Treatment of Ektachrome E100 ?

[Leszek Vogt]

Is anyone using E100 regularly ? I would like to use 5x7 (start batch) and am not sure if I need any compensating filters ? Sure, it's a daylight emulsion, but does it need a kick outside of Pola or ND's ? Also, what would be the best ASA rating for this film ? More than likely I'll not be able to experiment and fine tune o my liking prior to the next excursion. One of my big concerns is shadows.

My intended use will be mostly daylight, but I may have to do some portraits using LED light/s + reflector.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Dugan]

If there's no way for you to test beforehand, then pretty much all you can do is take 2 shots of each image at "box speed", process one sheet of each, evaluate, and process (push/pull) 2nd sheet accordingly.
Not the best route...
Better to test first with YOUR technique, meter, etc.

[Leszek Vogt]

If there's no way for you to test beforehand, then pretty much all you can do is take 2 shots of each image at "box speed", process one sheet of each, evaluate, and process (push/pull) 2nd sheet accordingly.
Not the best route...
Better to test first with YOUR technique, meter, etc.

Thanks. I might have to just use 'box speed'.....or maybe use ASA 80.

[Drew Wiley]

The quality control of Ektachrome in recent years is so good that there's no need for corrective CC filters per batch. And E100 is very precisely balanced for official 5500K daylight; so if you want to correct for real world lighting color temp imbalances in that respect, you can do so with appropriate warming or cooling filters, though most folks don't bother in daylight. Its box speed is dead on too, true 100 speed; deviating from that is NOT a good idea. The only reason to alter that is if your meter itself is skewed and reads incorrectly. As far as ND grads and polarizers, I've never personally found a reason for them outdoors, and think they're mainly just an annoying fad; but some shooters obviously like using them. (Don't trust all ND's or polarizers to be actually color neutral.) What can be helpful is a UV filter for distance shots, especially at higher altitudes.

In the studio, good luck finding decent LED panels. They exist, but don't come cheap. Likewise, don't expect any common hardware store or home center LED or CFL bulb to be anywhere near as good in color rendering as what the packaging claims. But you can get far better screw-in LED bulbs from specialty suppliers for around $35 apiece. They won't come in 5500K, however; so you'll need to use an appropriate light balancing filter much like was done with tungsten photofloods. A good color temp meter helps, especially in the case of LED panels, which rarely match their advertised range, even if allegedly adjustable for color temp.

Most modern color films certainly don't push as well as they once did, and pull well even less. That should only be a last resort remedial option if you know the actual amount of your exposure error in the first place. It makes far more sense to stick to real box speed and normal processing unless you have some exceptional reason for doing otherwise.

[PatrickMarq]

I have exposed a box of E100 with very good results, ISO 1OO and no filters.
Alex Burke has a blog about E100 : https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2022/3/14/kodak-e100-pushing-the-limits-of-slide-film

[j enea]

What Drew said. E100 is a great film. the only filtering I use is when shooting up in higher altitudes, like the sierra's or yosemite. In those situations I would use an 81A, B or a skylight 1B depending on the scene. in large format I sometimes feel, with today's pricing, that it is very expensive to shoot the same scene twice unless its a magical one time scene. doing testing today is a lot more expensive that it was even a few years ago.

Shoot it a box speed, although that last few sheets I have shot from a new box and a few from 35mm seem to be slightly underexposed, maybe 1/3 a stop. so my next few sheets will be shot at 80

john

[Bernice Loui]

Color transparency films do not appear to be used in ways they once were. This is how color transparency films were tested back in them days..
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169347-Color-Transparency-film-18-gray-card-test-(expanding-on-quot-be-technical-perfect-quot-)

Add to this scanning of film images and software bending potentially to very vast degrees... Given how color films are used today, brings up the question of why color sheet film instead of color digital camera as the primary image recording device.

Color transparency film like Kodak E100 is going to be very close to "box" film speed and color temperature of the light used to form the image to be recorded on E100 will alter it's color balance.. That said, color transparency films are designed and produced for 5000 to 5500 degrees Kelvin. Deviate from this will shift overall color balance.. a film behavior that appears to be very desirable by some image makers.


