By the way : What are you willing to pay for Ektachrome100 4 x 5

[trendland]

The pricing for Ektachrome 120 is in comparison to Fuji Velvia 120 (in the same percentage less than Ektachrome 135 is less to Fuji E6 Films.)

But the question is : How much would you spend for Ektachrome 4 x 5 inch :

Have you any idea of a good deal (remember the pricing for Fuji sheeds is to 20pcs.)

with regards

 

[trendland]

Oh ....not so much interest in sheed film ?
Ektachrome 100 is with realy extreme resolution in higher formats. (Remember : Fuji Velvia50 in
8 x 10 is discontinued).
It is the pricing right ..........?

......understand - btw. : the pricing I have in mind to some sheeds (1/2 year before proffessional film dealer bankruptcy....). ....have been confortabe to me (not to
the dealer) :

with regards

 

[koraks]

I've been sitting on some boxes of 4x5 E6. I don't know exactly what to do with it. It doesn't print, it doesn't project with any reasonably available equipment - the only things I could do with it is framing the sheets and display them against a backlight, or scan them. I don't like the latter, so that leaves just the backlit framing option.

Affordable 4x5 (or even 8x10) C41 - now that's something that would be useful.

 

[BradS]

If it were fresh E100G, I'd pay $2.50 per sheet...maybe as much as #3.25 per if I had a specific project in mind.

 

[EdSawyer]

you can always cross-process E6 as C41 and print it that way. I have a box of expired Ektachrome 4x5 that I will probably do that with at some point.

 

[koraks]

That would be a nice experiment. Maybe for a purpose that doesn't require near-accurate color reproduction. It may come in handy.

 

[trendland]

I've been sitting on some boxes of 4x5 E6. I don't know exactly what to do with it. It doesn't print, it doesn't project with any reasonably available equipment - the only things I could do with it is framing the sheets and display them against a backlight, or scan them. I don't like the latter, so that leaves just the backlit framing option.

Affordable 4x5 (or even 8x10) C41 - now that's something that would be useful.

Your statement concerning c41 sheeds has indeed some logic koraks.Actually it would be quite enough to serve the market with c41 in 4x5/8x10 because (most) photograpers are printing.
So there would be no need to sheeds in E6 (as you mentioned - so if I understand you correct).
The use of sheed film E6 for projection of slides - is a market what have never been existed in
significant orders of magnitude. I guess one can indeed say so!
The darkroom printing of E6 onto positive paper (Ilfochrome/Chibachrome) was a great experience
for those who did it in the past. But today ?
Today there is a way what have changed the whole workflow with bw/c41/E6 : the scanning workflow.
I personally would prefer darkroom made prints. But from E6 ? Why not scanning E6 sheeds in 4x5?
Here is a guy who is explaining the real advantage from scanning 4x5 with professional equipment.(because if you are shooting 4x5 you actually want to have the max. quality ).



This Hasselblad machine is discontinued btw and still expensive in used condition. But it make real sence for extraordinary quality (I use it from time to time - but I don't need scans in general much often)

To me the sence with E6 sheeds is that it can be used like c41 sheeds (with printing from scans) -
but the additional profit is to hold this big format films in own hands for visual inspection !
(With c41 - concerning the colors - not practical).

In short : E6 film in sheeds is looking just great!

with regards

PS : There are some more benefits from E6 in regard of film characteristics to some photographers!

 

[koraks]

If I'd want high-quality digital, why on earth would I mess about with film anyway? Medium format digital these days is very good indeed and it gets more affordable by the day. Hence, for me, I see no need for e6 sheet film. I'll probably use mine in experiments sooner or later, but I wouldn't consider buying any new film.

 

[warden]

If I'd want high-quality digital, why on earth would I mess about with film anyway? Medium format digital these days is very good indeed and it gets more affordable by the day. Hence, for me, I see no need for e6 sheet film. I'll probably use mine in experiments sooner or later, but I wouldn't consider buying any new film.

There are lots of tools available to get the look we want using ones and zeros, whether we start with a big piece of film or a big digital sensor. It just comes down to what you like best as a photographer. I think E6 will remain a niche within a niche, serving those that value the E6 approach and what it has to offer - I just hope that volume remains steady enough to continue production. There's just nothing else like it.

 

[trendland]

If I'd want high-quality digital, why on earth would I mess about with film anyway?

