Which 5X7 film

[ronlamarsh]

I need to puyrchase some 5X7 and am debating picking up one of the last 50 sheet boxes of EDU Ultra(FOMA 200) that Freestyle has. Or do I just go ahead and bite the bullet and get some HP5, since I don't know if the FOMA 200 will ever be around again. BTW I finally tamed the EDU ultra 200 using Formulary TFX-2 50ml:50ml:900ml H20 for 18 mins shot at 100asa. It gives shadow detail on par with tri-x @160asa with printable highlights out to zone 9.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Not many choices left. I was surprised that TMY-2 wasn't available, or I would have recommended it.

HP5+ is great film, if you can shoot with TXP and Foma 200, then you should be able to make it work with HP5 for sure. Great film.

 

[ntenny]

The Efke films are another economical alternative. I've been shooting Fomapan 100 in 5x7, but I've shot a fair amount of Efke 100 in 9x12 and 2x3; it's a nice film with a slightly unusual tonality, a bit grainy for its speed, but in LF sizes, who cares? (All right, someone must, but *I* don't.) And Efke 25 is just a fantastic film.

-NT

 

[John Shriver]

Tri-X Professional 320 and TMX are stock items in 5x7 at several dealers.

If there's another ULF custom order period from Kodak, you could get TMY-2 in that order. It's a rather aperiodic event.

 

[Bruce A Cahn]

Tri-X is the best sheet film I have used, overall.

 

[davekarp]

Did Freestyle indicate that the Edu Ultra 200 would not be available again in the future?

 

[ronlamarsh]

5x7 film

Did Freestyle indicate that the Edu Ultra 200 would not be available again in the future?

I e-mailed them and they expect to get stock again in april 2010. Seems FOMA is having trouble with switching suppliers(raw material I assume). Also though I do love Tri-x for its consistency and it is a great film all around 50 sht's in 5x7 is well over $100 whilst I can get rebranded foma from freestyle for less than half that and once the right developer and EI are established I cannot tell any difference in image quality.
I need to get some 4x5 also and since freestyle is out of the edu ultra 200 I will probably get tri-x the price difference there is not nearly as great.

 

[david_mizen]

shanghai is another alternative can be found on flea bay quite cheap ive used it no problems

 

[davekarp]

Ron,

Thanks for the information.

 

[ronlamarsh]

decesion time

I read all the posts and searched the threads, is decesion time: like a showing of hands it is between EDU ULTRA 100(FOMA) of EFKEPL100 in 5X7 of course. Can't really afford to pay double for the Ilford or Kodak products.

 

[rwboyer]

Just went through this a few weeks ago and here is what I decided:

http://photo.rwboyer.com/2009/12/19/kodak-putting-your-money-where-your-mouth-is/

 

[rwboyer]

Just to expand on this a little bit...

For those of you out there that are using Foma and Efke and adore one of the products for whatever the reason might be from an aesthetic point of view - I say wonderful. If you have gone through all of your evaluations and made a decision that was not based on price, fantastic.

For me I really really wanted to shoot Kodak film - My decision to evaluate Efke was purely price motivated and ultimately I decided that I could make it work (but I did have a major hiccup) but ultimately decided to stick with Kodak purely because I want to support the products that I love so much.

Yep $5 a sheet of 8x10 is hard to swallow but guess what - it is not a big deal considering everything else that goes into a photography project. My motivation to look for something a little less expensive was me being too cheap - I am going to shoot 100 sheets minimum for a project that I am doing - that's $500. The cheapest it could be is $250 so the question I had to come to grips with is - was $250 over the course of a long term project really going to be life changing? NO. The amount of time and effort shooting 100 8x10 sheets along with the had processing, printing, etc, etc. and I am going to put the screws to a company that I love and want to support over $250. NO.

I am not going to be the one that does not support a product I love and then bitch when it goes away. I am going to do my best to support the companies and products that I love to use and would hate to see them go away. I encourage you to do the same.

RB

 

[ronlamarsh]

I salute your committment; that is the reason I belong to a CSA, recycle and a thousand other things. Kodak tri-x is second to none that is for sure but I am also about choice and that is what efke,foma and others provide and I am just as committed to supporting that as I am the small sustainable farm etc. Also the bottom line is if I go to my wife and tell her I just spent $104 on 5X7 film she'll skin my alive.
Here is something to think about also: if we do not support choice also we may end up at the mercy of a single supplier i.e. no competition. It is truely sad that film manufacturers must struggle so.

 

[ronlamarsh]

addition

Addendum to my last post: I have been in the medical imaging industry for 35yrs. and Kodak,Agfa and Fuji were the major players in suppling film. Consumer purchases of balck&white film were a very small part of the overall business for these folks, the bulk of their business was medical imaging that used literlly tons of product. Since the imaging industry went digital( a good thing for the public,environment and their bottom line)the former film suppliers have been struggling and frankly I am surprised they offer anything at all considering how important it is to "wallstreet" to post that "all improtant"quaterly profit in excess of 10%. So it is again, for me, a matter of maximum choice and price as I resent being held hostage to the likes of Bernie Madoff and other investment types, to whom Art is something to see at a muesum or purchase at Christies and have no interset in its actual creation.

 

[rwboyer]

I salute your committment; that is the reason I belong to a CSA, recycle and a thousand other things. Kodak tri-x is second to none that is for sure but I am also about choice and that is what efke,foma and others provide and I am just as committed to supporting that as I am the small sustainable farm etc. Also the bottom line is if I go to my wife and tell her I just spent $104 on 5X7 film she'll skin my alive.
Here is something to think about also: if we do not support choice also we may end up at the mercy of a single supplier i.e. no competition. It is truely sad that film manufacturers must struggle so.

As I mentioned - If you happen to like a Foma or Efke product better than a Kodak or Ilford or Fuji product - by all means support it with your purchase. However for my own personal work I don't - and even though I could make just about any film work. I have made the decision to put my money where my mouth is vs. making a decision solely on cost.

I encourage film shooters to do the same - buy the film you rather have vs the cheaper alternative that will "make due". Whatever film that may be - doing otherwise you are doing the exact same thing as the people you criticize on Wall Street.

RB

 

[Anscojohn]

I have read with interest the above ideas and sentiments. I cannot say I disagree. I expect, however, that in just a few years, the only film coming out of Rochester (or wherever EK chooses to make it) will be Tri-X--no matter what.

Having been behind the photo counter, so to speak, from the 1960s through the 1990s, and experienced the steady changes EK made to film formats as a means to stick it to photofinishers by requiring all new lab equipment periodically (lessee, 126, 110, Disk) each time providing less gelatine and silver for the same amount of money to the consumer, I do not expect Eastman to stay with those few of we dinosaurs using film.
I have long preferred slow and medium-speed films in medium format. So I guess I shall begin letting my dollars vote for me trying to help FOMA and EFKE upgrading and going.

 

[rwboyer]

I have read with interest the above ideas and sentiments. I cannot say I disagree. I expect, however, that in just a few years, the only film coming out of Rochester (or wherever EK chooses to make it) will be Tri-X--no matter what.

Having been behind the photo counter, so to speak, from the 1960s through the 1990s, and experienced the steady changes EK made to film formats as a means to stick it to photofinishers by requiring all new lab equipment periodically (lessee, 126, 110, Disk) each time providing less gelatine and silver for the same amount of money to the consumer, I do not expect Eastman to stay with those few of we dinosaurs using film.
I have long preferred slow and medium-speed films in medium format. So I guess I shall begin letting my dollars vote for me trying to help FOMA and EFKE upgrading and going.

I don't disagree with you on your support of films you like. It is exactly what I am advocating that film users do.

I do have a couple of points of contention or more clarification.

Personally I never shot 126, 110, or disk. I don't want to argue about corporate intent or machinations to turn a profit but I see those formats at least in the same traditions as Kodak as been doing since it's inception - convenience for consumers. All the while that Kodak was providing convenience to consumers it was also providing professional products that were second to none in terms of quality and innovation.

In medium format you have the choice of TX400, TXP, PXP, TMX, and TMY - from my point of view NOTHING Efke or Foma puts out right now touches these products. I am not saying that you cannot make good photos with Foma or Efke 120 and I am sure that people will argue some aesthetic point but Kodak films in 120 cover a giant range of looks, speeds, and aesthetics - even though they have been whittled down to these few.

If you have some kind of ax to grind with Kodak because of some equipment lease issues from more than a decade ago having nothing to do with your choice of 120 film is kind of irrelevant to what products you like or don't like. Heck Efke 120 film does not hold a candle to Kodak quality just looking at the base quality or the way the paper backing fits.

RB

 

[rwboyer]

Ps.

I really do not think the profit motives of Kodak were to extract money from film processors. I do think their motives were targeting typical consumers that wanted smaller devices and never printed anything larger than a 3x5 or 4x6.

Do you really think a 126 is not smaller than a 35mm, or a 110 smaller than a 126, or a disk smaller than just about anything but a minox?

 

[2F/2F]

Can't really afford to pay double for the Ilford or Kodak products.

You can if you shoot half as much.

No matter what format you shoot, you are paying about the same per unit of emulsion surface area, so what is the difference? If you have decided to shoot a larger format, you have hopefully done so for some reason, and have balanced the pros and cons of doing so against those of other formats. Larger film is more expensive per shot. However, hopefully you are using it because you feel that its advantages outweigh, or at least balance this for the project you are shooting, and not just "because". So, simply shoot fewer pictures if you want the cost to be the same. With 5x7, shoot 1 picture for every 18 you would shoot on 35mm. Simple. Choose your format to match your subject. If you don't press a sheet film camera into doing a 35mm camera's job, then shooting sheet film is not more expensive.

 

[ronlamarsh]

Contact prints

You can if you shoot half as much.

No matter what format you shoot, you are paying about the same per unit of emulsion surface area, so what is the difference? If you have decided to shoot a larger format, you have hopefully done so for some reason, and have balanced the pros and cons of doing so against those of other formats. Larger film is more expensive per shot. However, hopefully you are using it because you feel that its advantages outweigh, or at least balance this for the project you are shooting, and not just "because". So, simply shoot fewer pictures if you want the cost to be the same. With 5x7, shoot 1 picture for every 18 you would shoot on 35mm. Simple. Choose your format to match your subject. If you don't press a sheet film camera into doing a 35mm camera's job, then shooting sheet film is not more expensive.

The primary reason I got into 5X7 is contact printing, both silver and alt-process.

 

[2F/2F]

The primary reason I got into 5X7 is contact printing, both silver and alt-process.

...therefore...you plan on shooting as much as you do with 35?

Shoot 1/18 as much as you do with 35mm, and your cost will be the same as 35mm.

Shoot as much as you do with 35, and your cost will be 18x higher than 35mm.

Find a middle ground if you want.