Bernice

[tgtaylor]

Box speed - no need to test. This was taken with a Nikon 37-70 AF 2.8D with Hoya UV filter at box speed with an F6:


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52265373621_b868d450dd_z.jpg

This was shot in the morning which was not the ideal time for this composition as the Sun's position held the moraine at the far left and the canyon's south wall in shadow.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Is that one of the June Lks, Thomas? I'm not used to seeing the water so low; but it sure looks like Carson Pk in the background. I haven't been up behind that in a long time, when I took a shortcut and ran into a couple of off-trail natural lakes so ridiculously full of brook trout it almost looked like an official State fish hatchery.

I've been shooting color neg for quite awhile now, but have made some careful tests with the new E100. I haven't tried it at high altitude yet; but since it seems very similar to previous E100G, I presume the filtration characteristics are very similar. In that case, if I just wanted to cut the effect on sharpness due to high altitude UV at distance, my "colorless" (actually very pale amber) Hoya HMC no.0 worked best. The Hoya HMC 1B skylight, which is a pale pinkish magenta, would cut through haze a bit more, and very slightly alter the color. These days, I generally only travel with three filters for color film, which are appropriate for either color neg film or Ektachrome : 1) A 1B Hoya skylight (sometimes a Sing-Ray KN instead, but only for color neg film); an 81A or KR 1.5 for bluish overcast; and an 81C or KR3 for deep blue shade, which is frequently encountered at high altitude under deep blue morning skies.

Unlike CN film, Ektachrome can yield esthetically pleasing (if inaccurate) results with excessively blue illumination (above 5500K). That's why old Ektachrome 64 was so popular with landscape pros - it had a very evident blue bias. But failure to correct for such color temp discrepancies can come with a penalty to warm hues in the same scene, so I recommend having along at least some kind of mild warming filter in addition to a skylight filter. Of course, these newer Ektachromes are far better overall spectrally balanced than good ole Ekta 64, and have no predominant hue bias, including toward blue. But excess blue often comes with the territory of high altitude lighting anyway; so having a small selection of correction filters on hand is advisable.

[Leszek Vogt]

Thanks all for the input. Patrick, that blog helped clarify some things. Despite effort, the 5x7 (E100) is rather illusive even after calling various film places all over the country. Don't think I could avoid special order (several months ?) and may have to dust off my reducer and use 4x5 film. Hmmm, reality on the ground.....so much for drooling.

[Bernice Loui]

Contact Keith Canham, very likely they have some 5x7 E100 in stock:
https://www.canhamcameras.com

Only way to know if E100 meets your image making needs is to get some then do testing.


Bernice


Thanks all for the input. Patrick, that blog helped clarify some things. Despite effort, the 5x7 (E100) is rather illusive even after calling various film places all over the country. Don't think I could avoid special order (several months ?) and may have to dust off my reducer and use 4x5 film. Hmmm, reality on the ground.....so much for drooling.

[tgtaylor]

Is that one of the June Lks, Thomas? I'm not used to seeing the water so low; but it sure looks like Carson Pk in the background. I haven't been up behind that in a long time, when I took a shortcut and ran into a couple of off-trail natural lakes so ridiculously full of brook trout it almost looked like an official State fish hatchery.

Yeah Drew - Carson Peak is on the right with snowy San Joaquin Mountain beginning to appear on the right. It was taken from the far eastern end of Grant Lake a couple of months ago while I camped at Silver Lake. Rush Creek flows into Grant Lake which collects most of the water that flows into Mono Lake. However, most of that water is diverted to LA by the aqueduct which is located about 300 meters immediately to the left of the camera in this view. This view didn't work out for the Kallitype that I was trying for so after taking the 35mm shot I drove further west and took the Kallitype that I posted in the Kallitype thread with the 300mm Nikkor-W, 95mm B+W UV, and Tiffen Deep Yellow. That's probably San Joaquin Mtn in the background which at the time I thought was Reversed Peak.

