Is their a Keith Canham for Fuji Films?

[StoneNYC]

The question is simple, Keith Canham has a long relationship with Kodak and can get them to attempt many different cutting scenarios.

So is there a guy who is the Fuji guy?

We all know that getting sheet film of Velvia50 at all in America isn't easy, I've found a guy who I can get some for a relatively good price, but it's a hassle and expense to ship from Japan etc.

So I figure there are others who would want special size cuttings of any and all of the Fuji film products and wondering if there is a guy in the US who we can turn to?

For me personally I only need 4x5 and potentially 8x10 films of Fuji products (at least for the near future...) but I'm sure others need other sizes?

Thanks.

[Renato Tonelli]

That "Fuji Person/Guy" could be Jeff Taugner at Badger Graphics.

He alerted me when Fuji announced that they would no longer make Provia in 5x7 and at and Fuji LF lenses.

However, there is no indication that Fuji is interested in any special order.

[Brian C. Miller]

Fuji doesn't do special orders. Japan Exposures (http://www.japanexposures.com) sells film, but the prices are rather ... dear. Actually, at $8.80 per sheet of Acros 100 in 8x10, that's close to what Kodak is charging (B&H, $7.65/sheet, Tri-X).

Hmm.....

[StoneNYC]

Fuji doesn't do special orders. Japan Exposures (http://www.japanexposures.com) sells film, but the prices are rather ... dear. Actually, at $8.80 per sheet of Acros 100 in 8x10, that's close to what Kodak is charging (B&H, $7.65/sheet, Tri-X).

Hmm.....
$16/sheet for the Velvia50 in 8x10 wow!

These guys are $30 more expensive per V50 4x5 than the guy I found! Sheesh!

I never asked my guy for 8x10 pricing.

[Drew Wiley]

I got the last of my Fuji 8x10 ACROS from Jeff, but after that, he seems to have gotten frustrated with all the roadblocks put up by Fuji themselves.

[vinny]

No.
We've had this discussion here many times and fuji just doesn't want to deal with it.

[StoneNYC]

So, I've seen 8x10 Velvia50 and Acros100, so can we at least confirm that for now, they are still cutting this? Even if I have to get it from japan?

[Nicolasllasera]

I can confirm Acros 100 in 8x10. Bought two boxes a few months ago from Bellamy (aka Japan Camera Hunter).

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

An analysis of the situation indicates that its not who you know, but who can come up with enough money for an order that the film company is willing to produce. Mr. Canham does it by making a list and collecting commitments (and money) until he has enough for an order.

What you (we all) need is a rather wealthy individual who would be willing to make rather large orders of large sheets of film and then have those cut and boxed as needed. Probably not going to happen. Better yet would be a large number of photographers getting together to form a buying co-op. That way you can make 50 sheet and 100 sheet boxes of film again, or any size you want.

[StoneNYC]

By your statement, what we need is not a rich man, but any man willing to pony up the cash for at least one box, and enough of them to total an entire production of the stuff in 8x10 and one person to organize and hold the money in escrow while it is collected.

So I could do it... but then it's the "who you know" part... which again is for one, finding the contact at fuji who would listen, and two the amount of people organized to make such an order...

So I stand by the ... it's not what you know but who you know that is the most powerful.

I would certainly be willing to be the guy, but I don't have the contacts...


An analysis of the situation indicates that its not who you know, but who can come up with enough money for an order that the film company is willing to produce. Mr. Canham does it by making a list and collecting commitments (and money) until he has enough for an order.

What you (we all) need is a rather wealthy individual who would be willing to make rather large orders of large sheets of film and then have those cut and boxed as needed. Probably not going to happen. Better yet would be a large number of photographers getting together to form a buying co-op. That way you can make 50 sheet and 100 sheet boxes of film again, or any size you want.

[Leigh]

A major problem with any "hobbyist" group buy is that people back out.

They change their mind or lose interest because of the long time involved.
They move and lose their darkroom or even the cameras completely.
They lose their jobs and need the bux back.
They get sick and need the bux back.
... fill in whatever excuse comes to mind.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any individual who has fronted a group buy twice.
There are simply too many circumstances that can leave him holding the bag (and the bill).

- Leigh

[StoneNYC]

A major problem with any "hobbyist" group buy is that people back out.

They change their mind or lose interest because of the long time involved.
They move and lose their darkroom or even the cameras completely.
They lose their jobs and need the bux back.
They get sick and need the bux back.
... fill in whatever excuse comes to mind.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any individual who has fronted a group buy twice.
There are simply too many circumstances that can leave him holding the bag (and the bill).

- Leigh

That's why you take money up front...

Also 8x10 shooters are usually much more patient...

However just found out Kodak just discontinued their E-6 chemistry in the US at least... So... Well not sure what I'm going to do now...

[Leigh]

If somebody who has paid and is on the list asks for his money back, you have to give it back.
No amount of jawboning changes that.

If you don't, he'll sue you.
Whether he wins or not, the time, effort, and expense of defending greatly exceed the refund $.

So you're still left holding that part of the order, and being personally liable to pay for it.

- Leigh

[analoguey]

+1.
It will need to be project managed not run on optimism.
Although, if you can get more people in line than needed that might cover it. Whether you will, is a whole different bargain.
Plus the whole bit of managing the thing.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't apply that E6 analogy. The same chem is just going to be distributed under another brand name. But whether or not it will be avail in hobby quantity packaging
is a different story, potentially. Keith Canham has worked with the LF community reliably for many years, and is a valuable resource. Who orders something special
and would try to back out other than a jerk? And no, legally you don't have to give them a penny back unless you fail to deliver. That's what special ordering implies. Somebody special orders something from me, they get billed upon receiving it, or if they don't have an account, are expected to pay in full in advance. If it's something big ticket and are unable to pay in full, they have to sign a lien stating the ownership is not theirs until they pay in full. Let's say someone
special ordered a hundred thousand dollars of custom redwood siding for their new home. If they default on the last payment, we have the legal right to outright
rip it off their home and take it back. No intelligent businessman wants to deal with flakes who change their mind mid-stream. But the sheer cost of large format
film probably weeds out the so-so types anyway. Keith happens to sell large lots of film to certain concerns who pay for the custom cut up front, which can be increased by Kodak to accommodate the rest of us.

[StoneNYC]

Don't apply that E6 analogy. The same chem is just going to be distributed under another brand name. But whether or not it will be avail in hobby quantity packaging
is a different story, potentially. Keith Canham has worked with the LF community reliably for many years, and is a valuable resource. Who orders something special
and would try to back out other than a jerk? And no, legally you don't have to give them a penny back unless you fail to deliver. That's what special ordering implies. Somebody special orders something from me, they get billed upon receiving it, or if they don't have an account, are expected to pay in full in advance. If it's something big ticket and are unable to pay in full, they have to sign a lien stating the ownership is not theirs until they pay in full. Let's say someone
special ordered a hundred thousand dollars of custom redwood siding for their new home. If they default on the last payment, we have the legal right to outright
rip it off their home and take it back. No intelligent businessman wants to deal with flakes who change their mind mid-stream. But the sheer cost of large format
film probably weeds out the so-so types anyway. Keith happens to sell large lots of film to certain concerns who pay for the custom cut up front, which can be increased by Kodak to accommodate the rest of us.

This is why even when the special order Eastman Double-X price jumped from $100 to $300 I still bought in, because I have a little honor (even if no money).

Keith is sending back the checks now as kodak decided they wouldn't be able to cut it without 200 more boxes ordered... It was very disappointing and confusing, but that wasn't Keith's fault.

Anyway I still an sad about the 8x10 bit.

Does anyone know the Velvia50 purchaser? The guy who bought the entire last batch? Maybe he will sell me some? :)

[koh303]

I know stone has smething against google so for the benefit of others here is some velvia 50 for all:
https://www.google.com/search?q=velvia+50&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS526US526&oq=velvia+50&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i60j0l2.1775j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=velvia%2050%204X5

[koh303]

Ans even though this stuff is even worse then velvia 50 - here is some 8X10 in stock, in the US:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=708379&gclid=CPbmsK65tr0CFclDMgodr1QAWw&Q=&is=USA&A=details

[StoneNYC]

I know stone has smething against google so for the benefit of others here is some velvia 50 for all:
https://www.google.com/search?q=velvia+50&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS526US526&oq=velvia+50&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2j69i60j0l2.1775j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=velvia%2050%204X5

This is 4x5... Not the same

[StoneNYC]

Ans even though this stuff is even worse then velvia 50 - here is some 8X10 in stock, in the US:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=708379&gclid=CPbmsK65tr0CFclDMgodr1QAWw&Q=&is=USA&A=details

This is Velvia100... Not the same...

[koh303]

Perhaps you meant this?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=512065&gclid=CM_uyuS8tr0CFTBgMgodLCQA_w&Q=&is=USA&A=details

What Velvia 50 are you missing exactly?

[koh303]

This is Velvia100... Not the same...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/331120060792?lpid=82

[vinny]

He wants velvia 50 in 8x10 because it was discontinued, he doesn't have any money due to buying ultralight lenses with huge coverage for a camera he doesn't have yet, and the stuff already on ebay doesn't cost enough.

[koh303]

and the stuff already on ebay doesn't cost enough. I guess not yet... :)
What do you do with an 8X10 transparency anyways other then put it on a light box and brag to friends who have no idea why you are showing them one of those old school "before there was power point" projection translucent page slide...?
Or is there a 10K drum scanner in the future (or should i say the past)?
Or better yet - a Kickstarter to resurrect direct positive color paper (but that would mean a laborator 138 ora devere108 which probably can be had for less then a drum scanner).

[biedron]

StoneNYC,

I'm not sure why folks who at best have no interest in Velvia 50 8x10 and at worst are antagonistic towards it are responding to this thread.

I have ordered 8x10 from nyankichi2009 on ebay a couple of times. He (?) has the lowest ebay price for "fresh" film - unfortunately his price just went up $15 in the last week or two. My most recent order was just a couple of weeks ago, and it got here to the States very quickly (about a week IIRC). Film expiration date was 11/14. Both times I have ordered it has shipped in Amazon.com.jp boxes, so I'm pretty sure he just orders it from Amazon.com.jp and makes a tidy profit on it.

Bob

[StoneNYC]

StoneNYC,

I'm not sure why folks who at best have no interest in Velvia 50 8x10 and at worst are antagonistic towards it are responding to this thread.

I have ordered 8x10 from nyankichi2009 on ebay a couple of times. He (?) has the lowest ebay price for "fresh" film - unfortunately his price just went up $15 in the last week or two. My most recent order was just a couple of weeks ago, and it got here to the States very quickly (about a week IIRC). Film expiration date was 11/14. Both times I have ordered it has shipped in Amazon.com.jp boxes, so I'm pretty sure he just orders it from Amazon.com.jp and makes a tidy profit on it.

Bob

Hmm thanks, perhaps I can find the amazon.jp seller? Or WE can find him?

As for the others, it makes them feel better to belittle others, I don't let it bother me much as I've never seen a good photo (or in some cases any photos) made by most of the ones who make fun, people who can't actually help would rather mock me then admit they just don't have an answer.

So thanks for the info, I've had him on my watch list for a while. As I've said when the tax return comes in I will have a better idea of what I can afford for the year so I'll make my purchases then.

I'm also aware that Fuji will be raising their prices of all of their films in just a few days, and unfortunately I don't have the money now to buy it while it's still at its lower price, this is unfortunate but it is also the way things are and I have excepted that.

Thanks so much for your help, it's much appreciated.

[koh303]

perhaps I can find the amazon.jp seller? Or WE can find him?
This was hard, but its amazing what you can find on the inter-net:
http://www.amazon.co.jp/CUT-VELVIA50-NP-8X10-20/dp/B00C2M65QM/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1396096492&sr=8-7&keywords=velvia+50
After this i also found the 37,790Yen is close to 320$ USD.


I've never seen a good photo made one who makes fun, someone who can't actually help would rather mock, then admit they just don't have an answer.
Sounds familiar.

Still, i am not sure what one does with an 8X10 transparency?
Adding contrast in the computer is easy, removing contrast without loosing detail is hard (or impossible). So why does anyone use reversal films in LF (or any other format for that matter)?

[StoneNYC]

This was hard, but its amazing what you can find on the inter-net:
http://www.amazon.co.jp/CUT-VELVIA50-NP-8X10-20/dp/B00C2M65QM/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1396096492&sr=8-7&keywords=velvia+50
After this i also found the 37,790Yen is close to 320$ USD.


Sounds familiar.

Still, i am not sure what one does with an 8X10 transparency?
Adding contrast in the computer is easy, removing contrast without loosing detail is hard (or impossible). So why does anyone use reversal films in LF (or any other format for that matter)?

I like contrast... In the right light it makes an image more powerful.

112928

It's not the best image but the contrast if the earth, with reflection of sky, it's nice.

I scan, scanning is not for everyone but it's still a valid path to a print, so for transparency since Cibichrome isn't around anymore, scanning is the only way, and it works just fine, so scanning an 8x10 gives more detail than 4x5 and so larger prints can be made.

But the colors are authentic, to get the same colors with Ektar100 I would have to cheat and use computer techniques to enhance the image, to me that's not acceptable. Hence, wanting to shoot with Velvia50 8x10.

BTW: I scan this image while it was still in the plastic sleeve, so the fogging at the edges is not actually in the film, it's just because it was lifted off of the surface a little bit by the clear plastic that it was encased in.

[Kodachrome25]

Ah Stone...

Wrong on so many fronts it is mind boggling...

1. Using a tax refund is no way to figure out a budget concern like shooting 8x10, maybe a one time purchase at best.

2. I can mail off any chrome I have *right now* to the Lab Ciba in Burbank and have almost any size Ilfochrome made that I might want probably for the next few years. Ilfochrome is essentially the same thing as Cibachrome.

3. If one uses proper technique and engages the viewer of said image in using Ektar over a chrome film, it will be entirely "authentic" in how the colors come across. In other words, a photograph that was masterfully seen and created IN camera will assert the final impact, not so much the film.

I have a stash of Velvia in 120, 220 and 4x5. The main reason I bought the latter was so that I will be able to marvel years down the road at how an LF transparency looks, no other reason because color film is generally not where my style is going.

You are obsessed Stone...obsessed over a format that is not in any way shape or form going to give you better photographs or make you a better photographer. It saddens me to the point of not wanting to be a part of these discussions to see how blind you have become to it...it's embarrassing at the very least.

I think your tax refund would be best spent on taking a workshop with someone who plays hardball, offers real critique and can wake you up to what it will take for you to produce good landscape imagery. Forums generally speaking are no place for an honest opinion of ones work. The galleries are rife with poor imagery ( some good too ) and yet the nauseating circles of mutual praise persist.

Seriously Stone...give 8x10 a pass, take a workshop or two and work on becoming a better photographer. That will be by far more rewarding for you in the long run.

[koh303]

It's not the best image but the contrast if the earth, with reflection of sky, it's nice.
In this image, there is no shadow in the details, because chromes have such a tiny margin for error, both in exposure and in processing. The magenta cast all over is a common Velvia thing.


But the colors are authentic
Authentic to what? That is purely a subjective measure.

[Fred L]

This is why even when the special order Eastman Double-X price jumped from $100 to $300 I still bought in, because I have a little honor (even if no money).

I think suggesting that those who couldn't afford the $200 price difference as not honourable, is a stretch.

and for the record, IF I ever come in to some serious, serious coin, I plan to call Keith and see about getting 8x10 Kodak TXP packaged in 50 sheet boxes ;)

[Leigh]

Still, i am not sure what one does with an 8X10 transparency?
Adding contrast in the computer is easy, removing contrast without loosing detail is hard (or impossible).
So why does anyone use reversal films in LF (or any other format for that matter)?
Because it's photography, as opposed to computer illustration.

People who can shoot good transparencies are good photographers.

People who can create good images on a computer are computer hacks.

- Leigh

[Kodachrome25]

People who can shoot good transparencies are good photographers.

Technically good yes, that still might not make a good photograph though, that takes talent and vision in terms of filling the frame with a visually compelling photograph.

What is that saying from Ansel about a sharp image of a fuzzy concept?

[StoneNYC]

I think suggesting that those who couldn't afford the $200 price difference as not honourable, is a stretch.

and for the record, IF I ever come in to some serious, serious coin, I plan to call Keith and see about getting 8x10 Kodak TXP packaged in 50 sheet boxes ;)

You misunderstand Fred, so let me correct something here, what I meant was that I personally was the one to ask the question and request that Keith organize an Eastman Double-X special order from kodak.

Since I was the one who started the whole thing, I think I would be pretty dishonorable for backing out on everyone else who got excited about it all because I started something, that's what I meant.

I don't think that others who initially offered to buy in and then when finding out the higher price backed out are in anyway dishonorable at all, just me because I was the one who started it I think it would be a pretty dick thing to do to back out on everyone else... Make sense?

[Corran]

So why does anyone use reversal films in LF (or any other format for that matter)?

Perhaps you should consider "personal preference." I shoot mostly chromes, because I like them better and find it easier/quicker to get what I'm looking for.
By your logic, why do we even shoot film? You can get the same photo with digital.


People who can shoot good transparencies are good photographers.

People who can create good images on a computer are computer hacks.

- Leigh

Oh come on are you serious. Get a life.

[StoneNYC]

Ah Stone...

Wrong on so many fronts it is mind boggling...

1. Using a tax refund is no way to figure out a budget concern like shooting 8x10, maybe a one time purchase at best.

2. I can mail off any chrome I have *right now* to the Lab Ciba in Burbank and have almost any size Ilfochrome made that I might want probably for the next few years. Ilfochrome is essentially the same thing as Cibachrome.

3. If one uses proper technique and engages the viewer of said image in using Ektar over a chrome film, it will be entirely "authentic" in how the colors come across. In other words, a photograph that was masterfully seen and created IN camera will assert the final impact, not so much the film.

I have a stash of Velvia in 120, 220 and 4x5. The main reason I bought the latter was so that I will be able to marvel years down the road at how an LF transparency looks, no other reason because color film is generally not where my style is going.

You are obsessed Stone...obsessed over a format that is not in any way shape or form going to give you better photographs or make you a better photographer. It saddens me to the point of not wanting to be a part of these discussions to see how blind you have become to it...it's embarrassing at the very least.

I think your tax refund would be best spent on taking a workshop with someone who plays hardball, offers real critique and can wake you up to what it will take for you to produce good landscape imagery. Forums generally speaking are no place for an honest opinion of ones work. The galleries are rife with poor imagery ( some good too ) and yet the nauseating circles of mutual praise persist.

Seriously Stone...give 8x10 a pass, take a workshop or two and work on becoming a better photographer. That will be by far more rewarding for you in the long run.

Dan, I truly and honestly appreciate your feedback.

However, you and I though friends I think, have truly only hung out together about two days in our entire life, and you don't fully know me or understand my vision or my quest or my plans for the future.

I do understand why you may think that I am distracted by going up in a size, but my whole plan from the beginning in shooting in 4 x 5 was to test and see if I truly enjoyed large-format photography at all, I have found that I do and that I see better and work better in this type of format. My plan was and has always been to use a larger format than 4 x 5 if in fact I did enjoy, but I wanted to make sure before investing in something more expensive that I was happy with shooting in large-format to begin with.

To do this I wanted to test out for my five for about a year shoot with different lenses different focal lengths different types of photography different films and really hone in on what I wanted as a photographer, as an artist, for my own vision.

My next step is going to be 8x10, I understand that this makes you unhappy, but for me this is the logical path and I'm not backing down.

If I am wrong and ultimately stuff back down, that's on me and I truly have to make mistakes on my own to learn from them however as always I do value your opinion and your words of wisdom, and so I would not say to stop giving advice but rather to understand that I'm still going to this format hell or high water.

[StoneNYC]

Also in response to the difference between Ektar100 and Velvia50, this is my preference on how I see the world, and my version of what authentic it, it's authentic to me because I can produce it with the transparency understand and know that my exposure was exactly correct, without any additional steps past developing the piece of film.

The colors that you get from one film versus another are different, and you can't argue with me there they are different and there's no way to change that, if they weren't different there wouldn't be different versions of the film it would just be one color film for all. Especially with the shooting I do with long exposures, there is certainly a difference in the reaction that Velvia50 shows over Ektar100.

Anyway it doesn't really matter, this is my perspective on the matter and he'll just have to except that this is my path, i'll be sticking with Velvia50/100 until it's dead...

[Brian C. Miller]

Still, i am not sure what one does with an 8X10 transparency?
Adding contrast in the computer is easy, removing contrast without loosing detail is hard (or impossible). So why does anyone use reversal films in LF (or any other format for that matter)?

Many little stabby pygmies are chasing you in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike!
The wumpus is coming to get you! The wumpus is coming to get you!

What need is there for fauxtography when photography is readily available?

I use *gasp* positive films because it produces an accent by dropping the shadows. Sure, something can be done in Photoshop, but Photoshop doesn't have the interface for the enlarger, filter, and chemicals. Yes, it has a limited range. So use it within its limits! The important thing is to know what the tool does, so it can be used wisely.

[Fred L]

...I was the one who started it I think it would be a pretty dick thing to do to back out on everyone else... Make sense?

gotcha and agree

[koh303]

Also in response to the difference between Ektar100 and Velvia50, this is my preference on how I see the world, and my version of what authentic it, it's authentic to me because I can produce it with the transparency understand and know that my exposure was exactly correct, without any additional steps past developing the piece of film. perhaps a spell check will make it possible to understand what you are trying to say here.


The colors that you get from one film versus another are different, and you can't argue with me there they are different and there's no way to change that, if they weren't different there wouldn't be different versions of the film it would just be one color film for all. Especially with the shooting I do with long exposures, there is certainly a difference in the reaction that Velvia50 shows over Ektar100.
About this i all i can do is offer this quote from a wise old man:

Herbert Marcuse - Interviewed 1967: This is a childish application of psychoanalysis which does not take at all into consideration they very real political systematic waste of resources of technology and of the productive process. For example this planned obsolescence; for example the production of innumerable brands and gadgets who are in the last analysis always the same; the production of innumerable different models of automobiles; and this prosperity at the same time, consciously or unconsciously leads to a kind of schizophrenic existence. I believe that in this society an incredible quantity of aggressiveness and destructiveness is accumulated precisely because of the empty prosperity which then simply erupts.

That is to say - only in America do poeple equate the choice of many things which are essentially the same with freedom. This does not mean there is a choice, or that they are free in any way. The same applies to film, or chevy VS GMC.

[Corran]

To use the most extreme case, Portra could not be more different than Velvia. Ektar still isn't the same. I hate Ektar. Love Velvia though. Just because Portra/Ektar has "less contrast" or "less saturated" colors doesn't mean just turning up the contrast and saturation knobs in Photoshop turns those films into Velvia.

[Brian C. Miller]

About this i all i can do is offer this quote from a wise old man:

Herbert Marcuse - Interviewed 1967: This is a childish application of psychoanalysis which does not take at all into consideration they very real political systematic waste of resources of technology and of the productive process. For example this planned obsolescence; for example the production of innumerable brands and gadgets who are in the last analysis always the same; the production of innumerable different models of automobiles; and this prosperity at the same time, consciously or unconsciously leads to a kind of schizophrenic existence. I believe that in this society an incredible quantity of aggressiveness and destructiveness is accumulated precisely because of the empty prosperity which then simply erupts.

That is to say - only in America do poeple equate the choice of many things which are essentially the same with freedom. This does not mean there is a choice, or that they are free in any way. The same applies to film, or chevy VS GMC.

Might as well say that there's no difference between color film and black and white film! Or film and cave paintings. They both accomplish the same thing ... right? Or trays and rotary development. So everybody should toss their Jobos and be happy, because trays are just ultimate for development. (And Chevy and GMC are the same, it's just that the GMC has the bolts tightened at the factory.)

*sigh*

Herbert Marcuse, "the father of the New Left." Was he inspired by moonlight? Did he ever see something so magical that he pursued it? If he did, he wasn't known for it. And a choice between E6 and C41 is a very real choice.

[Lachlan 717]

This thread has reminded me just how much I miss Jonnyelvis...

[sanking]

Why not use B&W film and make three-color separations through red, green and blue filters. Then you won't have to worry about the difference between E6 and C41 films, and chasing down discontinued (or soon to be) films and chemicals.

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

Why not use B&W film and make three-color separations through red, green and blue filters. Then you won't have to worry about the difference between E6 and C41 films, and chasing down discontinued (or soon to be) films and chemicals.

Sandy

Perhaps that will be my process WHEN color films disappear, but until then, I prefer my Velvia, but you'll be the one I come to when I'm ready for that process, you're the king after all ;)

[sanking]

Perhaps that will be my process WHEN color films disappear, but until then, I prefer my Velvia, but you'll be the one I come to when I'm ready for that process, you're the king after all ;)


OK, let me know when you are ready.

Meanwhile, it might be smart to acquire and store in the freezer some Red #25, Green #58 and Blue #47 filters, in case they are discontinued. Just saying!!

Sandy

[StoneNYC]

OK, let me know when you are ready.

Meanwhile, it might be smart to acquire and store in the freezer some Red #25, Green #58 and Blue #47 filters, in case they are discontinued. Just saying!!

Sandy

The freezer? LOL I have the red :)

[Kodachrome25]

Stone, I wish you luck and enjoy the exploration of it. You need to do what makes you happy, be true to your self. One of the big problems of these forums is the more you share, the more opinions you are going to get and often with some criticism. I hope to one day see my socks across the room after having being knocked clean off by one of your images. Take care and have fun!




Dan, I truly and honestly appreciate your feedback.

However, you and I though friends I think, have truly only hung out together about two days in our entire life, and you don't fully know me or understand my vision or my quest or my plans for the future.

I do understand why you may think that I am distracted by going up in a size, but my whole plan from the beginning in shooting in 4 x 5 was to test and see if I truly enjoyed large-format photography at all, I have found that I do and that I see better and work better in this type of format. My plan was and has always been to use a larger format than 4 x 5 if in fact I did enjoy, but I wanted to make sure before investing in something more expensive that I was happy with shooting in large-format to begin with.

To do this I wanted to test out for my five for about a year shoot with different lenses different focal lengths different types of photography different films and really hone in on what I wanted as a photographer, as an artist, for my own vision.

My next step is going to be 8x10, I understand that this makes you unhappy, but for me this is the logical path and I'm not backing down.

If I am wrong and ultimately stuff back down, that's on me and I truly have to make mistakes on my own to learn from them however as always I do value your opinion and your words of wisdom, and so I would not say to stop giving advice but rather to understand that I'm still going to this format hell or high water.

[Ron Bose]

Transparencies are a drug, 4x5 especially. I love the feeling of looking at a tranny on my light table. Now that I'll have to use my Jobo for E6, as all the labs are stopping, I'm going to use up my frozen Velvia and Provia (8x10). Then I'll be done with e6.

As for moving from 4x5 to 8x10, did that and then settled on 5x7 !

[StoneNYC]

Transparencies are a drug, 4x5 especially. I love the feeling of looking at a tranny on my light table. Now that I'll have to use my Jobo for E6, as all the labs are stopping, I'm going to use up my frozen Velvia and Provia (8x10). Then I'll be done with e6.

As for moving from 4x5 to 8x10, did that and then settled on 5x7 !

Why does everyone way Tranny.... That is a whole different thing, and, sure, for some they might want to see one on a light table, but that doesn't help my photography much LOL

5x7 transparencies are even harder to attain than 8x10 though...

[tgtaylor]

Although I haven't shot transparency in 3 or 4 years now (I still have an unopened Kodak E-6 kit), I shot transparency exclusively and enjoyed the results that I got until I delved into B&W and then color negative. But then I have the projectors (35, 6x6, and 6x7) to really appreciate them with. It's truly a treat, even today, to load up the trays, pull down the screen, put some good CD's in the player, and turn off the lights and flip through the slides with the remote with some fresh popped popcorn and cold Coca Cola! It's just like going to the movies but this movie is the one that you created. I couldn't see shooting transparency just to view them on a light table. But that's just me. I would also have an 4x5 projector but when the Noblex were available I didn't have the $3K to buy it and when I did have the money they were out of production and although I looked high and low couldn't find a used one. Well, one did show up on ebay for $3K but it was in eastern Europe and the guy had a 1 rating which was too risky for me.

But if you're looking for a print color negative beats the hell out of slide any day of the week. You don't like the color? You can change it in the enlarger. You don't need PS whose raison d'etre is simply to duplicate what can be done in the traditional darkroom. Take a look at the image in the last post in the thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?112978-Kodak-Professional-Endura-Premier-Paper

Do you think the mythical Velvia 50 (which I shot almost exclusively for a long time) can deliver better and or more saturated colors? No way Jose!

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

snip... Take a look at the image in the last post in the thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?112978-Kodak-Professional-Endura-Premier-Paper

Do you think the mythical Velvia 50 (which I shot almost exclusively for a long time) can deliver better and or more saturated colors? No way Jose!

Thomas

Well, yes I do... I also think the white balance is very off on this image.

Did they make an 8x10 projector? That's where I'm headed haha!

I've never actually seen a slide projected transparency that was an actual high quality photo. Never had the slide equipment, and I stopped having my film put into slide from a while ago because the scanner scans better as a strip somehow... And sleeving a whole strip is easier than individually fiddling with slides, and getting 6x7 slides done by a lab is impossible to find (for me at least).

The last slides in slide form are all Kodachrome, all my Astia100f/Provia100f are just in film strip form.

[Daniel Stone]

Stone,

I've used a (slightly) modified overhead projector to project LF slides for mass viewing, 4x5 chromes(Velvia and E100G) in my case. I made large black mattes out of matboard, so only the illuminated chrome was projected. Not perfect, but it worked alright

-Dan

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

I've used a (slightly) modified overhead projector to project LF slides for mass viewing, 4x5 chromes(Velvia and E100G) in my case. I made large black mattes out of matboard, so only the illuminated chrome was projected. Not perfect, but it worked alright

-Dan

Thought of that, someday perhaps :)

[tgtaylor]

Well, yes I do... I also think the white balance is very off on this image.

Well, it's not a good scan for the reasons set out in the post. But the "white balance" is not off. Take a close look at the whites in the pane especially those more centrally located. They are paper white. This window is not washed that often and crud appears here and there and I also think that there may be something in the far background - trees maybe - that are very out of focus. Do you even know what "white balance" is? I don't think you do. LOL, like most digital shooters you probably think "white balance" is some procedure that the camera does.

With slide film, what you see is what you get assuming of course that you have the requisite technical ability which isn't much. But with negative film, what you get is what you want assuming of course that you do it yourself. If you bring it to a lab they are not going to screw with it. They'll put it in an analyzer and print it the way the analyzer tells them what it's "supposed" to look like and that's what you get. They have a business to run and volume is their business model.

Instead of making a zillion posts on internet forums about things that are completely beyond your abilities and which you are clearly not seriously contemplating even attempting (LOL coating your own color film for example) you should get your ass out with a camera, if in fact you even own one, and create some images and truly learn something.

Have a nice day!

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

Thomas,

I'm sorry if I have insulted you. That was not the intention, only to respond to what I saw.

I've been shooting film with an SLR since 1994.... MF since 2011, LF since 2013.

Although I've shot digital since 2008, I wouldn't say I'm "a digital shooter"

I shoot almost every day and develop my own about every other week.

At this point, having been a member here long enough, I don't feel like I deserve to be questioned about my film shooting or camera ownership, it's pretty well documented that I'm an avid film shooter (as well as poster) and if you even bothered to just google my name here you would find lots of my work.

[tgtaylor]

I'm sorry if I have insulted you. That was not the intention, only to respond to what I saw.

No, you didn't insult me at all. You simply demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. "White balance" is a buzz word that the digital newbies throw out to appear sophisticated but what it means is somewhat fuzzy to them. One never heard that term back when film was the only game in town. Why? Because it only became important when you were printing and instead of "white balance" it was referred to as "color cast" and removing the color cast if it existed was the second step in printing - determining density being the first. An where is the obvious place to look for a color cast? In the whites!!

Note: Commercial photographers shooting chromes probably took a test shot first to see if any color cast existed before shooting the job.

Thomas

[StoneNYC]

No, you didn't insult me at all. You simply demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. "White balance" is a buzz word that the digital newbies throw out to appear sophisticated but what it means is somewhat fuzzy to them. One never heard that term back when film was the only game in town. Why? Because it only became important when you were printing and instead of "white balance" it was referred to as "color cast" and removing the color cast if it existed was the second step in printing - determining density being the first. An where is the obvious place to look for a color cast? In the whites!!

Note: Commercial photographers shooting chromes probably took a test shot first to see if any color cast existed before shooting the job.

Thomas

Just because I use the latest terms, doesn't mean I'm an imbecile, it just means I'm using current terminology...

I never did my own printing, always sent it to the lab for printing.

I still do, but labs (most) don't take negatives, they take digital files now.

Many "commercial" photographers let other people handle the after work and just did the shooting. Many did not. Everyone has a process, but please don't belittle me because I don't print like you print.

I still think that to me the image you showed is very good, I just personally think the color cast, is toward the yellow, and what you are seeing as "vibrant color" is in fact the cast being off and accentuating the red and yellow hues. This isn't to say that's a bad thing, just that I don't think it's color "pop" and I definitely think the color could be just as good or stronger with Velvia50.

That said, who cares, this thread isn't really about that.

Maybe I'll be the new Fuji Chrome special order organizer :)

[Sal Santamaura]

...I couldn't see shooting transparency just to view them on a light table. But that's just me...Not just you.

That's why, since Professional Kodachrome 25 (and reliable processing for it) went extinct, the only transparency I shot was 120 E100G or Astia. To be projected in a Rollie. I still have two pro-packs of each in the freezer and a stockpile of mounts/trays to match. Should be just enough to use up in the Bronica RF645 before E-6 processing labs completely disappear too. :)

[tgtaylor]

Not just you.

That's why, since Professional Kodachrome 25 (and reliable processing for it) went extinct, the only transparency I shot was 120 E100G or Astia. To be projected in a Rollie. I still have two pro-packs of each in the freezer and a stockpile of mounts/trays to match. Should be just enough to use up in the Bronica RF645 before E-6 processing labs completely disappear too. :)

I have a Rollie too: AV66. When I bought the Pro Cabin 67 I didn't get the 645 adapter accessory never thinking that I would one day also shoot 645. When I got the 645 the Cabin's were no longer made and I couldn't find a used one anywhere although I looked for months. Then the Rollie popped up and I bought it - it came in its original box with all the packing. Beautiful projector and a pleasure to use. Projecting slides, especially MF slides, on a big screen is a real treat. It creates a view that looks like you can get up out of your chair and walk right into.

Thomas