Signs of life at the New 55 project

[TheFlyingCamera]

Flying-
The negatives are awesome now and they ARE irregular because all the existing test shots were from handmade assemblies. You won't see regular performance for a good while because the film is still in development and will continue to be for a while after machinery is in place, like all products with multiple, variable ingredients. Sorry you'll miss the fun.
-Sam

Sam-

thank you for clarifying. There was no malice in my comment - just a statement of a hard, if not entirely pleasant fact. I suspect there would be a lot of others like me who would be willing to buy the product if we knew the quality- please understand that my photo dollars are not unlimited, and I have to draw a line at where I spend my money. Right now, I can only judge based on what I see of your product. What I was seeing was something very irregular AND very expensive at the same time. To spend $75 for 5 sheets of film ($15/sheet is the same price range as 14x17 FP4+!!!), and not know if what I'm shooting will produce a result I can use is not a smart call. Five sheets isn't enough to shoot a project with, especially if the end results would look like novice wet plate pours. I really don't think these are unreasonable and unrealistic concerns - when investing in any company, especially a start-up, I would want to see very concrete plans to address shortcomings/unknowns before handing over a single dollar.

It helps to understand that the quality of your samples is irregular because everything is basically a one-off without assembly-line regularity. That goes a long way toward convincing me it will be a good final product. Had you stopped there in your response, I would have reconsidered my fence-sitting on your project. The snark (perhaps unintended, but that's how it reads) of "sorry you'll miss the fun", though, was a huge turn-off. I do hope you make it to regular series production, and that you resolve your quality issues. If those two things come to pass, and the price of regular production New55 is NOT $15/sheet (my pain tolerance for something like this would be under $5/sheet, and I'd be happy at $3/sheet), I would be a buyer - in addition to personal use, I teach large format photography and alternative processes, and a product like this would be very useful for those classes. But spending $75 for a product that at this moment in time appears to be very inconsistent and may leave me with nothing to show for the money is not what I call "fun".

 

[swhiser]

snip ... (my pain tolerance for something like this would be under $5/sheet, and I'd be happy at $3/sheet) ... snip

Flying-
You will always miss the fun because it will never be $3.
Those who value it do not associate it with "pain."
I'm being straight with you.
-Sam

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Sam,

Just give me sufficient warning of success so I can remove that rat poison from under the kitchen sink...



Ken

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Flying-
You will always miss the fun because it will never be $3.
Those who value it do not associate it with "pain."
I'm being straight with you.
-Sam

Sam-

Well, then I won't be a customer. But you are still missing my point - mocking someone who raises a legitimate question instead of addressing their concern is not going to win them over nor is it going to convince others who might be sitting on the fence. I came up with the $3/sheet price based on what a sheet of 4x5 non-instant b/w film goes for. I would be willing to pay 3x-4x what I pay for a sheet of Kodak or Ilford 4x5 film. I'm not buying any more Type 55 on Ebay because I'm not going to pay $10/sheet for a currently extinct product which has a continuously diminishing return - if 50% of the sheets I shoot have some critical flaw due to the pods not coating evenly, or being dried out, then I'm effectively paying $20/picture. At $20/picture, I can shoot my 14x17 and have spare change. I value it, I like it, I would shoot it at the right price - but $10-15/sheet is not the right price. As I said, my dollars for photography are limited and need to be spent where they will be effective. I'm sorry you feel that that sentiment is worthless.

 

[StoneNYC]

Sam-

Well, then I won't be a customer. But you are still missing my point - mocking someone who raises a legitimate question instead of addressing their concern is not going to win them over nor is it going to convince others who might be sitting on the fence. I came up with the $3/sheet price based on what a sheet of 4x5 non-instant b/w film goes for. I would be willing to pay 3x-4x what I pay for a sheet of Kodak or Ilford 4x5 film. I'm not buying any more Type 55 on Ebay because I'm not going to pay $10/sheet for a currently extinct product which has a continuously diminishing return - if 50% of the sheets I shoot have some critical flaw due to the pods not coating evenly, or being dried out, then I'm effectively paying $20/picture. At $20/picture, I can shoot my 14x17 and have spare change. I value it, I like it, I would shoot it at the right price - but $10-15/sheet is not the right price. As I said, my dollars for photography are limited and need to be spent where they will be effective. I'm sorry you feel that that sentiment is worthless.

I think that with the crunch time happening, there's a lot of pressure that can be stressful and sometimes especially when you're involved in something at the core, anything that the tracks from assistance can be very hard to deal with properly, I think that as a fellow film shooter, you should raise concerns but also give encouragement to others who might be in a better position than you are to assist and help, instead of totally shooting down the idea for anyone. I think that's probably why the mocking happened because he's under a lot of pressure to get this complete after so many years of work on it, remember he's put a lot of work into this.

I do believe the project has merit, but I also am on the side of not having enough money to spread around, and so I see both sides.

I encourage anyone who does have the funds and really wants to see this project happening to help kick it off!

 

[swhiser]

Sam-

Well, then I won't be a customer. But you are still missing my point - mocking someone who raises a legitimate question instead of addressing their concern is not going to win them over nor is it going to convince others who might be sitting on the fence.

Flying -
I'm not going to win you over. Your expression of concern indicates that you haven't read our Kickstarter page. There is no choice but the $75 entry-point. Your concern reflects a latent desire for the project to fail. Given our disposition of the facts, there's no other motivation to make the complaint.
Respectfully,
-Sam

 

[swhiser]

Just give me sufficient warning of success so I can remove that rat poison from under the kitchen sink...

Ken, that comment gave genuine entertainment. It's a constructive and enthusiastic way to say what Flying is saying. We all have budget limitations. Many people simply aren't cut out for a sublime, elegant instant 4x5. Not least the wives. Suberb! Thanks for your commitment.

-Sam

 

[Xmas]

HiSam

Can I inquire what you plan on doing by way of resellers and note I don't have a 4x5.

120 and 35mm are practical for me cause Im never far from a shop that sells film if I run out. It is Sunday here and Im 300m away from a shop, that sells both, & is open till 18:00 local.

I can use 220 as well cause the cameras I use are dual standard if I run out I use 120 instead.

Some resellers might sub you for exclusive market rights...

Noel

 

[BrianShaw]

...
I do believe the project has merit, but I also am on the side of not having enough money to spread around, and so I see both sides.

I encourage anyone who does have the funds and really wants to see this project happening to help kick it off!

Nothing personal, Stone, but if I had a nickel for every time I heard that...

 

[swhiser]

Can I inquire what you plan on doing by way of resellers [...snip...]
Some resellers might sub you for exclusive market rights ...

Noel, thank you for your question / idea. Resellers have been supportive of New55 FILM, and we're continuously in dialogue with them in all time-zones. We've considered offering retail "kits" at Kickstarter but the quantity limits there are a constraint. Some retailers have supported the project on an individual basis.

In general, retail distribution represents a challenge for a niche product like this. While there are benefits from the value-add of specialty retailers and zero shipping costs to customers, as well as convenient access to the local shop; we have to balance these factors with the retail margin gained back in a direct sale. A direct-only strategy is a distinct possibility because our market is so small. With a successful Kickstarter, hopefully we'll be able to evaluate these questions by testing retail distribution in full view of regular demand.

-Sam

 

[Xmas]

Nothing personal, Stone, but if I had a nickel for every time I heard that...

HiBrian

You would be able to complete the kickstart funding?

Noel

 

[swhiser]

New55 FILM will probably succeed

Gentlemen (Ladies?) -

I'm more optimistic about New55 FILM's chance of success today than I was last week. That's because the community rallied strongly after that Sir-Alex-Ferguson Half-Time speech.

Something that's not visible to the public is the project dashboard and we've been more than encouraged by the willingness of backers to double- and triple-down their pledges -- like Ken. We've also had good social-media response and are getting fresh publicity to add to the early work we've done, which includes the article in the new issue of "View Camera" magazine. Also Asia traffic is continuing to improve -- even from places where we've made zero outreach (Singapore, Indonesia, India) -- and the Travelwide community seems to be supportive.

Also not public-facing is the little-known detail about all Kickstarter projects. The backing curve is the same shape for all projects: all have strong starts and strong finishes and very quiet middles. Longer project durations are discouraged because they are statistically less successful. New55 FILM's recent surge is quite unusual in this context. According to Kickstarter CEO Yancey Strickler, projects that reach 30% funding are successful 90% of the time.

