Polaroid 103 photo by Blane Becker - [email protected] - Thanks!
Polaroid Medium Format Cameras
by Robert Monaghan
Polaroid Medium Format Cameras
by Robert Monaghan
Related Links:
Four Designs Corp (Polaroid 110A.. film conversion and sales)
Jim's Polaroid Bellows Camera Pages
Large Format on a Micro-Budget
Medium Format on a Budget
NPC Polaroid Folder [6/2001]
Polaroid Conversions (Dean Jones) [11/2002]
Polaroid 500 back issues
Polaroid Land List (Marty Kuhn) [05/2000]
Q: Describe Polaroid MF cameras
Polaroid has made a number of very useful medium format cameras, but many
newcomers are unaware of some of these inexpensive MF entry camera
options.
Polaroid makes some p/n films which provide both a print (positive) and a
negative which can be fixed (with sulfite solution usually) to a
permanent negative up to 4''x5'' in size. Usable cameras with electronic
metering can be bought for under $50 US (e.g., model 250 polaroid). The
resulting negative has surprisingly high resolution and quality, despite
the low cost of camera and print with developing. Such black and white
p/n films can provide a check print and negative in seconds, for under
$1.25 US.
Polaroid also makes materials for use in polaroid backs with various MF
cameras, so you might consider such a setup to be a ''polaroid camera'' too.
You can also use certain polaroid cameras as test cameras in the studio
in place of hard to find polaroid backs (e.g., strobe synch).
Finally, some very inventive developing tricks can be used with polaroid
materials. You can mash color polaroids during development, creating
unique artistic results. And the Polaroid
corporate site describes how to separate and manipulate the emulsion too.
In short, don't ignore polaroid cameras as very low cost but surprisingly
high quality cameras for use with p/n films and other studio needs.
| Table of Polaroid Cameras and Lenses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| model | lens (mm) | f/stop max | shutter | notes | McKeown | |
| 80 | 100 | 8.8 | 1/25-1/100 | $15 | ||
| 80A | 100 | 8.8 | " marked in EV | $15 | ||
| 80B | 100 | 8.8 | see model 80 | $10 | ||
| 95 | 135 | 11 | $25 | |||
| 95A | 130 | 8 | 1/12-1/100 | xsynch | $20 | |
| 95B | 130 | 8 | " marked in EV | $20 | ||
| 100 | 130 | 8 | see model 95A | rollfilm | $20 | |
| 100 auto | 114 | 8.8 | 10 sec-1/1200 | rf, 3 element | $15 | |
| 110 | 127 | 4.5 | 1-1/400 raptar | wollensack, CRF | $60 | |
| 110A | 127 | 4.7 | 1-1/300 prontor | rodenstock/enna-werk lens | $60 | |
| 110B | 127 | 4.7 | " | " (single window rf) | $70 | |
| 120 | 127 | 4.7 | 1-1/500,b seikosha | yashica mfg | $80 | |
| 150 | 130 | 8 | see model 95B | CRF, parallax | $20 | |
| 160 | 130 | 8 | see 150 | made in Japan | $20 | |
| 180 | 114 | 4.5 | 1-1/500 seiko | Tominon, zeiss-ikon RF | $300 | |
| 190 | 114 | 3.8 | 1-1/500 seiko | zeiss finder ver. Of 195 | $225 | |
| 195 | 114 | 3.8 | 1-1/500 seiko | albada finder | $225 | |
| 700 | 130 | 8 | 1/12-1/100 | xsynch, uncoupled RF (95A) | $20 | |
| 800 | 130 | 8 | see model 95B | CRF, parallax, cf 15 | $20 | |
| 850 | ? | 8.8 | 1/12-1/600 | Elec Eye, to f/82 cd 900 | $20 | |
| 900 | ? | 8.8 | 1/12-1/600 | Elec Eye, to f/82 cd 900 | $15 | |
| sx70 | 116 | 8 | 14 sec to 1/180 | SLR ASA 150 film | $40 | |
| 680 | 116 | 8 | 14 sec to 1/180 | SLR ASA 600 film bigger | ? | |
From: Rob [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Polaroid Cameras
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998
Jimi Greydog wrote: > > Hi, Folks... > > A problem with a lot of the older metal polaroid cams is that the damn > batteries are darn near irreplaceable, at least in some parts of the > country... > > They are an obsolete murcury cell and there is no modern replacement, e . .With reference to the folding-pack type, of which the 250 and 350 are members, they DID NOT use a MERCURY cell. the type 531 and 532 cells (4.5 and 3.0 V respectively) are both alkaline types.
I did some time ago convert a 250 to use three "N" alkaline cells.
This involves buying a single "N" cell holder and cutting it in half to
serve as the top and bottom of a longer holder, which you form by
sticking the parts to the inside of the battery door and wrapping the
"N" cells in a paper tube. removing the original battery clip (it is
held in by a screw) and packing the battery compartment with paper and
cardboard to hold the cells against the battery door.
There is another option - 531 and 532 cells, if not under any drain,
seem to have astounding battery life. It is not at all uncommon to find
a camera at a thrift store with a 25+ year old 531 still in the
compartment, and to find this LBJ era battery still works! BTW, in the
shutter design of these cameras, a change in battery voltage produces
very little change in exposure, the batteries instead fail without
warning (hence, the advisory in the instruction book to change the
batteries every year)
To my knowledge, the only Polaroids to have depended on mercury
cells were the 850 and 900. The older models were manual mechanical.
The J33 & J66 were automatic, but with self-powering selenium
photocells.
Rob
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Dan Eisenman [email protected]
[1] Re: Help on Polaroid Back Repair/Parts
Date: Fri Apr 17 08:10:01 CDT 1998
Dennis E. Bosco wrote: > > I own a Polaroid back for Rollei 6003. I bought it used and has performed > great. In cleaning the rollers off I took apart the guts to better clean > it. A plastic tab that hold the roller pins in place broke. I can still > use the back but I wold like to fix it or buy the guts if needed. Who sell > the parts or repairs them? Thanks for your help! > > -- > To reply remove the * in name.
Hi Dennis;
Call Polaroid they sell rollers,about $15.00.
Same thing happened to the one for my Hasselblad.
Main number 1 800 343-4846
PARTS/GENERAL 1800 225-1000
Dan
All Pro Photo
Clearwater Fl
rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected] (Paul Rubin)
[1] Re: Was there ever a manual Polaroid?
Date: Sun May 31 11:41:19 CDT 1998
Kira D. Triea
1. Polaroid backs are standard equipment for large format photographers.
They exist for pretty much every 4x5" view camera being made. They
also exist for many medium format cameras such as Hasselblad.
2. Polaroid had a "professional" model called the 600SE which was
basically a Mamiya medium format press camera converted to use
Polaroid pack film (type 667, etc.). These were pretty nice and
(IIRC) had interchangeable lenses, but I'm not sure if they're still
being made. I'm sure lots of used ones are still around. They are
pretty expensive by amateur standards. I'm pretty sure they had
manual settings.
3. Yes, Polaroid backs for Nikons exist; the ones that magnify the
35mm frame (Speed Magny, etc.) to fill a sheet of Polaroid pack film
are very big and clumsy, plus I think they only were made for the F
and F2. There are polaroid backs for later Nikons like the N90, but
those just give you a 24x36mm image in the middle of the piece of
Polaroid film, AFAIK. I can't say I'm well informed about this
area.
From Medium Format Digest:
Calumet offers 8 x 10 Polaroid in Type 803 and 804. 15 sheets for $139.00
either one. The color is $139 for 15 sheets.
You will also need the special holder for $184.95. Calumet offers a package
containing the film holder and processor for $629.95.
Calumet's processor is hand cranked, not motor driven like Polaroid's, so you
can use it in the field away from power sources.
One consideration is that the Polaroid print is moist when you peel it
open. It MUST be protected from blowing dust while it is drying down to
its finished state. Like Ansel says, it seems to act like a magnet for
every bit of dust and fluff in the county.
If I still had my 8 x 10 Deardorff I would do what you are proposing. I like
the idea of an 8 x 10 contact print immediately!
Good Luck
rec.photo.technique.art
Years ago, when I had an "old time" photo studio. I used Polaroid type 55
film and sprayed the prints with Kodak Rapid Selenium toner. After the
color developed I wiped off the excess with a windshield wiper, then
sprayed on a matte laquer and dried the print with a hair dryer.
Twenty-one years later the prints look as good as new.
Alas, the venture was an artistic success and a financial failure.
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98
Bob,
The batteries needed for the Polaroid pack cameras (531.532) are sold
directly by Polaroid for $7 each. Tried Radio Shack and a number of
speciality electronics stores in a major metropolitan city to no avail
(The current equivalents are Pansonic PX-19, PX-24). The people at
Polaroid customer service are gracious, friendly and extremely
knowledgeable and enthusiastic. A pleasant surprise.
Sincerely,
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998
Bob Wrote:
Tomioka, among other things, made some of the best lenses used by
Polaroid on their cameras.
Ahhhh. I always wondered where the name Tominon came from for the
Polaroid cameras!
[Ed. see related post in Lens Glass Pages]
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998
Yes, they bought lenses from Rodenstock, too. Maybe others as well. And
the rangefinders on some of the better Polaroid pack cameras were made by
Zeiss!!!!!
Bob
From: "Michael Liczbanski" [email protected]
If you want to use Polaroids for checking focus, buy some P/N film (that
also gives a negative) and use a 4x loupe (on a light table) to check focus.
In still life & product shots this simple procedure can save a lot of time
and grief. Focus and sharpness of Polaroid positives (esp. 4.5x6) are
rather difficult to gauge .
Michael
From: "Michael K. Stenstrom" [email protected]
I just purchased a 110A about a month ago at a camera show. I paid $70 and
it's in virtually perfect shape for a 40 year old camera. I'm having Four
Designs convert it. The cost is $255. They quote 6 to 10 weeks for
conversion. So, I'll be into a proofing camera for about $330 if you
count shipping and such.
I would recommend this approach. I am a professor at UCLA and I see or
participate in quite a lot of "shoots." Most of the pro portrait
photographers, given the time, will use one of theses old beasts, or a
600SE. It is just a lot easier than the other alternatives. The
disadvantage that I see are two fold:
1. You have to lug around another camera
2. The lenses on the old 110A/B are 127 mm, which is wide to normal for the
film format. If you are using a 35 mm camera, you will use the same lens
as your portrait lens.
The idea camera is the 180 or 195, which were build originally for pack
film. They are rare and expensive, about $500-600, if you purchase from a
knowledgeable
seller. A company, the name escapes me, maybe it is NPC, is remaking this
camera for about $600.
The 600 SE is a beauty, and three lenses are available, a 127, a wide lens
(maybe a 90 mm) and one about 160 mm. The camera is about $600 on the used
market.
I have a polaroid slide processor and I use them for presentations, which
I invariably make at the last minute. Power Point is ending this use of
these slides. It never occurred to me to use it for proofing. It seems
that it would take too long and would be inconvenient.
