Ektascan 14X17 availability

**Jim Fitzgerald** · 2-May-2015, 13:47

I've got a lot of 14 x 17 film believe it or not. Close to 400 sheets and something like 150 sheets of that are traditional film. If you need help on a box of Ektascan in 14 x 17 let me know and maybe I can help out. Captain Walnut out!!

**Fr. Mark** · 3-May-2015, 21:00

I've developed 1 picture on Ektascan I really like, out of a trimming for making 5x7's out of 8x10 stock. I put the strip in a 35mm camera. This stuff rocks. I am not 100% done with my 8x10 project and now I'm tempted to build a 14x17, but I don't have trays (or tanks/hangers or tubes) or a camera or film holders or an obvious lens (though I suspect the close-up diopter lenses might work). I do not need this temptation!

**Jim Fitzgerald** · 3-May-2015, 21:31

Originally Posted by Fr. Mark

I've developed 1 picture on Ektascan I really like, out of a trimming for making 5x7's out of 8x10 stock. I put the strip in a 35mm camera. This stuff rocks. I am not 100% done with my 8x10 project and now I'm tempted to build a 14x17, but I don't have trays (or tanks/hangers or tubes) or a camera or film holders or an obvious lens (though I suspect the close-up diopter lenses might work). I do not need this temptation!

Sure you do! 14 x 17 is another world, but I love it.

**Fr. Mark** · 4-May-2015, 19:09

Jim,

After all the photo gear building I've done the last year or so, I kinda wanted to make pictures again!

And, build a kayak. And make a Greenland paddle.

And get reliable exposures and development.
And master cyanotypes.
And off camera flash
And and and
But as was said on another thread: contact prints can be compelling even at 4x5 and 8x10. Hard to imagine a 14x17.

**Fr. Mark** · 4-May-2015, 19:14

Actually, I've made 1 contact print that is 14x17. It is of an X-ray/MRI of a profile of my skull. Actually, it may be only 11x14, even my head wouldn't require 14x17. My dad is a radiologist and 20 something years ago I thought he'd enjoy the odd "portrait" of his son. But it needs a light box to see it so he never displayed it. So, when he gave it back to me I made a cyanotype positive of it. I don't think he puts that on display either, but it did work as a print. The detail is not as high as could potentially arise with a good view camera.

**Jim Fitzgerald** · 4-May-2015, 20:04

Well 14 x 17 contact prints have a certain "presence" that appeals to me. Now when I pull a nice carbon print from a big negative..... I'm really happy.
It is a lot of work going from my 16 lb. 11 x 14 to my 30 lb. 14 x 17 but man is it worth it!

**Fr. Mark** · 4-May-2015, 21:02

My 8x10 is 30 pounds, since 14x17 is 3x the area and normal focal length is almost 2x that suggests the 14x17 will be 180 pounds...plus picnic table to put it on and film holder and circus tent for changing film...where do I stable my pack elephants?

Seriously, I will have to consider it since great film is available for $2/sheet and 500 sheets might approach a lifetime supply at age 47. And, if film disappeared there's always dry plate.

But, the package needs to come in at lower proportional weight with easier adjustments and more rigidity than the 8x10.
I really underestimated the rigidity problems for the 8x10. A lot of study will be needed.

I really hoped I could be happy with 5x7 and an epson scanner and hiring inkjet prints on transparency film if I wanted huge prints. But the scanner's price buys a lot of film...and just thinking about the computer time makes me want to be ill.

Rather than continuing to hijack this thread you could pm me some links to 14x17 camera builds. I might go as exotic as those fancy aluminum extrusions but probably not Carbon fiber epoxy, but then again, who knows. It might not cost much more and the weight/strength could help a lot of places.