The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,497
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I don;t understand the arguments about this. Better and more desirable products get marked up more all other things remaining equal including cost to manufacture. Do you want Mercedes to charge the same as Toyota? I just don't understand what the disagreement is about. If you can't afford a Mercedes, get a Toyota. Complaining that Mercedes charges too much is not how the world works. Do you think Leica cares about your arguments?
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format

Both Porta 120 and Portra 8x10 are the same 80sq inch Mercedes

Same car, a 200% price... Would you like that?
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,945
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format

That's about the extent of it - however '138s' apparently feels he's entitled to Kodak 8x10 film for the same price as Foma. Which suggests a massive ignorance of the differences in technology, manufacture, quality control, labour costs as much as it does a lack of understanding of the other relative costs of 8x10.

The reality is that Portra 120 prices arguably should be closer to 8x10 prices if you roughly follow historic pricing, but they can sell a lot more 120.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,497
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Both Porta 120 and Portra 8x10 are the same 80sq inch Mercedes

Same car, a 200% price... Would you like that?
I just bought Velvia 4x5 20 sheets at $145. Provia costs $90. In 35mm Velvia is $18.49 and Provia is $17. No one twisted my arm to pay 60% more for Velvia than Provia (both Fuji products). The whole world is full of different proce stuff that's similar. What are you suggesting that we have a command economy where prices are government controlled? That's what I'm hearing. If pricing was the same for all similar products, you wind up with a economy that produces crappy products. No one has the incentive to make better things.
 

Luckless

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Messages
1,362
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format

If the products in question are so comparable that you expect them to be able to follow basically the same price model, why worry about Kodak's prices when you could just use Foma for a fraction of the price?
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
I don;t understand the arguments about this...
Unless you're a psychiatrist, you will never get inside the mind of those who obsess irrationally.
...Do you want Mercedes to charge the same as Toyota?...
Having purchased new vehicles from both manufacturers, my answer is no. Given Mercedes' far lower quality, it would have to almost give the cars away for me to consider owning one again. I often said of my Mercedes that it would be nice for Daimler to have done top level design, with Toyota completing detailed design and then building the cars.

OK, this absurd thread can get back on "topic" now. Like Matt, I'm greatly enjoying the "Ignore" function.
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
If the products in question are so comparable that you expect them to be able to follow basically the same price model, why worry about Kodak's prices when you could just use Foma for a fraction of the price?

I'm not worried by BW Kodak prices because in BW LF I shot ilford that is every bit as good as Kodak and it has a fair LF pricing, but I was worried by LF Color Negative because there Kodak has a monopoly there and I had no other choice, but I solved it by using a 6x9cm roll film back, $1 per Portra shot, and to hell with expensive CN sheets.

Foma box vs Kodak box example is significative because it shows that there is no justification from the retailer's point of view to operate with sheet boxes, demostrating that LF overprice is related to the manufacturer's policy, not to the retailer, as you guessed: same retailer very different pricing policy.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,497
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Go out a shoot pictures with whatever. Once you develop and print it and hang it from your wall, you'll stand there proud and happy regardless of the manufacturer. Matter of fact, if you bought the more expensive film, you'll probably think it looks better than it is. How much is that worth?
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format

35mm Fuji slides are quite expensive, compare it to 120 slides and you'll find the true overprice.

Let me show you a better possibility: now you pay $7,25 per shot...

Instead just you may use a 6x12cm roll film back that has 70% of the 4x5 surface and you would pay only ($10/6shots) $1.6 per shot. Also easier to develop and for the same cost you can take x4.5 more shots, or spend 1/4 in film. Another advantage is that you probably will see the image in a TV, and 6:12 exactly matches the screen aspect ratio 1:2, so you won't have to crop anything or to reduce to use the full screen for maximum joy, so same yield for 1/4 of the cost.

Think it well, this is good advice... you would have saved $100 in your last Velvia purchase, enough for a premium restaurant meal after shooting.


__________

Goverment (sometimes, Standard Oil, ATT) looks after prices with anti-trust and anti-monopoly and anti-price fixing practices, prices have to be determined by competition, monopolies and prices fixing is old comunism, capitalism and modern chinese comunism are about competition, something we don't enjoy in the LF color film arena.
 
Last edited:

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,945
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
I solved it by using a 6x9cm roll film back, $1 per Portra shot, and to hell with expensive CN sheets.

That's your choice to go with 6x9 because you can afford it - and that's fine - it just didn't need dressed up in a multi-page whine at Kodak aimed at aggrandising yourself, your abilities or knowledge beyond actuality.
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
That's your choice to go with 6x9 because you can afford it - and that's fine -

Lachlan, I you want to pay it, pay it, me I've other interesting things to do with money than wasting it.

6x9cm has an impressive image quality yet and at 1€ per shot I can simply make x7 more shots than if shooting sheets, for portraiture having that posilibility it's important because taking a good face expresion may require several shots.

I would pay $1 instead $5, in the USA, but in the EU a 10 sheets Portra 160 box is 62.5€ which is $70, which is $7 per sheet.

Look, at that $7 per 4x5"shot I won't buy their sheets, 6x9cm at 1€ per shot has total image quality in practice for portraiture... me I prefer taking more shots while still having movements.

Portra LF price in the EU is unbearable, time to drop Portra sheets for me. If kodak pricing policy was like the ilford one I still would shot 4x5 Portra, but in present situation I move to 120 roll film back.


it just didn't need dressed up in a multi-page whine at Kodak aimed at aggrandising yourself, your abilities or knowledge beyond actuality.

You are free to discredit yourself in this way, nice to see it.
 
Last edited:

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
Might as well shoot digital if that's the case!

Not exactly, there is spectral footprint, even in a TV. What do you do with 4x5 velvia shots ?

Anyway regarding Image Quality human eye is not able to see much a difference between 6x12cm and 4x5".

6x12" sports 300MPix recorded effective yet, 250Ppix efective 8000dpi drum scanned, so it's an overkill for most of uses you may think.

Also the 6x12cm pano may be more suitable (taste) for landscape than 4x5.

To me 6x12cm is as good as 4x5" for landscape, but being 1/4 the cost...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
...a multi-page whine at Kodak aimed at aggrandising yourself, your abilities or knowledge beyond actuality.
So the ignored one is being true to form. And those who engage continue to accrue flat spot on their heads. Advice: use the ignore function! It works, both to immediately purge one's screen of nonsense and, over time, if everyone uses it, to make absurd posts stop happening.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,996
Format
8x10 Format
Such a difficult topic.... I shot 120 roll film yesterday; 8X10 today, or 4X5? Have to decide in the next hour. Price won't have anything to do with it because I don't waste film; the bigger the format, the more conservatively it's shot, so the cost comes out about the same. Depends on the lighting, my mood, whether it starts raining or not.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,119
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
What do you do with 4x5 velvia shots ?
Not much at all. In fact, currently my only interest in color film is C41 because I can fairly easily print it.
And I agree that 6x9cm comes quite close to 4x5" in quality, but I personally don't like the act of removing the back from a 4x5 to mount a roll film holder. A sheet film holder is a bit more convenient/quick to slide in.
Does that warrant the price uplift for sheet film? I don't know; all I do know is that I don't shoot 4x5 like 35mm - each shot is more contemplated and consequently there are fewer of them. €7 per shot hurts, but it's a pain I'm willing to bear if/when I want to shoot LF color. Although I must admit I still have a pile of expired C41 sheet film to work my way through.
8x10 I just find unwieldy, annoying and hard on my spine, so I don't really get to the pain-in-the-wallet stage. Not to mention my enlarger only goes up to 5x7 anyway!
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format
And I agree that 6x9cm comes quite close to 4x5" in quality, but I personally don't like the act of removing the back from a 4x5 to mount a roll film holder. A sheet film holder is a bit more convenient/quick to slide in.

You may use a "Graflok Sliding Back Adapter" solution, more convenient than using film holders, specially for portraiture.

Perfect with color film: slides and CN cost is1/4 with not much noticeable IQ loss, if you are not to print beyond 1m and inspect with nose on the print then no difference.

For BW I like it less because it does not allow custom N+/- for each shot, but anyway we have fairly priced BW LF film, so no problem.

Still I don't have an sliding back but I'm considering to make one, as clearly my bet is roll film backs for color "LF", I won't look back.



Not to mention my enlarger only goes up to 5x7 anyway!

Yes... problem of 8x10 is the enlarger, we need a monster, I guess 5x7" it's the most sound LF format... single problem is that one may have to cut 8x10 sheets in halves to have film.
 
Last edited:

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,119
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Yeah, a sliding back would help for sure. But I find that when I shoot 120 film its 95% of the time in a MF camera and I use the 4x5's mostly for B&W work. Maybe if I come across one of those sliding backs one day - who knows? Although I suspect I'd sooner lean towards a texas leica for 6x9cm. More convenient.
 

138S

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2019
Messages
1,776
Location
Pyrenees
Format
Large Format

Yes.. in texas they are not joking, a "leica" its a good camera there

Anyway in some situations the roll film back is a good choice because movements in the view camera and you easy go to 6x12cm or even 6x19cm with LF glass. Of course in many situations a MF camera is what rules, but using 120 film for LF is increasingly attractive.
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,996
Format
8x10 Format
Focus and film plane consistency can be a significant problem with roll film backs on lightweight 4x5 cameras or older cameras which have warped a bit. The extra weight of these kinds of holder can even tug or deflect the rear standard a bit, spoiling acute focus and adjustments. With a more solid metal camera like a Sinar of Technika, that's less an issue if the camera settings are properly calibrated and locked down. I use Horseman 6x9 roll film backs, but own a 6X9 Texas Leica too. Don't intend to ever use either in Texas itself. That's the kind of place where topographic maps have contour intervals in millimeters widely spaced apart. The highest mountain changes hourly, depending on what the cows most recently left behind.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,658
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
Price is always based on what people are willing to pay for it.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,945
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format
And I agree that 6x9cm comes quite close to 4x5" in quality, but I personally don't like the act of removing the back from a 4x5 to mount a roll film holder. A sheet film holder is a bit more convenient/quick to slide in.

Although I suspect I'd sooner lean towards a texas leica for 6x9cm. More convenient.

Unless you absolutely must have tilt/ shift movements, I'd very strongly advocate buying an MF RF camera - especially if you want the 'LF, handheld' look & still be able to print quite big. The lenses are better optimised for wider apertures & the film path is flat unlike most interchangeable back MF SLR's & rollfilm-holders - which can make a slight but noticeable difference in sharpness on the dimension perpendicular to film travel. Even Hasselblads suffer from this.


Doing so doesn't remove the nonsense from google's search results. Unfortunately
 

Wayne

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
3,614
Location
USA
Format
Large Format
By using the Ignore function, I've managed to turn my viewing this thread into a truly Monty Pythonesque experience.
I thank you all!

I'm hoping we all get Continuing Education Certificates at the end of this.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…