

 

[Dr Croubie]

I think to ME this is one of the main reasons polaroid failed, because all of their equipment and film was a big jumbled mess, pro's who had "been around" knew what was going on but everyone else was confused as f-ck about what goes with what, and prevented a lot of amateur sales that would have kept the company going.
The whole 664, 669, T55, T56 etc etc makes no sense and is just confusing to potential new customers...

That's exactly what I've thought, time and again. It's even harder coming into it now that most of the stuff's disappeared, there's dribs and drabs spread around the internet but nothing concrete.
Even Impossible live up to their name, their data is just as impossible to follow.
"SX70 film for SX70 cameras" - yeah, that's nice, but what about backs? They barely rate a mention, except some that say "we don't make film for them".
Fuji don't help either, they may make film but they don't use Polaroid's numbering scheme either.
I tried to find backs for both my Mamiya 645AF and Hasselbladski. You think I could find anything about what type of film they took? Obviously not the 'real' 4x5, but do they take '600' type, or 'sx70' type (or some other type?), any information? Some are labelled as "for peel-apart" type film, that's nice, but does that mean sheet or pack?
Nothing, not a clue to be found anywhere.
In the end, I took a $50 gamble and just bought a "polaroid holder" for my m645AF. Turns out it took packfilm. Took another $20 gamble and bought some FP3000B. Turns out it fits the holder. Still wasn't sure if that meant it was '600' or 'sx70' type or something else.
Took another $60 gamble, bought a "polaroid packfilm holder missing darkslide". Turns out my pack of FP3000B fits it. So I'm presuming it's a 405 holder, it looks like this one. Cut a 4x5 darkslide down to fit. So now I've got some FP3000B and FP100C, and holders that fit my 645AF and 4x5, and I'm locked into these two Fujis until I take a gamble on something Impossible to find out if it does or doesn't fit.

Seriously, we need a sticky in the 'polaroid' subforum called 'navigating the minefiled of film numbers, packs, and holders', with a giant matrix of everything there ever is and was, what holder it fits into, and what camera the holder attaches to.

 

[swhiser]

Right-on adelorenzo! You can help ... by communicating to anyone you know who loves the ground-glass.

So, here's our market: all humans with 4x5 cameras (or -- among those other people -- those who are dreaming of working slower someday). In marketing terms, that's a well-defined space and something like a gift.

To be successful, a Kickstarter project needs over 1,000 contributors from North America, about 1,000 from EU, and about 500 from Asia (Kickstarter reward structure TBD). All the same, we don't know how many people are out there.

It could be just you guys (& gals) on this thread. And all that excitement over there in social media could be you guys (& gals) too. We'd like to see our skepticism disproven -- emphatically -- which is why we are setting a high Kickstarter goal (if it's approved).

-Sam

project CEO
new55project.com

 

[swhiser]

No need to be confused about holders. The 545 works like a charm. The 545i is plastic and lighter in weight but works too.

$6.00 would be a logical minimum, Ken.

-Sam

 

[mgb74]

I think to ME this is one of the main reasons polaroid failed, because all of their equipment and film was a big jumbled mess, pro's who had "been around" knew what was going on but everyone else was confused as f-ck about what goes with what, and prevented a lot of amateur sales that would have kept the company going.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, their marketing and branding may have been a jumbled mess, but what killed them is the 1 hour minilab. And they were effectively dead (finally bankrupt around 2000) before digital hit it's stride. Polavision was to be their next great innovation - which came out about the same time as consumer-grade camcorders. Their pro-level films just didn't have the volume to keep them going. I think their pro-level instant film could have lasted longer as a niche product under the umbrella of a Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

But they didn't ask for my advice.

 

[Roger Cole]

So I don't come across as critical let me be clear that I well understand why $6 may be the lowest practical price. This would be a huge project. I get that. But I can't pay six bucks a sheet for it, at least not very much or very often. If it were half that it would still be 50% more than conventional negative film (but I'd probably use a lot of it.) If it were, say, $4, I'd use quite a bit too. But at $6 I'm not at all sure. I do have one project I've had in mind for a couple of years that I may be able to start on this year for which this stuff would be just AWESOME, the absolute shiznit, and the price wouldn't be a barrier, but I'll have to see if I can get started on it, other finances and such allowing.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

$6.00 would be a logical minimum, Ken.

Understood.

That's why I added that little disclaimer about being willing, especially at the beginning, to go higher. I did the same with TIP early on. And had a blast with it.

Watching this very closely. Can contribute some $$$ if you reach the fundraising point. And the best part is, I never even used the original T55. So I'm a brand new (potential) customer. No prior expectations. Only future anticipations.

Ken