Color ULF: Ektachrome reportedly in 11x14

[Ulophot]

Saw it on Nico's photo news today and thught I'd pass it along for any not in whatever the loop may be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cllgWYulKH0.

Canham is apparently involved in order placement. See the video if interested. (I am B&W and 4x5 max.)

[Oren Grad]

There's an announcement on Keith Canham's Facebook page - that's where he regularly posts these special orders. See also:

https://canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html

Be forewarned - Keith says that "the price per square inch is about the same as it is for 4x5 E100", which means the price per 11x14 sheet is going to be... breathtaking.

[Kiwi7475]

There's an announcement on Keith Canham's Facebook page - that's where he regularly posts these special orders. See also:

https://canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html

Be forewarned - Keith says that "the price per square inch is about the same as it is for 4x5 E100", which means the price per 11x14 sheet is going to be... breathtaking.

It’s actually just what you’d expect from scaling the cost by the area from the 8x10 that freestyle offers.

The plus side…. How many 11x14 E6 will you ever be able to shoot in your life…. I think it’s great it’s happening!

[Lachlan 717]

$80million lottery here in Australia this week... Maybe I could afford a box?

We're actually entering territory where said box will be approaching the cost of the entry level of cameras it's specific to!

[Monty McCutchen]

William Corey thought it was worth as much as the camera! Lol. Of course he was a much better photographer than me which plays a small role in the investment.

I miss him and the work he would have continued to make but I make sure to visit him and his work often on his site.

Monty

https://williamcorey.com/

[Oren Grad]

That's funny... I was just thinking of Corey, there haven't been that many photographers known for ULF color. Nice to see that his site is still up.

[Lachlan 717]

…there haven't been that many photographers known for ULF color.

I’d love to try it on 7x17”; however, I doubt there would be enough users wishing to outlay a considerable sum for the privilege, nor enough opportunities to process the film once exposed…

[sperdynamite]

Probably roughly $500 per box based on quick math? Is that wrong? Not terrible if you're invested in 11x14. How much do you expect to sell a print for if you nail it on 11x14 Ektachrome? Hopefully more than the cost of a box by roughly 3-4x. Not a bad investment at all if you got the goods to make it sing.

[Alan Klein]

Don't forget to bracket. :rolleyes:

[John Layton]

I could envision these large transparencies...mounted on thin, color-balanced led screens - then matted and framed - would be stunning! Its been a few years since I've done anything with LF chromes - but the thought of this gets the ole noggin pretty stoked!

[Drew Wiley]

I think backlit Hamm's beer logo scenes in skanky neighborhood dive windows were mass-produced far more affordably. Anyone shooting 11X14 chromes these days either has massive enlargements in mind, or perhaps contact color separations for 11X14 color carbon prints, something like that. Backlit commercial transparencies can be easily laser printed, generated from a scan of any sized original. That beer itself was awful anyway. Flowing water in the light box - probably downstream from some stinky paper pulp mill !

[Bernice Loui]

One needs to ponder if it is the large sized transmitted light image that is the appeal to a 11x14 color transparency?

There was a time when LARGE display color transparencies were common means of commercial AD images. These could be excellent color images in many ways. Don't see much if any of these any more. Similar effect to color stain glass windows.

Persistent question with 11x14 Ektachrome color transparencies, what will be done with them? How do they fit into the overall print making scheme?


Bernice

[Kiwi7475]

Let’s not overthink it. I would guess that someone has a client that will pay for it and that accounts for the bulk of the minimum order, and what objectives they have in mind, I don’t know and will likely never know.

For the rest of people that perhaps order a box or two, it’s probably just buying into an experience that is hard to come by, maybe will never happen again, maybe it will, but it’s kind of unique. It doesn’t really matter whether it obeys some specific requirements that can only be met with 11x14 chromes.

Others go for a skydiving experience for like $250, at a rate of like $40/minute. At least the chrome will be imprinted somewhere else other than in one’s memory!

