It's a shame we cannot convert Ektar into a transparency

[AgX]

Of couse, I mentioned RA4 display transparency material almost as a joke in line with all the other nonsense on this thread - it would be perfectly doable technically; but otherwise, it's a ridiculous idea, and I doubt anyone will find a logical incentive to try it.

It is a transparency material designed to be exposed through standard C-41 camera film and to be processed in RA-4. I do not see what is ridiculous on just exactly doing this but with enlarging this transparency in mind.

 

[koraks]

I do not see what is ridiculous on just exactly doing this but with enlarging this transparency in mind.

In fact, it's the EXACT answer to the topic title: it creates a transparency from Ektar. Nothing ridiculous about it. Mount on a wall in a backlit frame. I bet it would be gorgeous. In fact, it's tempting...logical incentive? Good grief, this is still photography, isn't it? Let's hope it's not all about logical incentives.

 

[AgX]

Only problem is that Ilford Imaging went under, Agfa cancelled these films and thus only Fuji and Kodak Alaris remain, and in addition these are not availabe in 35mm etc.

 

[grainyvision]

ECP film is as such intended to be the transparency. Though in a a 2-films negative-positive process. As you indicated, using it as camera film and doing a reversal processing is calling for problems.

The alternative would be using a maskless C-41 film (after the recent cancellation of the Agfa film, only the Kodak film remains) as camera film in a reversal process. But neither gamma nor Dmax would be as used in reversal film.

I've tried a maskless C-41 film, I think it was from Agfa. It gave really terrible results both when processed as a negative and positive (in C-41 reversal or E-6). The colors were really wonky and there is a mask, but it's grey instead of orange. Interestingly though, processing it in C-41 reversal and doing liberal digital color correction did allow for some of the nicest results. The film when processed as reversal though had a particular sheen to it. I actually did a rebleach+refix because it looked almost like bleach bypass or under fixed film, but this gave no difference in results. I'd have to look if I can find the raw film somewhere to take a picture of the particular look it had. Again though, after digital color correction it ended up being pretty nice pictures

 

[DREW WILEY]

AgX - the typical Photrio participant just doesn't seem to have much in common with big commercial labs willing to buy a big expensive kink-mark prone spool of material to load into an automated cutter than then roll into an big expensive digital printer for sake of big glitzy backlit advertising displays. I could easily do that kind of thing in my own personal facility completely darkroom style, but why? The only gallery franchise out there that utilizes this kind of material I won't even mention because I find it's work disgustingly kitchy, and the visual result is about as elegant as an oversized backlit cheap Hamm's beer sign in the window of a sleazy biker bar in a bad neighborhood. But unless somebody already has the transparency film on hand and wants to experiment, I wouldn't recommend getting involved with it unless they 1) have the will and specialized punch and register gear to learn effective contrast control via masking (assuming optical only workflow, not scanning an PS alteration; and 2) they have the ability to flawlessly cold-mount on truly even backlit sources, an even more daunting task requiring special skills and pricey equipment. Of course, someone could just tack small examples to a window or lampshade; but then that big roll is going to take a long long time to use up. Casual applications would be hard to commercially justify on a cost and fuss basis; and the market demand is probably non-existent. Where the real money is made is in having the ability to both print and face-mount huge advertising pieces for corporations able to afford them. And sometimes the framing itself can cost tens of thousands of dollars apiece. Have at it!

 

[grainyvision]

AgX - the typical Photrio participant just doesn't seem to have much in common with big commercial labs willing to buy a big expensive kink-mark prone spool of material to load into an automated cutter than then roll into an big expensive digital printer for sake of big glitzy backlit advertising displays. I could easily do that kind of thing in my own personal facility completely darkroom style, but why? The only gallery franchise out there that utilizes this kind of material I won't even mention because I find it's work disgustingly kitchy, and the visual result is about as elegant as an oversized backlit cheap Hamm's beer sign in the window of a sleazy biker bar in a bad neighborhood. But unless somebody already has the transparency film on hand and wants to experiment, I wouldn't recommend getting involved with it unless they 1) have the will and specialized punch and register gear to learn effective contrast control via masking (assuming optical only workflow, not scanning an PS alteration; and 2) they have the ability to flawlessly cold-mount on truly even backlit sources, an even more daunting task requiring special skills and pricey equipment. Of course, someone could just tack small examples to a window or lampshade; but then that big roll is going to take a long long time to use up. Casual applications would be hard to commercially justify on a cost and fuss basis; and the market demand is probably non-existent. Where the real money is made is in having the ability to both print and face-mount huge advertising pieces for corporations able to afford them. And sometimes the framing itself can cost tens of thousands of dollars apiece. Have at it!

For the Fuji Trans stuff, I've tried sourcing small amounts and it seems impossible. Minimum order is something like $1500 worth for a huge roll. I've contacted a local lab that offers it but they said it'd be too much of a pain to get a light tight clipping of it. The base itself I assume is also unsuitable for roll film purposes. I imagine it would be ideal for "sheet film" but not suitably flexible for anything else if it could be used. There are definitely some people who shoot direct positive paper images using RA-4 reversal, but it almost always has problems unless using a very tightly controlled environment with test filtration and lighting. Also going small like 4x5 will be limiting as the grain/mottle typical of RA-4 reversal will stand in the way of clarity at small sizes

 

[DREW WILEY]

I work with the Fujiflex Supergloss polyester medium, and it's way more resistant to scratching, dents, and static issues than Cibachrome was; but I'd imagine that the transparent version would be darn fussy, especially when it comes to mounting flat.
The cold mount acrylic foil can cost as much as the printing medium itself, and of course, you then have to add the cost of the translucent white acrylic sheet itself, what it takes to get it evenly back illuminated, and the fact that most such lighting options contain quite a bit of UV which is going to shorten image life - no big deal for advertising usage, but not realistic for allegedly collectable images, as some of these are being sold using unrealistic and deceptive permanence promises by unscrupulous galleries.
Cibachrome was sometimes shot in-camera using conventional sheet film holders. But getting the color properly balanced was a major chore needing stacked filters over the lens - not easy like enlarger colorhead controls. I haven't heard of anyone trying reversal of Fujiflex media shot in camera yet; but there would be analogous filtration issues. If it worked out, it would hold way more detail than ordinary RC paper. But it only comes in big rolls too.

 

[AgX]

For the Fuji Trans stuff, I've tried sourcing small amounts and it seems impossible. Minimum order is something like $1500 worth for a huge roll. I've contacted a local lab that offers it but they said it'd be too much of a pain to get a light tight clipping of it. The base itself I assume is also unsuitable for roll film purposes.

These materials are not intended as camera films, my remark on them not being available as 35mm ( I did not even speak of rollfilm) was as some of us have 35mm cassettes for copy films for contact or projection copying. Also a standardized strip would facilitate processing in a reel.

Fom a sheet respective strips could be cut.

I by purpose hinted at Ilford and Agfa as they offered such films in sheets.

 

[DREW WILEY]

They're thick films. Could potentially slide into most sheet film holders; no way anyone is going to make roll film out of them.
The biggest problem otherwise is going to be some sharpness loss and flare issues due to probably needing several stacked filters to achieve realistic color balance.

 

[AgX]

Drew, you still are considering these RA-4 films as taking films.
We discussed them as being used in the photographic chain as print films for images taken on C-41 camera films. Exactly what they were designed for. Only with the possibility of using then not only in a light box, but as slide too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I talked about both, if you reread my posts. The unfortunate connotation of using the term, "slides", is that I presume you mean 35mm work specifically. In principle, the term, "chrome" or "positive" would be preferable, because it doesn't limit size. Yes, one could contact a 35mm CN film shot onto RA4 transparency material if they wanted to, and end up with a 35mm positive. But just like I said, a single bulk roll of RA4 transparency material would make nearly 50,000 slides. How many grandchildren and great-grandchildren lab helpers does one have anyway? But in ordinary usage, backlit transparencies are significantly enlarged - enough for the application of this material to make sense. For just 35mm conversion, it would be endless purgatory unless one already had a roll on hand for more typical purposes. Just shoot real slide film and be done with it !

 

[MattKing]

In principle, the term, "chrome" or "positive" would be preferable

Or even better, transparency.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Indeed, Matt. APUG jargon often annoys me because it tends to short-circuit the conversation with assumptions about format or enlargement capabilities, etc.

 

[AgX]

The unfortunate connotation of using the term, "slides", is that I presume you mean 35mm work specifically.

Yes, when I use the term slide I mean 35mm film and sometimes 60mm too, but MF slides are a rarity even more.

The term "transparency" is the umbrella term for any transparent/translucive positive.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I once glass-mounted 6X7 slides, long ago. Kept about 10% of my early Kodachrome and Agfa 50 35mm slides, along with a good projector. I rarely shoot 35mm color, and print 35mm black and white only once or twice a year. I use the Nikon more as a scouting tool, and then return with something bigger. 6X9 is nice because it has the same proportions, but holds way more detail. When the wind is cooperative, I'm more apt to switch up to large format, but I like working with them all. But in the darkroom itself, the bigger the better.