[email protected] wrote:
From: "Sherman Dunnam" [email protected]
John,
Actually the negatives can be cleaned in plain water, sodium sulfite just
gets the developing gel off more quickly. Wash the negs until the developer
gel is completely off. How long depends on agitation. You can carefully
rub the neg with your bare fingers while in water to remove the gel more
quickly. (That isn't the Polaroid recommendation however.) I just returned
from a trip where I had no sodium sulfite and I dropped the negs in a
plastic bottle of plain tap water. I forgot about one set and left them in
for three days. The water turned sort of orange but the negs were just fine
after a short (2 minute) washing period.
If you want to use sodium sulfite the formula I have (it came with a
clearing tank I bought) is 400 ml dry measure of sodium sulfite powder to
about a gallon or so of water. Accordning to the instructions the negs can
be left in the solution for 72 hours (seemingly verified by my accidental
experiment with water) and the solution can be stored indefinitely and
re-used over and over. After a while you will want to filter the developer
gel out of the solution.
Hope this helps.
---
John Dancke wrote in message ...
From: "Diego" [email protected]
Hey Juicebox!
You say you want to convert a Polaroid pack-film camera to manual
operation? Are you going to replace the lens/shutter with a standard leaf
shutter and lens? Or are you going to modify the exposure system to allow
manual setting of the shutter speed?
All 250's are the same. The Polaroid Automatic 250 was made with a
triplet glass lens, automatic exposure only (no manual settings), Zeiss Ikon
coupled rangefinder, and a metal body with tripod socket. The Polaroid
pack-film models with plastic lenses carried different model numbers.
The Automatic 250 is not the only model you could buy. Good Polaroid
pack film cameras are the 100, 230, 240, 250, 340, 350, 360, 440, and 450.
All these cameras have glass lenses, coupled rangefinders and the better
exposure system.
Models 100, 240, 250, 350, 260, and 450 have metal bodies and therefore
are more desireable. Models 230, 340, and 440 have plastic bodies with no
tripod socket and are less desireable, but should still work well. Stay
away from other models, such as the 104, 210, 220, 320 and 420.
Note that only the 250, 350, 360, and 450 have Zeiss Ikon viewfinders,
but the Polaroid viewfinders on the other models work as well, just
differently. Note as well that newer pack film cameras like the current
ProPack are actually inferior to the older models.
These cameras require special batteries that must be ordered directly
from Polaroid. Cost is $7.00 plus $2.00 shipping.
F-stops vary from model to model. Here are some estimates:
I have been told that the shutter speed range varies from 10 sec. to
1/1200 sec.
Where did I get all this information? From the Land List:
http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm
Good luck with your pack-film experience.
DH
From: "Alan" [email protected]
Great Idea we did it slightly different...
We just drilled a hole in the side of the case and mounted a female DC
connector socket there and soldered leads to the contacts. Almost
everything we build has an external battery with plug ins. Then if we
don't use them for a while , no corrosion and we use the batteries for
other things....On the Polar packs a 4.5 Volt SLA battery from Home depot
(Alarm section and and soldered the leads....about five mintues and eight
dollars) ....a thousand flashes later Ill worry about recharging it...you
can go broke from the price of the film......did the same with the six
volters on the other models....
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999
Had a chance to repower two more Polaroid Pack Cameras - a 250 and
a 350. I wanted to use batteries that were commonly available and had
the highest mAh output (the biggest bang for the buck) - so I
standardized on two types of battery:
For the Polaroid Model 250 - which required a Type 531 4.5v alkaline
cell, I used three Type "N" cells (1.5v) in series. The holders are 3
Radio Shack #270-405As. The Type 531 holder is removed (1 screw),
one Type "N" holder is fastened where the screw for the original battery
holder sat using 3M adhesive foam (Type 111), the two remaining holders
are fastened, one on either side, to the adjacent inside wall right
below the battery compartment hinge. The wires are trimmed, stripped and
soldered (use shrink tubing). The black lead from the shutter goes to
the negative terminal, the white goes to the positive. Test for
continuity. Add the 3 Type "N" cells, load film and shoot.
This fix can be used for: Polaroid Pack Cameras
#100,101,102,220,225,230,240,250,340. (List from Marty Kuhn's "Land
List")
The second fix, for the Polaroid Pack #350 was a bit more complicated.
The 350 (and the 335,360,450) use two #532 3v cells. The battery
holder in this case is removed and modified. The first modification
is to drill out the snap contacts in the center of the holder. Prepare
two 3" long black wires, strip one end to 1/2 inch, the other to 3/4
inch. The 3/4 end is wound around a 2-56 screw forming a loop. Solder
the loops. The snap contacts are replaced, with a loop sandwiched
between the fastener and the plastic wall in the center of the battery
holder. The sequence is as follows: 2-56 screw, snap, loop, plastic
wall, loop, snap, 2-56 nut. Tighten the nut securing the assembly to
the plastic wall of the battery holder, trim off the protruding bit
of screw, file smooth.
The second modification to the battery holder is to take a bit of
spring steel or brass and form it into two contact fingers. These
go on either end of the the battery holder and are secured by a small
screw and nut or epoxied directly to the plastic holder. Before
securing these contact fingers, clean the metal with fine sandpaper
and solder a three inch section of wire to each finger. Strip the other
end of the wire. Secure to the battery holder.
The batteries chosen are the 3 volt DL123A Lithium cells. They are
physically the same size as the #532 Polaroid battery. Return the
battery holder to the camera, screw down; trim, strip, solder the
relevant wires together (use shrink tubing). Do a continuity check
with a meter. Insert the batteries, and load film.
I have repowered 4 Polaroid cameras this week, they all work. The
costs are equal to or less than buying replacement batteries from
Polaroid, and the batteries are available everywhere.
Polaroid Pack cameras are available at Garage Sales, Flea Markets and
Camera Swap Meets. They seldom cost more than $10.00. They take excellent
medium format pictures. The conversion to modern battery
power is quick and low cost. Have a go at it and be surprised at
the quality of these 30 year old cameras.
Regards,
Marv
Date: 03 Dec 1999
.....
Way to go Marv! I declare you to be a member in good standing of the
Polaroid Freakazoid Society of the World, of which I, Tillamooky, am El
Grand Presidente. : ) About the only other advice I would offer is to note
that the most useful of the pack film cameras are the aluminum bodied
ones, because they have a tripod socket in the base, whereas the plastic
bodied pack film cameras do not. Also, please note that placing a piece
of black electrical tape or perhaps putty over the light sensor gives you
a "bulb" shutter setting. Once you trip the shutter and hold down the
shutter button, the shutter will stay open for an indefinite length of
time. This is useful for painting with light techniques and some other
flash work.
The URL for the Land List is
http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm
Tillamooky, the Polaroid Freakazoid of AOL
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
After consulting a scientist who has used sulfite baths for polaroid
665 P/N polaroid often (including with me when I was his student) the
answer is :
The concentration of sodium sulfite is not really critical. Simply
dissolve a maximum of sulfite crystals in water at 68 deg F (20 deg C)
until the solution saturates. Filter e.g. with a paper coffee filter
and this is ready to use. The solution will probably not keep its
properties forever since I'm expecting the sulfite to oxydize in air
as a sulfate. Prepare a tank and something like a sheet film holder to
help you dip the film in the bath. Can be done in daylight. Do not
forget to rinse thorougly like a regular neg.
--
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
"MDDESKEY" [email protected] wrote
It accepts all Polaroid 4x5" sheet film.
Have a look at
http://www.polaroid.com/products/instant_cameras/peelapart/4x5/index.html
Not that i mind, but it's a tad off-topic in r.p.e.medium-format. You'll
perhaps find more info in r.p.e.large-format.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Polaroid collection.
Roy Dunn at [email protected] wrote:
> This may be a silly question, but with regard to the Polaroid situation,
> what will become of their instant film, which is the mainstay of setting up
> any studio shoot?
>
> I use it quite often (on my 6008I - Rollei content), but I don't know of any
> alternative.
>
> Roy.
Don't worry, Roy.
Either of two things will happen. Someone will buy Polaroid and continue
to make the film, or Polaroid will go under and that will remove the current
agreement which prohibits importation of Fuji instant films.
The latest peel apart color stuff is made by Fuji, anyway.
Bob
From: "David Grandy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: which polaroid back?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002
I had a 545 back and pretty much stopped using it, based on film expense
and the weight of the back. Then I went out and bought a Polaroid 405
back. First the 405 back is available - new - for $74.95 from B&H. So
it's cheaper to buy new than many 545 backs are used. The film used in
the 405 back is the same kind of film pack used in my Mamiya's Polaroid
back; it's stocked in most camera stores (and often the 545 film isn't),
it works out to being about 50% of the price of the 545 film, and I have
the added bonus of usually having some laying around. =20
The 405 back is also a lot lighter and somewhat smaller than the 545 and
since it takes film packs rather than individual sheets of film you can
load 10 shots before you head out to the boonies. The lighter weight
makes life a lot easier if you end up carrying all this LF stuff on your
back, as I do.
Now the 405 doesn't show ALL of the 4x5 negative area, and if that's a
critical point to you then buy the 545. But I find that I'm using the
Polaroid as a security blanket. I want to know that the camera is
working, my exposure is pretty much correct and the image looks focused
so I DON'T need the full neg feature of the 545.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Polaroid collection.
Richard Knoppow at [email protected] wrote:
> My understanding is that many Polaroid photographic materials are
> actually made for them by Kodak and/or others. That could be helpful since
> there is no overhead in the form of maintaining a physical plant and payroll.
> I think Polaroid may be more vulnerable than conventional materials to
> the inroads of digital photograpy because digital offers instant
> gratification, or at least rapid access images, and of potentially higher
> quality.
Digital is killing Polaroid's instant picture market.
Fuji makes the instant film that they outsource, not Kodak. Agfa makes the
35mm C-41 film they sell. SX-70 and other non-peel-apart films are made
by Polaroid in their own facilities.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fridge or Freezer ?
Pablo Kolodny at [email protected] wrote:
> I got a lot of Scala 120 to feed my Rollei.
> Since in Buenos Aires we're "enjoying" our summer temperatures (almost 100
> of yours Fahrenheit ) I wanted to keep rolls off hot.
> What would you suggest, fridge or freezer to better preserve film ?
> I know that they keep in the fridge but what about keeping film in the
> freezer ? is it better or what ?
>
> very WARM regards to all from this terrible summer.
It doesn't hurt film to freeze it. Just leave it in the sealed packaging
and let it completely thaw and come to room temperature before opening it.
The only exception is Polaroid film, which should not be frozen because
it can mess up the developing gel.
Bob
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002
From: "Sherman Dunnam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Type 55 PN film
"Colin Monteith" [email protected] wrote
> How long can I wait before clearing the negatives or should they be done
> in the field? Can you wait hours or even days?