Omer here (CatLab) is skeptical of the stats and I feel he's essentially correct; however the New55 FILM surge indicates the strength of the passion to get New55 FILM into production (among those people for whom it's relevant) and it indicates there are a lot of people on the sidelines preparing to back from whom we haven't heard yet. Also encouraging, the project will be making its Summit Approach now from about 60% rather than the earlier-trending 40%.

There's no getting over the high price. Even we couldn't. But there are reasons for hope.

-Sam

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Also not public-facing is the little-known detail about all Kickstarter projects. The backing curve is the same shape for all projects: all have strong starts and strong finishes and very quiet middles. Longer project durations are discouraged because they are statistically less successful. New55 FILM's recent surge is quite unusual in this context. According to Kickstarter CEO Yancey Strickler, projects that reach 30% funding are successful 90% of the time.

Over what time frame?

That's crucial. Obviously, reaching 30% only an hour before the deadline on a $400,000 project does not bode well. And reaching 30% after only the first hour would bode pretty darned well. Maybe this explains where the other 10% live?

Has this project reached 30% early enough?

Ken

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Flying -
I'm not going to win you over. Your expression of concern indicates that you haven't read our Kickstarter page. There is no choice but the $75 entry-point. Your concern reflects a latent desire for the project to fail. Given our disposition of the facts, there's no other motivation to make the complaint.
Respectfully,
-Sam

I NEVER said I want you to fail. In fact, I said I hope you succeed, quite explicitly. But I also said I couldn't see giving that kind of money based on the quality I saw in your Kickstarter page.

 

[swhiser]

[snip] I said I hope you succeed, quite explicitly. But I also said I couldn't see giving that kind of money based on the quality I saw in your Kickstarter page.

No problem, Flying. It is a tall ask. Thanks for your attention.
-Sam

 

[vpwphoto]

I agree, I shopped with Calumet for 25 years. The sent a pretty nice "newletter" out. But they didn't talk about anything they didn't invent, market, or sell. I miss Calumet, never ever had an issue with their service, or products. Opps off topic.


Meant to reply with QUOTE about Lomography being a media outlet.

 

[vpwphoto]

(snip)Many people simply aren't cut out for a sublime, elegant instant 4x5.

-Sam

I guess I will get in the mud! I thought I was cut out for ^^ when Polaroid made the stuff. I hated the negative curl, the fragility of the negative on the perforated edge. They were so hard to get into the enlarger, stretched flat, and ready to print. Then there were the two sheets out of the box that failed to engage, in the envelope, or had a roller mark (I know user error).

I, and from what I have read, even Ansel Adams returned to non instant sheet film.

Ok.. now I have stepped in the mud.

Also I don't know how many of the people clamoring for the new stuff realize you only get one or the other, a negative or a print with the right range, not both! If you go for the negative, sure you get a print, but not one that I think a lot of these youngsters think. I know it is mentioned on the new 55 site, but only if you dig deep. I still have prints and negative (why would I throw them out?) from the OEM Polaroid stuff. It was cool, and pricy, but not entirely worth the sacrifice of having a durable flat negative to put in the enlarger. (the old 55 stuff fell through a standard 4x5 carrier, so it was glass or tape... I didn't like glass... for a number of more reasons, well 6!! Six surfaces to clean dust off of! It's hard enough to keep dust off the two surface of a negative without the glass carrier!

 

[winger]

Also I don't know how many of the people clamoring for the new stuff realize you only get one or the other, a negative or a print with the right range, not both! If you go for the negative, sure you get a print, but not one that I think a lot of these youngsters think. I know it is mentioned on the new 55 site, but only if you dig deep. I still have prints and negative (why would I throw them out?) from the OEM Polaroid stuff. It was cool, and pricy, but not entirely worth the sacrifice of having a durable flat negative to put in the enlarger. (the old 55 stuff fell through a standard 4x5 carrier, so it was glass or tape... I didn't like glass... for a number of more reasons, well 6!! Six surfaces to clean dust off of! It's hard enough to keep dust off the two surface of a negative without the glass carrier!

From the new55 site -

New55 FILM is an instant peel-apart 4×5 film that produces a superb negative, and a positive print too. Emerging from Bob Crowley’s skunkworks, New55 FILM improves on its precursor, Polaroid Type 55, in two notable ways:

• less Polatrash (lower parts-count)
• balanced exposure between the positive and the negative

ATTENTION: New55 FILM is NOT a duplication of the old 55. If the product ever ships, it will trade on its own characteristics.

