Resurrecting Type 55?
I was unaware that anyone was trying to resurrect Type 55 until I ran into this today:
I thought that it might be of interest to others.
Yeah, if they can get it back down around $3 a sheet. Awesome. Better clean up my 545. I know. But it would be nice.
Perhaps i am to negative but i don't believe it can be successful. What made 55 so good was the negative, i doubt that the Project can resurect the same film as was used in the 55
If they choose to use an existing film why not shoot the film, it will be far more expensive in the 55 version.
If however the real film from the original 55 still can be produced and the price is reasonable i will be buying it.
Who coated the film for Polaroid? I've seen rumors that it was based on Panatomic-X. If Kodak produced it for Polaroid, maybe they can coat it for these guys too.
We are not trying to resurrect 55. We are trying to provide a high quality field processable negative system, such as 55 did provide.
If you want Panatomic X you can still order some in long rolls from Kodak, as it is still used for aero cameras. Otherwise it is not available any longer.
If you expect a duplicate of 55, that is not the goal. I am now using Efke 25 which processes quite well in reagent III which has been developed for the project. I think the two are superior to 55 in some ways.
The biggest opportunity is to make 4x5 more accessible to a greater number of people, and marketing it to a new audience of younger people just discovering 4X5.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Here's the stuff
Once we get going, and if they are willing, we might try to get this too.
Bob, Thank you for posting with some info on the new 55
Your last post in particular will make a few P55 users smile!
When I worked on instant products, we had to hand assemble film packs with pods, rails and traps to run lab experiments. That thingie at the opposite end of the package from the pod is called a trap, as its purpose is to trap excess pod goo. If it is not built correctly it can leak or have other unintended bad consequences. Our lab traps looked like postits with glue on 2 ends. One was stuck to the back of the film and the other to the back of the receiver. The trap was acid impregnated "blotter" to soak up and neutralize the goo.
We had little flat bed tempered 4x5 roller units to test experiments in the lab.
So, knowing how hard this can be, your work is not so much bringing a smile to my lips but rather making me laugh because I know how hard it is to do something like this.
Best wishes. BTDT!!!!!
Yup - a little acetic acid goes a long way! Also, the reagent we use now is less caustic (pH of 11 or so) which is not as nasty. But we have a long way to go yet.
Since the focus is on making a very good, sharp and detailed negative in the field, we will put the emphasis on that first. If we can get a decent positive, all that much better.
That would be more likely if we could zero in on a more exact production procedure for the receiver material. Can you help us find it?
The plan published anticipates a $6 per sheet cost, so it is not for the very frugal or those who have other ways to process 4x5 negatives. That's one reason why the estimated production would be small, and we have been very cautious about committing the substantial funds this would need - if it is a real opportunity.
Last edited by BobCrowley; 12-03-2010 at 09:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Use polyacrylic acid in a matrix of methyl methacrylate for the acid layer. The acid neutralizes better than anything else with better keeping, and the methacrylate can be adjusted for the correct timing. It can "open up" anywhere from 30" to about 5" IIRC depending on rations of AA to MA. Fun to make timing layers.
As for receiver sheets, IDK. I would have to study up on that one. Basically, you want a nucleating sheet with a monobath pod IIRC, but the specs are just gone due to the years that have passed.
Have fun. I do know that getting it to work with a pre-coated product is very very hard. I'm pretty sure that you have to tweak it.