>
Colin,
That depends on what you mean. If you have processed the film the negative
should be cleared immediately. However if you just put it in water you can
wait a long time (overnight or even a day or two is possible).
If you haven't processed the film then you can wait until it is processed.
I generally don't process my Type 55 negatives in the field. I remove them
from the holder unprocessed and then process them in a batch at home where I
can control temperature and have a clearing tank with film holder at room
temperature.
Sherman
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002
From: "Sherman Dunnam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Type 55 PN film
...
Colin,
No I don't use a hardener. The Polaroid instructions recommend against any
further fixing so it would have to be only a hardner, not a hardening fixer.
I have found that with reasonable handling the negatives are not as fragile
as some people seem to indicate and I haven't had any problem with
scratching.
I actually like the film quite a lot. It is very slow (I rate the negatives
at about ISO 32 and the prints at about ISO 50), but has very nice shadow
detail with good highlights. I have made some very nice images with it.
Sherman
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Pola 100 question
The roller assemblies are available from most any reasonably stocked
dealer. They are a Polaroid part. The last set I bought was $10. List might
be $16.
Jim
ian.barnes wrote:
>i was checking out spares for polaroid backs and it seemed to be easy to get
>new rollers. Try ringing polaoird if they are still going in the4 US .I
>think they said no problem in the uk so you may be lucky.
>ian
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: fate of polaroid
From: [email protected] (Stan Randle)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
Argon3 [email protected] wrote:
> today's Chicago Tribune.
> The article in the Business section of the April 19 issue states that the Bank
> One corporation has made an offer to purchase the assets of Polaroid for $265
> million.
Up-to-date info:
Polaroid OKs Sale of Most Assets (AP)
The instant camera company Polaroid Corp. agreed to a major sale of
assets as it sought to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020419/ap_on_bi_ge/polaroid_bankruptcy_8&printer=1
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: fate of polaroid
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002
[email protected] (Denny) wrote:
>There is cash flow to be had from Polaroid for some time to come, but
>I strongly doubt that any growth is there... Ohe hour photo shops,
>digital cameras that can dump JPEG's directly to the internet, etc.,
>all take business from Polaroid... In an evolving technology, old
>large corporations have to shrink... Like buggy whip makers... There
>are still a very few left for the show horse trade and Mackinac Island
>in Michigan, but it will never be like it was just one week before
>Henry Ford started producing Model T's...
>
>Denny
Polaroid still has the advantage of being able to produce a hard
copy print on the spot with very simple equipment, i.e., a Polaroid
back for formats up to 4x5 and a simple hand operated processor for
8x10. While a digital image can be displayed it takes a printer to
produce a hard copy. No printer capable of matching Polaroid color and
match the size and light weight of the Polaroid process is currently
available. Maybe in the future.
FWIW the original business of Folmer & Schwing, the company who
later became Graflex, was making gas lighting fixtures. They switched
to bicycles in the 1890's when there was a great vogue for bicycles,
and electic lighting was rapidly replacing gas lighting, and began
selling small cameras as accessories for bicycle touring. Eventually
these "cycle" cameras became a big business and F&S adopted it when
the bicycle craze dissipated a few years later. Folding cameras, like
the Speed Graphic, are direct decendants of these bicycle touring
cameras.
Graflex was killed off mainly by the use of 35mm film for press
work, which eventually supplanted 4x5.
There are many reasons for the financial trouble of Polaroid, the
shifting market is only one of them. Essentially, the company was
seriously mis-managed for many years.
The plain fact is that most companies who fail do so as the result
of sustained lousy management.
from camera makers mailing list:
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002
From: Frank Earl [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Tear apart a Polaroid
I would suggest any of the old Polaroids that take
pack film in the 600 (film) series. There is a
Polaroid page that gives you a great rundown on the
models.
http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landfaq.htm
The 600 film series gives you a chance to use color,
black and white (3000 ASA) and the pos/neg black and
white. This opens up a lot of options for image
transfer AND darkroom work.
Tearing them apart is fairly easy. Get the front
plate off and decide how much you want to take out.
The shutter can be permanently removed by pulling out
a plate assembly and a pin-hole can be put in place on
one of the existing apertures. The apertures are on a
wheel that can be rotated.
If you happen to find one of the Professional cameras
(180, etc.) please don't take it apart. It is still
very usable and is worth $200+. Also, although they
are cheap, please don't operate on a 250, 360 or 450.
They have Zeiss rangefinders and can be modified, if
you can find a 114mm or 115mm lens to make a nice
proof camera.
Good luck on your endeavors.
Frank
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002
From: [email protected] (Roland Givan)
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Polaroid pinhole
To: [email protected]
> The izone film is smaller than a 35mm negative but I was looking for
> something more convenient than my 405 back (takes 3.25 X 4.25" film)
> and I got it. I'd still like to slim this down further, so perhaps
> taking off the mirror and the sort of winding / shutter stuff will
> accomplish this.
Excuse me for jumping in here ... but
If anybody is interested I have done lots of experiments with loading
i-zone film into other cameras and then reloading it into the i-zone
camera for development. Complete guide with pictures at:
http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/
I hope to pick up a 2nd hand i-zone too - as I want to salvage the film
roller mechanism so I can build a camera which can develop the i-zone film
itself. I've experimented with the rollers from a 1970s Polaroid Swinger
type cameras - and although they work - I don't think the gap between the
rollers is the right distance as the i-zone film is not properly developed
from edge to edge.
:-)
Roland.
From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 545/545i/500 4x5 sheet film holders--what's the practical
differences
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002
"Graphic" [email protected] wrote:
>Is the original model 500 Polaroid sheet film holder still useable with
>current Polaroid 4x5 sheet films?
>
>Is it useable with Fuji or Kodak readyloads?
>
>What is the practical difference between the intermediate aged 545 model and
>the newest 545i model?
>
>Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
The main difference between the original 545 and the 545i is that
the later model has more plastic parts and is lighter. One version has
a built in temperature compensated timer for processing.
The earlier version, the 500 can be used with current Polaroid
material with some care. The problem is that the cardboard strips
which serve to stop and locate the polaroid film when the exposing
"dark slide" part is pulled out where changed in dimention some years
ago. The 500 holder will not stop the slides so they will pull
completely out if you don't stop them manually.
Supposedly the processing rollers on the 545/545i were also changed
in detail to provide more uniform distribution of the processing
jelly.
I suspect the 500 will have the same problem with the "dark slide"
part of a ready load or quick load that it has with Polaroid material.
The 500 is really obsolete and I wouldn't buy one for more than a
couple of dollars.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]
From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Pola Basic question
Charles MTgnin wrote:
> Does anyone know what the Pola Basic back is ?
> I don't find a reference for it in Nordin's book.
> How does it differ from the Pola Plus ?
The PolaPlus (cat.no. 30200) differs from the PolaBasic (cat.no. 30205) in
that it has a spring loaded "click stop" rest at the appropriate distance to
keep the darkslide partially inserted, yet far enough out to clear the
film gate, while making exposures. And it has a similar spring loaded "click
stop" for the fully inserted position, making it less easy to accidentally
draw the darkslide a bit when the back is off-camera.
Apart from that, no difference.
The PolaBasic was/is available only in the U.S.A., the PolaPlus exclusively
outside the U.S.A. Why? Legal reasons? I don't know, perhaps someone held an
U.S. patent on this "click stop"preventing Polaroid to use the same in the
U.S.?
[postscript:
While i'm correcting, i might as well add that the darkslides differ too.
The slide for the PolaPlus (cat.no 41126) has to have a notch to make it all
work. The slide for the PolaBasic (cat.no. 41122) obviously doesn't.]
From: "Stanley K. Patz" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Rodenstock Ysarex Lens question
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
dr bob wrote:
>This lens is a rather well respected "Tessar" design used mainly on the
>better Polaroid "large-format" cameras in the '60s+. I use one almost
>exactly as you describe on a Speed Graphic Pathfinder. It works well with
>the limited movements of the Speed 4x5 but better with the roll film adapter
>(rarely used). The images are quite sharp. The biggest disadvantage I find
>is the lack of a "Time" setting on my shutter. To use the ground glass, one
>has to employ a locking cable release. I would like to obtain a more modern
>lens but this one does a yeoman's job.
>
>Truly, dr bob.
>"Namexa" [email protected] wrote...
>
>>Hello,
>>I came across a Rodenstock Ysarex f4.7 127mm with a Prontor-svs shutter.
>It is labeled 'Pathfinder Land Camera 110A.' Can anyone point me to or give me
>>info on this lens, i.e. quality, performance coverage etc? I am assuming it
>>(and the 110A) was one of the 60's Polaroid folders since it does have an
>>'x' sync position. Probably not good for 4x5 work but might do OK for roll
>>film. Thanks to all who reply.
>>Mike Darr
>>Namexa Images
To the group,
Hmmm, this may be a late response to these posts.
I recently tested a a 127mm Ysarex against a "legendary" Kodak Ektar of
the same focal length and design. The Ysarex came out on top. The lens
came from a copy set-up and the Polaroid self-cocking shutter with the
modern speed sequence was better than the Ektar's older Supermatic.
Stan Patz
From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cheap Cameras
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002
"Al Patrick" [email protected] wrote:
(stuff moved to the bottom)
Speaking of cheap cameras and bankruptcy, it seems Polaroid Japan is pushing
Holga as the ultimate Polaroid. They even took out a whole inside cover page
add in this month's Nippon Camera.
I know: you think I'm joking:
http://www.polaroid.co.jp/product/business/holga/holga_120.html
The first paragraph reads:
"Holga has become synonymous with "toy camera", and is fiercely supported by
camera maniacs around the world. Now, "Holga by Polaroid" answers the dreams
of toy camera freaks everywhere who have long thought "if only we could use
Polaroid film in the world's best toy camera..." Polaroid has developed a
removable Polaroid film holder that requires no modification whatsoever to
the Holga, which is, as you know, a "Brownie film" camera".
(Translator's note: "Brownie" is a standard term in Japanese for MF, and
isn't funny at all. Well, yes it is {g}.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
> I doubt that. Seems they talked about all the cameras leaking light,
> but you could shoot a test roll to learn where the light leaked and use
> it to enhance (?) your shots. You know! "It's not a bug. It's an
> undocumented feature!"
>
> I think they may have even used the word "toy" in the ad. ;-) Should
> that tell us something?
>
> Al
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002
From: Ralph Barker [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid Type 55n Film
According to the data sheet for PN55 (available on the Polaroid web
site), dilute 16 oz (by weight) of sodium sulfite in 2 liters of warm water.
Ray Price wrote:
>Does anyone know the proper dilution for the Sodium Sulfite Solution used to
>fix the Negative portion of this film?
>
>Can the print be sepia toned? Or do i just use type 56?
