The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Suit yourself, just don't demand that everyone comply with your narrow, prescriptivist doctrine.

 

[faberryman]

I'm hoping we all get Continuing Education Certificates at the end of this.

Do we get to fill out the evaluations yet?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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

No it doesn't, but feeding the troll only inspires it to further pollute those results. Even more unfortunate.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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.

I have one of those. It's pretty awesome. Fujica GW690 with a 90mm Fuji lens. the lens alone makes it worth it.

 

[138S]

Suit yourself, just don't demand that everyone comply...

We all suit ourselves, we all share our points of view, no problem.

your

Not mine, the mate with I made our new darkroom now uses a roll film back in his CAMBO Wide. Another friend also does it in his Technika. I just followed them when I saw their results and cost.

your narrow, ..... doctrine.

Not narrow doctrine: adaptive behaviour to get best yield from my film budget. Velvia 6x12cm is 1/4 of the cost of 10x12cm (4x5") so I exploit the more pano 6x12cm for similar IQ at 1/4 of the cost.

Regarding BW I adjusted my process to get same yield with ilford sheets that I can afford and I find fairly priced. They are totally excellent and at the end it allows me to shot more 8x10" BW that otherwise I would have to restrict to the half.

prescriptivist

Your are wrong, I'm only sharing the way I'm skipping the nasty effects of the high price increase, and sheet film overprice of kodak/fuji, to not have to drop LF.


A 8x10" Provia box is 455€ in the EU ($546) for 20 shots, Portra has same price per shot in the UE... If you import it you end in mostly the same after shipping, customs agency etc.

Perhaps you not shot much, or no LF right now, (Have you a pension at KPP2? ). Me now I'm shooting quite LF film, and I have 2 projects in course, so I've to use "Continuing Education Certificate" knowledge, the calculator and all the wisdom I can gather to keep my projects on budget, and belive me, I do it being happy with the yield.


Hey, man... it's true:



(Fotoimpex today)

 

[138S]

I have one of those. It's pretty awesome. Fujica GW690 with a 90mm Fuji lens. the lens alone makes it worth it.

Yes, it's an excellent camera, the 90mm focal version it's most versatile, I feel, I would like to have one. The drawback is that it's not much suitable for portraiture, as focal and max aperture are not suitable for all portraits, but it's ideal for travelling. Time ago I considered it but as most I do is portraits I ended in the P67II which is another animal.

The great thing of the texan is that it allows near LF quality with slides at 1/4 of the shot cost, while portable, agile, very handheld suitable, I tried one owned by a friend, I used it with a monopod to cancel any shake with Velvia 50, and results were amazing.

My personal view is that monopod is ideal for the texan when wanting optimal quality with slow films, only a very steady shot takes all IQ potential, but a tripod cancels its agility advantage, so a monopod may be a good compromise in many situations for the texan, I feel.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Yes, it's an excellent camera, the 90mm focal version it's most versatile, I feel, I would like to have one. The drawback is that it's not much suitable for portraiture, as focal and max aperture are not suitable for all portraits, but it's ideal for travelling. Time ago I considered it but as most I do is portraits I ended in the P67II which is another animal.

The great thing of the texan is that it allows near LF quality with slides at 1/4 of the shot cost, while portable, agile, very handheld suitable, I tried one owned by a friend, I used it with a monopod to cancel any shake with Velvia 50, and results were amazing.

My personal view is that monopod is ideal for the texan when wanting optimal quality with slow films, only a very steady shot takes all IQ potential, but a tripod cancels its agility advantage, so a monopod may be a good compromise in many situations for the texan, I feel.

I can second 138S' recommendation here. The "Texas Leica" is an amazing camera. Especially if you still have some of the classic Kodak Panatomic-X film:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/10/photographing-cotton-compress-of.html

Yes, it's big, and a bit clunky, and requires big filters. But the 90mm ƒ/3.5 lens is spectacular. I almost always use mine on a tripod.

 

[138S]

"Texas Leica" is an amazing camera. Especially if you still have some of the fantastic Kodak Panatomic-X film:

... or adox cms 20

800lp/mm able monodisperse stuff,

A pain to use it, but always delivering a new nice set of images

Not a regular look... one has to like it

Even more extreme than TP, and less pictorial, but it tells limits of glass any glassware

 

[Lachlan Young]

Velvia 6x12cm is 1/4 of the cost of 10x12cm (4x5") so I exploit the more pano 6x12cm for similar IQ at 1/4 of the cost.

Regarding BW I adjusted my process to get same yield with ilford sheets that I can afford and I find fairly priced. They are totally excellent and at the end it allows me to shot more 8x10" BW that otherwise I would have to restrict to the half.




Your are wrong, I'm only sharing the way I'm skipping the nasty effects of the high price increase, and sheet film overprice of kodak/fuji, to not have to drop LF.

What's clear to any sensible reader of this thread is that you are obsessed with the two most stultifying and useless aspects of photography - high contrast resolution (which has much less to do with actual perceived sharpness or the ability of the film to resolve useful detail/ content than you so desperately wish) and the absolute price of materials. Most people would rather have creative options remain available - even if they have to be relatively expensive - rather than not available at all. My only interest is that sheet colour film remains available - and if you feel you can't afford it, there's no need to expend thousands of words expressing your self-evident envy about people who do buy it.