[Drew Wiley]

Huge backlit ad display transparencies are still common enough, Bernice. They're routinely laser printed onto RA4 transparency media either from digital capture itself or hypothetically any sized film original, even 35mm. One garishly obnoxious self-proclaimed "art photographer" does this for his own marketing purposes. Certain well-known others have it done it for their own venues. But film originals have almost never ended up in that manner. And 11X14 optical enlargement is still entire feasible for those who hold enlargers that big, or even bigger. One well-known Euro photographer shoots 11X14 color film for sake of huge regular RC chromogenic or else equivalent inkjet prints. All it takes is money sufficient for a minimum cut order. And some people have a lot of money.

In the past, big backlit transparencies have been done numerous manners : dye transfer modes (Eastman, Color Corp America, Technicolor, etc), Ciba transparency film, RA4 transparent media, both Kodak and Fuji (still available).

[Oren Grad]

For the rest of people that perhaps order a box or two, it’s probably just buying into an experience that is hard to come by, maybe will never happen again, maybe it will, but it’s kind of unique. It doesn’t really matter whether it obeys some specific requirements that can only be met with 11x14 chromes.

This. I'd do it just for the experience, and to have examples of this kind of remarkable physical object. But by the time you add up the cost of the film and processing even for just a single 10-sheet box, plus the 35mm film and processing I'd need to get back in practice for metering chromes before taking the risk on such expensive film - haven't shot chrome in decades - this particular fun souvenir would cost in the high three figures. Afraid I can't justify that. But if the money were flowing more freely I could easily see myself trying it.

[Michael R]

Are you sure about this? I can’t imagine anyone in the ad/pro field using film for anything, let alone reversal film.


Huge backlit ad display transparencies are still common enough, Bernice. They're routinely laser printed onto RA4 transparency media either from digital capture itself or hypothetically any sized film original, even 35mm. One garishly obnoxious self-proclaimed "art photographer" does this for his own marketing purposes. Certain well-known others have it done it for their own venues. But film originals have almost never ended up in that manner. And 11X14 optical enlargement is still entire feasible for those who hold enlargers that big, or even bigger. One well-known Euro photographer shoots 11X14 color film for sake of huge regular RC chromogenic or else equivalent inkjet prints. All it takes is money sufficient for a minimum cut order. And some people have a lot of money.

In the past, big backlit transparencies have been done numerous manners : dye transfer modes (Eastman, Color Corp America, Technicolor, etc), Ciba transparency film, RA4 transparent media, both Kodak and Fuji (still available).

[Drew Wiley]

There are all kinds of ads, Michael - some on-demand in-studio shot, and so forth; some still dependent upon massive old stock files of film images, mostly 4X5 LF. Depends on the subject matter in mind. But the mere fact that Ekta 100 in 11X14 size has been cut, and is going to be cut, and that more than one source offers it at minimum order level, indicates it is still being shot in ULF cameras, albeit on the smaller size of the definition of ULF. But MOST LIKELY who these people are, are well-funded art photographers with very big chromogenic or inkjet prints in mind, after having the 11X14 originals scanned, all for sake of either museum presentations or outright gallery sales purposes. I'm not convinced they actually get more detail over more common 8x10 due to the greater difficulty of depth of field issues and other logistics, but attempting to do so is nothing new. BIG is IN these days.

You seem to have a very narrow definition of who a pro is, Michael. But that doesn't even matter. Numerous people do have cameras that size, and in this day and age, most of those are classified as portable field cameras and not stationary studio stand cameras. And there's still obviously lots of 8x10 color film work being done in the field too, for whatever reason. Right now, Kodak, along with the covid-crippled supply chain, can't keep up with the demand for 8x10 per se. No, its nothing like the volume of demand in the past; but it's still strong enough to experience these intermittent shortages of supply.

But the notion that someone is going to use originals that cumbersome to make, with film that expensive to shoot, for sake of these 11X14 sheets themselves becoming backlit presentations, is ludicrous. No mere hobbyist is going to drop that kind of money for a minimum cut order, or even add his name to a pool and wait.