>
From: Mark Rockwood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 55 p/n
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002
Rolle,
Search the net for info on the Littman . Its an adapted folding vintage
polaroid camera redesigned to use polaroid 4x5 film. It gives you the ease
of hand held and the size of 4x5. Several fashion photographers are using
them. They run in the $2000-3000 range and there is a waiting list. Check
out this link http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/45single.htm
m
Rolle wrote:
> Just wondering if there's any medium format camera that can use this
> beautiful film? Im not looking to spend alot of money on this so the more
> affordable the better
>
> Thanks.
From koni omega mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
From: Clive Warren [email protected]
Subject: [KOML] Re: Polaroid Backs
Eric Goldstein wrote:
>"Clive Warren" wrote:
>
>> Really though, film is cheap enough to bracket if you have a
>> difficult exposure judgement to make. The other option in B&W is to
>> use Ilford XP 400 - you'll always have something on the neg. if you
>> manage to open the shutter with the lens cap off ;-)
>
>Clive -
>
>Understood your point with regard to exposure but Polaroid is extremely
>useful
>1 - for judging lighting setups in the studio
>
>2- for judging contrast range in exteriors
>
>3- for "visualizing" a la Ansel...
>
>What else?
4. Giving your model/s something to take home
5. A record to keep with your negs/trannies
6. Using colour - lifts and transfers
7. Putting an entry into Polaroid awards competitions
8. Ensuring you get the shot when it is a one-off opportunity
9. An equipment check - to avoid shooting the back of the darkslide :-)
9. etc etc
The thing is, I have a Polaroid back for a 6x6 camera that I have
used about twice in the many years that it has been sitting in the
studio. I do use Polaroid more for 4x5 but really not that often!
Cheers,
Clive
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Polaroid back for 2x3
Matt M wrote:
>
> I have been playing with my Century Graphic 2x3 for a little while
> while following this list and have a question that some of the
> engineers here may be able to answer for me.
>
> Coming from a commercial background, I tend to rely heavily on
> polaroid for previewing a shot. Neither polaroid or NPC have a back
> for the camera, however, npc has offered to build one. I am still
> waiting on a price, but I think it will be outside of what I am
> willing to part with.
>
> I have part of one (the box and the rollers) and just need to build
> an extension to make it attach to the camera. The tricky part will be
> getting the film plane in the right area. NPC and Polaroid use
> coherant fiber optic bundles to "pipe" the image from the camera's
> film plane to the surface of the polaroid. It looks like I will need
> a bundle that is 6x9cm by 15mm thick.
>
> Now my questions:
> Has anyone here had any experience making a polaroid back?
> Does anyone know where I can get the coherant fiber optic bundle?
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matt McKee
I have modified many Polaroid Colorpack cameras for use with Graphic
type cameras. Essentially, you slice away the camera (plastic) and
fabricate a plate/holding device to allow mounting the resulting
Polaroid film chamber to the camera. Easier than it sounds, and very
cheap as the Colorpacks are going for about one dollar at flea markets
and garage sales.
Regards,
Marv
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re:Polaroid back for Graphics
Robert Stoddard wrote:
>
> >I disagree as to the difficulty. But, if the object of the exercise is
> >to spend $200 for a used Horseman back, go for it. I never spent more
> >than a couple of dollars for my Polaroid backs, and they all work.
> >
> Marv,
> How did you handle the problems that others have asked about relating to
> the different film plane which results when you substitute a cut-down
> Polaroid camera for the normal Graflex back? Did you use some sort of
> spacers on the infinity stops? RKS
I made a ground glass for the Polaroid back out of an old filmholder and
sighted the back into the film plane. If you do this carefully, no other
adjustments are necessary.
Regards,
Marv
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re:Polaroid back for Graphics
Matt M wrote:
>
> Marv,
>
> I just bought one of the colorpack cameras on ebay and am waiting for
> it to be shipped to me. In the mean time, is there any way you could
> post a couple of snaps of one of your creations for inspiration?
>
> Thanks for your advice and help!
>
> Matt
Take a good look at it when you get it. The film housing is flat except
where it swoops upward to hold the lens. Cut the lens housing off flat.
This will give you a film container with approximately a 3 x 4" hole in
the middle. From here on in, it depends on the camera. I have glued
these to the backs of Graflex cameras (after sanding the housings dead
flat). I have made adapters - generally with a 1/16" inch piece of
styrene that goes between the camera and the film housing.
This is not rocket science - once you saw off the lens cone, all kinds
of adaptations become apparent. Sorry, I don't have pix handy.
Regards,
Marv
From: Jean-David Beyer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Practical sensibility of 55PN
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
andy wrote:
| Hello,
|
| i have just bought my first box of Polaroid 55PN (4x5 inches) and
| realised that it was rated 50 iso (on the box). I thought it was the
| equivalent of medium format 665PN which is rated 80 iso and that i use
| at 40 iso in order to get a decent negative - and even at 20 iso when
| the emulsion is outdated.
|
| So, what are the practical sensibilities of the positive and the
| negative ?
| Are they the same as 665PN or different ?
|
| okay i could do some tests, but at such a price, i prefer to get the
| opinions before and then to avoid the common mistakes.
|
| Thanks for your help, advices...
|
| Ed
When Ansel Adams tested 55P/N he got:
Print speed: 64
Negative Speed: 20
For 665P/N he got:
Print speed: 100
Negative speed: 40
From: [email protected] (Largformat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 03 Sep 2002
Subject: Re: Practical sensibility of 55PN
To get a good print the EI is about 80. To get a good negative use an EI of 40.
steve simmons
viewcamera magazine
www.viewcamera.com
From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Practical sensibility of 55PN
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002
...(above query posting quoted)
Ed,
I always rated it at 50 for a good print and 32 for a good negative. It it
really a beautiful film when done right.
Don't process it in the field if you can avoid it. Make the exposure and
remove the packet without processing. Do the processing when you get home
and can control the temperature a little better and where it is more
convenient to have a bucket of clearing solution. Put the film in the
clearing solution (this isn't time critical, anywhere between two minutes
and two days seems to work), then wash it for about five minutes.
Handle it carefully as the filmbase is very thin and it can be scratched
fairly easily. I haven't had much problem with it. It has much more of a
tendency to curl when dry than standard 4x5 film so I dry it by hanging it
from clips at the top and bottom to help keep it straight.
Experiment with the first couple exposures to find the ISO you like and then
have fun. It really is a nice, fine-grained film.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: "dr bob" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 665?
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002
I use 665 in my old antique Polaroid folders. The speed is the same as the
color film and the camera settings for the ASA/ISO speed of 80 (75) has not
been a problem as my subjects do not move very fast. It is a little hard to
find these days an I suspect it may not be around long.
The quality is very fine. The negative has to be "cleared" with a solution
of sodium sulfite, but a lot of us have this around (in the form of HCA if
nothing else), so it appears a little inconvenient to many. I was very
lucky to have obtained a negative carrier with my old Omega enlarger which
accepts the unusual negative size. I use the material for experimentation
mostly.
A while back there was a post entailing the conversion of a Mamiya C330(?)
to accept a Polaroid folder back. I might try this some day - I have at
least one "cheap" but still usable folder (a 420 I think) which could be
sacrificed. What do you use?
Truly, dr bob.
"Pho-Ku" [email protected] wrote...
> Just wondering how many people here use Polaroid 665 with their MF cameras?
> Do you use them only for proofing lighting ratios etc., or do you use them
> creatively also?? Im concerned about its slow speed, are there other
> polaroids out there that are faster and provide about same level of quality?
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002
From: Daniel Ng [email protected]
Subject: Polaroid clearing solution
Still haven't found the article about painting a camera black.
But while I was looking, I found another article that I was looking
for a while ago.
It's about a hardening clearing solution for Polaroid pos/neg film.
It's written by Donald Leavitt in the Nov 1976 issue of Popular
Photography.
He wanted to use a small Tupperware container to hold and clear the
Polaroid negs while in the field, but the usual sodium sulfite soln
didn't harden the negs. The negs would be damaged by contact with
the sides of the container and with the other negs.
So he devised "Uncle Don's Secret Formula", which would clear and
harden Polaroid 55 and 105 films (though it takes 15min with 55). I
don't know if it works for 665. If I get a chance to experiment,
I'll let you know.
Potassium alum 30g
Sodium sulfate 90g
Water 1 liter
From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Sharpness and Polaroid 545 back
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002
I have had several experiences with trying to judge critical sharpness
from Polaroid prints where I just couldn't do it. If you're doing an
interior and you want to know if the flower in that vase way over in
the corner is tack sharp, forget it. It may *look* sharp on the
Polaroid but that doesn't mean the chrome won't come back with it
slightly soft, and really piss you off. That's my experience, mostly
with T55, a bit of T54. My best trick is to use a laser pointer and
examine the corners of my shots with the lens stopped down. It's
helpful, but the you are still relying on the sharpness of your
screen. Sometimes I put a business card in a scene and see if I can
read it through the lens. But anyway, I think the Polaroid prints are
not useful for critical sharpness checks. That doesn't mean they can't
look sharp, because often they do.
"Jeff Novick" [email protected] wrote:
>David,
>
>Is that really true? All Polaroids are unsharp? I've never used Polaroids in
>LF but have been considering using them lately for special projects,
>especially Type 55. Do others find this true?
>
>Jeff
...
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002
From: razzledogau [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Polaroid conversion to 6x9 or sheetfilm?
If you are curious and would like to take a look, this is my
conversion of the Polaroid 110 series cameras to take available film.
Either 6x9 giving eight exposures on 120 rollfilm, or standard double
darks giving exposures of the original Polaroid format of 3 1/4 x 4
1/4 using 4x5 sheetfilm. Lenses on these cameras are among the
sharpest I`ve come across, and now can be utilised. Have a look an`
see!
Link is http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle or simply 'Razzledog`s
Camera Homepage'. Cheers from OZ, Dean.
P.S. This site can also be found by visiting
www.croydoncamerahouse.com.au and clicking on the dog!
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002
From: Dean [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Polaroid conversions
Hi Bob, I`ve had some correspondence with you in the past and since you
are the guru of medium format, perhaps you could include this link
somewhere! Regarding my Polaroid conversions, link is
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle
Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Dean Jones.
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Organization: PC Putz LLC
Subject: [Cameramakers] Recycling Polaroid Pack Cameras
Just a few thoughts on recycling Polaroid pack cameras - the ones that
take the 3 x 4 pack film.
I have just finished building two adapters for the Graflex type "A"
lensboard that allows me to take a standard lens and shutter from a 3 x
4 Graflex and put it onto a Polaroid pack camera. Without making any
adjustments, the camera hits infinity just about where it should - I
will tweak the RF arm to give me a final setting. So far so good - now
to shoot some film to see what I have to change in the viewfinder to
track the move from 114 mm to 127mm. Makes a nice portable large(r)
format package.
Regards,
Marv
[Ed. note: anybody have some data they can share with Murray and me? Thanks!]