Perhaps - because you may reach with 4x5 (8 x 10 would show it more clear) a resolution wich is not possible with digital cameras cheaper as USD 50.000,-

with greetings

PS : Of course a film scanner (also the best "Heidelberg" true drum scanner out oft the past) isn't
able to show all information a film/negative/positive may contain.
So a darkroom workflow is allways better. Because the losses of information (with a real gold lens)
are smaler in comparison what a scanned negative/positive will miss.

Hard to find arguments against your workflow with c41 film koraks.....

And comming back to topics " From the side of pricing there will be no pulse comming from
cheaper Ektachrome 100. 4x5 /8x10...." - against c41 pricing.

In the best way Ektachrome will cost not so very much more in comparison to c41 sheeds.!

 

[koraks]

To each their own. Large format transparencies are gorgeous. I just see no reason for me to go that route.

 

[ME Super]

What if you could contact print your 35mm C-41 negatives (or 120 C-41 negatives) onto Ektachrome sheet film, and then skip the first developer and reversal bath steps, going straight into the color developer step? This would likely require the 6-bath E-6 chemistry, as the 3-bath combines the reversal bath with the color developer. It might make high-speed slide photography possible again without a push. But I'd personally rather see E400 in 35mm or 120 before I'd go the route of 4x5 or 8x10 E6 for contact printing negatives to get slides. Or, ooh, I know! How about some affordable film recorders that will work with a modern Windows OS?

 

[trendland]

What if you could contact print your 35mm C-41 negatives (or 120 C-41 negatives) onto Ektachrome sheet film, and then skip the first developer and reversal bath steps, going straight into the color developer step? This would likely require the 6-bath E-6 chemistry, as the 3-bath combines the reversal bath with the color developer. It might make high-speed slide photography possible again without a push. But I'd personally rather see E400 in 35mm or 120 before I'd go the route of 4x5 or 8x10 E6 for contact printing negatives to get slides. Or, ooh, I know! How about some affordable film recorders that will work with a modern Windows OS?

Aha I see : a very special workflow you are going to intend with E6 sheeds ME Super!.....hmm...
I have to think about - but why not, it should be absolutely possible in the way you described.

With one exeption (just from my point) : To higher the resolution/color saturation a.s.o. with printing film on film from higher formats isn't possible.
The other way should be operational (to print film from higher formats onto 120/35mm films.
That would result not so much losses from original quality - but would (perhaps) not cause a better resolution in comparison to shot direct with 120/35mm ...so it would make not so much sense.

But prints on sheed film (c41 onto c41/E6 onto E6) would be looking nice in general - no question.

with regards

 

[lantau]

I don't understand why everyone is going on about projection. It's great, of course, and I have the equipment for 35mm and medium format. The projectors where cheap. If large format was cheaply available I'd get it, too. But I don't use it much.

A slide on a light plate is unsurpassed, for me at least. 35mm is a bit inconvenient because a loupe is a must. For 6x6 it's a mix of viewing with and without, but sheet slides are amazing. And all I have are slides from my 4x5 pinhole, because I don't have a large format camera.

As for framing; I have space on the wall for exactly four darkroom prints. Two larger, two smaller ones. They rotate, but only very occasionally. I have to view my other prints just like any 4x5 slide. Taking them out of their box and enjoy them. Then put them back to sleep.


I only print (b/w and colour) because it's a great hobby and the best way, available to me, to properly visualise negatives. But otherwise I wouldn't care for them. For general photography one of the best things when digital came around was the elimination of prints. Consumers don't care for them, IMHO, except for the few special ones. As a photo book of a special occasion they are nice too.

So don't write off slides. Prints are a niche as well, at least in the mass market. And for those who do photography for its own sake (non point and shoot consumer) a slide is worth at least as much as a print. Of course the demography here is a bit biased towards negative shooters.

 

[lantau]

About the price... I guess Fuji isn't cheap but it didn't stop me from buying Provia 4x5 for my pinhole. About €90 for 20 sheets. Velvia is €20 more, that hurts and with a pinhole the increased contrast might be difficult.

Fuji C41 sheets were the same price when still available, iirc. I believe Kodak C41 is more expensive.

I can't imagine Ektachrome being cheaper than Portra.

 

[trendland]

I don't understand why everyone is going on about projection. It's great, of course, and I have the equipment for 35mm and medium format. The projectors where cheap. If large format was cheaply available I'd get it, too. But I don't use it much.

A slide on a light plate is unsurpassed, for me at least. 35mm is a bit inconvenient because a loupe is a must. For 6x6 it's a mix of viewing with and without, but sheet slides are amazing. And all I have are slides from my 4x5 pinhole, because I don't have a large format camera.