But either here or on APUG, not long ago, I told about the estate liquidation of a major portrait studio about half an hour from here, which as recently as a decade ago was still shooting not only 8x10 and 11X14 color film, both chrome and color neg, but even 12X16 custom cut color neg film, all still very much in the era when digital workflow had already become dominant. Why? Because the entire signature "look" that the studio staked its reputation on, and its entire workflow, was based on shooting film and optically enlarging it. Clients wanted "that same look" in their own portraits. Likewise, the most up and coming portrait studio in this immediate area, directly next door to one of the most famous restaurants in the nation, strictly shoots film, and darkroom enlarges it too - in her case, black and white only; but still, zero digital.

if those kind of very expense lease locations aren't classified as "pro" studios, I don't know what is. And shooting and printing film competently has another distinct advantage - it separates you from the thousand and thousands of potential competitors who only now know digital. It gives you your own defined niche, so much so that I've have digital studio photographers in the area ask me to teach them film and darkroom methods, so they can get an advantage over the competition ... maybe someday; but I have plenty of my own work to do.

One more nail in your coffin ... Why did a former work assistant of mine go straight to the top of the ad department of a major corporation, and not any of the hundreds of other equally digitally competent applicants? It's because when he presented his portfolio it showed not only digital skill, but included some of his film and darkroom prints too, and even drawn and painted illustrations. That demonstrated his personal versatility, putting him at the head of the pack. He wasn't a one trick pony.

[Tin Can]

Somebody wants it

They already paid for the run

You pay you play

I hope we see the results one day!

Congratulations!

[Michael R]

By pro I mean commercial, advertising, that sort of thing.



There are all kinds of ads, Michael - some on-demand in-studio shot, and so forth; some still dependent upon massive old stock files of film images, mostly 4X5 LF. Depends on the subject matter in mind. But the mere fact that Ekta 100 in 11X14 size has been cut, and is going to be cut, and that more than one source offers it at minimum order level, indicates it is still being shot in ULF cameras, albeit on the smaller size of the definition of ULF. But MOST LIKELY who these people are, are well-funded art photographers with very big chromogenic or inkjet prints in mind, after having the 11X14 originals scanned, all for sake of either museum presentations or outright gallery sales purposes. I'm not convinced they actually get more detail over more common 8x10 due to the greater difficulty of depth of field issues and other logistics, but attempting to do so is nothing new. BIG is IN these days.

You seem to have a very narrow definition of who a pro is, Michael. But that doesn't even matter. Numerous people do have cameras that size, and in this day and age, most of those are classified as portable field cameras and not stationary studio stand cameras. And there's still obviously lots of 8x10 color film work being done in the field too, for whatever reason. Right now, Kodak, along with the covid-crippled supply chain, can't keep up with the demand for 8x10 per se. No, its nothing like the volume of demand in the past; but it's still strong enough to experience these intermittent shortages of supply.

But the notion that someone is going to use originals that cumbersome to make, with film that expensive to shoot, for sake of these 11X14 sheets themselves becoming backlit presentations, is ludicrous. No mere hobbyist is going to drop that kind of money for a minimum cut order, or even add his name to a pool and wait.

But either here or on APUG, not long ago, I told about the estate liquidation of a major portrait studio about half an hour from here, which as recently as a decade ago was still shooting not only 8x10 and 11X14 color film, both chrome and color neg, but even 12X16 custom cut color neg film, all still very much in the era when digital workflow had already become dominant. Why? Because the entire signature "look" that the studio staked its reputation on, and its entire workflow, was based on shooting film and optically enlarging it. Clients wanted "that same look" in their own portraits. Likewise, the most up and coming portrait studio in this immediate area, directly next door to one of the most famous restaurants in the nation, strictly shoots film, and darkroom enlarges it too - in her case, black and white only; but still, zero digital.

if those kind of very expense lease locations aren't classified as "pro" studios, I don't know what is. And shooting and printing film competently has another distinct advantage - it separates you from the thousand and thousands of potential competitors who only now know digital. It gives you your own defined niche, so much so that I've have digital studio photographers in the area ask me to teach them film and darkroom methods, so they can get an advantage over the competition ... maybe someday; but I have plenty of my own work to do.