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002
From: Uptown Gallery [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: reusing polaroids
Hi:
I have been hoping to hear whether the Polaroid bellows & lens will give a
big enough image if an extension box and 4x5 film holder was added.
I have 4 bellows Polaroids that I looked up first to see if they had glass
or plastic lenses - they're glass, but none have a name brand.
Some were supposedly 3 element f/8.8 and one a f/14.5 meniscus (I suppose
that would do larger image).
Murray
From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002
From: "ronan2001a" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Power for Polaroid
I have a Polaroid 250 camera which I made a 4.5 volt battery using 3-
AAAs using an "L"-shaped battery holder that I found at a local
electonics parts store. This was soldered into the battery
compartment and after removing the old battery holder, everything
fits without problems. The camera works fine and I have not had any
problems since.
Hope this helps.
Tony
--- In camera-fix@y..., "Christopher" canon7dude@y... wrote:
> Is there a source for batterys for the Polaroid Land folders? If not
> what can I expect if my battery is dead? is there a shutter default?
...
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What options for upgrading from Fuji GA645?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
No - about 30 minutes and a tube of quicksetting epoxy. Most of the
desirable Polaroids - the ones with the glass triplets and the Zeiss
range/viewfinders have a maximum aperature of f: 8.8 so real fine
registration to the film plane is not necessary. Pretty neat to have an
autoexposure MF camera in your bag that cost about $1.00 at the flea
market or garage sale. However, don't try this with your Polaroid 195 -
its much too valuable.
Regards,
Marv
Lassi HippelSinen wrote:
> Marv Soloff wrote:
>>Christ Bob, don't give away the secret! Some of us have been shooting
>>these pack Polaroids for years with great success. Some of us have even
>>married Graflex roll holders to them to convert them into 6 x 9 and 6 x
>>7 film cameras (which work very, very well, thank you).
>
>
> Interesting... is that a big job?
>
> -- Lassi, proud owner of a 195
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What options for upgrading from Fuji GA645?
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
The vast number of Polaroids made over the years presents the
enterprising photographer with a large source of photo "parts" - lenses,
shutters (if you can rewire them so they do what you want them to),
view and rangefinders, chassis, etc. It is a veritble gold mine of stuff
for the camera builder. Unfortunately, most of this material will wind
up in borough landfills because it carries the label "Polaroid" - which
appears akin to leprosy to the (ahem) "serious" photographer.
Regards,
Marv
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> see table of polaroid lenses by models, including focal length etc. at
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/polaroid.html
>
> you can also go the other way, taking a folder lens with shutter and
> mounting it on a polaroid pack camera, with xsynch shutter, it makes a
> rather low cost polaroid test camera with full speed/aperture controls ;-)
> This is lots cheaper than the high end polaroid 110a style conversions.
> This is esp. good project if you have a folder with a really bad bellows
> but good lens and xsynch'ed shutter ;-)
>
> grins bobm
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What options for upgrading from Fuji GA645?
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003
OK, try this: Optain a Graflex rollfilm shell for 4 x 5. That's just
the plate (with darkslide) that went into a 4 x 5 and the shell that
holds the actual film transport mechanism. Very carefully remove the
back door to the 195 and the interion film plate. Measure the throat
(distance between the upper and lower rails of the filmbay) very
carefully and cut the 4 x 5 rollfilm shell to fit this space. You may
have to sand down the top and bottom edge of the shell to get a tight
press fit. Wedge this assembly into the camera making sure it is flat.
Load a film carrier and go.
Regards,
Marv
Lassi HippelSinen wrote:
> Marv Soloff wrote:
>
>>...However, don't try this with your Polaroid 195 -
>>its much too valuable.
>
>
> I was afraid you'd say just that :-(
>
> The 195 has a too good lens for ordinary instant materials, except the
> p/n pack. I've been hoping I could somehow kook up a pack of regular
> film in stead of the Polaroid or Fuji instant stuff. But that is a low
> priority project...
>
> -- Lassi
From: [email protected] (Rabbitbert)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 26 Feb 2003
Subject: Re: Cheap student camera?
Marv told us, with snippage:
>The absolute balls-to-the-wall cheapest MF camera is your garden variety
> Polaroid 100 - 250 - 350 - 440
Yes, these cameras are an overlooked option. Plus, they can use Polaroid's
Type 655 instant b&w film that provides a printable negative. The url for the
Land List is http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm
I would advise looking on Ebay for one of the metal bodied folding pack film
cameras. You get a much greater variety to choose from and it's less time
consuming than wandering off to thrift stores, garage sales, etc. There are
several accessories too, such as close up lenses. $10, $15 should get a decent
camera and maybe an accessory or two.
And yes, you can use electronic flash with most models.
R.
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Cheap student camera?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003
The absolute balls-to-the-wall cheapest MF camera is your garden variety
Polaroid 100 - 250 - 350 - 440 (or the 110A/B if you want to move
upscale) pack camera. Get 'em a flea markets or garage sales for about
one dollar. Upen it up, clean it out, make sure the battery works, then
load (in a darkroom or changing bag) one sheet of real 4 x 5 film into
the camera, close it up, and shoot. Voila! a real MF camera with real MF
film. For more info, look up the article on this technique in the "Land
List". Have fun.
Regards,
Marv
DH wrote:
> I'm sure this gets posted hundreds of times,but here goes again. I am a
> relatively poor college student in need of a MF camera for class. Any
> suggestions? I am looking to spend less than $200 if possible but not get a
> Kiev 60 which people told me in an earlier post suck. Thanks for any help
> you can give.
From: [email protected] (Ovni90901)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 08 Jan 2003
Subject: Re: Digital alternative to Polaroid?
>I understand that nothing is as good as a camera with a Polaroid back,
>for previewing shots, but my thinking is something is better than
>nothing, as far as some things, such as unforeseen reflections, etc.
>I'm just looking for the least expensive, most versatile, way to get
>there. The Polaroid 600 SE, which is the one to get for this purpose,
>it seems, is going for $585 in a local store where I live, and I want
>to avoid spending that much, if possible.
>
>Thanks for your feedback
>
>
>Patrick
Patrick--
I use a CHEAP digital camera for proofing, and occasionally use a polaroid for
the final proofing. I force the digital camera flash "on" and place a slave
for the main lights nearby, but I block the digital camera flash from
illuminating the scene. Great results.
A major thing to look for in a digital camera for proofing is the type of
flash. By that, I mean that some cameras have a double flash....the first sets
the camera up for the second flash which occurs less than a half second later.
The "double flash" camera is not usable for proofing, because the first flash
fires all your lights, but not the camera.
Many of the cheap cameras do not use double flash. I'll bet you could get such
a camera on ebay for just a few bucks. My proofing camera is a 1 megapixle
Polaroid that I bought about 3 years ago at WalMart for about $70. It is
virtually worthless now.
I use a homemade bracket on my Bogen tripod to hold the camera just above a
Hassy. By rotating the vertical column crank about 1 turn, I can drop the
digital camera to about the same lens position as the Hassy, then after
proofing, hopefully remember to crank the column back up.
--Wayne
From: Nelson L. Mark, SC001 [[email protected]]
Sent: Sat 5/31/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Velvia 100F (fp-100C)
Actually, Polaroid 679 (or is it 689) the "ProVivid", has always been Fuji
FP-100C with a Polaroid label on it. I used FP-100C about 2 years ago, of
course, imported. It's been around for a while, just not in the US until now.
The Polaroid 690 will be interesting though!
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Polaroid rangefinders
I have just finished a page on what may be the only 5 worth owning.
http://www.dantestella.com/technical/polaroid.html
Cheers
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Polaroid Roll Film Conversion
If he is going to use rollfilm, he has to use 120. Top to bottom, it
measures 2 -3/8". Thats allowing no room for film guidance.
If Jeff wants to use 4 - 1/4" width, then he has to go to something
else. The old Polaroids (110A/B,150, 800, 900, etc.) have a film gate
of 3 " x 4". He can fabricate a gate to fit the Polaroid and fashion a
spool transfer mechanism to use 120 film. It's been done but its a lot
of hard work and not worth the effort. There are several ways to use the
110A/B/150/800/900 without a lot of butchery.
One is to load a single sheet of 4 x 5 film in a darkroom and close the
camera. It just fits. The other way is to remove the back door,
fabricate a tray (mine is made of styrene - took about an hour to make
and glue together) that takes a 3-1/4" x 4-1/4'' film holder, and use a
spring type Graflex back to hold it together. In any event, this is like
making a silk purse from a sows ear.
The early Polaroids were beautifully made and with the exception of the
110A/B, 180,195, these cameras are completely unfit for modern picture
taking use. However, if Jeff wants to make 4-1/4" wide pix with his
Polaroid 800, I say have at it.
Regards,
Marv
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Polaroid Roll Film Conversion
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Why bust your a** with the 800? A pack fim Polaroid type 250 is much,
much easier. Just pull off the door with the processing rolls, cement a
2 x 3 Graflok frame into the film bay, mount a RH-10 Graflex roll holder
and go. The slight film to critical focus distance error will disappear
due to the f:8.8 max aperature of the #250. Set the film speed to 150,
load some Fuji NPH negative or Kodak Portra and shoot to your hearts
content. Make sure you have a working battery (batteries) in the
battery compartment or convert to take size AA or N cells. Been there,
done that, works.
Regards,
Marv
Kenith Ryan wrote:
>Marv,
>Your solution does not keep the 4 1/4" width which is what Jeff wants to do.
>Kenith
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Re: Polaroid Roll Film Conversion
Dead nuts easy. Take a 4 x 5 Graflex RH-50 holder. Cut it down to fit
the 110A/B. Epoxy in place.
Load and go.
Regards,
Marv
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: ultra cheap polaroid test camera tip Re: polaroid & Max HQ
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> just to pass on a related tip (originally by Ed Romney, the repairbook
> guy); many polaroid cameras have lens registration distances that are
> just right for replacing their lens with a shutter lens from a folder
> with x-synch preferred obviously. You may need a shim or two. I'm thinking
> of the cheapy models, including the swinger polaroid style and so on. As
> the table at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/polaroid.html suggests, these are
> often in the 120+/- mm range.
I finally made it through the whole page. Lots of little suggestions, though
some of the links no longer work. I have just acquired a Polaroid 250
Automatic, and I have a selection of some working folder lens/shutter
combinations. One problem is that most of these are 105 mm or shorter.
Another issue is that they focus by moving the front most element in the
mount.
I think the 120 mm or more range might work better. I have run across a few
pack cameras changed to 127 mm Polaroid optics from the 110/120 series . . .
could be a good direction.
> Lots of older folders have similar optics,
> sometimes a bit longer, so be prepared to add some shims. Use ground glass
> to get close,then fine tune with polaroid film tests.
A search for ground glass yields some unfortunately relatively high prices.
Paying more for the ground glass than what the camera cost seems like a bad
idea. I have some Nikon focus screens that I mount in board for calibrating
focus on old folder cameras, so I may need to stay with that.