As for framing; I have space on the wall for exactly four darkroom prints. Two larger, two smaller ones. They rotate, but only very occasionally. I have to view my other prints just like any 4x5 slide. Taking them out of their box and enjoy them. Then put them back to sleep.


I only print (b/w and colour) because it's a great hobby and the best way, available to me, to properly visualise negatives. But otherwise I wouldn't care for them. For general photography one of the best things when digital came around was the elimination of prints. Consumers don't care for them, IMHO, except for the few special ones. As a photo book of a special occasion they are nice too.

So don't write off slides. Prints are a niche as well, at least in the mass market. And for those who do photography for its own sake (non point and shoot consumer) a slide is worth at least as much as a print. Of course the demography here is a bit biased towards negative shooters.

..hhmmm OK - to be faire - There is NO real great (immense) difference in projection from my experience. 35mm slide projection can look real great and offen it is indeed.
But the midt-format equipment is much more reliable (and more expensive).

I find out a main difference (beside the brilliance of midt format projection) it is the grain !
If you (sometimes) identify a "little" grain from 35mm projection - there is NO CHANCE for grain in mit format.
Projection of 4 x 5 ? I can't say - there might be some equipment avaible but so as you mentioned :

It is just amazing because sheed slides are amazing from its own!

with regards

 

[trendland]

I can't imagine Ektachrome being cheaper than Portra.[/QUOTE]

I agree in concern of Portra - but the question is : Cheaper than Provia OR cheaper than Velvia!

with regards

PS : AS you said : Fuji "hurts" meanwhile (from pricing) but this seams to be the "niche" for Ectachrome sheeds....,just from my point of course....!

 

[faberryman]

Portra 4x5 at B&H is $33.95 for ten sheets. Portra 400 4x5 is $49.95 for ten sheets. Ektachrome will not be cheaper. It is likely to be more expensive.

 

[trendland]

Portra 4x5 at B&H is $33.95 for ten sheets. Portra 400 is $49.95 for ten sheets. Ektachrome will not be cheaper.

Yes the question is in regard of 20 sheeds compared to Fuji Velvia AND to Fuji Provia to the time of Fuji pricing (guess they will increase next) WHEN Ektachrome will appeare at the sceene!
with greetings

 

[ME Super]

Aha I see : a very special workflow you are going to intend with E6 sheeds ME Super!.....hmm...
I have to think about - but why not, it should be absolutely possible in the way you described.

With one exeption (just from my point) : To higher the resolution/color saturation a.s.o. with printing film on film from higher formats isn't possible.
The other way should be operational (to print film from higher formats onto 120/35mm films.
That would result not so much losses from original quality - but would (perhaps) not cause a better resolution in comparison to shot direct with 120/35mm ...so it would make not so much sense.

But prints on sheed film (c41 onto c41/E6 onto E6) would be looking nice in general - no question.

with regards

Hey there, trendland.
I had said "contact print." This means I'd be putting the emulsion side of the 35mm negative in contact with the emulsion side of the Ektachrome sheet. I'd end up getting about 6 negatives on each sheet of 4x5 Ektachrome, with no enlargement. If it was 8x10, I might get 30 or so negatives contacted on a sheet. By contact printing, there's no enlargement, so the image comes out the same size as the negative.

Interestingly enough, Photo Engineer has said that one way to print slides with an analog workflow is to do essentially what you were talking about, which would be to project the slide onto 4x5 Portra, develop that, and then make your print from that with a contact print. That workflow uses the Portra as an internegative. Kodak used to make an internegative film for just this purpose, but it was discontinued some time ago. Portra is probably the closest thing we have to a low-contrast negative film suitable for internegatives.

Regards,
ME Super

 

[lantau]

Hey there, trendland.
I had said "contact print." This means I'd be putting the emulsion side of the 35mm negative in contact with the emulsion side of the Ektachrome sheet. I'd end up getting about 6 negatives on each sheet of 4x5 Ektachrome, with no enlargement. If it was 8x10, I might get 30 or so negatives contacted on a sheet. By contact printing, there's no enlargement, so the image comes out the same size as the negative.

Interestingly enough, Photo Engineer has said that one way to print slides with an analog workflow is to do essentially what you were talking about, which would be to project the slide onto 4x5 Portra, develop that, and then make your print from that with a contact print. That workflow uses the Portra as an internegative. Kodak used to make an internegative film for just this purpose, but it was discontinued some time ago. Portra is probably the closest thing we have to a low-contrast negative film suitable for internegatives.

