Author Topic: DIY Polaroid Type 55 (Read 10874 times)

Francois · « **on:** November 06, 2013, 03:36:20 PM »

Now, this is crazy cool!
Instructions on how to do your own Type 55 film at home!

Yes, the full thing.

Here's the link on Instructables
http://www.instructables.com/id/Making-instant-film-at-home-polaroid-55-/?ALLSTEPS

Poliweb · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2013, 10:35:00 PM »

Wow - this looks really fun. Though the instructions and examples leave me with a ton of questions. For example, do you really mix the fixer with the developer in the pod? I suppose that something has to fix the image during those 8 minutes - does it develop and fix at the same time? Also - some of the positives shown are an orange-ish color and then one appears to be a neutral tone black and white. I wonder if he just used his computer to make it B&W?

I'm seriously tempted to give it a try - maybe with Xray film to do larger images...

[EDIT] And I wonder if it could be modified to work with paper instead of film? Would the image still migrate to the receiver?

Richard

original_ann · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2013, 01:25:52 AM »

"film exposed ( i'm using an some ilford FP4 ), then assembled the film, the paper ( i used ilford RC fixed as a receiver ) and the pod in the dark, in a black paper sleeve taped to be light proof . process through rollers and wait 8min!"

I agree about the lack of clarity, but I really want to try it out! Are they saying that they fix the paper before assembling everything altogether?

[Edit] Thanks for posting this, Francois!

tkmedia · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2013, 02:24:35 AM »

based on a quick look of the instructions this seems like a way to develop the film and make a contact print after you have already exposed the 4x5 film conventionally. This does not seem to be a usable method if a field developed neg and print is desired as the "film sandwich" is made in a darkroom after exposure.

original_ann · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2013, 02:28:22 AM »

Yes, but for novelty's sake it's quite... well... novel. ;-D

Poliweb · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2013, 04:05:20 AM »

Quote from: original_ann on November 07, 2013, 01:25:52 AM

"film exposed ( i'm using an some ilford FP4 ), then assembled the film, the paper ( i used ilford RC fixed as a receiver ) and the pod in the dark, in a black paper sleeve taped to be light proof . process through rollers and wait 8min!"

I agree about the lack of clarity, but I really want to try it out! Are they saying that they fix the paper before assembling everything altogether?

[Edit] Thanks for posting this, Francois!

Yes - the author is saying you fix the paper (and presumably wash it too) before it's used as a receiving paper for the positive. So at this point it's not light sensitive. I suspect the gelatin emulsion works well to absorb the silver from the negative. Though I have to admit I don't really understand how this works in detail.

Poliweb · « **Reply #6 on:** November 07, 2013, 04:11:08 AM »

Quote from: tkmedia on November 07, 2013, 02:24:35 AM

based on a quick look of the instructions this seems like a way to develop the film and make a contact print after you have already exposed the 4x5 film conventionally. This does not seem to be a usable method if a field developed neg and print is desired as the "film sandwich" is made in a darkroom after exposure.

Well I don't think it's exactly a contact print. That is to say that no light is involved in going from the negative to the positive - it must be some kind of migration of silver form the neg to the receiving paper. Assuming it works, the author has demonstrated that the chemistry works but has failed to create an integral package that can be developed without a darkroom (or changing bag). I suppose that this is an "exercise for the reader". From reading what new55 and the Impossible Project has done, the packaging is no small part of the problem.

Richard

tkmedia · « **Reply #7 on:** November 07, 2013, 08:20:06 AM »

yep, I didnt mean "contact print" even thought I did write that.

Making the the development reagent chemicals sounds about right as well. I have not gone to make my own pods or paper; but have experimented a bit on the chemical components a number of years ago, but mostly as a fun experiment on a "developer paste" replacement for existing dried expire instant film.

original_ann · « **Reply #8 on:** November 07, 2013, 11:14:55 AM »

Hmmm... now there's a thought, tkmedia. I'm sure I'm going to still come across 'bad pods' on my dwindling supply of Polaroid sheets. I may have to set them aside for such experimentation.

Francois · « **Reply #9 on:** November 07, 2013, 12:59:22 PM »

I must admit that being a technical writer is not his strong point...
But it's still quite interesting.
Lets not forget that instant film is essentially just a monobath and that the first experiments Edwin Land did used mayonnaise as a carrier and thickening agent in the pods.

Poliweb · « **Reply #10 on:** November 07, 2013, 04:26:12 PM »

The bit I don't understand is the receiving paper. The best explanation I have found to date is that it contains "chemical nuclei" (which sounds a bit pseudo-scientific to me) that catalyze the precipitation of the silver that has migrated across from the film emulsion. Apparently the goo does two things - it rapidly develops the image and at the same time dissolves the unexposed silver halide which migrates over to the receiver paper where it precipitates out.

So I suppose if this really works, then the gelatin layer in the fixed RC paper must have sufficient "chemical nuclei" to cause the silver to precipitate out.

I am still wondering if this would work with paper in stead of film (thinking ULF here).

Richard

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** November 07, 2013, 10:11:21 PM »

I can't see either how the image gets transferred to the paper. I tend to think of it more like a monobath in a pouch.

