Any ideas on a good (non-expensive) 8x10 sheet film?

[W_Taylor76]

I have been out of the large format film game for quite some time so I don't know what the sheet film is like anymore. I am wanting to make an 8x10 pinhole camera. What would be some recommendations for some 8x10 sheet film (ISO 400) that is not too expensive to start off with until I figure out if this is something I really want to pursue? Is Arista.edu good 8x10 film? I have noticed that Arista.edu is pretty inexpensive, but does that come at a cost?

 

[koraks]

Arista.edu sheet film is Fomapan. Many people like it, others don't. It's a personal thing. In any case, don't expect a product that is on par with e.g. Kodak TMX400 or HP5+ at a fraction of the price. If the technical differences are relevant for you, is up to you to decide.

For Fomapan 400 (Arista.edu 400), keep in mind that effective film speed is closer to 250 (although some like it at 400 and don't care about the loss of shadows) and it's rather grainy for a 400 film (but in 8x10, you probably could care less!) Reciprocity characteristics are also quite poor, although how bad they are is a matter of debate. This aspect may be a concern if you want to do pinholes.

However, all considered - it can't hurt to try a box. It won't break the bank, even in 8x10. If you don't like it, at least you've eased your way back into large format again and you're free to move on to greener pastures. In case you do happen to like it...well, celebrate, as it's pretty much the most cost effective way of shooting 'real' film in 8x10.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I suggest X-Ray film.

It's on the slow side, and either blue-sensitive (like collodion and the earliest dry plates) or "green sensitive" (actually orthochromatic), and it's very inexpensive compared to even Fomapan.. It's slow, however (ISO 25 equivalent, give or take a stop) and slower if the light is yellow or red (golden hour? You'll need two for your exposure!). Given Fomapan's abysmal reciprocity departure, the green sensitive, double speed x-ray film may actually be faster in a pinhole camera.

Another good alternative is ordinary enlarging paper. This will need trimmed to fit in film holders, but if it's just going in a box, held in place by tape loops or similar, that won't matter -- and you can contact print to a positive just as you'd do with film (though you'll need a bit longer exposure). Still slower (ISO 6 to 12 for most versions), but no reciprocity departure for exposures measured in minutes. You can also buy Ilford/Harman Direct Positive, that makes a positive image when processed in normal print developing chemistry. It's expensive compared to normal enlarging paper, but there's something to be said for a Polaroid-like unique positive print.

 

[138S]

recommendations for some 8x10 sheet film (ISO 400) that is not too expensive to start off with until I figure out if this is something I really want to pursue?

Foma has a fair price, but the 400 ISO is overrated, calibration is made with an speed gain developer and at higer than regular CI, I'd use it at EI 200 or 300.

Instead, I'd use Foma 100, at EI 60 or 80.

 

[Two23]

If cost is a concern why not shoot 4x5?


Kent in SD

 

[138S]

Arista.edu sheet film is Fomapan. .... don't expect a product that is on par with e.g. Kodak TMX400 or HP5+ at a fraction of the price.

hmmm.... i was also thinking that, but presently I think that foma can be on par in many LF situations. Of course real ISO speed is a bit slower than what box says.

A difference I find is that Foma is very easy to scratch when wet, so extra care has to be played.

If cost is a concern why not shoot 4x5?

In the EU Foma 8x10 is cheaper han TMax 4x5, IIRC. At 2,6€ per 8x10" Foma sheet, while TMY is 12.6€ per sheet (in the EU).

Presently I find that in many 8x10" situations one may get exactly the same quality result with Foma than with TMY.

It's more about mastering the medium than about using an expensive film, that it will make a real difference only in some particular situations.

 

[W_Taylor76]

If cost is a concern why not shoot 4x5?


Kent in SD

I want to make contact prints instead of scanning for this particular project.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Get your hands on some 8x10 x-ray film. Cheap and fun to muck around with.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

One more for xray film. I use Fuji HRT with a couple of caveats. Anything orange or red will be darker and the second is when processing it, handle it with care. The emulsion is very soft and scratches easily. Another cheap film besides Arista is Shanghai.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One nice thing about X-ray film, other than cost, is you can handle it under a red safelight.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, xray is cheap and it can be processed under red light (as long as it's truly red without any hint of smaller wavelengths in its spectrum...) But that's really all it has going for it. The double sided stuff is just incredibly difficult to process without damaging the emulsion and its spectral response is...well, a matter of taste to put it kindly. It's also being phased out, with Ektascan likely disappearing entirely very soon and other types quite likely to follow. I'd much rather shell out the extra cash for a real photographic film, to be honest. But it's a matter of personal preference of course.

PS: extra cash is kind of relative. If I look at the "keeper" shots I made in xray film and the amount of film used to get it to work and that just resulted in mediocre (at best) images, xray was in fact a fairly expensive experiment for me.

 

[MattKing]

As this is in the Colour film sub-forum, I have to ask - do you mean inexpensive colour 8x10 film?