> This gives you the
> range of shutter speeds of the original lens, plus focusing by scale etc.
> Use xsynch contacts.
One thing that has been difficult to find good information is the difference
in sync posts. Lots of old lens/shutter units have a modern looking post, but
some have two terminals (like Kodak Ektar 127 mm).
> Since you can buy folder lenses for $10 or so on ebay
> (bit more with the folder ;-), and older polaroid cameras for low $5-10 at
> garage sales, the combo can provide a really low cost polaroid test
> camera. Good project if you have a folder with good lens but bad bellows!
Yeah, the bellows is a problem, especially when new bellows are not cheap. I
am more interested in a project camera for portrait work, and for doing more
extensive Polaroid transfer, or emulsion lift, art work. Some of my cameras
are strictly gallery cameras, and I want to use these more for the works I
show in art galleries. This would leave my work cameras free for work only
usage.
> finally, there are some passport model cameras which use 4x5" backs and
> polaroid film holders with a fixed shutter lens mount. Here too, you can
> potentially replace the one or two shutter speed lenses with a wide
> ranging leaf shutter folder lens and have a nifty solid 4x5" clamshell
> camera ;-) Some folks also graft a 4x5" film back from a defunct LF
> camera onto their polaroid cameras for similar setups.
The Littman 45 and the Four Designs conversions are good examples of that. I
may do something similar after this current experiment. One attraction of the
pack film currently is ten shots per pack. The 4" by 5" would be nice to
allow other types of film to be used, though for now it is enough for me to
explore the Polaroid films.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: Stacey [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003
Gordon Moat wrote:
> Thanks. Are those usable for portrait, or interior imagery? I was under
> the impression that the copy camera lenses were only for close focus.
> Also, do you find the 1/125 fastest shutter to be a limitation, or are you
> using a faster different shutter?
Tested the 105 against my 100MM WF ektar at infinity on 6X9 and decided it
was a close up lens ;-) Since I use them for "macro" stuff at small f
stops the 1/125 has never been an issue.
--
Stacey
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Type 40 polaroid roll film?
Nick Zentena wrote:
> What was the size of this film?
Check out the Land List at http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm
and you might find some more information about the old film.
> I've found some info on the size
> of the image but nothing on the actual film. It seems the only way to use
> these cameras is single shot with 4x5 sheet film.
Not entirely, though true if you consider the Littman 45 Single
http://www.littman45single.com. You could do similar with a Polaroid 545
holder, which would allow more than one shot at a time. A company called Four
Designs http://www.fourdesigns.com also does conversions to type 405 style
holders, allowing you to use the slightly smaller Polaroid films, many of
which are in ten to a pack.
The Land List has a little information on conversions. Another option is
taking off the lens/shutter unit, and using that on another camera body. I
have also seen one roll film medium format conversion, at
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Polaroid/polaroid.html. The roll film
conversion requires making some parts, though you may be able to get some of
that from an old folder camera.
The 110, 110A, 110B, and 120 were probably the best choices of the old roll
film Polaroid cameras. These are the ones most often converted, though some
of the other ones would work as well, just not having as good a lens/shutter
system. The cheaper variants might be good to work on first, if you want to
try your own conversion.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 110a/b/pathfinder converted to 120roll film
LG wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Anyone here ever tried converting a Polaroid 110A/110B/Pathfinder camera
>
> to 120 roll film. I'd like to try this myself and would like some
> pointers.
I just posted a reply with some information above, to a poster asking about
40 series Polaroid roll film. Just to give you a quick link, look at the
information here:
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/Polaroid/polaroid.html
Not too bad a conversion, though I would if taking the good lens/shutter
unit off the Polaroid, and grafting it onto an old 6x9 folder body might
not work better. Another option would be using the same unit on a Graflex,
an old Polaroid pack film body (models 100, 250, 350, 450 or similar), or
building your own non-folding housing.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: Uptown Gallery [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 7/23/2003
To: Monaghan, Robert
Subject: stuffing (somehow, TBD) a 120 roll camera (Brownie?) inthe back of one of the Polaroids
Hello:
I found a Kodak 'The Handle' instant camera. Some research, a few emails,
and we have
100 mm lens approx. f/12, electronic shutter 1/15-1/300 with dark/light
control, approx 6x9 cm images, PR10 film was (ASA) ISO 150 (info allows
process tweaking). Has a viewfinder.
It had a 6V 'J' battery (TV remote control type) and an empty film cartridge
so I can measure film plane position.
Next time I find a 120 roll camera that looks compatible...and doesn't cost
more than the $2 the Handle cost.
Once I had answers I went back for the 2nd one at the thrift store and
someone else had taken it! That one was mildewed...t was going to be the
take-apart cadaver study one.
Murray
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003
From: "Wewers, Jeff" [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Polaroid Film Holder
You can find a lot of info and pictures at the following web site:
http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm
I have cut the back off a Colorpack II Polaroid and epoxied it to a Polaroid
150. Colorpack's are cheap on Ebay.
Jeff
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: unloved folders, hacking autoexp. MF lenses Re: Polaroid 110a
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> yes, see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronbellows.html and bronbelfix.html for
> tips; there are templates out there, and you can make one from the old
> folder, and other ideas. But given $1-5 cost of a polaroid folder at a
> garage sale, it is a lot cheaper and easier to hack away ;-) grins bobm
Yeah, the cheap Polaroids are definitely the lowest cost bellows out
there. It may take two or four cuts, depending upon the desired
replacement. Using my AGFA 6x9 as an example, here are some measurements:
Front bellows mount 36 mm by 40 mm (approximate),
Rear bellows mount 65 mm by 90 mm (approx. and should need slightly more
for overlap when mounted),
Mounted unfolded depth of 95 mm (again, more will be needed for overlap
and gluing).
Using a Polaroid 250 for measurements, the bellows is roughly 42 mm by 50
mm smallest mount end, to about 80 mm by 105 mm. It is also a bit too long
for a 6x9 AGFA, since too many folds would prevent it from closing.
Cutting and gluing it back together at the final size should work fine. I
will be trying one soon, so I will report back with results.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: [email protected] (Captain Chuck)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 110a/b/pathfinder converted to 120roll film
Date: 13 Jul 2003
The overlooked point is that the "amateur" Polaroid's lenses-excluding
the really cheap ones' plastic ones-are often _exactly_ the lens for
portraiture. They have a soft focus quality that is absolutely classic
and I have seen the Pathfinder front standard mounted on a 35mm
extension tube with great success.
The rollfilm cameras were overbuilt and could last a very, very long
while. What isn't generaly realized is that for all the old 'roids at
garage sales, Polaroid themselves bought back and destroyed enormous
numbers of these cameras, which were often very expensive new
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: unloved folders, hacking autoexp. MF lenses Re: Polaroid 110a
Bill Phillips wrote:
> Gordon Moat [email protected] wrote:
>
> }Also, cutting the Polaroid bellows out of a cheap camera, and using it to
> }repair an old 6x9 folder. Some of the really old leather bellows seem to hold
> }up better than the newer materials, though Polaroid is definitely an exception.
>
> Has anyone done this with an Agfa Viking? How difficult is it ...
> what's involved?
I have a few old 6x9 folder cameras, including an AGFA. If I find a good
enough low price, I will be getting another Polaroid soon, just as a
parts camera. The bellows on the pack film cameras are nicely
constructed, and fairly durable material. My two ideas are cutting the
ends off to match mounts, or just cutting in the middle and glue to a
smaller size.
With other projects and work, it may be a month or so before I get around
to this. Check back, or send me an e-mail in about a month.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: unloved folders, hacking autoexp. MF lenses Re: Polaroid 110a
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003
It comes to this: for me, half the fun is making photo equipment do
what I want it to do. I am not in a position to spend $5K or $10K on
photo stuff (though I have owned most of the professional equipment and
still own 200+ cameras of various pedigrees), but a $1.00 garage sale
Polaroid - a 230 with case and flash - in perfect (unused) condition is
my kind of camera. The Cameramakers archives and the Camera-fix archives
are a good source of information. Cameramakers is a bit more esoteric -
there have been guys there wanting to pour their own optical glass etc.
You may be able to take the dialup shutter from the 900 (much wider
range) and marry it to a LF lens. The thought had crossed my mind.
It is much smaller and simpler than the pack camera shutters.
Regards,
Marv
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> thanks again, Marv, for the tips - yes, lots of interesting and budget
> options to do projects with out there ;-) I've been doing some electronics
> projects recently, hence my interest in an auto-exposure LF shutter setup
> from a polaroid kit ;-) Got some of my EE stuff out of storage, dual
> channel 'scope, function generators, counters, and all that. Now I have no
> excuse not to do some of these projects ;-)
>
> About five years ago, I did a literature search in Modern Photography and
> Pop Photo and other magazines, making note of all the "hacked" cameras and
> setups out there. There were surprisingly few projects described, and many
> of them had been done by NYC legendary repair shop gurus. So one of the
> big benefits of the internet for lens and camera hackers is the ability to
> share in some of the net-wisdom by folks like yourself, John Stafford, and
> other camera and lens hackers extraordinaire. Thanks for sharing these
> tips!!! I get the impression the internet has spawned a lot of lens and
> camera hacking adventures, as folks have been encouraged by the success
> stories they have seen reported on the 'net...
>
> regards,
>
> bobm
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 110a/b/pathfinder converted to 120roll film
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003
Bob:
The 127 mm f:\4.5 Rodenstock Ysarex is a decent lens that people remove
from the Polaroid 110 series cameras and use elsewhere. It comes off,
with shutter, cleanly by removing just four accessable screws. The
bellows material Polaroid used for this camera was a vinyl material made
by a firm in Connecticut (called Fairprene and owned at one time by
Dupont). The design and execution (fabrication) of the Polaroid 110s
were the best money could buy. Many people use the 110 chassis,
rangefinder and bellows as a starting point for specialist cameras and
know they will hold up for many, many years.
Regards,
Marv
Bob Monaghan wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> lots of folks are happy to pay $260 to 4-Designs to convert a $60-75 used
> polaroid 110a/b to pack film use for a flash synch polaroid test camera.
> The low price of the 110a/b reflects the lack of film to use with it, not
> the actual value of the lens or camera combo...
>
> I suspect the main reason is the 127mm f/4.5 lens is a rodenstock (in most
> cases) in a prontor shutter (1 sec to 1/300th+), and the polaroid bellows
> material, for whatever reason, seems to hold up lots better than older
> cloth folders, it is a rangefinder design etc.
>
> regards bobm
From: "Sherman" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003
"Stacey" [email protected] wrote...
> Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> >
> > But think about it. Why then not shoot the second one on normal B&W
> > negative film?
> > Cheaper, and (more important) far, far better than the Polaroid negative.
> >
> > So there really is *no reason* to use this expensive and cumbersome P/N
> > Polaroid film.
