That's why I wondered. I didn't think the print would be that sharp. I wondered once if some of the sharpness of Type 55 comes from the neg being thinner than usual? If the cost was just a little bit lower, I wouldn't bother with regular film! Now if they'd only release the Type 805 for the 8x10....

Polaroid is mysterious stuff.

I think the unsharpness of the Polaroid print materials is in part an issue of registration, and maybe the decision by Polaroid that resolution for normal viewing distances is sufficient. But if one is trying to use Polaroid as a proofing medium, especially for medium format or 35mm, it would be really handy to be able to check it with a loupe.

One also wonders why they haven't managed to make type 55 so that the exposure for the print is the same as the exposure for the neg, but I guess it's amazing that it works at all.

Type 55 is kind of expensive and messy, so I only use it occasionally, but it's very handy for quick projects when I might not be able to get to the darkroom for a few weeks, and it does have a really distinctive look.

Ahh, the mess That chemical stuff can get pretty nasty...

I doubt we'll ever know why they couldn't get print & neg at the same speed. It just may be as simple as their print process relies on a underexposed negative to work properly?

It may be that one of my first 'real' cameras was a Polaroid when I was young. But I still think there's some kind of magic in the Polaroid process, and still love to use it and see it work 40 years later...

I am amazed that they can get the print resolution they do! I don't remember all the details, but it's basically a molecular transfer from the neg, through the chemical layer, to the print. In color, it's the dyes that transfer. May be the actual silver in B&W, I don't really remember? But it's amazing that the molecules essentially go 'straight' through and wind up where they're supposed to for a decent print. That's why that old thing of shaking a Polaroid to make it develop quicker is so totally wrong. Any flexing of the developing print can send those molecules off in the wrong direction and sharpness will suffer. Although that's normally only done with the sx-70 type films and I'm not sure anyone knows why about that either?

Overall to me, it's still 'magic' and as long as they make film, I'll shoot it even if just occasionally just to see it work. Maybe it's because I'm old, but "instant prints"... What a concept