Shooting 20x24 color display film in camera

[Ken Brown]

I realize that this is a off-the-wall question.

I know of no camera speed color films are manufactured larger than 11x14. Might it be possible to expose a clear base color display material such as Kodak Endura Classic or Ilford Ilfochrome Classic in a 20x24 camera (outdoors), develop in RA4 and then use the film as a negative to make prints using a contact frame?

A few thoughts:

(1) The base color is different, therefore the color correction is going to take some serious color corrections over the light source when contacting.

(2) Using print material is going to require a long exposure.

(3) The cost of these materials is far cheaper per square foot of material than camera film. Ten sheets of 20x24 film is $90 at B&H.

(4) The contrast is different that camera films.

(5) These materials are manufactured in sizes up to 50" by 100ft rolls allowing someone to make huge images if they have a lens that has the coverage.

After you tell me I am crazy, please give me your thoughts as to how this idea can be made to work.

[Jan Van Hove]

Ok, I'm speculating here, since i have never work with stuff like Ilfotrans...

I guess it would be possible, the same way it is possible to shoot ilfochrome paper as a direct positive in camera, which needs color correction since color temperature from an enlarger is not the same sa color temperature from a live subject. You'd have to run some tests, but I guess that starting with the same color correction as shooting tungsten-balanced film in daylight.

The color corrections for printing, I think is the other way around... When you print "traditional" color negatives with that orange base color, you have to color correct in order to get rid of the blue cast it brings in the image. If you have a clear base to your negative (live cross-processing slide film...) then color correction is less severe... I guess you are going to need a color printing head anyway to get the exact filtrations to get your colors right on the print, though...

You are right about slow speed, but that's not too big a deal when you consider that it's pretty much the only avialable possiblity.

The price factor is a good point, and the best part about it is that it lends itself to experimentation relatively easily. Now, 9$ per test is not necessairly cheap, but getting a usable color negative has to account for something...

Contrast is the main "problem", i guess, and you might have to stick to "flatter" subjects if you don't want too much contrast in your negative...

As for getting a negative in 50" wide... anybody in for a 50" high cirkut camera that shoots images 20ft long ? :)

Let us know how it goes if you try it out...

PJ

[Bill Jefferson]

Another alternative would be Polaroid 20x24 print film iso 80, same as T-59 and 559

[Nick_3536]

1) I wonder if you could make two exposures. One full size and a smaller one [4x5?]. You could then put the 4x5 in the enlarger and use an analyzer to get your filter settings. Remove the 4x5 and put the contact frame on the baseboard.
It means carrying a second camera and tripod but with 20x24 I guess a little extra weight won't kill you. I'm not sure the lack of an orange mask is a positive. Think of printing cross processed E-6 film. The stuff in my expierence needs some interesting filter settings. Isn't the paper designed to expect the orange mask?

2) saves money on shutters-)

[Ken Brown]

Thanks for the responses.

As far as major filtration, I wonder if it might be practical to just sandwich a sheet of Rosco gel in front of the film itself to get close. It will cut sharpness slightly but at 20x24, it is not going to make much of a difference. The fine tuning can be filtered when the prints are made.

I had wondered if it were a option to shoot a direct positive paper instead. Talk about a limited edition print! I guess if copies needed to be make, the original could be scanned on a large format roll scanner like is used in the blueprint or mapping industry.

Yes, Polaroid 20x24 is a option but something tells me it is more expensive than $10.00 a sheet for 20x24.

I know it is insane, but with 50in roll material it would be quite poossible to prefab a small building from 2x2 pine and half inch foam board insulation, screw it together on an accessable site and make a huge negative or print of a landscape that would not cost that much for the material -- like 30bucks for a shot. Mount your 47.5 in Red-Dot Artar or 1800mm Apo-Nikkor in one wall in such a way you can focus it slightly, tape the paper or film onto the other wall and uncover the lens to expose. You can work under a safelight (with a 12V bulb) to change the material to make another shot if needed. You could even rig a vacuum back using a cordless vacuum.

Gentlemen, lets dream Big -- as in LARGE format.

[Nick_3536]

You'll find a few threads on shooting onto paper. You can't use a safelight with colour material. Instead of building a building on site why not just get a trailer? Drive it to location. Mount the lens and film. expose. A trailer would be big enough to have a built in darkroom so you could process on site.