One more nail in your coffin ... Why did a former work assistant of mine go straight to the top of the ad department of a major corporation, and not any of the hundreds of other equally digitally competent applicants? It's because when he presented his portfolio it showed not only digital skill, but included some of his film and darkroom prints too, and even drawn and painted illustrations. That demonstrated his personal versatility, putting him at the head of the pack. He wasn't a one trick pony.

[Alan Klein]

Huge backlit ad display transparencies are still common enough, Bernice. They're routinely laser printed onto RA4 transparency media either from digital capture itself or hypothetically any sized film original, even 35mm. One garishly obnoxious self-proclaimed "art photographer" does this for his own marketing purposes. Certain well-known others have it done it for their own venues. But film originals have almost never ended up in that manner. And 11X14 optical enlargement is still entire feasible for those who hold enlargers that big, or even bigger. One well-known Euro photographer shoots 11X14 color film for sake of huge regular RC chromogenic or else equivalent inkjet prints. All it takes is money sufficient for a minimum cut order. And some people have a lot of money.

In the past, big backlit transparencies have been done numerous manners : dye transfer modes (Eastman, Color Corp America, Technicolor, etc), Ciba transparency film, RA4 transparent media, both Kodak and Fuji (still available).

I suppose you're referring to Lik. His sales presentation are top notch and the back lit transparencies make the photos pop. Of course, unless the customer buys that, he's really only getting a print. I remember the old Kodak Colorama pictures in Grand Central Station in NYC, huge 40-50 foot wide pictures. Garish but amazing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kodak+grand+central+station&rlz=1C1PQCZ_enUS902US902&sxsrf=APq-WBtYZifRlmTYB4HvqpYdkdSYnLcuug:1645196640181&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=rkbfBQnO0RyokM%252Cp9booLawdfSNMM%252C%252Fm%252F057g6w_%253B3-9FGMFY97WtGM%252CA8eKgNCTMdhpDM%252C_%253B04MpySyzN7bgTM%252Cjfi8NUpLs4fJAM%252C_%253B7i9qWGUp4XcBKM%252CYejM4HPDKHX3vM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kRFnQvL9dtXvcIqA_tCaKtlBTvx4g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwil9MqKw4n2AhUPmeAKHScUAGUQ_B16BAgtEAE#imgrc=3-9FGMFY97WtGM

https://www.facebook.com/YellowKorner/photos/from-1950-to-1990-kodak-pulled-off-the-feat-of-creating-the-longest-advertising-/10155350216648524/

[LabRat]

Who is gonna process that big E6 flopping fish??? ;)

Steve K

[interneg]

Are you sure about this? I can’t imagine anyone in the ad/pro field using film for anything, let alone reversal film.

It's used much more for sensibly budgeted commercial work and the like than the colour film penny-pinchers on here want to convince themselves it is. Quite a few are shooting colour neg & having 16x20-20x24 RA-4 optical prints made, which are then drum scanned.

As for backlit advertising output on Duratrans and the like, it went to Lambda & has now increasingly gone to various ink based methods. The backlit display market was big enough to also have R-3 and Ciba/ Ilfochrome materials available for it - in both clear & translucent.

[Kiwi7475]

Who is gonna process that big E6 flopping fish??? ;)

Steve K

That is a good question— are there labs that can process E6 in 11x14?

Alternatively, home processing. I’ve had good results with Cinestill E6 3 bath with E100. Easy to process in trays, just adjust the start temp of the developer a bit higher as it will drop a few deg’s during development.

[interneg]

That is a good question— are there labs that can process E6 in 11x14?

If they still have the hangers (quite a few major labs offered 11x14) - or Jobo 3062 drums. If you can afford the film, you're not going to be cheaping out on the processing, let's just put it that way.

[Kiwi7475]

If they still have the hangers (quite a few major labs offered 11x14) - or Jobo 3062 drums. If you can afford the film, you're not going to be cheaping out on the processing, let's just put it that way.

Actually I just checked and CRC in NY offers 11x14 processing in all processes. $10 per sheet for 11x14 is not bad!

https://www.colorresourcecenter.com

There’s probably others that can do it if they use dip & dunk and have the hangers for it.

[Bernice Loui]

Those display transparencies remain one of the better ways to enjoy color images.. if they are properly done for color balance, moderate contrast (not eye poking HC).

Projected color images work GOOD too, 35mm Kodachrome via GOOD projector (Elmo Omnigraphic Pro or Kodak Ekta Pro), top notch projector lenses (Schneider/Isco cinelux, Golden Navitar) or 6x6 Kodachrome via Hasselblad projector with their proper Zeiss projector lenses.

Kodachrome was done in sheet film to 8x10 at one time, they were Great.

Dye transfer color prints, Ciba-ilfochrome properly done.

Bottom of the pile are "C" prints and inkjet prints.

Size of the print alone is not enough..


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

If I even mention Colorama, someone lurking around is going to pounce behind my back and try to assert that all those monstrous prints still exist somewhere based on a shoot-from-the hip web link he didn't even bother to fully read. But those had to be regularly replaced due to the high UV output of the miserable early fluorescent tubes behind them, as well as due to the fugitive nature of the Ekta dyes themselves. In the vicinity, likewise in the Station and under Kodak contract, were installations of huge dye transfer prints outsourced to a big NYC specialty lab, which fared somewhat better, and were removed after 20 yrs, but ironically, were made using special dyes and materials, and not Kodak's own DT products.

Now, giant backlit advertising displays are routine, replacing billboards with programmable LED displays. One more distracting thing to cause you to die in a car wreck, instead of wishing you had, before accidentally walking into a particularly garish gallery franchise, the slow death way. Reminds me of that end of life sticky-sweet venue in Soylent Green.

[Bernice Loui]

Yes, aka "eye poking color" specifically designed and intended to suck in eye contact to these AD images regardless of what might happen due to this diversion.
Like blinking LED signs at the market..

Meh,
Bernice




Now, giant backlit advertising displays are routine, replacing billboards with programmable LED displays. One more distracting thing to cause you to die in a car wreck, instead of wishing you had, before accidentally walking into a particularly garish gallery franchise, the slow death way. Reminds me of that end of life sticky-sweet venue in Soylent Green.

[Drew Wiley]

Bernice, the very former lab owner who supervised those big Grand Central dye transfers once got into quite a nasty debate with me over the progress of C-printing, so I called his bluff. And seeing a sample portfolio in person, he couldn't even distinguish which were Cibas and which were Fujiflex Supergloss C-prints. In fact, he just plain shut up at the richness and quality of both. C-printing has come a long long ways, at least if someone takes the extra effort to fine-tune the hue and contrast variables like was routinely done for Cibas and especially DT's. It's not the medium at fault; it's the shortcuts.

[Bernice Loui]

Tend to agree Drew, what has "ingrained" this reflex to "C" prints are.... crappy "C" prints. Majority of then are... crappy.
There are exceptions.. @ 11.01 into this video, examples of GOOD and BIG "C" prints from back in the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76SdcpUYYUk

IMO, difficult with points of reference within the viewers remains a very real challenge as most do not have a finely tuned point of reference or have spent serious time taking in what color images truly can be.


Bernice



Bernice, the very former lab owner who supervised those big Grand Central dye transfers once got into quite a nasty debate with me over the progress of C-printing, so I called his bluff. And seeing a sample portfolio in person, he couldn't even distinguish which were Cibas and which were Fujiflex Supergloss C-prints. In fact, he just plain shut up at the richness and quality of both. C-printing has come a long long ways, at least if someone takes the extra effort to fine-tune the hue and contrast variables like was routinely done for Cibas and especially DT's. It's not the medium at fault; it's the shortcuts.

[Drew Wiley]

There just ain't nuthin' like real home cookin', taking as much time and lovin' care as necessary to do it right. That's hard to do when you're on the clock with a commercial deadline. Digital workflow hasn't improved that dilemma at all, because instead of wanting it all done by tomorrow, the day after the shoot, now they expect it to be already done yesterday, before it's even shot yet!

[Alan Klein]

Actually I just checked and CRC in NY offers 11x14 processing in all processes. $10 per sheet for 11x14 is not bad!

https://www.colorresourcecenter.com

There’s probably others that can do it if they use dip & dunk and have the hangers for it.

Have you used CRC for chrome color? Negative color? BW? How are they?

[Kiwi7475]

Have you used CRC for chrome color? Negative color? BW? How are they?

I haven’t used them — I found them online when searching for 11x14 developing. E6/C41 are all very standard processes, so I don’t know that you would see any difference between labs.

[Bernice Loui]

LOTs can go wrong with E6 processing:
https://www.mr-alvandi.com/downloads/film-and-processing/e6-process-manual.pdf

E6 process control strips:
https://www.pakor.com/fuji-control-strips-e-6-box-50-sheets

There were more than one very busy E6 processing labs back in them days. Each of these labs had slightly different processed E6 results. This was one of the reasons to stay with one specific E6 processing lab, test and set up the E6 color transparency process and film "tuned in" to a specific E6 lab then stay with it.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Not every lab has a big enough machine of all the necessary holders. Some labs go only up to 4x5, others can go bigger, but might have only 8x10 holders, and not 5x7 or 11X14 holders. I think there is a lab here in CA that can do 11X14 too, but don't personally pay much attention to that, since I certainly don't plan on shooting film that size. Otherwise, it's been a long long time since I've seen any variation between labs. I do avoid getting processing done soon after holidays or in exceptionally cold weather. Let someone else wiggle their toes in the water first, after a machine re-start. Not many labs remain; so maybe there's some "survival of the fittest" going on.

[sperdynamite]

I would like to say that my lab, Northeast Photographic, can do 11x14 in our 3063 Expert Drums. We would use either the Jobo ATL3 (for B&W) or the ATL 2500 (E6 and C41). We can scan the film on the Eversmart Supreme II.

I haven't seen any 11x14 yet but I'd like to test out our capabilities frankly. If anyone has some B&W or color I'd be happy to process and scan it at no cost. I just want to try out the drum and scanner for that format frankly. We already do a lot of 4x5 and 8x10 in the 3005/6/10 drums.

It's probably not as fancy as dip and dunk, but in theory the results 'should' be just as good. We maintain in control chemistry, and I think Jobo would at least say their ATL machines are nothing to scoff at. I'd actually be curious to know if 11x14 film is even suited for dip and dunk. That's a lot of film to transport out of a machine. I would not be surprised to see uneven development if it's not timed right. Most likely the new machines are programmed to avoid this but I've never operated one.

[sperdynamite]

I do avoid getting processing done soon after holidays or in exceptionally cold weather. Let someone else wiggle their toes in the water first, after a machine re-start. Not many labs remain; so maybe there's some "survival of the fittest" going on.

We, and the other lab owners I know are so busy even after the holidays that we're not restarting our machines. We never turned them off! The only time our V30 is down for an extended time is when we do our periodic deep cleans. The Jobo ATLs use enough of their chemistry that it just never sits long enough to go bad. That's the benefit of there being fewer labs.

[Drew Wiley]

How do you make money with a little Jobos? I've got way more drum capacity in my own personal lab, but have all my own sheet film done pro lab dip n' dunk. I'd trust that for evenness over any Jobo style drum, and have very good technical reasons for stating that. But maybe you're lucky enough to be in an affordable region with less overhead than here. The problem here on the central CA coast isn't lack of demand for the service - it's the gentrification of everything. Warehouses, commercial spaces, bookstores, you name it - all of that is getting leveled just to sell off the land for sake of uber-expensive new condos and techie office spaces. The few remaining "full service" labs have to keep relocating. The only exception would be little speciality niche ones, which might process just roll film themselves, then scan and then inkjet print that for their customers.

Anyway, glad to see you're staying busy and providing a valuable service.