Thursday, June 30, 2011

New55 Pricing

There are a lot of people who are new to the site who may have not looked at the comments on production costs and potential sales prices of a possible New55 PN product.  We estimate a best case retail price of $6 per sheet.

Just thought you needed to know. That's the reality of it.

46 comments:

David said...

Six dollars a sheet definitely adds a bit of nuance to the the oft-heard "but using a view camera lets/makes me slow down and be more deliberate when I make photographs." ;) Still, I hope it will be possible for you to do a production run some day. Best wishes.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with $6 a sheet? Impossible charges $3 for one that only produces a small positive print. The US price for their film is $23.50 for only 8 shots. New55 gives you a high quality negative, and positive, and it is twice as large.

Michael Kirchoff said...

Sold. Can I put my order in now? People are paying more than that now for expired Type 55, so I'd definitely be in.

John Chervinsky said...

Six dollars a sheet for the New 55 PN product might be a lot, but if I needed it, I would buy it.

More interesting perhaps, would be a New 55 N product, developed with rollers and a pod. How much would that cost?

PrePress Express said...

$6 a sheet is not bad at all. Id be more then willing to pay that.
At the end of Type 55s life, i was paying between $6 and $10 a sheet.
Id still like to have the 55 borders, that was the main reason i shot it.
Any way to make a mask and add them into a special order batch?
But still, having a P/N film in the field would be great.

Bob Crowley said...

John, we have two codes that are not PN in the plan. One is called DP-1, and that's a field processable positive, and DN-1, a field processable negative. Adding a developing pod and no receiver sheet does not make a lot of sense economically for reasons that you might weigh in on when you visit the lab and look at the assembly.

The borders you are familiar with are from a mask. You could have all kinds of mask shapes, waves, dots, etc. The priority is on a highest quality PN result. Our recent result appears to exceed the quality of Polaroid Type 55 in some ways.

John Reuter said...

Certainly got us beat at $200.00 per shot for 20x24.

Bob Crowley said...

That comes to about the same then, per square inch.

photogus said...

i'd definately buy some at that price,
i loved type 55 and shot a lot of different
subjects with it.
let me know when its available,
i miss those big negs

Zoe Wiseman said...

I'd pay $10.00 a sheet. I just WANT IT!

matteo capaia said...

Not bad, it's reasonably.
Less shoot but better quality :)

louster said...

I'd be happy for the chance to pay $6 a shot.

Anonymous said...

Bob Crowley said... "John, we have two codes that are not PN in the plan. One is called DP-1, and that's a field processable positive, and DN-1, a field processable negative. Adding a developing pod and no receiver sheet does not make a lot of sense economically..."

Wait a minute Bob, is this going to be like Type 55 or isn't it? If neither of these products you're talking about have built in chem pods then this is most definitely NOT a Type 55 replacement. I for one have no interest standing in the middle of a field with exposed sheets of film and running them through some kind of portable darkroom/ processing contraption loaded with the necessary chemistry. If that is the case then $6 a sheet seems completely unreasonable to me.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're talking about.

Care to clarify?

Bob Crowley said...

Anon

You should go back and read the blog. Most of it is about the enablement of a field processable negative using R3, which is a monobath. Also we have said many many times we are not going to recreate T55.

The results to date with PN materials appear to be promising but costly. I have a lot of people who say (not here) that their max price is $3.

We've been through this same explanations several times and I think you can go back to last Summer when we started to delineate what New55 is, and is not.

It never has been a T55 replacement.

Anonymous said...

http://new55project.blogspot.com/search?q=tank

Anonymous said...

Well I for one cannot imagine paying over $1 per sheet for something I have to process with wet chemistry.

Anonymous said...

Well Bob, I happen to be the "Anon" whom you answered earlier. With all due respect I think you're absolutely full of BS.

For your information, I HAVE been reading your blog, for over a year. I check it at least twice a week. In fact I've contributed to your blog before. Now it turns out that all along, every day in fact, you have been stringing the lot of us along claiming to be on the brink of developing a replacement for Type 55 film.

Notice I didn't say IDENTICAL replacement, with every shade and nuance, but a replacement nonetheless is still a replacement. For my money if you're going to call something "New55" it should at least look and act like Type 55 in form and function (IE you should be able to shoot, then flip a lever and pull it from a polaroid 545 holder or something similar, wait, and then peel it apart and have a finished product).

And please don't deny the replacement aspect. Your own blog: NEW55PROJECT is titled on the premise of making a replacement.

Now, as it turns out, instead of a "New55", you try to sell us on the idea of "field processable negatives" and "monobaths" at a cost of $6 a pop.

Are you serious? You honestly believe you are doing us a favor by offering $6 sheet film which requires development in a tank with liquid chemistry? And you expect people to do all that mucking about out in the field or on a busy commercial setup? What's the point? I can do that right now with $1 per sheet T-MAX and a Patterson tank.

