[Largeformat] Re: Polaroid 545

[tigershark_001@hotmail.com]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds!  Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/13/_/515046/_/968036423/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Im not in the studio now so i cannot check, but as far as i remember 
they do wave ... i took one apart .... 
Those metal ones are the best ....indestructible ... and ... heavy !
I am always concerned about film flatness with any holder , and 
quikloads are on my suspected list.  I know when i study Type 
52 Polaroids (PolPan 100 now) under a loupe they are as sloppy as 
anything.  No crisp lines, no sharpness, no small detail.  I never, 
never, never used Polaroids for anything else than proofing.  Now i 
have seen quite a few quickloads from a Polaroid 545 holder and they 
looked very good, except for a just a rare case where the corners or
a 
part of the image was completely out of focus.

I would say run a test and see for yourself. 

Good luck in this "rare" world of nothing automatic !

Tigershark



--- In Largeformat@egroups.com, Douglas Cooper <douglas@m...> wrote:
> Okay, I just bought a used Polaroid 545 holder.  (The older, metal 
> one.)  It's in great shape, but one thing worries me a bit.  The 
> film-holding springs at the top and bottom are not arcs; they're 
more like 
> wavy lines.  To be precise:  they're like one cycle of a sine wave; 
they 
> bow downward, then up.  Is this normal?  If not, is it going to 
affect film 
> flatness?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Douglas Cooper