 

[Paul Howell]

If you look at Foma's data sheet for Fomapan 200 and 400 you will see that 200 comes very close to 200 in all developers, while 400 only gets to 400 with Microphen and LQN. At 8X10 grain should not be a problem so if you want the 1/2 to 3/4 extra stop in speed then Fomapan 400, other side 200 seems to be a versatile film. I notice that Freestyle only sells Aristia or Foma in 50 sheet packs, while you can get Bergger and Catlab in 25 sheet boxes. Cost more per sheet but somewhat less upfront outlay.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

One nice thing about X-ray film, other than cost, is you can handle it under a red safelight.

Developing by inspection under a red safelight is the fun part of shooting orthochromatic film. In the old days, a lot of photographers developed panchromatic under a dim green safelight.

 

[DWThomas]

Another pinholer using X-ray film here -- Fuji HR-T green sensitive in my case. 8x10 film is an interesting situation. When I first looked at the idea I was thinking in terms of the cost of getting started. At the time it appeared that among the various makers, the cheaper the film was per sheet, the larger the minimum sized package was, so laying out a hundred dollars or so was an "entry" cost -- I would just get more sheets with some than others. When I turned up a link to an ePrey seller who offered 100 sheet boxes of the Fuji X-ray material for around $45 including shipping, that was an easy decision!

I will admit that now I am thinking I'd like to try some more "normal" emulsion one of these days just to see what the spectral response does for me, but I still have quite a few sheets of the X-ray stuff on hand. Haven't looked recently, but years back Kodak had some ten-sheet packages of Tmax and the like -- but good grief, like 9 or 10 dollars a sheet!

Links on the page about my 8x10 camera will take you to what I've been able to do with the X-ray material. I develop in HC110 1+63 (like most of what I expose) and use what I'd guess is heavy exposure and pulled development to tame a tendency to high contrast. Given the intended use there is no manufacturer information on using the stuff for general photography.

 

[removed account4]

if you have an aversion to X-ray film, see if you can get your hands on some ortho lith, I think you can develop it in HC110 and it comes out like regular old film. you might also look to see if mrfoto1 is selling rolls of aero film on eBay. you'd have to cut it down yourself but it is not expensive at all, and he's a super night guy. then there is Shanghai or lucky film in out of china. affordable and works...

good luck !

ps if it is color film you are looking for, contact freestyle and ask if they have any short date film, years ago I bought a ton of short date/ expired color 8x10 film from them, it was not expensive.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yeah, xray is cheap and it can be processed under red light (as long as it's truly red without any hint of smaller wavelengths in its spectrum...) But that's really all it has going for it. The double sided stuff is just incredibly difficult to process without damaging the emulsion and its spectral response is...well, a matter of taste to put it kindly. It's also being phased out, with Ektascan likely disappearing entirely very soon and other types quite likely to follow. I'd much rather shell out the extra cash for a real photographic film, to be honest. But it's a matter of personal preference of course.

PS: extra cash is kind of relative. If I look at the "keeper" shots I made in xray film and the amount of film used to get it to work and that just resulted in mediocre (at best) images, xray was in fact a fairly expensive experiment for me.

I use it under an orange/amber safe light light at home and at my school. X-ray has allowed my students to work with large format pinhole.

 

[W_Taylor76]

As this is in the Colour film sub-forum, I have to ask - do you mean inexpensive colour 8x10 film?

No, it is B&W film. I realized after that I clicked on the wrong film type, but I don’t know if there is a way to move the thread to the correct sub-forum.

 

[Donald Qualls]

No, it is B&W film. I realized after that I clicked on the wrong film type, but I don’t know if there is a way to move the thread to the correct sub-forum.

The recommended method is to click "report post" on your first post in the thread, and in the comment section of the report ask for a moderator to move the thread to the correct sub-forum.

 

[koraks]

I use it under an orange/amber safe light light at home and at my school.

Well, lucky you. I've used it under red leds that turned out to be of insufficient spectral purity with severe fogging as a result, at least the green sensitive film types I tried. Blue sensitive was of course a different story. Tried that too, but didn't like it a bit.
In the end it's a simple matter of checking the datasheet of the film and/or performing a fogging test.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

I thought catlabs had an 80 Iso 25 sheets fairly cheap ? any good ?? idk . . . .

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't like the Fomapan 400 but the 200 is really nice at 100EI, i use it for 120 and 5x4, the only reason I'm not shooting it in 10x8 is I have Fortepan 200 and EFKE PL25 around 6 50 sheet boxes left, then I'll switch to Fomapan.

Ian

 

[removedacct1]

If this is an exploratory exercise (deciding if you want to pursue this at all) then why not just make some paper negatives? Cheap, easy to process, quick for evaluation purposes.

 

[138S]

I thought catlabs had an 80 Iso 25 sheets fairly cheap ? any good ?? idk . . . .

Reportedly, sensitometric curves of this film exactly match those of Shanghai GP3, also there are Shanghai stickers in many products... CatLabs say Shanghai stamps are only stamps... If it is not GP3 at least it works the same.

GP3 is an interesting film, anywaw.