I think this needs quite some investigation since I don't think silver would migrate that easily.

rotarysmp · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2013, 12:42:10 PM »

I just posted a comment to the author JulsDylan in the Instructables comments asking him to check out this thread and revise the Instructable with answers to the questions here.

Yglotte · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2013, 04:56:08 PM »

Oh sweet ! I know this dude, from the polaroid forum polaroid-passion, this dude is really good.

Bravo

rotarysmp · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2013, 08:48:39 PM »

Would you mind trying to contact him through that group. It would be cool if he could add a little more to that Instructable.

Mark

Cadha13 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2013, 10:07:49 AM »

These instructions are kind of hard to follow that's for sure. Kind of making a list of the things that have to happen during the process.

If I remember correctly that the B/W Polaroid film was simply to develop the negative, transfer the exposed silver to the acidic paper and then you peel and coat.

You can use regular film, it's the developer/fixer in the correct sequence onto the neutralizing acidic paper. Seeing how "low" tech the roll film is compared to pack film for the prints. Seeing the use of light sensitive photo paper seems to be a problem. Paper infused with an powdered acid, like citric acid would do the trick. It would hydrate upon contact with the pod chemicals, slowly neutralize the basic developer and leave the fixer to deposit the silver onto the paper.

It's kind of strange that the 30 series Polaroids have rolls of film the size of 120 film. Just need to make the required positive paper, holes and pods in the correct distance. The J33 is ready to go. A lot of assumptions were deduced, and I haven't read the patents in years, but the process is fairly simple, but hard to execute.

Poliweb · « **Reply #16 on:** November 10, 2013, 12:13:59 AM »

Quote from: Cadha13 on November 09, 2013, 10:07:49 AM

These instructions are kind of hard to follow that's for sure. Kind of making a list of the things that have to happen during the process.

If I remember correctly that the B/W Polaroid film was simply to develop the negative, transfer the exposed silver to the acidic paper and then you peel and coat.

You can use regular film, it's the developer/fixer in the correct sequence onto the neutralizing acidic paper. Seeing how "low" tech the roll film is compared to pack film for the prints. Seeing the use of light sensitive photo paper seems to be a problem. Paper infused with an powdered acid, like citric acid would do the trick. It would hydrate upon contact with the pod chemicals, slowly neutralize the basic developer and leave the fixer to deposit the silver onto the paper.

It's kind of strange that the 30 series Polaroids have rolls of film the size of 120 film. Just need to make the required positive paper, holes and pods in the correct distance. The J33 is ready to go. A lot of assumptions were deduced, and I haven't read the patents in years, but the process is fairly simple, but hard to execute.

Interesting information on the receiver sheet. I didn't know it was acidic. Does that help with precipitating out the silver as well as neutralizing the alkaline monobath sludge? I assume that the fixed RC paper that the poster used would not be acidic, unless he didn't wash out the fixer! Would soaking it in a bath of citric acid help do you think?

I did some searching and found this posting by Donald Qualls on photo.net from 2004 that may well have inspired the HC110/Ammonia/Ilford Rapid Fix monobath

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/007YBh

And more recently that post was referenced by Bob Crowley on the new55 site in 2010:

http://new55project.blogspot.com/2010/01/donal-qualls-successful-monobath.html

Bob seemed to think the receiver sheet was the harder problem to solve...

I may have to give this a try.

Richard

Francois · « **Reply #17 on:** November 10, 2013, 02:05:29 PM »

From what I can figure out (though I'm not a chemist by a long shot), this works through the lack of agitation.

-The developer converts the silver to visible silver.
-Fixer gets the unexposed silver out of the film.
-Lack of agitation means that the unexposed silver goes in the thin spread solution and possibly sticks on the paper.
-When you separate both film and paper, light will expose the remaining silver on the paper which gets instantly developed by the remaining monobath.

Does that make any sense?

Poliweb · « **Reply #18 on:** November 10, 2013, 05:09:01 PM »

Quote from: Francois on November 10, 2013, 02:05:29 PM

From what I can figure out (though I'm not a chemist by a long shot), this works through the lack of agitation.

-The developer converts the silver to visible silver.
-Fixer gets the unexposed silver out of the film.
-Lack of agitation means that the unexposed silver goes in the thin spread solution and possibly sticks on the paper.
-When you separate both film and paper, light will expose the remaining silver on the paper which gets instantly developed by the remaining monobath.

Does that make any sense?

Francois - I don't believe that light is involved in precipitating out the silver on the receiving paper. The silver ions bind to the thiosulfate ions in the fixer and at that point are not light sensitive. To be light sensitive you need silver halide crystals formed. These crystals are practically insoluble in water. From the reading I have done it seems that the polaroid receiving paper has some kind of coating that causes the silver to precipitate out of solution. Exactly how this happens I don't know.

Richard

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #19 on:** November 10, 2013, 07:28:50 PM »

I love Filmwasters! Great discussion, everyone. I haven't followed any of it, really, but it's been fascinating reading.