Perhaps you not shot much, or no LF right now,

I processed 55 sheets of 8x10 last week. It was considerably more interesting than this thread.

 

[138S]

My only interest is that sheet colour film remains available

I this case you may do something like I do, IMO the present Kodak policy is to exterminate CN LF soon, those prices are discouraging, customer base will disapear and at one point it won't be worth to coat a single master roll with LF base.

For this reason best is that they notice ASAP that their policy is to kill that. From my side I've been writting to all manufacturers and to all ditributors about those abusive prices that are to kill customer base.

You and other may help if you want, it's about spending half a saturday morning from time to time, next is an example of what you can do if you want to help future CN LF survability:

 

[DREW WILEY]

They'll probably respond to that letter just about the time you get a letter back from the Autochrome Company. I do love the look of autochromes, but don't have the patience to get tangled with that process myself. Therefore, I'll continue to pay Kodak for their CN sheet film.

 

[138S]

Drew, of course I got no answer.

If you see fotoimpex web store they don't have 810 velvia 50 or 100 anymore, Fuji killed that market in the EU yet, it will be like Neopan: kaput.

Now fotoimpex may have 810 Porta stock at 275€ 10 sheet, it would be 550€ 20 shots, well more expensive than Velvia. Soon like Fuji: kaput. Not a single color 810 box sold in the entire UE?

Situation in the UE is way worse than in the US.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Drew, of course I got no answer.

If you see fotoimpex web store they don't have 810 velvia 50 or 100 anymore, Fuji killed that market in the EU yet, it will be like Neopan: kaput.

Now fotoimpex may have 810 Porta stock at 275€ 10 sheet, it would be 550€ 20 shots, well more expensive than Velvia. Soon like Fuji: kaput. Not a single color 810 box sold in the entire UE?

Situation in the UE is way worse than in the US.

A lot of that is not the fault of the manufacturer, distributor or retailer. Your EU price of $546 vs. $300 at B&H for Provia on your earlier post is caused by high VAT, import duties, and other taxes. Have you written to the PM and other ministers?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wonder if there's a tax on sunlight too? But there must be some way they could form a co-op to acquire certain films more reasonably.

 

[warden]

View attachment 241623

"Dear Sirs?" What year is it?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I this case you may do something like I do, IMO the present Kodak policy is to exterminate CN LF soon, those prices are discouraging, customer base will disapear and at one point it won't be worth to coat a single master roll with LF base.

For this reason best is that they notice ASAP that their policy is to kill that. From my side I've been writting to all manufacturers and to all ditributors about those abusive prices that are to kill customer base.

Here's the situation I've found amongst people currently using LF colour film - I've encountered quite a bit of the Portras and some Ektar, and for the large part the small amount of transparency has been Provia. Why? Because the aesthetics of Velvia aren't seen as particularly attractive by a market much more inclined to the aesthetics of Portra, the better sharpness of colour neg & the option to fairly easily wet print if desired. Velvia is seen as the stuff a particular kind of clichéd landscape photographer uses as part of an inane aesthetic - and most of that lot of banal landscaperists thankfully never graduated to 8x10. NPS 160's downfall was through trying to be too neutral and too perfect - fine for some uses, but after the uses for which those were positive attributes went digital, it struggled to define an aesthetic which would have ensured its survival.

 

[DREW WILEY]

???. Velvia has such a narrow exposure tolerance it's difficult to reproduce well. Looking at it on a lightbox or using a slide projector is one thing, printing it another. But there are times it's the correctly fitting shoe for the foot. When I printed 8x10 chromes I did sometimes shoot Velvia, but less than 5% of the time. It's quite appropriate for very low contrast fog or rain scenes that actually need a boost. There was nothing particularly neutral about NPS unless you are thinking about skintones. Provia is horrible to print from optically because it's always been on inferior acetate base which isn't dimensionally stable, though I was forced to shoot it for quite awhile until Astia 100F and E100G finally came out on polyester base. But color neg isn't necessarily sharper at all. The finest grain (or dye cloud) LF color film I've ever used is Astia 100F, a chrome film, followed closely by Ektar 100. But that's largely a non-issue when shooting LF.

 

[Lachlan Young]

???. Velvia has such a narrow exposure tolerance it's difficult to reproduce well. Looking at it on a lightbox or using a slide projector is one thing, printing it another. But there are times it's the correctly fitting shoe for the foot. When I printed 8x10 chromes I did sometimes shoot Velvia, but less than 5% of the time. It's quite appropriate for very low contrast fog or rain scenes that actually need a boost. There was nothing particularly neutral about NPS unless you are thinking about skintones. Provia is horrible to print from optically because it's always been on inferior acetate base which isn't dimensionally stable, though I was forced to shoot it for quite awhile until Astia 100F and E100G finally came out on polyester base. But color neg isn't necessarily sharper at all. The finest grain (or dye cloud) LF color film I've ever used is Astia 100F, a chrome film, followed closely by Ektar 100. But that's largely a non-issue when shooting LF.