>
> And must be cleared soon after shooting. The only reason I could see using
> it would be to try to make a fast =good= print (without having to develop
> the film but print in a darkroom) as the prints from polaroid materials are
> pretty low rez. I played with it in 4x5 and it was OK, but I wasn't that
> impressed.
> --
>
> Stacey
You don't have to clear the negative in the field if you don't process it in
the field. If you shoot p/n film for the negative wait till you get home,
process the film and dump the neg in a bucket of sodium sulfite (though
plain old tap water works as well but takes longer).
By the way the Polaroid Type 55 or 655 film is the same film as the old
Panatomic X and it makes *excellent* negatives.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
From: Jeff Sumner [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003
Just used PN 55 this weekend, pack film would be 655 and is cropped by
the RB body.
The negative is fine, capable of 125 lp/mm, according to Polaroid.
It makes attractive, if not overly dense negatives, and the base is
slightly dark. Know too that you'll have to buy sodium sulphite and make
your own clearing solution (18 percent is recommended, measure by gosh
and golly works fine for me with repeatable results)
Negatives will respond to selenium toner, if you REALLY need the extra
density.
JD
From: Lourens Smak [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003
"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote:
> So there really is *no reason* to use this expensive and cumbersome P/N
> Polaroid film.
I happen to know someone who did travel landscape photography by
shooting these 4x5" polaroid negatives, clearing them on the spot, and
then he made contact-kallitype-prints. Kallitype prints are exposed
using the sun, and are "developed" in water... For example when shooting
on a beach, he left this beach with gallery-ready artworks.
see this "travel" photography:
http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/philippe/invitation.html
and
http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/philippe/nine-k.html
An instant-negative is an extra option, not an extra problem,
but I 100% agree with you for "normal" photography.
;-)
Lourens
From: Jim Brick [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 9/17/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] [OT] Polaroid 55 film
[email protected] wrote:
>You must clear a type 55 or 665 negative with the sodium sulfite solution as
>discussed in the instruction sheet to get proper longivity and results. Do
>NOT
>use fixer. If you shoot a lot of the 55, I suggest you invest in the proper
>clearing bucket that is sold through Calumet. www.calumet.com This
>film is
>VERY fragile until it drys but well worth the trouble.
Polaroid's instructions are at:
http://www.polaroid.com/service/filmdatasheets/4_5/55fds.pdf
and:
http://www.polaroid.com/service/filmdatasheets/3_4/665fds.pdf
They don't tell you that the ASA for a negative is half that for a print.
ASA for a print is 50, for a negative is 25. Or 80/40 for 665.
Jim
From: Eric Maquiling [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 9/17/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] [OT] Polaroid 55 film
[email protected] wrote:
> This film is VERY fragile until it drys but well worth the trouble.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
READ: They scratch very easily!! So be carefull fixing it.
Try not to fix more than 1 at a time in a tray or container.
--
Eric
Eric's PAW page: http://www.maquiling.org/paw
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Wed 9/17/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] [OT] Polaroid 55 film
You must clear a type 55 or 665 negative with the sodium sulfite solution as
discussed in the instruction sheet to get proper longivity and results. Do NOT
use fixer. If you shoot a lot of the 55, I suggest you invest in the proper
clearing bucket that is sold through Calumet. www.calumet.com This film is
VERY fragile until it drys but well worth the trouble.
Bibb T. Gault
San Antonio,Texas
[email protected]
From: "Walt Kienzle" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: "620" Film Questions
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003
Film is no longer available. Kodak used a film pack that differed from what
Polaroid uses. Even so, Polaroid took legal action against Kodak claiming
that their instant film process infringed on Polaroid patents. This
happened about 20 years ago. Polaroid won and Kodak had to withdraw all
their instant camera products from the market. IIRC, they even provided
camera owners with a $5 coupon if they returned their Kodak instant film
camera. Most people didn't consider it worth the effort, particularly
considering that the shipping had to be paid by the sender.
Walt Kienzle
[email protected] wrote...
> Well the Fuji film is made in Japan and I suspect that it's available in Japan as
> well. But I do get your point, the Kodak APS 100 speed film is not available in
> the US, although British sources report that the box is stamped "Made in USA". Now
> that you've brought up the Kodak instant cameras, are any of them usable today?
> Were any of them any good?
>
> Vince wrote:
>
> > [email protected] writes:
> > >Kodak makes a C41 B&W film for APS and Fuji makes an E6 film in the APS
> > >format but does not ship it to the US. The only thing I don't like about
> > >APS is the aspect ratio - it is too "wide" and is unsuitable for vertical
> > >shooting. To me the best "portrait" format is 645. I believe 35mm is too
> > >narrow and APS is even more extreme.
> > >To me APS, if properly designed, would have been a great "pro" film.If it
> > >had had a better vertical format, it would have taken off with
> > >photojournalists. Now APS SLRs are selling used and NOS for budget prices
> > >and it appears to be enjoying a (probably temporary) resurgence.
> > >
> >
> > I could never understand that business of making a camera or film for foreign
> > markets only. Back in the 1970s everyone bitched about how bulky the KODAK
> > instant E4 & E6 cameras were and yet they had a very nice E8 folding model that
> > for some reason they didn't import into the USA. Well not officially as I did
> > see the camera in some New York stories
> >
> > Vince
> > Take out words goodguy to e-mail
> > Check out new listings on E-BAY under BOOKMAGS
> > AND our new E-BAY STORE.
From: Jeff Sumner [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ground glass in Polaroid back?
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003
Lassi Hippelainen [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering if there was a ground glass part manufactured to fit
> > into a Polaroid 600 series back. You know the on on the back of the
> > Polaroid 600SE.
> > Thanks in advance for any information.
>
> Just guessing: shouldn't it be compatible with Mamiya Press backs?
>
> -- Lassi
Not exactly- there are lugs on the 600E to prevent such things. There
are ways around those lugs, though, mostily involving a Dremel... Then
ALL Mamiya Universal attachments will work.
JD
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004
From: Frank Earl [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Cameramakers] Re: Polaroid Pack Film Cameras
In response to Jason:
I think that you can still get the Polaroid film
clearing buckets. The last time I was in the Calumet
store here in Santa Barabara they had several (if my
old eyes do not deceive me).
As to changing the electronics in the Polaroid pack
film cameras, there are several options:
1) Find a 110mm lens in shutter and replace the entire
assembly. There are some available on ebay from time
to time, usually Wollensaks.
2) Find a 105mm lens in shutter (a much more common
lens and generally pretty cheap. These are from older
6x9 or 3x4 plate cameras or the famous Tominon 105mm
which will cover 4x5) and replace the entire assembly
mounting the lens 5mm closer to the film plane with a
recessed mount. Check the rangefinder to see if it is
pretty close by putting a ground glass on the film
plane.
3) Reverse engineer the electronics on the Polaroid
and put in a manual timing circuit. There was a
gentleman on the web (I believe from Louisiana) that
had done this and was selling the remanufactured
Polaroids, to good reviews.
4) Fool the electronics as they are to get what you
want. If you have or can borrow a shutter tester you
can get a pretty good idea of shutter speeds using a
known light source.
5) Take out everything and put a pinhole in.
6) And there are probably another 20 great ideas from
others.
Regarding the Polapan 665 Pos/Neg film. The film I
have used is ISO 80. Shoot it at ISO 80 for the print
but shoot it a ISO 25 for the negative. You cannot
get a good print and a good negative in the same
exposure.
The film will handle about an 8 step range if you are
using the Zone Method. However it is probably the
highest definition film you will ever use. I don't
remember the exact figures, but it seems it was about
225 lpm.
Everybody has their own development procedure, but the
one I liked best was to pull the film and put it in a
baggie until I got home. According to Adams, there
was only a small amount of manipulation that could be
done in development. If allowed to develop to
completion it cannot gain any further density.
Back in the kitchen (or darkroom) I put the film in a
pan of water and pulled it apart. Then moved the film
to another pan and ran water over it from the faucet
to clear the chemicals off. I never could get the
sodium sulfite to clear the negatives but running
water would clear them in about 10 seconds, eroding
the chemicals and the anti-halation layer away.
Ansel Adams had one of the best books out on Polaroid
photography. It is pricey, used, but if you can get
it from a library (borrow it) it is worth the read.
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004
From: Philip willarney [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Polaroid automatic packfilm camera electronics
To: [email protected]
There was some traffic on the list a few years back on
modifying pack polaroid shutters... see
http://rmp.opusis.com/pipermail/cameramakers/1999-October/002253.html
and a guy used to do modifications like this for $$,
see
http://home.att.net/~j.kern/polaroid.htm
But he says at the bottom of the page he's stopped.
The starting point is replacing the CDS cell with a
variable resistor, but I've never done this myself.
-- pw
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004
From: "Joe Smigiel" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Cameramakers] 2nd Polaroid question
If you want to use the slower speed films (e.g., 665 p/n exposed for the negative ~ ISO 25) in
some of these cameras, try putting a layer or two of frosted translucent tape over the electric eye. Works.
Joe
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004
To: [email protected]
From: "R. Mueller" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Cameramakers] Polaroid automatic packfilm camera electronics
Could one just put an LED in front of the photocell and adjust the
intensity of the LED to set the shutter time? A simple resistor would
allow adjustment of the LED brightness, with a battery as source. Of
course, the photocell must be well shielded against stray light, so only
the LED determines shutter speed. One could also take out the photocell
and feed the camera with fake currents corresponding to suitable light
intensities. If the cell is a photoresistor, only a series of resistances
or a potentiometer would do the job. If it is a photodiode you would need
a simple source.
Bob
From: Bob Salomon [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: What camera does this Polaroid back fit?
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004
Lassi Hippelainen [email protected] wrote:
> Linhof) that takes it.
Nope. Linhof 23 Technikas and TK cameras use a Polaroid back with a ring
on the front that clamps into the groove on the camera.
However all Poaroid backs for a given film size are the same. What
changes is the plate on the front surface. That is the part that mounts
it to the specific mf camera. The only real exception to this is the
internally modified backs supplie by Hasselblad, for example, that have
a glass plate to adjust the focus plane, Rollei also had a couple of
these for the 6xxx which were never produced commercially.
--
>I would like one that would use B&W film and be completely manual.
>Was such a beastie ever made? I imagine that there are Polaroid
>backs made for Nikon and I also imagine they cost a fortune.
From: Tony Brent [email protected]
Subject: Response to 10x8 Polaroid Portraits and Landscapes
Date: 1998-09-04
Tony Brent
From: Morton Klotz [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
[1] Re: toning Polaroids?
Date: Fri Oct 23 10:41:53 CDT 1998
From: "David F. Stein" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Polaroid Addendum
From: todd [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Polaroid lenses
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polaroid lenses
>At 06:35 AM 10/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Bob Wrote:
>>>Tomioka, among other things, made some of the best lenses used by
>>>Polaroid on their cameras.
