Digital BW, The Print

Truman,

Like you, I am a long time 4 x 5 shooter, and also like you, I long for the
good old days of Pan-X developed in Microdol-X.
And like many 4 x 5 photographers, I've used the Polaroid Type 55 P/N film
in my 4 x 5 cameras for years. What I didn't know, until
recently is, the negative material in type 55 Polaroid is in fact Pan-X
film!! So, I've been using Pan-X film for years and didn't even know it. The
negatives one gets from type 55 are gorgeous, full tone range that scan well
and make beautiful prints, both in the darkroom and digital also. This film
is a little more delicate than other films, it is much easier to scratch for
example. You don't have to develop the film using the regular 'instant'
Polaroid process, where you pull the film through the film holder and then
peal apart the pack to reveal the print and negative. This takes a little
skill, but one can, in the darkroom (total darkness) take apart the film
pack, being careful not to rupture the chemical pack. Once removed from the
package, the type 55 negative material can be developed in any black and
white film developer one likes.

I like using type 55 Polaroid with the normal instant development. This
allows me to make very fine grain 4 x 5 negatives, without a darkroom that I
then scan and print using my 'digital darkroom'. I think this is in keeping
with Paul Roark's KISS ( keep it simple stupid) philosophy.

Is there anybody else out there using type 55 in this way? I'd be interested
in knowing how this works for others.
Best Regards,

David R. Spielman

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 7:11 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] re: ISO 100 B&W films for scanning


  I used to love the old Kodak Pan X. It gave smooth grain and was
  actually a little faster than advertised in the old Zone VI developer.
  But alas that film is not with us any longer.

  Since I shoot only 4x5 slow films present a problem since smaller
  apertures are required which means very slow shutter speeds or very
  little DOF. So I seem to keep coming back to good old Tri-X. I tried
  TMax 400 but it left me feeling a little hollow.

  But I guess that is why we have the choice of so many different film and
  developers.

  Truman

  Paul Roark wrote:

  >>I really believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).   Tech Pan is an
  >>phenomenal film, but slow, fussy & very contrasty quite quickly.  Next
best
  >>thing, and grainless in an 8x10 print, is TMX100 developed in D76 1:1.
...
  >>
  >>
  >
  >There is a lot of merit in this recommendation.  I rejected TP and used
Tmax
  >100 for years in a relatively traditional developer (in Microdol 1:3) --
  >very consistent and reliable.  I may end up taking this same approach
again.
  >
  >But the seductive siren song of ultra-fine grain keeps luring me onto the
  >rocks.
  >
  >Paul
  >http://www.PaulRoark.com
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >


  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]