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

Why color sheet film instead of digital, Bernice? - A far richer image in terms of enlargement capacity, while still allowing use of extant view cameras, their advantages in terms of movements, and use of their own lenses. Yes, all that might be overkill in terms of simple magazine or advertising content, but it still offers the most realistic choice when optimal qualitative results or bigger scale are needed. MF digital backs are a very distant cousin in that respect, and certainly not cheap, and might well require their own new set of lenses, yet would seem to appeal to stock photographers due to all the sheet film expense alleviated. But there are those who simply appreciate the native color signature of certain films and are accustomed to working in that manner. The discipline of a degree of restriction can often be of real technical and aesthetic benefit. And with chrome film especially, when you've got it, you've got it. It isn't drifting around somewhere in cyberspace.

Color temp wise, with just one Kodak daylight product now, true 5500K is it. Fuji is a more complex question. Other than their now discontinued dupe films and other tungsten balanced films, the Provia products seem to me to be have been balanced for around 5200K instead, maybe Velvia too, though the nature of its dyes visually comes out a bit warmer still.

[tgtaylor]

I returned to the morning later that afternoon and found the lighting much better and the fishermen gone so I took the following with the 360mm Symmar-S while holding the Tiffen Deep Yellow against the front element of the lens. The light streak running down the left side probable came from the filter which I wasn't able to shield with the dark slide. That and the out of focus vegetation in the lower right hand side ruined it for me but otherwise it is a reasonably good print notwithstanding the light flare in the upper right corner (from the filter?). The sky directly above the ridge lines blends in nicely and is not exaggerated like in the scan. I plan on reshooting this.


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52265785331_39ff2131a6.jpg

Thomas

[Alan Klein]

I have exposed a box of E100 with very good results, ISO 1OO and no filters.
Alex Burke has a blog about E100 : https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2022/3/14/kodak-e100-pushing-the-limits-of-slide-film



Box speed - no need to test. This was taken with a Nikon 37-70 AF 2.8D with Hoya UV filter at box speed with an F6:


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52265373621_b868d450dd_z.jpg

This was shot in the morning which was not the ideal time for this composition as the Sun's position held the moraine at the far left and the canyon's south wall in shadow.

Thomas

Wouldn't the higher altitude this was shot at mean that the box speed at lower altitudes is less than 100. Alex Burke in the link provided by Patrick seems to think it's actually 80 or 64. Burke also mentions he thinks you can get an extra stop from the highlights instead of the normal +2 expected.

[Drew Wiley]

NO. Alan. Altitude does not affect film speed. No way it could morph into 80 or 64 unless that metering adjustment includes some FILTER FACTOR (mild skylight and warming filters do have about a third stop factor). And if one overexposes for the potentially deeper shadows of clearer air at high altitude, that just pushes the highlights further onto the shoulder, and away from decent capture. One can, and should, intelligently strategize such options; but none of it changes the native engineered-in film speed itself.

You only get about a stop and a half above middle gray before things begin to wash out - above that, just depends on what is acceptable to you, provided it's reproducible at all. But E100 has a little more wiggle room up there than Velvia. Sure, a digital curve re-profiling crowbar could be put to it after scanning; but that can't bring back texture or hue that's not captured in the original chrome itself.

If I stated what I really think about that half-baked shoot-from-the-hip Burke review of E100, I'm sure the moderator would show up with his tinsnips again. I did very careful tests with a MacBeth Chart under various outdoor light conditions, appropriately color temp filtered with color temp meter in hand, grayscale portion of chart densitometer read afterwards, and visual analysis on a true 5000K CRI 98 light box (you don't run into many of those). Also a number of indicative shots in the field locally, to find the limits (which are pretty much identical to prior E100G). Then did it all again a year later with a different batch of E100 to confirm the quality control (rolls, not sheet film - just for testing purposes).

[Drew Wiley]

Thomas - Sorry, but Grant Lake always makes me laugh. We don't bother with cable TV here. But during a little downtime relaxing after a snorkel in Maui I was watching one of those ridiculous History Channel pseudo-documentaries. They were taking plaster casts of Bigfoot prints all around the boat dock at Grant Lake. Then they claimed the creature came out of hiding from the "extremely remote" wilderness of Lundy Canyon. You've no doubt seen him with a thumb out, hitch-hiking on Hwy 395 near LeeVining. But I figure nobody spots him during daylight because Bigfoot apparently hangs out at the June Lk resort bar during daylight hours. Finally, they had actual visual footage of Bigfoot appearing from behind a particular tufa tower, one which I specifically recognized as being about ten yards from the parking lot on the south side of Mono Lk. Musta been hot in that big monkey suit.

[Alan Klein]

NO. Alan. Altitude does not affect film speed. No way it could morph into 80 or 64 unless that metering adjustment includes some FILTER FACTOR (mild skylight and warming filters do have about a third stop factor). And if one overexposes for the potentially deeper shadows of clearer air at high altitude, that just pushes the highlights further onto the shoulder, and away from decent capture. One can, and should, intelligently strategize such options; but none of it changes the native engineered-in film speed itself.

You only get about a stop and a half above middle gray before things begin to wash out - above that, just depends on what is acceptable to you, provided it's reproducible at all. But E100 has a little more wiggle room up there than Velvia. Sure, a digital curve re-profiling crowbar could be put to it after scanning; but that can't bring back texture or hue that's not captured in the original chrome itself.

If I stated what I really think about that half-baked shoot-from-the-hip Burke review of E100, I'm sure the moderator would show up with his tinsnips again. I did very careful tests with a MacBeth Chart under various outdoor light conditions, appropriately color temp filtered with color temp meter in hand, grayscale portion of chart densitometer read afterwards, and visual analysis on a true 5000K CRI 98 light box (you don't run into many of those). Also a number of indicative shots in the field locally, to find the limits (which are pretty much identical to prior E100G). Then did it all again a year later with a different batch of E100 to confirm the quality control (rolls, not sheet film - just for testing purposes).

But Alex Burke's shots look terrific. He's backed up his comments with his pictures. Why would he say ASA 80 or 64 if his pictures came out differently? Maybe you and he process film differently? Also, he scans and you don't. That could account for the differences as well. What have others here found about which ASA to use? He also mentioned that he sees an extra stop at the top with the new Ektachrome. So maybe that's why he can lower the ASA to 64 or 80 1/3 or 2/3 stops without burning the highlights.

In any case, I think it's unfair of you to just brush aside the actual samples of his Ektachrome results which are professionally done. Arguing that technical analysis of the film provides better analysis than actual real-world results is not a strong argument. especially when you show no actual results. People are concerned with real results with real pictures, not densitometer and other technical readings. In digital, we call that pixel peeping. ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Neither you nor I have any idea of what those chromes actually look like prior to digital tweaking. Besides, the web is fairly worthless for making such assessments. E6 is a standardized process - or is supposed to be - just as the speed of the film itself is tightly controlled in manufacture. Since Burke's main objection is that the processed chromes look too dense, and he's the one doing the processing with a home kit, as well as overexposing it, well, that does point a finger a different direction than the film itself. And you've got the reasoning all backwards. If he's rating the film lower, at 64 or 80, that means he's overexposing it, and automatically getting less highlight control, not more. You also totally misunderstand the role of densitometry. Film exposure is 100% bound to its actual sensitometric characteristics. And in this case, you can't fiddle with the tonal range like with black and white film more than a tiny bit before there's a serious penalty to the color reproduction itself. Yeah, all kinds of colors and things can be dubbed in using PS afterwards, even a giraffe on an iceberg if necessary; but that's not the same thing.

He provides one nice desert shot resulting from use of a Tiffen 812 filter. That's kinda nuking the subject to remove blue; so while it works to achieve the look he wanted, it hardly belongs in any allegedly objective film test. I'm not implying it's wrong esthetically; but in this case it lies outside basic color temp correction and says more about his taste than the film itself. Likewise all kinds of comments in that brief article. And if he thinks E100 is neutral with broader scale, guess he's never used Fuji Astia.

As far as "real pictures" and "real results", I've shot almost every variety of chrome film that has been made during in my lifetime, and I've printed quite a few to very high standards. And a long time ago I learned there's a huge difference between getting something to look good on a light box or during a slide projector show, and getting it to look good on a wall or in a magazine spread. I wan't born yesterday. I do have actual results, decades worth, and have shown a number of them. That's why I also have my own picture framing facility. Nobody goes to the web to appraise nuanced qualitative issues. We might discuss those, or provide certain practical illustrations, or how-to stuff. The web can be a good educational tool, but has very serious limitations in terms of accurate and detailed visual presentation like that essential to fine printmaking.