Francois · « **Reply #20 on:** November 10, 2013, 09:29:16 PM »

I know fixer works through a solvent like action. I wonder if the ammonia they add could help the precipitation...

If the silver is removed from the film but not rendered "lightproof", the exposure to light once the paper is peeled would make it turn black quite fast... but that's just a thought.

Poliweb · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2013, 02:23:25 AM »

Quote from: Francois on November 10, 2013, 09:29:16 PM

I know fixer works through a solvent like action. I wonder if the ammonia they add could help the precipitation...

If the silver is removed from the film but not rendered "lightproof", the exposure to light once the paper is peeled would make it turn black quite fast... but that's just a thought.

I'm guessing that the ammonia is used to raise the pH of the monobath. Since adding fixer to developer may lower the overall pH too much for the developer to work. If the monobath is too acidic I expect the developer won't work. Also the monobath is designed so that the developer acts more quickly than the fixer so that the image is developed before it is fixed (a good plan overall

). I wonder if the ammonia helps both increase the speed of the developer and slow down the fixer. Not sure there though.

Richard

Francois · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2013, 02:34:51 PM »

Not sure either...

Poliweb · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2013, 05:47:06 PM »

My further research has uncovered this thread from 2008 in APUG:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/50274-solving-polaroid-pn-55-secret-3.html

The second post on this page, from Philip Jackson is packed with interesting information. He successfully used fixed out photo paper as the receiver sheet. He also explains why it works. He says that the emulsion of the fixed out paper still contains sliver nuclei that aid in precipitation of silver that has migrated from the negative.

Jackson also confirms that the positive image that results from this process is a sepia color. Land had the same issue at first and had to come up with a process to produce a neutral image. Of course sepia is sought after today!

He also describes the first experiments that Land performed that included using blotting paper and filter paper as the receiver.

This is a great posting - the most comprehensive I have seen on the subject so far.

Richard

Francois · « **Reply #24 on:** November 11, 2013, 10:16:32 PM »

Now this is interesting...

Poliweb · « **Reply #25 on:** November 12, 2013, 06:47:06 PM »

I'm going to give this a try. I already have HC-110 and Ilford Rapid Fix as well as FP4+ and RC paper. The Methylcellulose is on its way.

I'll report back,

Richard

Poliweb · « **Reply #26 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:05:33 PM »

Quote from: Poliweb on November 12, 2013, 06:47:06 PM

I'm going to give this a try. I already have HC-110 and Ilford Rapid Fix as well as FP4+ and RC paper. The Methylcellulose is on its way.

I'll report back,

Richard

I made a start on this over the weekend with some progress - but not success yet.

Firstly, I found it hard to mix the methylcellulose with the monobath. It seems as if the monobath causes the dissolved methylcellulose to precipitate out into a stringy white mess. I eventually found I could make it work by adding the monobath very slowly and stirring well. I stopped adding just before the goop precipitated out - but I'm not sure if I have adequate concentration of monobath.

The next step was to reconstruct the experiment shown on the web site. I used Post-it notes to make the pods - relying on the post-it note glue to pop open under pressure - this worked well for a quick experiment. Eventually the paper would disintegrate if not used right away. However I got no image on the negative or the fixed out paper.

I determined that the developer was not active enough. I figured that the solution may not be alkaline (basic) enough for the developer. Perhaps my Ammonia wasn't as strong (I used Walgreens "Nice" brand clear ammonia - can't find strength on the bottle or online.) I increased the ammonia in the monobath and did a quick test by just pouring it onto an exposed negative. It worked - and now I got a decent negative.

Trying the full experiment again yielded some sort of negative but only an extremely faint image transferred to the paper. I switched to paper negatives to save on film, and still got the same results - a decent negative but only a very faint transfer. I will go back to trying more film in the next few days.

At this point I have a lot of variables. Do I need to continue to play with the monobath composition? How should I change it? The guy who posted the instructions clearly made it work - so I shouldn't stray to far from what he did.

I'll try to do some more on this when I get a chance.

Richard

Francois · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2013, 08:57:51 PM »

Quote from: Poliweb on November 18, 2013, 08:05:33 PM

The guy who posted the instructions clearly made it work - so I shouldn't stray to far from what he did.

I'll try to do some more on this when I get a chance.

Instead of making pods, you could just paint on the developer on the receiver sheet and then press them together using a rolling pin.

Now for the part where "the guy made it work"... I'm starting to get some doubts. He did submit it as part of a contest to win some Lomo gear. Maybe he faked it in order to get the prize... I'm starting to think that if it was that easy, the guys from the New 55 project would have succeeded and produced a product a long time ago.

Poliweb · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2013, 09:17:10 PM »

Francois,

I agree on the lack of need for pods. I can go back to that later once (if) I get the chemistry to work.

As a next step I'm going to grab an unused sheet of receiver paper from a pack of FP-3000B and try that - just in case my fixed out paper isn't working.

I hadn't considered the possibility of it's having been faked. It doesn't sound like the guy got back to anyone on questions - I'm going to see if I can contact him. Maybe an email to Bob Crowley at New55 would be in order too.

I'll post updates as I go.

Richard