ebay and APUG classifiedes
Ektar 100 to be offered in Large Format
-
A
- Thread starter Steve Smith
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Fujica Super Fujica-6 folder, 6x6
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
Want to Buy WTB: "As Maine Goes" by John McKee
- Started by TheTrailTog
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 C Outfit - Body, 3 Finders, A24 Film Back, More!
- Started by indy_kid
Forum statistics
ebay and APUG classifiedes
I guess I'll be ordering lifetime supplies of 120 and 8x10 100 ISO Ektar and/or 160 ISO Portra soon.
Not a bad idea...for any color film...especially in sheet formats.
Adorama has the bigger sheets listed on their website, as if they're in stock. Usually they're pretty good about noting when stuff is backordered or otherwise not immediately available. Do they know something we don't? Kodak's website definitely says April 2010.
Duncan
Duncan
OK, I just ordered some of the 4x5 from Adorama, and once it's in your cart and you're checking out they warn that it's not actually in stock and shipping yet:
*Note: This is a New Item, Not in stock yet, expecting delivery from Manufacturer.
Please note: You can order this now and have us ship it as soon as it arrives.
We will not charge your card for any item, until it is ready to actually ship.
Duncan
*Note: This is a New Item, Not in stock yet, expecting delivery from Manufacturer.
Please note: You can order this now and have us ship it as soon as it arrives.
We will not charge your card for any item, until it is ready to actually ship.
Duncan
It's in the websites already? 
I don't mean to complain about the price but on the interview I am almost certain that Scott said it will cost less than Portra.....It costs just as much as Ektachrome if buying at Adorama.
You are right, he said less than Portra...and "less than E-6, since it can piggyback off the movie film stock", unlike the E-6. Don't know where Adorama is getting its pricing, but either Scott D. misspoke, or we should see Adorama lowering its price.
If you look at Ektar 100 in both 35mm and 120, it is meaningfully priced lower than Portra. Don't see why the 4x5 should be different- it's the same stuff.
The equivalent to 10 USD for a sheet of 8x10" colour negative film would be considered a spectacularly low price here in the UK taking into account price raises over the last few years. 8x10" Kodak Portra films are currently approx. 11.50 GB (maybe 18 USD) each.
Tom
Tom
Ouch... you guys need a Kodak plant over there to keep your prices lower.
I don't shoot L/F nothing bigger than 120, but I notice on Kodak's data sheet for Ektar that the 5x4 and 10x8 films have a granularity index for a 20"x16" print of less than 25, which is the smallest that the human eye can discern.
Ben... that 20"x16" granularity index is for the 5x4... err... 4x5, right? Gee whizz, that's 64"x80" for the 8x10... YIPEEEE! 
That would appear to stand to reason Mike, but they in fact quote the same granularity index for a 20"x16" print for both sizes in the data sheet, it might be that the stuff is so fine grained it can reach the maximum with the smaller size :confused:Ben... that 20"x16" granularity index is for the 5x4... err... 4x5, right? Gee whizz, that's 64"x80" for the 8x10... YIPEEEE!
Sounds like a goof (lack of complete/clear data) on Kodak's part. They probably loaned some of their digital techs to the analogue department that day to write the data sheet.
Maybe they cannot measure any lower than the instruments can read due to noise?
Or maybe it is impossible or meaningless to measure what the eye cannot see?
There is a limit in the ability to measure grain. I have cast sheets of dye that were grainless, but they measured a finite but small grain at about that level reported. So, the results you refer to are not unexpected to me.
What is stranger though is your thinking you can make a 64" x 80" print. How? The paper is kinda hard to get, and the equipment to process it isn't an everyday thing either.
PE
Or maybe it is impossible or meaningless to measure what the eye cannot see?
There is a limit in the ability to measure grain. I have cast sheets of dye that were grainless, but they measured a finite but small grain at about that level reported. So, the results you refer to are not unexpected to me.
What is stranger though is your thinking you can make a 64" x 80" print. How? The paper is kinda hard to get, and the equipment to process it isn't an everyday thing either.
PE
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ Yeah... for pure analogue maybe. But for us "hybrid folks" the sky's the limit on print size. Okay... the sky is just higher/broader.
What is stranger though is your thinking you can make a 64" x 80" print. How? The paper is kinda hard to get, and the equipment to process it isn't an everyday thing either.
PE
Using duct tape.
Er, if 4x5" gets you a certain result on 16x20" (4x mag), surely 8x10" gets you the same result on 32x40" (still 4x mag) not 64x80" ?
I reckon though that in either case, the limiting factor to your resolution is going to be diffraction in the objective lens, not film resolution unless you want basically no DOF at all. In which case we should be asking for Ektar 400 in LF sizes - it would still get stupidly low granularity on the print, yet not affect your ultimate resolution (diffraction being the limit still) and you'd get another two stops.
I reckon though that in either case, the limiting factor to your resolution is going to be diffraction in the objective lens, not film resolution unless you want basically no DOF at all. In which case we should be asking for Ektar 400 in LF sizes - it would still get stupidly low granularity on the print, yet not affect your ultimate resolution (diffraction being the limit still) and you'd get another two stops.
While we're at it let's ask for a new line of Kodachrome products for the revised K-16 process including Kodachrome 100, the finest grained reversal film to date, Kodachrome 400 for your cloudy day shots and Kodachrome 1000T just for kicks, the fastest available and also tungsten balanced slide film. Then of course we'd get our line of 800 and 1600 ultrafine grain negative tungsten balanced films. Logically. I'll pray with everyone else.
Forget all that greasy kids' stuff, Nicholas.
Gimme Portra 8,000T color neg film, in all formats under the sun!
Gimme Portra 8,000T color neg film, in all formats under the sun!
Woops... you're right. That's still not bad for barely being able to see any grain without a loupe.
My point was not so much that wishing will get us new emulsions but that using Ektar for resolution reasons in LF is a little silly. You'll get just as much sharpness in the print from something coarser, so you might as well go for something faster if you can get it.
If you want the Ektar colour, sure.
If you want the Ektar colour, sure.
I've found that Portra VC does not scan acceptably for big enlargements from 35mm in comparison to transparency films; this is apparently due to the artifact of grain aliasing.The imperceptible grain of Ektar is welcome as it doesn't present that bottleneck.
So the need for Ektar 100 in 4x5 and 8x10 may be not so much that there aren't already good emulsions like Portra VC in these sizes, but may be more about having one film that works equally well across formats and work-flows.
So the need for Ektar 100 in 4x5 and 8x10 may be not so much that there aren't already good emulsions like Portra VC in these sizes, but may be more about having one film that works equally well across formats and work-flows.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |