Reasons for using reversal film? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Kiwi7475

15-Jul-2021, 12:13

You shoot slides for the resolution, sharpness, finer grain and vivid colors. However at 4x5 or 8x10 the difference in resolution is hardly justifiable unless you print very large.
The other reason is color palette: Velvia 50 has its own personality, as does Ektar or Portra. The look and feel won’t be the same. So it depends what look you’re after.

Here’s a good summary:

https://thedarkroom.com/slide-film-vs-color-negative-film/

Personally I shoot both— negatives for large dynamic range situations, and slides for everything else. In 8x10. Because I want to.

Again, the rationale depends on the application and your needs— for a lot of people it’s just a choice rooted on what you like, more than what you need, which drives decisions not only on film type but even film vs digital and sensor/film size as well.

r.e.

15-Jul-2021, 12:39

Personally I shoot both— negatives for large dynamic range situations, and slides for everything else. In 8x10. Because I want to.

Thanks. Do you scan and print your positives? If so, what impact does scanning and printing have on the image? Leaving aside the idea that scanning positives is easier, what do you get from scanning and printing a positive that you wouldn't have gotten from doing the same if you had shot a negative?

Drew Wiley

15-Jul-2021, 14:07

Kiwi7475

15-Jul-2021, 14:17

Thanks. Do you scan and print your positives? If so, what impact does scanning and printing have on the image? Leaving aside the idea that scanning positives is easier, what do you get from scanning and printing a positive that you wouldn't have gotten from doing the same if you had shot a negative?

These days with cibachrome gone, Photoshop really blurs everything.

If you’re thinking of a <x4 enlargement for a print, and an inkjet print at that, I don’t think you’ll see any difference in resolution. The real difference is how much work it’ll take you to retouch it in PS to get what you’re after. For me, color negative is more involved to get color corrected, slides is simpler. You can even mimic certain film looks in PS. But without some effort, a Velvia sheet or an Ektar sheet will render quite differently after a simple scan and minimal corrections. Also, slides give me more of a high constraint look — “Rembrandt shadows”, which you can’t lift much and tend to color shift, to blue, or to purple depending on the film.

But to answer your question — what I’ll get depends on what I’m after but tends to be color reproduction. If I’m doing portraits I’ll use Portra, never Velvia or Provia or Ektar. If I’m doing landscape and want vivid results I’ll go for Velvia 50. For a landscape already color saturated, I’ll go for Provia. If it’s a high contrast landscape, I’ll go with Ektar. In low light conditions I may go for Portra because of the better reciprocity. Others may choose differently.

In other words— what they give me is a combination of different rendition and different ability to handle a scene. Beyond that, there’s nothing really that creates a practical difference between the two, that translates into a print.
Except if you go for “extreme” (drum) scanning for very large prints, then slides may show a resolution edge all things equal.

r.e.

15-Jul-2021, 14:53

Ektar CN film is just as fine grained and potentially sharp as any chrome film. Makes little or no difference in LF applications, however, where most films have a surplus of real estate anyway. Colors differ regardless - each type has its own specific personality. But chromes as a category do have more contrast. I don't scan, but optically print; so at this point in time, negatives are easier. But I do sometimes print from precise contact internegs made from older 8x10 chrome originals. Going back to chromes today would be quite pricey to print - around $30 per 8x10 shot including E-6 processing, nearly the same amount for an 8x10 Portra interneg with C-41 processing, plus at least one intermediate 8X10 black and white mask, but lets say an average of two, so maybe another twenty bucks - overall, 80 or 90 bucks before printing the image even begins. But the actual results are well worth it.

Thanks, very helpful comments.

I did a quick search and came across this thread, in which you're a participant: Internegative from color slides for darkroom printing (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/internegative-from-color-slides-for-darkroom-printing.131407/)

I won't be using this process for my project, if only due to cost, but it's intriguing. I may shoot a positive and see what one of the better labs here can do with it.

r.e.

15-Jul-2021, 15:02

In other words— what they give me is a combination of different rendition and different ability to handle a scene. Beyond that, there’s nothing really that creates a practical difference between the two, that translates into a print.
Except if you go for “extreme” (drum) scanning for very large prints, then slides may show a resolution edge all things equal.

Thanks, for my situation this points to shooting Ektar or Portra negative.

Drew Wiley

15-Jul-2021, 18:28

Labs won't be able to help you with quality internegs. The special kind of film they once used relative to sheet film work is no longer made. Current Portra 160 does it superbly, but requires supplemental contrast masking, so is simply too fussy and labor-intensive for the few remaining full-service labs. If I offered such a service, I'd realistically need to ask about $500 per interneg. But I almost never print for others anymore. So on commercial scale, outputting from scans is the only realistic way when original chromes are involved. That gives you the option of either inkjet or laser printing onto chromogenic RA4 media.

Ektar is capable of achieving a look resembling chromes in terms of hue purity and saturation, but has certain idiosyncrasies requiring attention for optimal results. I have posted about these many times before, but they basically involved correction for color temp imbalance at the time of the shot using filters, rather than presuming it can be post-corrected afterwards. It just doesn't work that way. Ektar does give you distinctly more wiggle room in terms of contrast range than chromes; but don't mistake that for forgiveness of carelessness. There will be a qualitative penalty to incorrect exposure. And it is balanced to true 100 box speed. Ignore antique advice about overexposing these modern pro versions of color neg film.

Portra 160 is, as its name implies, engineered for optimal portrait use, being balanced to skintones, much less saturated, less fussy about filtration, and considerably less contrasty, with a wider latitude. It's the evolutionary pinnacle of classic color neg films at this point in time. Ektar is a completely different kind of animal, and more of a realistic option to the look of chromes. You should experiment with both.

r.e.

16-Jul-2021, 06:11

Ektar is capable of achieving a look resembling chromes in terms of hue purity and saturation, but has certain idiosyncrasies requiring attention for optimal results. I have posted about these many times before, but they basically involved correction for color temp imbalance at the time of the shot using filters, rather than presuming it can be post-corrected afterwards. It just doesn't work that way. Ektar does give you distinctly more wiggle room in terms of contrast range than chromes; but don't mistake that for forgiveness of carelessness. There will be a qualitative penalty to incorrect exposure. And it is balanced to true 100 box speed. Ignore antique advice about overexposing these modern pro versions of color neg film.

Portra 160 is, as its name implies, engineered for optimal portrait use, being balanced to skintones, much less saturated, less fussy about filtration, and considerably less contrasty, with a wider latitude. It's the evolutionary pinnacle of classic color neg films at this point in time. Ektar is a completely different kind of animal, and more of a realistic option to the look of chromes. You should experiment with both.

Thanks very much for your observations. I've used Portra, but not Ektar. As you suggest, the next step is a Portra/Ektar test.

r.e.

16-Jul-2021, 08:11

Re Portra and Ektar, the following 2019 thread is helpful, especially Drew's comments in post #52 on page 3: Ektar 100 vs Portra 160 - what's the exact difference? (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ektar-100-vs-portra-160-whats-the-exact-difference.170309/)

Bernice Loui

16-Jul-2021, 10:45

Better question, what are your image goals and what are the images intended to be small-large-whopper size, photochemical process or digital file printed, web based viewing only or book printing or ?_?

There is no ideal film, there is no ideal digital image process, there is no ideal photochemical process. Going far beyond the often overly focused object of camera-lens, the post process aka image making process is often FAR more important than camera-lens. Yet it tends to be the most ignored, taken for granted and difficult.

Don't fall into the higher contrast transmitted color image is "sharper" than a reflected light color image. The visual perception of transmitted color -vs- reflected color is not the same and do not believe higher contrast aka "snappier" is sharper or "better". Image quality is FAR more complex than that.

As for color transparency film, it's broad and extremely common use back in the day was due to the color printing process. Back in the film centric color printing days, GOOD color transparencies were the essential ingredient to make color printing happen. This demanded high quality color transparencies made in very specific ways-process-techniques. There is an example of color transparency contrast control and more in this Sinar info sheet# 31:
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01388/01388.pdf

Notable is this contrast ratio line of what is possible with color transparency film -vs- color printing.
217605

This is one of the reasons why spot-on exposure and overall control of lighting WAS so extremely important back in those color transparency centric days. Note the 4000w/s strobe behind the diffusor in the set up notes. That kind of studio strobe power was extremely common back in those days for any serious studio view camera work. It is also why the Meh reaction to producing color transparencies with outdoor light which is not controllable with significant color temperature variations over the course of a circadian day of light.

And yes Drew IS correct on inherent color personality of any film to discover what is might be requires testing that is likely extremely difficult to achieve today, yet extremely common back in the film centric days (anyone serious about doing color film images understood and practiced this process-method and understood well what color was about).

See post# 33
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page4&highlight=gray+card+test

See post# 20
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome

If the color images are scanned into a digital file, worked on in software following the digital work flow, not a lot of advantages to using color transparency film.
What IS more important to revealing and achieving the innate color personality of a given color film spot on exposure, light used for exposure to the rated color temperature of the specific film then testing using a calibrated color densitometer and that entire film density testing process.

Spend the 2 1/2 hours to what these two Tim Hall videos on color:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mss_EnQsq0o&t=2212s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5x7TDsHRV8&t=2695s

Bernice

r.e.

17-Jul-2021, 13:17

Thanks Bernice, interesting comments and links. I've narrowed my options to Ektar and Portra. I'll be trying out both with 4x5 sheets of each that I'm picking up at B&H tomorrow.

Eugen Mezei

18-Jul-2021, 02:53

A reason back in the days was that slides are easier to check. The redactor in charge puts the slides onto a lighttable and sorts them in two piles: the ones usable for his needs and the others. Time needed for this operation being seconds or few minutes.
Some magazines not only had the policy of asking for slides, but some would accept only middle format. Reason being that direct visual inspection was easier.

r.e.

18-Jul-2021, 06:38

A reason back in the days was that slides are easier to check.

I know a commercial photographer who did a lot of catalogue shoots who says that this is one of the reasons why he and others used reversal film for those shoots.

I started this thread because my favourite black and white prints are 8x10 contact prints, and from that perspective reversal film was a potentially interesting option. However, in light of the responses, for me the sensible decision is to go with negative film.

I am curious about what the current market is for reversal film. I don't know what the economics are of the film business, but I have the impression that reversal is a fairly small niche market in what is already a niche market. I sure wouldn't choose it for a long-term project unless I was prepared, if necessary, to buy and freeze a lot of it in one go. I'm also inclined to think that the question of future availability weighs in favour of Portra over Ektar.

sharktooth

18-Jul-2021, 07:27

Well, duh. You need to use reversal film to compensate for the reversed image on the ground glass.

... and for full correction, you really should be using an authentic Australian made ground glass for right-side-up viewing. Definitely worth the premium, in my view.

Bernice Loui

18-Jul-2021, 10:33

Much to do with the color lithographic printing process. Back in those days color printing began with color separated half tone negatives. These were easier to make from color transparency film positives or color paste ups. Color negatives or B&W negatives required an inter-positive film which is then used in the same way as a color positive transparency film to make the half tone color separation negative set. Eventually scanning was introduced to the color printing process which addressed the demand for positive images (transmitted or reflected light) for the lithographic printing process.

Some history on the color Litho printing process and color correction:
https://cmykhistory.com/a-color-correction-maskerade/

Added advantage of color transparency films was ease of assessing if the image was any good and if the printing check copy was close enough to the original image. Keep in mind the print contrast ratio noted in the Sinar Image Tech# 33 of the printing contrast range of 16:1 -vs- color transparency contrast range of 64:1.

This was the primary and main market for color transparency films back in the day. It is why SO much volume of color transparency film was consumed and common.

Personally, color transparency sheet film images were used to make Ilfordchrome / Cibachrome prints. When properly done with lower contrast lenses (Kodak Ektar and similar) controlled lighting (lighting ratios and all that), contrast masking, proper color control and all the finished print was very special in many ways. Once that print process was gone, color images stopped.

Largest volume of color transparency film consumed was 35mm (many thousands of frames), mounted up then projected using an Elmo Ominigraphic (the better dounut slide tray projector) or Kodak projector with a Golden Navitar, Isco AV or Schneider Cinelux AV projector lens. This made GOOD color images to enjoy. Done properly, think this remains one of the better ways to use color transparency film today.

IMO, today color transparency film images have a "moth attracted to the light" effect where the transmitted light image tends to suck or lure in many viewers in the same way moths are attracted to light at night.

As a personal judgement on current digital based color prints.. Meh..
What digital imaging has made easy and available to many is the ability to bend the data based image to an individual's will, intent, desires and more. Inherently not a bad thing, just very revealing of the vision, imagination, creativity much of who the individual bending the image might be.

Bernice

r.e.

19-Jul-2021, 13:16

As a personal judgement on current digital based color prints.. Meh..
What digital imaging has made easy and available to many is the ability to bend the data based image to an individual's will, intent, desires and more. Inherently not a bad thing, just very revealing of the vision, imagination, creativity much of who the individual bending the image might be.

Interesting personal view given what follows after "Meh" :)

My preference for my project is analogue prints from negatives. I've also considered scanning. As part of thinking about scanning, I looked at the current prices of medium format digital cameras and backs. They have come down a lot. A camera like the Fujifilm GFX 100S is within reach. I think that I would sell my analogue camera and lenses, and buy a medium format digital camera, rather than shoot analogue and scan.

However, while I haven't made a final decision, I'm currently on an analogue camera/analogue printing track.

Drew Wiley

19-Jul-2021, 16:38

Chromogenic RA4 printing directly from color negatives is actually one of the easiest and most straightforward forms of printing there is in terms of the mechanics of it. And it can be more affordable than either fiber-based black and white printing or other avenues of color printing. Inkjet certainly isn't cheap when you consider what goes into it in terms of time, materials, and periodic replacement of equipment and software. On the other hand, a well-built enlarger could easily last a hundred years. The relevant RA4 papers don't seem to be in any danger of disappearing anytime soon - nearly all the same papers that work for the big commercial laser printers work with ordinary darkroom colorheads too, although certain papers in certain markets might be temporarily hard to get due to pandemic backlog issues.

All that being said, chromogenic printing is just like any other printmaking skill in that one just keeps learning and improving. You have to shoot, print... shoot, print....many times over and over again, to really understand how a given film and paper respond to your vision, or else how to bend your own expectations to the native characteristics of the media itself. Having a certain amount of restriction with respect to the characteristic signature of particular film and paper combination is actually the key to moving ahead efficiently. The temptation with digital, on the other hand, is that just because so many things are hypothetically possible, so many different directions, that nothing really gets mastered, at least not by very many practitioners. Less is more.

In the meantime, competent services which will do the C41 processing of your film can supply relatively affordable scans by which to view your negatives, just to see if you're on the right track until you become comfortable with that particular film. No need for expensive drum scans or other top end scans, since this is only for sake of general valuation and not actual printing. But if substituting smaller format film just for sake of saving money during the learning curve, use at least 120 format. The smaller sampling size of 35mm frames is often misleading with mid to lower quality scans.

If you go with Ektar, carry at least a 1B light pinkish skylight filter for minor color cast corrections, plus a KR1.5 or alternately 81A for sake of overall bluish overcast days. Meter this film with as much care as you would a color chrome, and you won't have any problems. The filter factors for each of the above two filters will be negligible. Portra 160 is balanced a little warmer, so you might not need any supplementary filtration at all unless the lighting is way off; but experiment to suit your own taste. Porta 400 is somewhere in between, but closer in hue characteristics to Porta 160 than Ektar.

Bernice Loui

19-Jul-2021, 17:40

Gotta agree with Drew on this. Specially, "to really understand how a given film and paper respond to your vision, or else how to bend your own expectations to the native characteristics of the media itself. Having a certain amount of restriction with respect to the characteristic signature of particular film and paper combination is actually the key to moving ahead efficiently. The temptation with digital, on the other hand, is that just because so many things are hypothetically possible, so many different directions, that nothing really gets mastered, at least not by very many practitioners. Less is more."

As for color film or color digital, read from post# 27:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164243-Why-View-Camera-amp-Sheet-Film-Today-in-our-here-and-now/page3

IMO, digital work flow image making does offer a bursting variety and ability to bend images.. This places more demands on the print and image goals with piles more ability to never meet or achieve the goal intended. These words might come across as "makes zero sense".. think about this and consider the much bigger overall system and ponder why?

Bernice

Chromogenic RA4 printing directly from color negatives is actually one of the easiest and most straightforward forms of printing there is in terms of the mechanics of it. And it can be more affordable than either fiber-based black and white printing or other avenues of color printing. Inkjet certainly isn't cheap when you consider what goes into it in terms of time, materials, and periodic replacement of equipment and software. On the other hand, a well-built enlarger could easily last a hundred years. The relevant RA4 papers don't seem to be in any danger of disappearing anytime soon - nearly all the same papers that work for the big commercial laser printers work with ordinary darkroom colorheads too, although certain papers in certain markets might be temporarily hard to get due to pandemic backlog issues.

All that being said, chromogenic printing is just like any other printmaking skill in that one just keeps learning and improving. You have to shoot, print... shoot, print....many times over and over again, to really understand how a given film and paper respond to your vision, or else how to bend your own expectations to the native characteristics of the media itself. Having a certain amount of restriction with respect to the characteristic signature of particular film and paper combination is actually the key to moving ahead efficiently. The temptation with digital, on the other hand, is that just because so many things are hypothetically possible, so many different directions, that nothing really gets mastered, at least not by very many practitioners. Less is more.

In the meantime, competent services which will do the C41 processing of your film can supply relatively affordable scans by which to view your negatives, just to see if you're on the right track until you become comfortable with that particular film. No need for expensive drum scans or other top end scans, since this is only for sake of general valuation and not actual printing. But if substituting smaller format film just for sake of saving money during the learning curve, use at least 120 format. The smaller sampling size of 35mm frames is often misleading with mid to lower quality scans.

If you go with Ektar, carry at least a 1B light pinkish skylight filter for minor color cast corrections, plus a KR1.5 or alternately 81A for sake of overall bluish overcast days. Meter this film with as much care as you would a color chrome, and you won't have any problems. The filter factors for each of the above two filters will be negligible. Portra 160 is balanced a little warmer, so you might not need any supplementary filtration at all unless the lighting is way off; but experiment to suit your own taste. Porta 400 is somewhere in between, but closer in hue characteristics to Porta 160 than Ektar.

LabRat

19-Jul-2021, 17:54

Yea, RA-4 is nice... And materials are still made and not too expensive...

But I'm spoiled not having access to a well running processor where you feed a test strip or exposed paper into, and 3 minutes later, out comes a dry, finished print!!!

An upgrade I added was putting a colorhead over a condenser enlarger that added a noticeable "snap" to the images...

Made the RA-4's almost look like Cibas...

Steve K

Drew Wiley

20-Jul-2021, 14:17

If you want the real Ciba look, use Fujiflex Supergloss media, itself polyester rather than RC paper based. And some color negs will need a supplemental contrast-increase mask to boost the contrast to Ciba level with rich deep blacks (versus the contrast reduction masks generally needed for actual Ciba work with chromes). Basic stuff. But Ciba also needed aggressive masking for sake of inherent color idiosyncrasies. Current CN / RA4 options are less squirrelly in that respect.

r.e.

21-Jul-2021, 08:32

Thanks for more good advice. I expect to have Drew's recommended filters by the end of the month, at which point I'll start my Ektar/Portra tests using 4x5 sheet film. I have a Mamiya 7II, and plan to shoot some 6x7 as well.

I've decided to hire a lab to print my photographs. There are mundane and proficiency reasons for this. The mundane reason is that I live in a New York apartment, and the few do-it-yourself labs here, including a well-established co-op lab in Bushwick, are both inconvenient by public transport and not inexpensive.

However, the main reason is that I know what a good analogue printer can do, and I'm prepared to pay for that expertise and craftsmanship. I've had the opportunity to watch a friend make prints for Peter Lindbergh and Sebastião Selgado. I think that my time is better spent making photographs than pretending to be an accomplished printer :) My friend lives in Paris, and is not in the best of health, so I'm making inquiries about printers here.

That said, I really appreciate the comments on colour printing. The more that I understand about it, the better.

Bernice Loui

21-Jul-2021, 10:08

The photochemical color print process is complex and in many ways a world of it's own. This was one of the reasons why back in the color film centric days specialist labs that did BIG color prints excellent were a speciality and worth their what they were paid in many ways. There are only two color labs in the SF bay area that is deeply missed.

Color Three Labs in San Francisco. Once run-owned by long time friend Tim Hall. Their speciality was GIANT sized color prints. These were made from GIANT rolls of Kodak color paper using an highly modified Durst 184 enlarger head built into converted elevator shaft. Take the time to watch this Tim Hall video to get some sense of the Artist-Photographers Tim worked with and the GIANT color prints they produced for countess exhibits nation wide back in those days.
The Color Three Lab's print finishing room can be seen at 11:22 in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76SdcpUYYUk

The other deeply missed color lab was The New Lab in San Francisco. They were the E6 color transparency processing specialist serving the entire SF bay area Foto community in ways only The New Lab could. Story about The New Lab from another Artist-Photographer.
http://christianpeacock.com/christianpeac/2009/06/what-new-lab-meant-to-us.html

After the Hey-Day of these two color labs, essentially stopped doing any images in color as that was about the time when Digital imaging was pushing color film off the print making methods.

IMO, wise to chose and hire a GOOD color lab to make prints. Do try your very best to provide that chosen color lab and color printer the very best film originals to work with. It will produce better color prints, far less verbiage from the color printer and color lab with all involved less stressed.

Bernice

Thanks for more good advice. I expect to have Drew's recommended filters by the end of the month, at which point I'll start my Ektar/Portra tests using 4x5 sheet film.

I've decided to hire a lab to print the photos. There are mundane and proficiency reasons for this. The mundane reason is that I live in a New York apartment, and the few do-it-yourself labs here, including a popular community lab in Bushwick, are both inconvenient by public transport and not inexpensive.

However, the main reason is that I know what a good printer can do, and I'm prepared to pay for that expertise and craftsmanship. I've had the opportunity to watch a friend make prints for Peter Lindbergh and Sebastião Selgado. I know my place, and I've decided that my time is better spent making photographs than pretending to be a printer. Unfortunately, my friend is not in the best of health, and in any event lives in Paris, so I'm making inquiries about printers here.

That said, I really appreciate the comments on colour printing. The more that I understand about it, the better.

Drew Wiley

21-Jul-2021, 15:54

Bernice, the mostly highly equipped SF color lab was hardly known to the public, bigger than New Lab, and mainly worked for just a handful of big overseas corporate clients, and mostly from 8x10 chrome originals, which were E6 processed in house. Chromogenic and Ciba prints were both offered. At one time about 13 commercial 8x10 enlargers were in use, plus around another 20 4X5 units. There were also three full service labs in the East Bay around the same time capable of huge color and black and white work mural work. There was a also a tower-like giant color print specialist doing strictly 35mm blowups at lower rates for amateurs and big casual ad use (much lower quality). There were also a couple of DT printing operations, but not for sake of large prints. Quite a bit was going on.

But thanks for the links. What killed off all the full-service labs was not so much big digital prints, because that became offered in parallel too, both laser and injket, rather than as an outright replacement to optical emlargement. Rather, the demise was more due to the cannibalistic nature of urban redevelopment and "gentrification", which leveled a lot of industrial and warehouse spaces in order to make room for higher taxed luxury condos, techie office spaces, and absurdly expensive fru-fru ground level retail leases. That wiped out all three of our picture frame supply wholesalers too, even though the demand for that kind of product remains high. A number of little specialty photo labs have popped up and are doing well; but anything resembling a classic full-service lab in the Bay Area is long gone.

A new start up based on the leftover equipment and personnel of one a former local lab (not any previously alluded to, but more recent) is at least offering nearby development of both C41 and E6 up to 8x10, plus scanning services. But to get a reasonable lease, it's in a sketchy part of Oakland I wouldn't want to visit very often.

r.e.

21-Jul-2021, 19:36

IMO, wise to chose and hire a GOOD color lab to make prints. Do try your very best to provide that chosen color lab and color printer the very best film originals to work with. It will produce better color prints, far less verbiage from the color printer and color lab with all involved less stressed.

Very good advice.

LabRat

21-Jul-2021, 21:37

I was curious why most of the big labs in LA were quietly changing hands in the 90's, and asked several (former) lab managers what happened... (This was the pre-digital era...) They said the Kodak, Fuji, and other reps met with them and used "scare tactics" to inform them their future was dead, not due to digital, but rather they needed to be able to compete with other labs by purchasing the large scale, very expensive tech assisted systems they were trying to sell (some way over 500 grand)... One operator could do the work of an entire department they said!!! And other departments could have other semi-automated systems and guess who would sell them materials, training, service contracts etc??? The labs ran the numbers, and realized the systems would cost more than the profits!!! This frightened most big lab owners, so businesses quietly changed hands...

The new owners bought in with the idea they had an existing client base, but their business models changed when digital applications appeared (many clients could do in-house), so labs started to run down... Decades old employees from specialty departments were asked to help out in other sections of the leaner labs, but most were stuck in their ways, and eventually laid-off... Big labs shrunk until they closed... Some big labs that owned the property found they could make more money by renting or selling property than producing and paying idle staff...

Let's see what model newer or smaller labs have now with this current boom going on... I hope they thrive...

Steve K

Drew Wiley

22-Jul-2021, 09:54

I know the inside story of our big local labs quite well, not only because the owners were friends, but because I was a supplier to their facilities and maintenance needs. One of them was highly successful until they allowed Kodak to talk them into getting on the ground floor of digital printing, which came with not only big equipment payoffs, but with mandatory expensive service contracts. But it wasn't long until more practical and more affordable equipment was being offered by competitors, so Kodak had second thoughts and shut down their own service while still demanding payment on the unserviceable equipment! In that case, the lab owner simply called it quits and liquidated everything in a bankruptcy sale while he could still salvage enough funds for retirement.

Another lab threw in the towel because the owner had become so sensitized to RA4 and Ciba chem that he broke out in hives even entering his own building. Yet another needed lung surgery. That's why I'm a small quantity guy doing just a print at a time in a drum on a portable processing cart outdoors. One of these guys had 250 gallons of Ciba dev and bleach each in working solution on a daily basis - that's a hecka lot of sulfuric acid! I work with less than a quart at a time.

Then local labs got pushed out by skyrocketing leases in a deliberate attempt to clear out all industrial and warehousing businesses in order to make room for very expensive condos and techie office spaces. Ironically, one of the biggest local re-developers earned his money with a photo lab first. He still has a giant lab space, but now in his late 70's, now only uses a small portion of it as a high-end cuisine photography site, replete with gourmet kitchen. His remaining help is very well paid and incredibly good at multi-tasking. They can digitally output the studio shots directly to pre-press, and simply swivel a chair to man a real estate or construction issue in a kind of command-central computer station. He's never himself taken a vacation in his life, even though he owns multiple resorts. Work adrenaline keeps him going. The studio work is done mostly at night with Sinar and Broncolor gear, now itself re-purposed for digital capture. But a well-done cookbook is no comparison to the giant intricate Ciba prints he used to make from 8x10 chrome film, mostly for Japanese clients. Seeing a superbly designed suite of Sushi atop a classic plate of intricately painted Japanese porcelain, then printed in extreme detail onto five by eight foot Ciba stock was quite an experience.

Several smaller labs have filled in the niches. Some offer film development plus scanning and digital printing. Some just do printing, some mainly just development. Laser printing onto RA4 chromogenic materials is also available in the area. But I don't know if any big optical enlarger printing is still going on commercially. I'm very well equipped for it myself, but don't print the work of others.

otto.f

22-Jul-2021, 22:16

jnantz

23-Jul-2021, 10:52

I'm planning a large format project and I have to decide whether to use color negative or reversal film. Where I am, the choices for the latter are FujiFilm Provia F and Kodak Ektachrome. I'd appreciate comments from people who are using reversal on their reasons for using it. It would be helpful to know whether the end product is projection or a print from a scan. One other question. If the end product is a print, what is the rationale for scanning a positive rather than a negative?

Thanks

sorry, but I see no reason for the added hassle and expense of shooting chromes.
I've shot plenty of them over the years and maybe back in the day they served a purpose,
but not anymore.
have fun with your project !
John

Alan Klein

23-Jul-2021, 13:44

I agree with everything Kiwi wrote. Slides have their own right and reason of existence and use, even if you scan for printing. The special color palette of Provia for instance, my favorite, or Ektachrome 100, cannot be emulated by color profile app’s out of color negatives or digital takes. I’m not a good scanner but it’s even sometimes very difficult to get the special color palette from a color negative film like Ektar 100 out of a scan from it.

sorry, but I see no reason for the added hassle and expense of shooting chromes.
I've shot plenty of them over the years and maybe back in the day they served a purpose,
but not anymore.
have fun with your project !
John

Beside liking the color palette of Velvia 50, I just find chromes easier to scan than negative color film.

Drew Wiley

23-Jul-2021, 14:53

Just go to any decent art store and look at the selection of pigments available. You've got oil colors, acrylics, pastels, crayons, dye markers, tempera colors, on and on - many types, each with its own justification and following. There is no "best" category. You choose what works best for you. Likewise, there simply is no silver bullet color film or color capture method. Many hues are difficult to bag with any method of photographic reproduction , let alone just one kind. The story of my life. Even when I shot strictly color, there was never only one film involved. Maybe that works in certain studio situations where all the color problems are choreographed in advance; but it sure doesn't work well in nature where it is doing the decorating.

r.e.

29-Jul-2021, 14:17

Now ready to test Ektar and Portra, having received two screw-in Heliopan filters today:

Heliopan Skylight aka KR 1.5 (https://heliopan.com/collections/general-use-filters/products/skylight-filter?variant=12657406017599)
Heliopan 81A aka KR 3 (https://heliopan.com/products/81a-filter?variant=12821155348543)

My screw-in filters are standardised at 82mm, which is not an inexpensive size. I was able to find these on eBay, and the vendor delivered 100%. If they've ever been used, it isn't apparent.

Heliopan only makes one Skylight filter. It may be closer to a 1A than the 1B that Drew Wiley suggested. I'll see how it goes. If I need it, Hoya makes a 1B that's reasonably priced.

Skylight and 81 series colour correction filters seem to be endangered species. There aren't a lot of makers. Hoya looks to be the best bet for inventory. Heliopan's are out of stock everywhere, with a long wait time. Schneider/B+W appears to have stopped making these filters altogether.

Tin Can

29-Jul-2021, 14:51

Slide show is a good reason for me

Drew Wiley

29-Jul-2021, 17:00

81A and KR 1.5 are similar. If I'm trying to remove a bit of excess overall blue, I'll use the 81A, if cyan instead, the KR1.5. Since Ektar mainly suffers from a shift toward cyan, I'm more apt to carry the KR1.5, but seldom both. I always have some kind of weaker skylight filter along too. Under deep blue shade, like early morning shade at high altitude under open sun and very blue skies, I like to have along something even stronger like an 81C. But the nature of the Euro KR-series concept is that you can stack filter to add up to a sum value. For example, two KR 1.5's stacked would equal a KR3. I don't like stacking because it potentially affects sharpness a bit; but it can be done in a pinch.

r.e.

29-Jul-2021, 18:16

Thanks Drew. Helpful once again.

81A and KR 1.5 are similar. If I'm trying to remove a bit of excess overall blue, I'll use the 81A, if cyan instead, the KR1.5. Since Ektar mainly suffers from a shift toward cyan, I'm more apt to carry the KR1.5, but seldom both. I always have some kind of weaker skylight filter along too. Under deep blue shade, like early morning shade at high altitude under open sun and very blue skies, I like to have along something even stronger like an 81C. But the nature of the Euro KR-series concept is that you can stack filter to add up to a sum value. For example, two KR 1.5's stacked would equal a KR3. I don't like stacking because it potentially affects sharpness a bit; but it can be done in a pinch.

r.e.

4-Aug-2021, 13:51

This project involves making photographs, mostly outdoors, in my neighbourhood in Queens. It's a National Historic District, lively and culturally diverse. It's also where Hitchcock's The Wrong Man and Maria, Full of Grace were filmed, as well as a recent Frederick Wiseman documentary. Hard acts to follow :)

My current inclination is to use 8x10 film for the project. I'm finally set up to do some film tests this weekend, which I'll do with 4x5 film:

Camera: Arca-Swiss

Lens for the Test: Nikkor-W f/5.6 240mm

I want to keep variables to a minimum, but I also intend to try a Docter Optic f/4.5 210mm, although it doesn't cover 8x10.

Film:

Kodak Ektar 100, expires November, 2022

Kodak Portra 160, expires May, 2023

Ilford FP4+ 125, expired but probably OK

I've included the Ilford partly for comparative purposes and partly because I haven't ruled out shooting this project in black and white, or a combination of colour and black and white. If I prefer Portra to Ektar, I may do a further Portra 160/400 test. At B&H, Portra 160 is less expensive than 400, by enough that it would add up over time.

I'll shoot a sheet of each film one after the other for a given test subject. The objective is simple. I just want to see how each film interprets the scene and light. I'm not in a hurry to use filtration during the test, but I have the filters that users of Ektar tend to recommend.

Oren Grad

4-Aug-2021, 14:02

Lens for the Test: Nikkor-W f/5.6 240mm

It doesn't cover 8x10...

It should per Nikon spec, which says image circle is 336mm at f/22. Of course, that's still not much to work with if you're in the habit of using front rise for buildings photographed from ground level.

r.e.

4-Aug-2021, 14:04

It should per Nikon spec, which says image circle is 336mm at f/22. Of course, that's still not much to work with if you're in the habit of using front rise for buildings photographed from ground level.

Hi Oren,

That was meant to be a reference to the Docter Optic lens. I've re-worded the sentence to make that clearer.

Where I'm making these photographs, I'm not going to need front rise. Not a tall building in sight. There are a couple of exceptions, which I would photograph, if I do, with a different lens than the Nikkor 240mm. Buildings as buildings aren't my subject. They're backdrops.

Drew Wiley

4-Aug-2021, 14:35

Most people stop down significantly further than f/22 when using 8X10 film anyway, so the effective image circle would be bigger still at those smaller stops. Even a 30X40 inch print is just 4X linear magnification from 8x10 film size, so minor hypothetical diffraction-related sharpness issues won't even be detected unless one is printing really huge. Depth of field is the more common problem, and smaller stops help in that respect. Plenty of 240 and 250 lenses cover 8X10 with room to spare.

Oren Grad

4-Aug-2021, 15:01

Hi Oren,

That was meant to be a reference to the Docter Optic lens. I've re-worded the sentence to make that clearer.

Where I'm making these photographs, I'm not going to need front rise. Not a tall building in sight. There are a couple of exceptions, which I would photograph, if I do, with a different lens than the Nikkor 240mm. Buildings as buildings aren't my subject. They're backdrops.

Got it. Good luck, will be interested to hear more about your project when the time is right.

r.e.

5-Aug-2021, 03:49

I've included the Ilford partly for comparative purposes and partly because I haven't ruled out shooting this project in black and white, or a combination of colour and black and white. If I prefer Portra to Ektar, I may do a further Portra 160/400 test. At B&H, Portra 160 is less expensive than 400, by enough that it would add up over time.

Checking prices for film stock was an eye-opener on a practical financial level. I see these numbers as a strong argument for Portra 160 and Ilford B&W. I've watched prices for about five weeks. While there's been some fluctuation, and there was a temporary sale on Ektar in July, the relative prices have not changed.

B&H price per 8x10 sheet today (August 5, 2021):

Portra 400: $24
Ektar 100: $23
Portra 160: $19

Kodak Tri-X 320: $12
Kodak T-Max 400: $10
Ilford Delta: $7.45
Ilford FP4, HP5: $7.10

I've posted charts with more detailed information on prices in this thread: Charts Showing the Current Prices (August 2021) of Colour and B&W Film Stocks (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?164794-Charts-Showing-the-Current-Prices-(August-2021)-of-Colour-and-B-amp-W-Film-Stocks)