Is There ANY Reason To NOT Buy a 5x7 Today... COLOR NEGS Only?

Old-N-Feeble · Feb 25, 2012

Per the title...

I know that 5x7 film is less popular and, therefore fewer film makers are supporting it. All I'll ever want to shoot is Extar 100 because post-processing will be digital.

I performed a 'shopping' searched for "Kodak Ektar film" without the "quotes" and nothing came up. So my concern is any 5x7 camera I buy (for my needs) will be relegated to 6x17cm roll film and 4x5. Fortunately this camera has a generous 7 inches of rear slide so I could turn the 4x5 adapter back vertically and take 3 images overlapped 1/2 inch and create stitched 5x9 or so. Horizontally I can stitch 3 pieces to get a 4x11 using a wider, more comfortable overlap.

So... is 5x7 Ektar NLA? Anything else available that compares to Ektar 100?

** Posted on LFP.info also.

AnselAdamsX · Feb 25, 2012

I recently purchased a 5x7 back and portra 160. But I think you have to cut down any other emulsion.

EASmithV · Mar 2, 2012

From what I heard, they stopped cutting Ektar 100 in sheet sizes. Sucks, I loved it in 4x5.

thegman · Mar 2, 2012

EASmithV said:
From what I heard, they stopped cutting Ektar 100 in sheet sizes. Sucks, I loved it in 4x5.

Still seems readily available in 4x5 in the UK at least.

Brian C. Miller · Mar 2, 2012

Look at the Japan Exposures site. There is 5x7 Fuji currently available. For now.

PeteZ8 · Mar 2, 2012

EASmithV said:
From what I heard, they stopped cutting Ektar 100 in sheet sizes. Sucks, I loved it in 4x5.

What?!?!? I have seen nothing to that effect, and Kodak's site says "Now available in 4x5" and 8x10" sheet format"

ROL · Mar 2, 2012

I don't get it, unless you totally love the film process through and through. Why use 5X7 if you can't get color film anymore, and then intend only to scan it, not print it? 4X5 makes a hell of a lot more sense for any number of reasons, at this time. Film availability, lenses, more DOF. Less weight, expense and hassle all the way around.

And I shoot 5X7 in LF exclusively. But not for color. I have cut down expired 8X10 Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS positive successfully. That's a lot of trouble, for little or no benefit, if you're not actually going to engage the process and print the film yourself. The last I was aware, 5X7 color film is not even available in the US anymore. IMO, color has become the domain of digital.

I would conclude the reverse, given your stated desire. I don't think there is any reason to to buy a 5X7 today, color anything.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

It seems I'll be stitching multiple exposures... 2-4x5 for 4x8 or 3-4x5 for 4x10, 4x12 and 5x10. Stitching is more work but "most" photos won't suffer from it if planned carefully and executed well. It'll be enough of a challenge carrying a somewhat large 4x5 (also has a 5x7 back) into the field so 8x10 is more-or-less out of the equation. I chose this particular 4x5/5x7 for its generous 7" of rear shift to allow wide stitching. I just wish 5x7 Ektar was available. I know I can cut it to 5x7 but convincing a lab that I'll never mix-up types of film may be a challenge. If I CAN convince a lab to trust me then shooting 5x7 cut from 8x10 does expand my horizons up to 5x12 (two sheets of 5x7) which is where I really want to be!!

keithwms · Mar 2, 2012

I would advise thinking about eventually getting a 5x8 back, which of course allows you to do a single cut on 8x10 and get two frames. I got a custom 5x8 back from Shen Hao for something like $250.... very nicely made, and I think my holders came from chamonix.

The other thing is that there may still be some 5" colour aerial film floating around out there, keep your eyes open. I have quite alot of b&w 5" and 9.5" stuff, and a fair amount of 70mm portra. Something to think about. As I mentioned in some thread and in my apug blog, it's really easy to make a paper insert to put roll film into a sheet holder. Interesting things can result.

If you feel strongly about the aspect ratio, then make it happen! My decision on 5x8 was less guided by the (golden!) ratio than by practical considerations.

And yes, Japan Exposures still has a lot of 5x7 options.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

I REALLY want to stick with Ektar 100 for high quality scanning. I like to keep my options open and a 5x8 back is definitely a good option. Heck, the camera I'm buying would allow up to a 5x14 with just 2 sheets of film!! However, the camera I just sent a rather large down-payment for doesn't have that option. It's a Canham 4x5/5x7 Traditional (wood). I'm absolutely certain I cannot afford for K.B. Canham to custom-build a 5x8 back for this camera... as much as I'd LOVE to have one.

I do feel VERY strongly about aspect ratios. I strongly gravitate toward 2:3 and 1:2 images but "sometimes" prefer 1:3 or even 1:4 but the latter ratios are relatively rare.

vpwphoto · Mar 2, 2012

Why get on people and say "why would you...."
People make choices for strange and reasonable reasons.
OP just asked about stocking up. I say yes... (color). IF that floats your boat and you have the cash... stock up!

keithwms · Mar 2, 2012

vpwphoto said:
Why get on people and say "why would you...."
People make choices for strange and reasonable reasons.
OP just asked about stocking up. I say yes... (color). IF that floats your boat and you have the cash... stock up!

+1 totally agree

Do what you gotta do to increase the chance that you'll get the shots you want to get.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

You folks are awesome. This is why I love this forum.

keithwms · Mar 2, 2012

Old-N-Feeble said:
I REALLY want to stick with Ektar 100 for high quality scanning.

Well let me suggest taking a long, hard look at the fuji 160ns, I think you'll find that it scans at least as well if not better. And it is freshly available in 8x10.

The case for ektar is much stronger, I am led to believe, for ra4 printing. Scanned ektar actually seems to need substantial colour correction in the blues- this has been my experience with it. Several here have said that, despite that, it prints beautifully via ra4, so... oddly enough Kodak seems to have given us a film that doesn't scan as well as one would expect, given the market direction. (I would have thought film manufacturers would be looking to introduce films that scan easier, hence my comments to Ilford about introducing xp2 in sheet sizes.... but I digress)

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

Keith... Thank you!! I'll research Fuji's 160NS. I've been out of the game for awhile now so there's a lot of new information for me to absorb.

vpwphoto · Mar 2, 2012

What do you scan it on... my imacon only goes slightly larger than 4x5?

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

vpwphoto said:
What do you scan it on... my imacon only goes slightly larger than 4x5?

Nothing yet... thinking about an Epson 4990 but have recently been following a thread in which one individual is using an older DSLR with a high-quality flat field macro lens to take multiple images to stitch together. I'll bet a Sigma SD1 with a great macro lens would rock.

keithwms · Mar 2, 2012

Oh the 4990 rocks! Great purchase. I use that and I drum scan only if I really need it. DO NOT try to rephotograph with a DSLR- massive waste of time, unless you only need a basic image for web. The epson will demolish a DSLR on a copy stand, at much lower cost. The only issue is that you need a good PC with a lot of RAM and disk space because what you'll want to do is multiscan to reduce scan noise and then save a large high bit-depth file, initially, and then downsize that. Once you know what you're doing, you can easily generate very clean 100+ mp files from 5x7.

We don't discuss these issues in depth on APUG... ask over at hybridphoto.

ROL · Mar 2, 2012

vpwphoto said:
Why get on people and say "why would you...."

Oh, I don't know... maybe because this is supposed to be an analog forum, and his question involves a hybrid approach with increasingly difficult to source materials and digital methods to complete at the least, with what can otherwise be done more cheaply and reliably fully digitally at most. Or maybe he just wants to claim his method is classic while the result, the only thing people are actually likely to care about, is clearly digital.

Oh, and by the way, he asked "Is There ANY Reason To NOT Buy a 5x7 Today... COLOR NEGS Only?"

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

I've been out of the game for a long time now. Maybe my ignorance should tell me just to step down and forget about it...

keithwms · Mar 2, 2012

Hold on ROL, he didn't say he is interested in digital output only. Like many of us, he expressed an interest in the scan option. One of the major strengths of color film is the ability to go with traditional output and also the scan route. Yes, we've inappropriately discussed scanning, and for that I am sure we'll all say twenty Hail Ansels, but he did not say that he only wants to do digital.

Let's not put words in people's mouths, please; I have a scanner simply so that I can more easily share stuff online.

ONF, don't be put off, just bear in mind that we generally avoid discussing digital stuff here on APUG.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

I hear you, Keith. I forgot how whole-heartedly this forum is analog. In my youth I was fully analog too... but then again... digital didn't exist back then. Agfapan, Rodinal, selenium toner, and Ilford Gallery were my weapons of mass construction.

vpwphoto · Mar 2, 2012

ROL said:
Oh, I don't know... maybe because this is supposed to be an analog forum, and his question involves a hybrid approach with increasingly difficult to source materials and digital methods to complete at the least, with what can otherwise be done more cheaply and reliably fully digitally at most. Or maybe he just wants to claim his method is classic while the result, the only thing people are actually likely to care about, is clearly digital.

Oh, and by the way, he asked "Is There ANY Reason To NOT Buy a 5x7 Today... COLOR NEGS Only?"

I "scanned" the thread and there seemed to be nay-saying outside of hybrid stuff, regarding 5x7 use.

IF I create on film it stays photo-chemical through the end.

IF I scan film/print it is ONLY because a CUSTOMER needs HALFTONE DOTS! for reproduction.

Old-N-Feeble · Mar 2, 2012

I didn't start this thread for people to argue with each other about hybrid photography. I neglected to remember how RABIDLY analog this forum is on which I was posting. I'll not make the mistake again. In fact, I'll probably not post here ever again, thank you very much!!

MODS... please just close this thread to avoid further discord.

INTERESTING... the angry post which prompted my reply above magically disappeared. The MODS seem to be watching out for forum members' best interests!! Now I feel guilty about my comments above...

removed account4 · Mar 3, 2012

hi old-n-feeble

make sure you have a place lined up that will process
5x7 color negative film. i live in rhode island and i have to ship out of state
to have anything bigger than 120 color ( e6 or c41 ) processed.
i too like 5x7, its a great format ..

there are a handful of color options out there, ( maybe not ektar like you want, but others )
and some of them may require you get ir goggles, or a jig and trim 8x10 sheets down to 5x7 ...

getting metric film holders is a great idea, they are the same size outside as 5x7 so they fit in a 5x7 camera ..
there are additional films available in that size that aren't in 5x7 ...

good luck !
john

Is There ANY Reason To NOT Buy a 5x7 Today... COLOR NEGS Only?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency