How popular are the ULF panoramic formats

[Craig Griffiths]

Was thinking about some of the more esoteric panoramic formats and how common they are in use today. I would be particularly interested in how many cameras are being used in sizes other than 4x5, 5x7 , and 8x10.

My 8x20 gets fairly regular use these days, but I am not sure how many others are in Australia let alone anywhere else. I know there are a number of 8x20 shooters around but it would be interesting to know how popular the 8x20 size is compared to say the 7x17 and 5x12 formats.

I am interested specifically in panoramic formats larger than 4x10.

Any ideas/guesses/suggestions about how I can find out.

thanks

[Bruce Barlow]

Talk to Kodak and Ilford about film sales, if they'll talk to you. Who's done the group-buying efforts? I wasn't invoilved, so wouldn't know.

The guys who make holders may have some clue.

APUG.org has a ULF forum, which may hold some hints.

Richard Ritter does OK selling his ULFs, but I don't know his actual volume.

Sorry that these are all pointers rather than real information.

Why?

[John Bowen]

This is all heresay, but.....back in '05 when I was purchasing a Ritter 7x17, I inquired about purchasing some 7x17 holders from AWB. I didn't want to wait a year to receive them, so inquired if there were any available for immediate purchase. I learned that AWB had made something like 50 7x17 holders for a single user in the middle east.

My only concern going forward is the availability of film. My freezer has at least a 5 year supply and perhaps as much as a 10 year supply, but I know I'll want/need more before I turn up my toes. Film availability was also my concern when purchasing a camera, and the limited research I could do led me to believe that 7x17 was more popular than 8x20.

[Craig Griffiths]

Bruce, in terms of why, it was just one of those thoughts I have from time to time. I have no concern regarding film or holders or the like, it was more a case of wondering how popular the sizes are.

I guess it was a case of wanting to find out. My 820 is a Chamonix with the serial number of 39, and when I saw that again today I wondered how many there were around that are being used.

[sanking]

Was thinking about some of the more esoteric panoramic formats and how common they are in use today. I would be particularly interested in how many cameras are being used in sizes other than 4x5, 5x7 , and 8x10.

My 8x20 gets fairly regular use these days, but I am not sure how many others are in Australia let alone anywhere else. I know there are a number of 8x20 shooters around but it would be interesting to know how popular the 8x20 size is compared to say the 7x17 and 5x12 formats.

I am interested specifically in panoramic formats larger than 4x10.

Any ideas/guesses/suggestions about how I can find out.

thanks

Based on sales of S&S film holders over the past decade or so I would estimate that 11X14" is the most popular ULF format, followed (in order of perceived popularity) by 7X17", 12X20", 8X20", 14X17", and 20X24".

I agree with an earlier assessment that going forward the most pressing issue for ULF work is the ability to purchase at a reasonable cost film for these large cameras. It seems to me that it would be in the interest of ULF camera makers to purchase ULF film in sizes of cameras they make and to make it available to users with a modest mark up. Most individuals will balk when faced with the complications of trying to place an individual order for film as the minimum order to likely to be far more than they are willing to risk.

Quite frankly both Ilford and Kodak have pretty much priced themselves out of the market for many potential film buyers what with prices of $30 and more for a single sheet of 20X24" film. Just a few years ago it was possible to buy FP4 in this size from Photo Warehouse for just a bit more than $5 a sheet, which was cut from over-stocked rolls of Ilford film. In an effort to maximize their own profit Ilford put a stop to that source, which has resulted in a rather dramatic increase in the cost of ULF film. Course, there will always be some buyers who are willing to put any amount of money down for good quality ULF film, but ultimately the high cost of film will limit the sale of cameras and film holders.

Sandy King

[John Powers]

[QUOTE=sanking; It seems to me that it would be in the interest of ULF camera makers to purchase ULF film in sizes of cameras they make and to make it available to users with a modest mark up. Most individuals will balk when faced with the complications of trying to place an individual order for film as the minimum order to likely to be far more than they are willing to risk.
Sandy King[/QUOTE]

I think the problem with this is that many of the builders are individuals with the same budget problems the shooters have. Ritter, Canham, recently retired Phillips.

I shot 250 sheets of Ilford 7x17 last year but could only afford to buy 125 sheets this year. I will happily rent freezer space to any 7x17 shooters, especially those with bad credit who shoot Ilford and think they might default on the terms of rental.

John

[sanking]

I think the problem with this is that many of the builders are individuals with the same budget problems the shooters have. Ritter, Canham, recently retired Phillips.

I shot 250 sheets of Ilford 7x17 last year but could only afford to buy 125 sheets this year. I will happily rent freezer space to any 7x17 shooters, especially those with bad credit who shoot Ilford and think they might default on the terms of rental.

John

I really don't know anything about the finances of camera makers but the bottom line is that these guys are not going to sell ULF cameras unless there is a source of film that folks can afford to buy. I won't argue as to which film(s) are best but the fact of the matter is that the cost of both Kodak and Ilford ULF films has become prohibitively expensive for many people. I think they should look to making deals with film makers in other countries, say in China or Eastern Europe. I checked into this for myself a couple of years ago and found that I could buy Shanghai ULF sheet film in 20X24" size, delivered to the US, for about $7 a sheet. Unfortunately I could not get any people to go in with me on this and the minimum made it too expensive for this one person. With a modest mark up one could sell this film for about 1/4 or 1/3 the price per sheet of Kodak or Ilford film.

I think what Canham is doing in organizing orders with Kodak is a good thing but the premium pricing of Kodak still makes this a no go for many persons.

Sandy King

[Oren Grad]

Just for reference, and taking 12x20 as an example, Canham's posted price for a box of 25 sheets of TXP is $536, the price for FP4+/HP5+ in the most recent Ilford run was about $330, and Freestyle stocks Efke PL100 at $189.

[sanking]

Just for reference, and taking 12x20 as an example, Canham's posted price for a box of 25 sheets of TXP is $536, the price for FP4+/HP5+ in the most recent Ilford run was about $330, and Freestyle stocks Efke PL100 at $189.

I did not check the posted pricing at Canham's site but I assume that if 12X20 is over $20 a sheet the price of 20X24" would be $40 or more per sheet?

Now how many people are going to invest in a 20X24" camera and a few holders when the market price of Kodak film is $40 a sheet and the price from the only other supplier is not far behind.

Sandy King

[Hugo Zhang]

I really don't know anything about the finances of camera makers but the bottom line is that these guys are not going to sell ULF cameras unless there is a source of film that folks can afford to buy. I won't argue as to which film(s) are best but the fact of the matter is that the cost of both Kodak and Ilford ULF films has become prohibitively expensive for many people. I think they should look to making deals with film makers in other countries, say in China or Eastern Europe. I checked into this for myself a couple of years ago and found that I could buy Shanghai ULF sheet film in 20X24" size, delivered to the US, for about $7 a sheet. Unfortunately I could not get any people to go in with me on this and the minimum made it too expensive for this one person. With a modest mark up one could sell this film for about 1/4 or 1/3 the price per sheet of Kodak or Ilford film.

I think what Canham is doing in organizing orders with Kodak is a good thing but the premium pricing of Kodak still makes this a no go for many persons.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Chamonix was actually looking at this last year, working with Shanghai ULF sheet films. I shot the idea down as we had absolutely no control of the quality of the film, unlike cameras we make in our workshop. Shanghai film is cheap for a reason and you only need to check Chinese LF forum to find out: pinholes and relabeling the old films. Many Chinese LF guys use Kodak and Ilford films just for the peace of mind.

Hugo