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.
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.
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.I do not see what is ridiculous on just exactly doing this but with enlarging this transparency in mind.
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.
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.
Or even better, transparency.In principle, the term, "chrome" or "positive" would be preferable
Yes, when I use the term slide I mean 35mm film and sometimes 60mm too, but MF slides are a rarity even more.The unfortunate connotation of using the term, "slides", is that I presume you mean 35mm work specifically.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?