Regards,
ME Super

I wonder if that might be a good use for Vision3 50D. The contrast is too low for RA4 printing. But if the requirement here is to work with extra low contrast maybe it could just work out. If 35mm is too small you can get it from Cinestill in Mediumformat, for a price. When contact printing, the missing antihalation could be ok, perhaps?

 

[1kgcoffee]

I am mostly interested in 120. If it were priced similar to Portra I would shoot the crap out of it.

 

[jim10219]

I'd pay as much as Velvia 100, since that's it's direct competitor. Maybe not even that much, since Velvia is so expensive.

Honestly, when I first got into large format, I shot a lot of Velvia. But I kind of migrated towards C41 due to the narrow exposure latitude of E6 film. I found myself in fewer and fewer situations where E6 would deliver a better product than Ektar or Provia.

I only really enlarge B&W film. With color film, I usually scan and print. RA4 isn't worth the effort to me. So E6 and C41 are pretty equal to me there.

 

[trendland]

Hey there, trendland.
I had said "contact print." This means I'd be putting the emulsion side of the 35mm negative in contact with the emulsion side of the Ektachrome sheet. I'd end up getting about 6 negatives on each sheet of 4x5 Ektachrome, with no enlargement. If it was 8x10, I might get 30 or so negatives contacted on a sheet. By contact printing, there's no enlargement, so the image comes out the same size as the negative.

Interestingly enough, Photo Engineer has said that one way to print slides with an analog workflow is to do essentially what you were talking about, which would be to project the slide onto 4x5 Portra, develop that, and then make your print from that with a contact print. That workflow uses the Portra as an internegative. Kodak used to make an internegative film for just this purpose, but it was discontinued some time ago. Portra is probably the closest thing we have to a low-contrast negative film suitable for internegatives.

Regards,
ME Super

OK ME Super - it was a little misnderstanding - never mind. Well " contact" printing I know - is from 35mm onto 35mm film. I remember cheap offers of 35 mm
contact holderrs from plastic for the ground and acrylic/plexiglass to the topside just at that time when most photographers have forgotten what contacs are!
The reason for cheap offers - I guess.
OK but why not contact printing onto sheeds (if it is economical from costs).
The main advantage from contact printing in general are the minimal losses of information inside each original negative/positive what has to be dublicated.
To me - the losses caused from enlarger lenses are quite higher. That means with optical workflow you will have less quality (even if you hold the scale ).
The next step (of much more losses) is digital workflow via scanning.
But contact printing is a smart method to hold the max. of information.
In the past I often wondered about bw photographers with giant formats.
16x20 inch for example..! Untill I understand that some spoke about enlargements of 16x20..!

But indeed 16x20 sheed Films (and larger) are still avaible in bw! And indeed some shot 16x20 and larger! How is the workflow with enlargements? How big have that industrial enlargers have to be?
How big have that darkrooms have to be?
The key seams to be the following : Some photographers higher their formats (they changed from 20x30 cm cameras to 16x20inch cameras) because they want to have bigger scaled prints!!!!

DAMNED ....and how big is enough then for them?

It is such simple : They want a size bigger than 20x30cm = 16x20inch (40,6 x 50,8 cm) because they make contact prints (with extraordinary quality) - Aha - I was a little afraid about the dimentions of enlargers!
Contact printing is the key!

with regards

 

[trendland]

I am mostly interested in 120. If it were priced similar to Portra I would shoot the crap out of it.

Well -there is one concern for the economical side of E6 in general. (Often it is forgotten).

D E V E L O P M E N T !

I remember special offers of amatheuric labs (commercial labs wich serve the demand most to amatheuric photographers) at just 1 buck per film 35mm/120 in 2005 !
The normal pricing was at 2 bucks for E6 in general 35/120!
Professional labs offered prices 3 times higher at the same time!

Meanwhile you have to pay more with 120 films compared to 35mm development (in lot of labs).

We will not ask what sheeds may cost per developed single E6 sheed next. Pricing is increasing more and more.....and ? MORE...,!

But the simple answer (for sheeds most photographers do it) seams to be : home development.

Pricing for E6 chems is also increasing more and more.......and...,!

But with 120 film 1kgcoffee wich is the format you prefer one may say : It doesn't hurt so very much!

Indeed with sheed film: "You are leaving the economical sector" ! But that we do know !

with regards