>>>
>>>Ahhhh. I always wondered where the name Tominon came from for the
>>>Polaroid cameras!
>>
>>Yes, that's where Tominon came from. Polaroid also bought lenses earlier
>>from ENNA Werke in Germany. In both cases the lenses were very good,
>>certainly exceeding the requirements of instant film.
>>
>I've got a rodenstock ysaron that is in a polaroid shutter that is a nice
>closeup lens..
>
>
>steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
>[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Another MF Newbie Question
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Polaroid camera for studio lighting use?
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999
> In article <[email protected]>,
> no-spam*[email protected] (lenscap) wrote:
> > Which Polaroid camera has the best price/performance ratio for studio
> > use to best see the effects of colored lighting. I use a 35mm camera
> > so an interchangable back is not an option.
>
> There are Pola backs for some upmarket 35mm cameras. Those give you the
> most accurate preview but image size is that of a 35mm negative.
> These backs are expensive for amateur usage.
>
> Then there are enlarging backs for 35mm cameras, which give you a
> fullsized packfilm picture. I have never seen one of these or a picture
> made by one. I guess that the enlarging optics reduce the effective
> film speed (no proplem with the 3000ASA B/W film.
>
> The cheapest solution would be to get a packfilm camera. Even the good
> ones with metal body and glass lens (like the 250) are not expensive.
> There is a wide variety of films available B/W and color, even
> Positive/Negative B/W.
> Most of them have a standard pc-type flash connector.
> It has been discussed in usenet if the bulb synched connector is
> suitable for electronic flashes.
> I have several packfilm cameras and all of them work perfectly with
> electronic flash.
> BTW you can set the aperture of these cameras to defined values, such as
> F8 by dialling certain film speeds and setting the indoor/outdoor slide.
> See Marty Kuhn's Land List for details:
> http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm
>
> Many pro photographers use the manual Packfilm cameras, like the 180
> for previews. These cameras are also very expensive, like the 110
> cameras that have been converted to packfilm.
>
> Another possibility is to use a SX-70 with a pc-flash adapter.
> SX-70s are also not expensive. Get one with a tripod thread if
> you want to use it for lighting tests.
> SX-70 film has good colors and is still available.
> You can also use all varieties of 600 integral film with the
> SX-70 in (flash mode only)with a computer flash set to the corect power.
> The SX-70 can be converted to always take flash pictures at maximal (F8)
> aperture so it won't stop down on close-ups.
> More information on this subject on my SX-70 page:
> http://www.chemie.unibas.ch/~holder/SX70.html
>
> George
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid type 55 Positive/negative film
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999
Sherman Dunnam
www.flyfishingjournal.com
Stream Reports, Free Fishing Software & More
>The negatives produced from this filme requieres clearing in a Sodium
>Sulfite solution. Does anubody have an idea jow this solution should
>bu mixed (made up) and how long the negative should be washed after
>clearing?? I beleive I had instructions that came with the film, but I
>seem to have lost them.
>
>John M. E. Dancke
>[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: How to buy the right Polaroid 250?
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
Film Speed Scene Selector Aperture
75 Dull Day/Flash f/8.8
75 Bright Sun Only f/17.5
150 Dull Day/Flash f/12.5
150 Bright Sun Only f/25
300 Dull Day/Flash f/17.5
300 Bright Sun Only f/35
3000 Indoors f/8.8
3000 Outdoors/Flash f/50
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Repowering Polaroid Pack Cameras II
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999
> For the Polaroid Model 250 - which required a Type 531 4.5v alkaline
> cell
From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Repowering Polaroid Pack Cameras II
From: [email protected] (Tillamooky)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Repowering Polaroid Pack Cameras II
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: sulfite for polaroid P/N 665
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Date: Thu Mar 01
[1] Re: 4x5 Polaroid
> I just got a Polaroid 545 back for a Speed Graphic. Which Polaroid films fit
> this ? What are their numbers ? Color or b&w ? What are the film order
> numbers ?
From: "Rob" [email protected]
Subject: Largest Polaroid Camera on Earth!
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/011120.htm
Moby C, Joe McNally & A Tribute to Heroes
By Frank Van Riper
Special to Camera Works
The largest Polaroid camera on Earth is hidden behind an artfully
graffiti'd garage door in lower Manhattan, on East 2nd, near Bleecker.
The camera, dubbed Moby C, can produce pictures that are 40 inches wide and
up to 106 inches long, or, to put that into better perspective: it can make
a full-color, incredibly detailed life-sized, head-to-toe image of
virtually any human being on the planet.
And do it in a minute and a half.
The invention and, frankly, the pride and joy, of the late Edwin Land,
Polaroid's legendary founder, the camera had for years lived in the
basement of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, where a bearded young
photographer and technician Mark Sobczak saw to the monster machine's care
and feeding. It had a more prosaic name back then. It was called simply the
Museum Camera, and it was used (mostly by Sobczak) to make life-sized
photographs of paintings.
Sobczak and his partner, Laurel Parker, an artist, bookbinder and now
studio manager for Moby C, share an almost visceral bond with the camera
which, in actual fact, is little more than a darkened room with a film
holder on one end, a lens on the other. To make photographs, you literally
have to work inside the camera. Think of the movie "Fantastic Voyage"
taking place inside your Nikon and you'll get what I mean.
"You need a front camera operator and a rear camera operator," Sobczak told
me as my wife, Judy, and I toured not only the camera itself, but the huge
studio space that he and Laurel share as they work in collaboration with
the camera's new owner, Canadian photographer and filmmaker Gregory
Colbert.
Truth to tell, Moby C, the Museum Camera, the "40x80" whatever name you
give the thing had a limited usefulness to Polaroid. Dr. Land, the genius
inventor who held more patents than any American save Thomas Edison, also
was an inveterate showman. He came up with the idea for the world's largest
Polaroid camera in the late '70s and the camera was first introduced to wow
the audience at a stockholders' meeting in Cambridge, Mass., Polaroid's
corporate headquarters. Eventually, the camera made its way to the Boston
MFA, but, times growing tougher, (Polaroid recently declared bankruptcy)
the company finally put the giant camera up for sale. Last year Colbert
bought it, reportedly for a song: about $20,000.
Sobczak, arguably the only photographer competent enough (and, frankly,
dedicated enough) to make the camera work, asked Colbert if he could
continue his relationship with it. And so Mark and Laurel relocated to New
York, where they have been working with Colbert on his own huge and
beautiful prints. In addition, fine-art photographers began renting studio
time with Moby C, at what sounds like a stiff $2,000 a day plus $300 per
print, but which isn't really so bad given the fact that the fee includes
not only the camera and all materials but Mark to actually operate it.
Then September 11th happened and Moby C was put to a different use. Joe
McNally, a former newspaper photographer who went on to become a terrific
location shooter for magazines like National Geographic and Life, had had
experience using the big Polaroid. Shortly before the terrorist attacks he
had shot a still-unpublished NatGeo story describing the camera, using
dancer Jenifer Ringer of the New York City Ballet to illustrate Moby C's
incredible tonal range and detail.
In the wake of the tragedies, McNally saw that the monumental nature of the
camera's images also could support a monumental portrait project
documenting rescue workers, New York City officials, survivors and
relatives of the victims of the World Trade Center horror. Within weeks,
AOL-Time Warner put up $100,000.
The job was done virtually in real time, with rescue personnel, for
example, showing up at the studio directly from Ground Zero at all hours of
the day and night, the dust and grime of their sad job covering their
uniforms and protective gear. It was an intense, exhausting highly
emotional yet incredibly rewarding three-and-a-half-week marathon that
produced a universe of 227 mammoth prints.
Looking at these gorgeous portraits, one cannot help but be moved by the
intensity and depth of feeling that McNally and his team captured. Mostly
they are single portraits; sometimes they are groups of two or three. The
227 portraits document 272 people, five dogs and one tortoise. The dogs
included rescue sniffers and one seeing-eye dog, Salty. Salty, photographed
with his master Omar Rivera, had led Rivera down 71 stories to safety. The
tortoise was brought by an ASPCA worker to represent the pets she and her
colleagues saved from the apartments near Ground Zero that had to be
vacated immediately after the tragedy.
The very fact that this was anything but in-and-out picture taking helps
give Joe's portraits their power. The process itself helped.
Subjects stood on a high platform against a simple white backdrop. The
lighting setup, though intense (some 30,000 watt-seconds of flash power)
was fairly direct and straightforward. As each subject stepped into place,
Mark was in the belly of the camera, observing the vertical inverse image
projected onto the focusing plane that ultimately would hold the Polaroid
paper (held flat by vacuum suction from the rear). Joe would be outside,
looking up at the subjects, placing them and getting them ready. Moby C
really is little more than the ancient camera obscura, except with a film
holder. No fancy controls, no shutter. To focus, Joe and Mark would have
the subject move ever so slightly forward and back, until he or she
appeared sharp on the focusing plane. In fact, though the lights in the
studio were fairly bright, the projected image inside the camera was fairly
dim, so that Mark, working in complete darkness inside the camera, had to
focus on the tiny catch lights in each subject's eyes.
Once the subject was in focus, the lights throughout the studio would be
cut and Mark would load the film holder.
"There was something about the pause in the darkness," Mark observed. It
gave each subject "a few seconds of introspection about why they were
there."
Then the huge pop of the strobes would illuminate everything for a fraction
of a second and then all would be darkness once more. The short duration of
the flash a tiny but intense wash of light performed the function of a
shutter for Moby C's unblinking lens. The portrait was done. Inside the
still-dark camera, Mark would muscle the exposed film through huge rollers
that would spread chemistry between the throwaway negative and the
positive. And in 90 seconds the negative would be peeled away and there on
the studio floor would be a huge portrait, that, once dry, Laurel would
cover with protective paper then help Mark and Joe to store on a huge
drying screen that would be placed alongside scores of others on
floor-to-ceiling racks.
A special edition of Life, as well as a forthcoming book, will include
these images, as well as other pictures by other photographers. But for his
singular work McNally hopes a much larger venue possibly New York's Grand
Central Station, a traveling museum show, and/or the memorial that will
remember the tragedy will give these huge pictures the audience they
deserve.
In thinking of these photographs after visiting the studio, I recalled the
Shroud of Turin, which the faithful believe to be the burial cloth of
Christ. Markings on the shroud, especially when viewed as a negative,
produce a striking image of a crucified man. Leaving aside its provenance
or any religious significance, the shroud is powerful simply because it is
life-sized and gives the viewer a one-to-one view of a fellow human being,
and thereby helps us connect with him. So too do McNally's portraits of the
heroes of September 11th, life-sized and powerful, help us connect with
these ultimately ordinary yet very special people.
Frank Van Riper is a Washington-based commercial and documentary
photographer and author. His latest book is Down East Maine/A World Apart
(Down East Books). He can be reached at [email protected].
Broken Links:
Polaroid 110 Conversions Page was at http://sites.netscape.net/sdnk/pol before 2/2003