Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,043   Posts: 1,560,835   Online: 1146
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57
  1. #41
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I won't charge you.

    Incidentally I am thinking of doing some kind of summer workshop down here so maybe that would be of interest, if you want to do a workshop presentation or two, then you can come play on the SEM to your heart's content.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  2. #42
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,261
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    I won't charge you.

    Incidentally I am thinking of doing some kind of summer workshop down here so maybe that would be of interest, if you want to do a workshop presentation or two, then you can come play on the SEM to your heart's content.
    Keith;

    I've never used one. We had a department that did all photo micography and electron microscopy. All I had to do was submit a work order and I got back an SEM and a size frequency distribution along with a map of internal ions such as Iodide and dopant metals.

    So, I would probably ruin your equipment.

    I did make my own photo micrographs at one time. They figured that was safe enough for me to learn and all I would ruin would be a microtome and/or an oil immersion lens.

    My teacher BTW, was Anton Dvorak's nephew. You may have heard of Anton Dvorak, well his nephew was a freedom fighter in the underground during WWII and told some amazing stories about their group and the SS. We listened to his stories as we toiled away in the lab learning how to make cross sections.

    PE

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    30
    I'm willing to bet that theres quite a few instant film users out there that would be willing invest some cash into finding an alternative. And after reading some of your posts, it seems like theres quite a few people that understand the chemistry involved. We're not talking about buying Polaroid equipment here. This would have to be a completely in house, dare I say Homemade process, in order to make it feasible. Believe me, if I had the cash and know how, I know I'd be looking for a way.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    I'd chip in financially. I don't have access to a TEM or any nanotubes ( ;-( ), but I have access to cash.
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

  5. #45
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Let me survive the end of the semester and grading and all that and then maybe we can figure out a way to make use of all those polaroid backs and processors
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    Let me survive the end of the semester and grading...
    Amen to that. Two rolls with contact sheets and workprints, plus six or seven fiber prints by tomorrow...
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    30
    If some individual, some entrepreneur, really wanted to start from the ground up and come up with a similar system, they'd probably choose to make the 669 type peel aparts. That would probably be the simplest way to start out. It seems like the concensus is that the one step would be too difficult to produce from scratch, especially if your talking about making it compatible with the millions of cameras already in existence. I doubt a guy making this stuff in his garage would think it was worth it to spend countless hours in the dark, unless he built his own proprietary equipment. For example, I saw a post recently about an ex kodak employee making his own film with a homemade setup. Not instant of course, but it proves the concept. I may have to buy my 35mm from someone like him one day when Kodak, fuji, Ilford, say Sayonara!


    The alternative would to find a system that didn't require you to spread the developer onto the negative. Maybe the developer would be in the paper itself and wouldn't process the film until it was activated by something, such as infrared light, heat, etc. That would get rid of the need for a pod. Of course, I'm no photo engineer, but I'm thinking that you either have to work with whats in the box or, excuse the cliche, think outside of it.

    CrystalClear

  8. #48
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    CC, I think peel-aparts are not going to be a good venture, they are very difficult and costly to manufacture. Whatever I may say about polaroid, I would not question their ability to compute their profit margin

    But what could realistically be done is to figure out how to make little monobath gel packs so that people just crank their film through and get a well-developed neg out the other side, which then goes into a clearing bath if it's a keeper.

    Frankly, I think that the problem of creating a peel-apart that gives a presentable positive is not worth tackling. I say that mostly because the very thorniest technical issues have to do with creating a print that doesn't degrade. And frankly that is a somewhat outdated priority now, whether your workflow is purely traditional or hybrid.

    I think the priority has to be quickly, easily and reproducibly generating a superb negative. The strength of type 55 is that it gives jaw-dropping slide-like levels of detail and superb tonality, albeit only if you expose it properly, and so being able to shoot and see your neg in 2 minutes is a huge benefit.

    With only about 50 shots of type 55 and another 50 or so of 665 left in my reserves, I am very interested in any attempt to recreating the type 55 magic.

    Recently I taught a trad b&w photo class in which we used 665. The students were of course impressed to see the cute little print in a few seconds - certainly faster than I could get a file off my dslr and through an inkjet! - but when they saw the cleared neg, they just said, okay, so? It wasn't until they saw that neg enlarged that they really "got it." 55/665 is just as enlargeable, I think, as fine slide.

    So what I think might actually sell is an ultrahigh quality film like type 55, or perhaps a scan-friendly chromogenic or pyro-esque version that is processed via staining dev. I think it is still very possible to make a product that kicks b&w digital's ass and kicks it thoroughly; I truly think that if polaroid had let the positive print aspects of 55/665 go and simply brought out a way to get that superb neg processed on the spot, that would have been a better seller and it might still be in high demand. My totally-non-expert analysis is that the positive print aspects of the polaroid products are probably what cost the bulk of the r&d and production expenses, but they are actually not the key selling poiint of 55/665, looking forward (if polaroid had looked forward).
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  9. #49
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,784
    This is nice, but not likely. I hope I'm wrong.

    Failing that, what would be nice is if Ilford or somebody would just source the type 55 film as sheets. Screw the pack and pods. That would be a film folks would buy. If I could have purchased it as just plain film, I would have.

    I think that could actually happen. Where the hell did that film come from? Did Polaroid make it? Or did Big Yellow? Or someone else? Where was it coated? Are there master rolls left? These are questions really worth looking in to.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    30
    Good question.

    Something I forgot to mention earlier was that Freestyle photo said that one of the reasons that Polaroid axed their film was that some of the materials and chemicals involved were either getting to expensive to souce out and that some had even become scarce or discontinued completely. Has anyone else heard anything similar?

    CrystalClear

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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