Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,701   Posts: 1,482,641   Online: 715
      
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,080
    Images
    21

    Thoughts on PX100 Silver Shade UV+

    Anyone else using this film? I was given an SX-70 over the holidays, so I ordered a couple of packs of Silver Shade, which now means the apparently improved "UV+" version. Without meaning any ill towards the Impossible Project folks---I think it's amazing that they've been able to resurrect the technology at all---I have to admit I'm disappointed at the seemingly "cranky" nature of this film...lots of unevenness in development (mostly right around the edges, but there's usually an extremely underdeveloped band across the image area near the bottom), and I can't seem to settle down to a good setting for the exposure wheel. And it's a real shame that it's light-sensitive after ejection, because half the fun of Polaroids was watching the image come up. (The other half was arguing about whether waving the photo made it come up faster. :-)

    I tried peeling one shot apart, which the IP folks recommend as a method of preservation (peel the image off, store it with desiccant for a few months, then re-mount). I ended up with the (positive) image layer on the mylar facing, which should be acceptable for mounting to a white surface. Unfortunately the image took some damage during the process---it's not clear to me if that's just part of the package, or if one would eventually get good enough at the art of peeling to preserve the image reliably. At three dollars a shot, though, that's gonna be a pretty expensive learning curve.

    I'm on the fence about whether this is something I'd buy again. The tonality is nice, and of course instant photos are always fun; but the uneven development is a pain, the images are short-lived unless I get good at peeling and remounting them, and I'm not sure I'm really achieving anything interesting once the novelty of "Hey, I can shoot Polaroids again!" wears off. But I haven't been along for the ride with the earlier Impossible films, so I don't have a good sense of how steep their improvement curve has been; maybe UV++, or whatever comes next, will have some of these issues worked out?

    If there are others experimenting with this film, I'd be interested in any advice in taming it. The two best shots I've gotten so far are attached; nothing to write home about, but good enough to keep me intrigued in spite of the difficulties.

    -NT
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 6623968131_e7b535a760.jpg   6616645737_3e357d19b2.jpg  
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  2. #2
    jcoldslabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    167
    I've been holding off on trying the IP films for the reasons you mention. I still have a large cache of expired Polaroid films (mostly non-integral, though) and they have held up amazingly well. I have some type 55 that expired in 1981 that still works, although there are some artifacts and odd textures at play. Of course, artifacts are to be expected in 30 year old instant film. I expect more from a newly manufactured product still within its expiry window.

    I do respect what IP is trying to do, but I can't yet support them with my dollars until what they sell is more stable and less experimental. Three bucks a shot is a lot for something this dodgy.

    Jonathan

  3. #3
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,945
    I guess it depends on what one's expectations are and what one is trying to achieve. You pictures posted are fantastic and there are posts in the gallery that look similar involving hours of toiling with stain, acid, UV light, palladium, fancy paper, etc.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,080
    Images
    21
    Just to punish me for complaining, the shot I took this morning (left in a drawer to develop while I ran off to work) is clean as a whistle! Well developed to the edge, maybe a few bits of weirdness right at the very border but nothing significant. I apparently even managed to hold the camera steady for an exposure that was way longer than I planned for. So maybe the secret is to complain a lot and wait for the Imp of the Perverse to take revenge.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    142
    Images
    4
    I think the shots you put up here look great! Far from a disappointing result. Now, there colour film (at least in the gold frames) sucks IMO. Very bland and boring. I'd prefer original film any day.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PDX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    45
    I've used quite a bit of this film, I love it. As others have said those images you posted are quite good. Part of the reason for the (as you called it) "undeveloped patches" on the edges of the film is actually light reaching in. I'm not sure what method you are using to shield the images from light once they are ejected. But even the Impossible PX shade doesn't always shield the edges all that well.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin