|
|
|
-
Polaroid 8x10 Pos/Neg T 805
I'm also posting this at Photo.net and LF.info, so no need to respond here if you already have elsewhere.
A couple times in the last decade Polaroid has explored the idea of an 8x10 version of their Positive Negative film. Every time the topic comes up on the forum everyone says they would buy it.
With the recent Kodak and Ilford ULF orders being spearheaded by outside people I can't help wondering if it's time to run this by Polaroid again? Why don't we see what kind of interest we can generate within Polaroid to give this another shot? (I don't work for Polaroid, but still know a couple people that do.)
Everyone interested, please weigh in here, or contact me directly through the contact link on my website: http://www.mammothcamera.com/contact.html Tracy Storer
-
I'd be interested. What was the hangup last time they manufactured a prototype?
-
If they could get their print & negative to be in sync as to exposure, then it would be an excellent product. I don't use the current 4X5 version of type 55p/n because the print is a throw away yielding not much information.
-
Most who use the P/N films are aware of the speed mismatch. I think most find the benefits of the instant neg. offsets the inconvenience of the speed difference between neg and print.
I'm still hoping to hear from folks who are interested in using this material. (as it is, just bigger-that's what we're talking about "Apples", and "bigger Apples")
 Originally Posted by doughowk
If they could get their print & negative to be in sync as to exposure, then it would be an excellent product. I don't use the current 4X5 version of type 55p/n because the print is a throw away yielding not much information.
-
Does it count for more if we reply more than once ;-)
Still count me in and still waiting...
The word on the development was that their study came up as too expensive to produce and market. I still think they could cut production costs in half by redesigning their packaging. Nice for protection and shelf visibility, but expensive overkill that we pay for...
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by RichSBV
... too expensive to produce and market. I still think they could cut production costs in half by redesigning their packaging
I wondered whether it had a lot to do with the timing of the last merger...Let's rally and see...
-
-
Originally Posted by TracyStorer
I wondered whether it had a lot to do with the timing of the last merger...Let's rally and see...
I'm really bad on names, so I don't remember his. But on the LF Forum I believe, there was a Polaroid employee that was invloved in the testing of the 8x10 805 film a year or two ago. He said it was finished and ready to go. But they decided it wasn't practical cost wise. We were upset... And a good look at the 8x10 packaging reveals they could deffinitely save a bundle by cutting down on it. They might even make it more palitable by offering it in 10 shot packages instead of the 15 it now comes in?
I certainly wish they'd change they're minds. I would love this film in 8x10 and it would cause me to shoot more 8x10 also.
Of course, related to this, I would love to see a less expensive processor also. There's no reason for the processors to be so expensive with modern production and possibly a redesign like Calumet's type of manual roller.
Someone mentioned it and I don't see why an 8x10 545 holder couldn't be produced? Maybe it wouldn't work? But it would be a heck of a lot more convenient...
I still have hopes. To me, Polaroid film is pure magic and everyone should use it!
-
The Polaroid rep who appears on lfphoto.info occasionally is Bill Jefferson.
As far as the idea of a 545-style holder for 8x10" goes, I'm not sure I want to risk a $10 sheet of film on a manual pull. Even if you save a box of 8x10" Polaroid (15 sheets) on practice and bad pulls, a second-hand processor pays for itself (I paid about $150 for mine with one holder). I've never had a bad result using the electric processor.
-
OK.
Once again, we're talking about "BIG 55", packaged like current 8x10. Redesigning the processor to work like 4x5 would also mean redesigning the film packet. That ain't gonna happen. "BIG 55" might happen if enough people are realistic about wanting it. Thanks, and let's keep the list of interested people growing!
|
|
Adv Reply