I can't speak to how it will fit in a negative carrier (yeah, that bugs me with the original stuff, too, but for different reasons 'cause I do use a glass carrier), but they do intend to put out a product that gives you a negative and a positive with the same exposure rating.

 

[Roger Cole]

Flying -
I'm not going to win you over. Your expression of concern indicates that you haven't read our Kickstarter page. There is no choice but the $75 entry-point. Your concern reflects a latent desire for the project to fail. Given our disposition of the facts, there's no other motivation to make the complaint.
Respectfully,
-Sam

I don't think it does. I think it reflects a desire to see it at a price he can afford.

It's like someone announcing they are bringing back Kodachrome and processing (yay!) but it will cost $150 per roll and $250 to process. The "yay" just doesn't last.

I understand the reasons it's to be so expensive, don't get me wrong. But there is some price at which, once it's that high, it's not going to be a viable product in the market. At some price I would buy and use it, and that price is probably higher than his $3, but it is definitely lower than $15. I'm not sure where that lies and it might depend on the use I have for it. For my own hobby use, not worth even $3 a sheet. But I do have an eventual project in mind for which it would be ideal and I could see $6 or even $10 per sheet being worth it. But I'm not sure I'll ever get that off the ground anyway. And so it goes.

 

[Xmas]

Well there are a lotta people using impossible film so Id be reluctant to quibble or predict about the price point.
The Polaroid pack cameras that will work with the film dissappear from our shops and street stalls.
Yes I've heared a lady say you mean the camera costs 20 GBP but the film is 22 GBP?
The answer from the vendor was they keep improving the film but it is still not the same as the original...
She bought the camera...
Kodachrome was killed by E6 labs
Polariod by C41 labs we had mini labs next to each tube station now mini labs are rare 'Polariod' has a market niche again. The plastic cameras are tolerant of big hand bags and there were a lot made.
Vinyl records have not recovered like impossible.

 

[vpwphoto]

Vinyl records have not recovered like impossible.

You can buy a lot of new stuff on vinyl.
I bought a turntable simply because a Jazz fusion release in 2002 was ONLY found on vinyl.
Robert Cray, Lake Street Dive, Van Morrison, a lot of Jazz... is still being pressed for those that want the stuff on vinyl.

 

[Xmas]

You can buy a lot of new stuff on vinyl.
I bought a turntable simply because a Jazz fusion release in 2002 was ONLY found on vinyl.
Robert Cray, Lake Street Dive, Van Morrison, a lot of Jazz... is still being pressed for those that want the stuff on vinyl.

Yes I know and

I have a turntable still with Halfler surround for stereo pair mike &
Van was in same year in school

But I can buy Impossible in local shops! If you ask for Polariod you get given...

Noel

 

[vpwphoto]

Yes I know and

I have a turntable still with Halfler surround for stereo pair mike &
Van was in same year in school

But I can buy Impossible in local shops! If you ask for Polariod you get given...

Noel

Over on this side of the Atlantic, it's easier to buy new records than Impossible Film.
I am in a "Big Ten" college town, 3 or 4 places to buy Vinyl records, no where anymore to buy Impossible, or even Tri-x!!!!!
I thought about selling film in my studio, but it's easier for a consumer of film to go Amazon or Freestyle to get exactly the film they want (Ilford 100, 400, Delta, etc or Kodak, Tmax- Trix, or Adox) rather than the two sorts of film on one or two developers I contemplated stocking, that would likely not sell completely before expiration dates.

Cheers.

 

[StoneNYC]

Over on this side of the Atlantic, it's easier to buy new records than Impossible Film.
I am in a "Big Ten" college town, 3 or 4 places to buy Vinyl records, no where anymore to buy Impossible, or even Tri-x!!!!!
I thought about selling film in my studio, but it's easier for a consumer of film to go Amazon or Freestyle to get exactly the film they want (Ilford 100, 400, Delta, etc or Kodak, Tmax- Trix, or Adox) rather than the two sorts of film on one or two developers I contemplated stocking, that would likely not sell completely before expiration dates.

Cheers.

Maybe just pick up a few so that you can get some incentive to others to start shooting film with a normally wouldn't, and just having it in the store is a reminder, even if it's just one or two films on the shelf

Then you can tell them where to go to get it cheaper if you want, but at least they'll get hooked

 

[vpwphoto]

Out here in the isolated plains... I think Amazon and Mail-order are taking over.