Seriously. At $6 a sheet I'd rather shoot myself in the foot and just lug my film holders back to the darkroom and process them in the A/C comfort of my home.

As far as I'm concerned you have no business calling your blog what you do. Maybe Bob'sOverpricedFieldProcessableFilmProject would be more appropriate. But this is certainly no "New55" ANYTHING.

You can mix your words and put any spin you want on this, but I sense a sinking ship here Bob.

What a disappointment.

Bob Crowley said...

Please read the post above. As you can see, I refer to a PN product. Did you see the result? $6 a shot.

Anonymous said...

Sounds just like William Littmann!!!

Jason said...

Considering the cost of film, processing and contact printing $6 seems reasonable -- especially if both the positive and negative have the same ISO. T55 required a wet tank in the field as well, and was not much less expensive. It will all come down to the product design, and ease of use.

I would buy it at $60 / box of ten -- not every day, but regularly enough. Bob, all the time and effort you've put into developing a decidedly niche product is appreciated. Let me know if you need any beta testers : )

Bob Crowley said...

We are now hand building groups of materials. Some are PN and of course these are the most complex. We also have on order materials for the DN-1 and the DP-1, but have no reagent, yet, for the DP-1. It will be interesting, I think, to have a single sheet one bath direct positive material without relying on DTR to make the positive. But we are at a crossroads, having achieved results that seem to exceed what though we could do in the PN configuration. None of this is that complex from hereon, but it is difficult, as it depends on a series of suppliers, some who are not that keen on "instant film" in general, and others who are very far away.

Zoe Wiseman said...

what an anon ass! ^^^ up there ^^^
i wonder what he does with his time besides troll the internet? sorry you get these kinds of comments, Bob. lots of us are really grateful that you are going through all this trouble to find something relatively similar to T55. wish i were around to help, though i'd probably just hold up the wall and wonder what the heck it was you were doing. LOL

Z

Bob Crowley said...

Zoe don't let him bother you at all. I publish anything in comments that isn't spam or illegal.

Don't throw away your 545 yet.

John Reuter said...

We were having so much fun.

Bob Crowley said...

Why aren't you in Arles?

PrePress Express said...

Theres always a stick in the mud…always.

Regarding the mask, i was wondering if i could make one on litho film?
I have an LVT film recorder and i could put almost anything in it.
I have some drum scans of the 55 mask, once i image it could it be placed in front of the film?
Maybe that will get me the old 55 look?

I was also thinking about a pod DIY setup. Could the reagent be made into a gel like the old 55 was?
After watching the youtube video of the impossible projects pod machine, it seems like it could be made into a DIY pod kit.
Its probably much more complicated then it looks.
My idea is a kit where the user pours the reagent into a pod maker then turns a handle that seals the foil.
Then the pod is placed into the film packet. This way the pods are always fresh, something that was a problem with the old 55.
I could see making a set of pods before i go out.

Thanks for your work on this!
-Ian

Bob Crowley said...

Ian

The mask and how it looks is a consequence of the process of making and using the product, so I'd expect New55 will also have some border, but it will likely be different. How else will I be able to tell while flipping through Vanity Fair?

The reagent is a gel. There is a thickening polymer in there that coats the negative and peels off after the negative is dipped in clearing bath. It looks sort of like egg drop soup, small floating eggy bits.

The trick to the pod is to get the seals all around three sides, plus the ribs that help send the goop in the right direction, plus one side that must break open before the others, so the holder/camera doesn't get filled with goo. It is not that complicated, but it does require some tooling, which is fairly expensive, and someone to run it.

Making the right goo is tricky. It is both an art and a science.

By the way, we anticipate short dating any potential production of a New55 PN product, encouraging small orders, and using it soon, like within 6 months. Postage is still pretty cheap, and if the product goes into wide distribution, and makes a profit, then there would likely be improvements. Lots of ifs.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a religious person but I was actually praying for T55's resurrection. When Impossible explained that the manufacturing equipment had been scrapped and that it was never coming back I was disappointed. Then I ran across your blog and there was hope again. Unfortunately, after reading about the process I have come to the conclusion that this is basically a different product than T55. It may be interesting but it is just something else. If you read all the pleas for the old mask lines, you get the picture. There are digital frame programs and or you could reproduce your own but it still won't be T55. While "anonymous's" rant was a little over the top he does, in my opinion have a valid point. There is a little bit of "tugging on heart strings" by positioning this as the successor to T55. With all that said I have to admire the work and creativity that has gone into this project. My hope is that people will use it and it will develop it's own character & following and become a popular medium for creative photographers. Good luck & I'll definitely be trying a box. SZ @ Verichrome

Bob Crowley said...