I was trying to explain how these films are perceived, not necessarily how they actually are - and I've seen Velvia used well, but it's perceived as part of the seemingly neverending heavy ND grad golden hour/ sunset stuff that stuffed photo magazines up till digital came in. Actually one of the most interesting uses of Velvia I've seen is as an intentionally confrontational/ exaggerated portrait film.

And yes, NPS can be tricky to balance in some circumstances - and when you do, it sometimes feels like Canon's digital engineers got their colour palette from it...

Astia was really the only transparency film I found universally excellent - and it could make stunning Cibas - however I think I only ever used the 'F' version myself - was recently scanning some of the older sheet version & it didn't quite seem as crisp as I remember it - or for that matter as some EPY I was scanning alongside it - will need to look closely and see if it may have been a case of the lens being stopped down too far. Even with the very modest heat of a light table you could spot the triacetate base films very quickly!

Nevertheless, there is a large body of research into neg/ pos and pos/ pos processes (some extremely mathematical) that shows in considerable and conclusive detail that neg to pos processes have significant potential sharpness advantages amongst others - and the emulsions seem to be more readily adjustable to this end than chrome films. Ron wrote quite extensively about this on here.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I shot a lot of Velvia 50 in medium format. I never realized I should limit it to specific conditions except I found portraits needed a lot of editing afterwards to tone down the flesh.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

I bought some in 4x5 but still learning view cameras so I haven't tried it yet.

 

[138S]

I shot a lot of Velvia 50 in medium format. I never realized I should limit it to specific conditions except I found portraits needed a lot of editing afterwards to tone down the flesh.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

I bought some in 4x5 but still learning view cameras so I haven't tried it yet.

Your shots are supreme: https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...1&tags=velvia&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

Some theories are destroyed just taking a look to your shots. Velvia footprint is magnificient even in a monitor. When projected or inspected on a light table (for landscape) it blows anything else miles away.


Fortunately I can still shot it in 120, in the EU sheets are beyond what I can pay.

Why? Because the aesthetics of Velvia aren't seen as particularly attractive by a market much more inclined to the aesthetics of Portra, the better sharpness of colour neg & the option to fairly easily wet print if desired. Velvia is seen as the stuff a particular kind of clichéd landscape photographer uses as part of an inane aesthetic

LOL

See Velvia 50 blowing miles away (for landscape) DSLRs, IQ3, Ektar 160Pro, Portra and the rest on earth, it's not the Iowa, it's Velvia 50 blowing:



https://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/velvia-50.htm

I concede today with hybrid workflow some may prefer (frozen) Sensia and later working the saturation digitally, it's the case of Treasured Lands' author.

Your statement "Velvia is seen as the stuff a particular kind of clichéd landscape" is absolutely arbitrary. I personally processed and process quite a lot of stuff of some artists that has been exhibitited or are to be exhibited internationally in the following months, and I can tell you that your statements are totally arbitrary and nosense.

 

[138S]

I bought some in 4x5 but still learning view cameras so I haven't tried it yet.

Alan, you have little to learn, same than the RB67. RB67 is also unit focus and has a correction scale in the right side depending on extension...

> For very close shots with the view camera it's the same, use nominal focal and extension focal plus the extention increase of infinite focus vs bellows extension with camera focused, and use an smartphone App for the exposure factor:


> For Velvia use a $60 shutter tester to check your effective speeds, LF shutters are usually not that accurate as the Seikos in the Sekors, this is important.

> "Autofocus" system is the same than in the Mamy, a loupe looking the GG.

> When you have the notches top-right then emulsion side is facing you

> Movements... if you tilt-swing the lensboard then the focus plane does the same in the field. If you tilt-swing the ground glass then the focus plane in the field tilts-swings in the counter directions. If you tilt-swing the lenboard then image circle is obviously displaced. If you tilt-swing the GG then image circle obviously stays in place.

I guess that's all, difficult thing is to expose well Velvia in challenging situations, not doing it in a view camera. If you shot as soon as possible to get early feedback.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

With my medium format I bracket my shots +1 and -1. It's cheap insurance. I'm not going to do that with 4x5. My Schneider 150mm lens is 1/3 stop fast to 1/60. So I'm going to have to adjust especially with chromes. I think I bit off more than I can chew having film loaded in 35mm, 6x7 and now 4x5 cameras.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's no such thing as bracketing exposures in 8x10 color work unless you've got your own elephant and mahout for carrying all the extra holders, plus an equally oversized budget. But a shutter tester is a good investment for any kind of camera system.

 

[DREW WILEY]

138s - I prefer to modulate color via hue relationships, neutrals played against purer hues. When someone puts jam and jelly atop sugar cubes, and routinely serves up bowlfuls of that, pretty soon nobody can taste anything.

 

[removedacct1]

When someone puts jam and jelly atop sugar cubes, and routinely serves up bowlfuls of that, pretty soon nobody can taste anything.

Exactly.