Polaroid vs. Calumet 8x10 Pola processorgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
Thanks all for responses to my previous query. Just one more: I'm looking at the Calumet field processor and the Polaroid electric unit. On the face of it, I would imagine that the Polaroid is more reliable -- and one user has said it works with a car adapter, which is nice -- but the Calumet is less expensive and, really more portable. Ideas, experiences?
-- george (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 31, 2002
With Polaroid's demise, I probably go with the Calumet, manual and less things to go wrong.
-- Scott Walton (email@example.com), January 31, 2002.
Polaroid isn't dead just in bankruptcy. (Butt then so is Enron!)
If you are goingto be in the field the Calumet processor offers more versatility.
-- Ellis Vener Photography (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 31, 2002.
As I said in my post, the Calumet is great for the field. It is smaller, lighter, easy to use and clean (a must!), and requires no power at all. No electricity, cords, batteries, ...nothing. But, it is a hand-crank design and must be cranked ever so evenly and at a fairly slow speed or you get banding. I use Polaroid as a proof so it doesn't matter much, and I have got the hang of it so I don't get banding all that much, but it happens, so if you are using the Polaroid as a final then take care. I might suggest not processing at all in the field if the print is your final. Shoot while carrying nothing but the film and back and process at home with the electric Polaroid processor and receiver/chemistry. But if you must process out there then the Calumet is a great investment. You're not tethered to a cord or even you car.
By the way I've never seen the T805 pos/neg mentioned before, and as of last time I checked the person posting had not answered Sal S. Where is it gotten?
-- Rob Tucher (email@example.com), February 01, 2002.
Rob, Bill Jefferson did answer in that thread. T-805 is in development and not commercially available.
-- Sal Santamaura (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 01, 2002.
I answered Sal's inquirey privatelt,. and as stated it is in development, waiting for 2 sheet tests to be run to continue with the testing. Bill
-- Bill Jefferson (email@example.com), February 01, 2002.
Have you seen 8x10 polaroids up close and personnal before? Suggest you try to do that before buying into this equipment. All the polaroids I have seen are pretty crappy compared to anything made with regular negatives, no matter what the asa. I have 8x10 polaroid and have done color and b&w. If you're doing color you will probably find it necessary to use color correction filters.
I usee the hand crank outfit from Calumet and it works pretty well. Occassionally not all the developing goo is spread out properly, or one of the sheets doesn't get grabbed by the rollers so you end up using an extra positive.
-- Roger Urban (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 01, 2002.
Actually, I know my way around smaller format (including 4x5) Polaroid materials pretty darn well. In 4x5, I've done quite a bit with pos/negs and Polaroid transfers. It ain't shooting chrome, but it has it's own look that's worth exploring.
This came up because I recently picked up an 8x10, for another purpose. Anyway, I found a used but very nice Polaroid processor for $275 yesterday, so I bought it. It can live on a work table and I'll just bring film in from the field (which for me isn't very far at all) for processing.
Thanks to all -- and, please, do keep submitting tips.
-- george (email@example.com), February 02, 2002.