Yes this is obviously a different, and better product than T55. Unless what you want are holes and borders around your pictures. We haven't planned to put them in, leaving the natural shape of the film and pod spread. T55 gave you a choice of only a negative or a positive but not both. At the target price, there has to be a better value proposition and this is one way to add value over the old polaroid product. Also if you look closely at the the final results in various places such as flickr where we have posted New55 among T55, they fit right in.

Anonymous said...

Bob if you could put the "holes" on is there a separate machine would do that? I think copying is kind of boring but there are some who will want that.

Bob Crowley said...

It's not the machine so much as the materials used. In any case we have pretty much decided not to try to recreate T55 for a lot of reasons, some having to do with materials that are available. Also we have talked with and even polled on the subject of "the holes" and find that 2/3 believe they are peripheral in value, and are stylistic and not photographic attributes. New55 has a different construction anyway, and the trap, which is the row of holes, and the mask, which makes that border, are not used at all. Eliminating these and other parts greatly reduces polatrash.

Pete D. said...

My 545 holder is cleaned up and chomping at the bit for some New55. I seriously can't wait. Analog backlash at its finest!

Bob Crowley said...

Having been reasonably successful with another analog backlash product - new ribbon microphones that use our acoustic nanofilm invention - I can see the similarities. Analog Backlash is not just a reaction, it is a market unto itself, and a growing one.

Erin McGuire said...

6 bucks a sheet seems reasonable to me. If you sell 20 sheets a box like Polaroid did, that 120 US a box. That's a whole heck of a lot better than the extremely expired T55 being sold on eBay for 250 a box. Personally, I cant wait to try this film out!

Bob Crowley said...

I think what we will do, if we get there, is to pack up 10 per box. I never used a 20 pack box all at once anyway and this would make it all the more bite sized and easy to deal with. Does that make sense to you? A lot of sheet film is packed in 10s.

Pete D. said...

10 sheets per box seems perfectly reasonable, though it seems there would be less packaging waste if you could provide a 20 sheet (bulk pack option)

Bob Crowley said...

Good point. The box we plan to use is very simple and plain in contrast to Old Pol's fairly elaborate packaging. We could have both, and even sell in singles.

One area that we haven't discussed is what to do with packs that fail. It is sometimes hard to tell what the cause is, material, assembly, operation, other, and New55 does require some dexterity to use.

jan houllevigue said...

i am definitely interested , get me 10 boxes now.

Laura Allen Photography said...

I'm simply excited. Bring it on and also simply if I can afford it I would get it ....... oh and I will!!.

Thanks to everyone trying to get this to work. It's cool and creative. All those with the harsh opinions, no one is forcing anybody to pay out. Instant processes have never been cheap but are worth it in my opinion.

Frank said...

Hi,
I'm ready to try the film! :)

Tsabi696 said...

How can i order? thanks :)

Bob Crowley said...

We are still pretty far from release of the product at the quality that we want customers to get, but, a lot of progress is being made.

AgRho said...

Is there any chance whatever that you would consider "early adopter" kits, maybe 3-5 shots per, provided we signed a waiver or some such & promised to provide feedback? In that way, people would be making images with it, helping you drive out some of the gremlins and provide a small round of funding. Did you run a kickstarter project? I searched on it, but wasn't able to find definitive word one way or the other. Final question: you will let us know when the job postings for workers to produce this are up, yes?

= |

Bob Crowley said...

Yes, we are considering something like that, but need to do it in a way that we don't lose money on them. 3, 5, 10, all are small orders and because of tooling don't ramp up from hand building very smoothly. But it is still a possibility. I don't think waivers will be needed as I am sure many of the photographs produced will be shared in some way.

We also have a Kickstarter account that has been accepted. If you search kickstarter on this blog you can see the action on that about a year ago. It hasn't been acted upon because the Kickstarter deal requires a lot of customer interaction, a video, and "rewards" that we cannot guarantee. Kickstarter is just a pre selling portal, something we could do ourselves as you might imagine by the response. But if we had two of these we'd try it anyway, since i like the idea of Kickstarter.

I have an intern position for someone local to the area that may be filled up to about January 1st. Then mabe someone else. It is likely a good fit for a student interested in an intensive 4x5 project and could be configured to support a Master's thesis or other academic work. Anyone interested should email or call the lab.

darrylbaird said...

I have an undergrad student who has decided to make a career out of alt-processes... including the use of 55 as a negative original. (I might have accidentally influenced this decision... hehe)
Where are you located?

I moved my work to 8x10 X-Ray film (developed by inspection) after I ran out of 55 last year. Love being able to work in large format quickly with 55. Can't wait to get another project going using the new 55.

Bob Crowley said...

Meanwhile try R3 on Efke and Shanghai 8x10. It works great and takes just a couple of minutes. Our sponsor company Soundwave is in Ashland, MA.