And if someone's "technical analysis", as you phrase it, were not spot on in the first place, then you'd never have any kind of reliability to a particular film. Why would you buy it?
Kodak knows what it is doing, has the necessary instrumentation and protocols in place, and has a valid reason for marketing E100 with a speed rating of 100, and prescribing it as such in their tech sheet as well. That's what hard objective tests using standardized procedures are capable of verifying. In my case, I was personally verifying Kodak's own specific claims to actual film speed, color temperature, and also affirming their high standard of quality control. But web jockey opinions are a dime a dozen. I prefer to let Kodak do the heavy lifting, and will stick with their own tech sheet. All I did is confirm it.

[tgtaylor]

Wouldn't the higher altitude this was shot at mean that the box speed at lower altitudes is less than 100. Alex Burke in the link provided by Patrick seems to think it's actually 80 or 64. Burke also mentions he thinks you can get an extra stop from the highlights instead of the normal +2 expected.

In this case I let Nikon determine the exposure. For the Kallitype I let the spot meter and grey card determine the exposure. If the scene were at sea level, the resulting exposures may have been different due to the different physical conditions present.

Thomas

[Alan Klein]

Neither you nor I have any idea of what those chromes actually look like prior to digital tweaking. Besides, the web is fairly worthless for making such assessments. E6 is a standardized process - or is supposed to be - just as the speed of the film itself is tightly controlled in manufacture. Since Burke's main objection is that the processed chromes look too dense, and he's the one doing the processing with a home kit, as well as overexposing it, well, that does point a finger a different direction than the film itself. And you've got the reasoning all backwards. If he's rating the film lower, at 64 or 80, that means he's overexposing it, and automatically getting less highlight control, not more. You also totally misunderstand the role of densitometry. Film exposure is 100% bound to its actual sensitometric characteristics. And in this case, you can't fiddle with the tonal range like with black and white film more than a tiny bit before there's a serious penalty to the color reproduction itself. Yeah, all kinds of colors and things can be dubbed in using PS afterwards, even a giraffe on an iceberg if necessary; but that's not the same thing.

He provides one nice desert shot resulting from use of a Tiffen 812 filter. That's kinda nuking the subject to remove blue; so while it works to achieve the look he wanted, it hardly belongs in any allegedly objective film test. I'm not implying it's wrong esthetically; but in this case it lies outside basic color temp correction and says more about his taste than the film itself. Likewise all kinds of comments in that brief article. And if he thinks E100 is neutral with broader scale, guess he's never used Fuji Astia.

As far as "real pictures" and "real results", I've shot almost every variety of chrome film that has been made during in my lifetime, and I've printed quite a few to very high standards. And a long time ago I learned there's a huge difference between getting something to look good on a light box or during a slide projector show, and getting it to look good on a wall or in a magazine spread. I wan't born yesterday. I do have actual results, decades worth, and have shown a number of them. That's why I also have my own picture framing facility. Nobody goes to the web to appraise nuanced qualitative issues. We might discuss those, or provide certain practical illustrations, or how-to stuff. The web can be a good educational tool, but has very serious limitations in terms of accurate and detailed visual presentation like that essential to fine printmaking.

And if someone's "technical analysis", as you phrase it, were not spot on in the first place, then you'd never have any kind of reliability to a particular film. Why would you buy it?
Kodak knows what it is doing, has the necessary instrumentation and protocols in place, and has a valid reason for marketing E100 with a speed rating of 100, and prescribing it as such in their tech sheet as well. That's what hard objective tests using standardized procedures are capable of verifying. In my case, I was personally verifying Kodak's own specific claims to actual film speed, color temperature, and also affirming their high standard of quality control. But web jockey opinions are a dime a dozen. I prefer to let Kodak do the heavy lifting, and will stick with their own tech sheet. All I did is confirm it.Your processes, Drew, are traditional analog. You don't scan. He does. So he's using a different tool set that you have no or little experience with. But his methods give him what he needs when he scans. Maybe the point you should make is that if a photographer intends to use traditional analog print methods, they should stick to box speed of 100 with Ektachrome. Even in the old days, many pros use to shoot 1/3 less exposure to protect the highs and increase color saturation for effect. There are different flavors for every taste.

I wasn't clear about the 80 and 64 ISO settings. It's not that he uses it for the highs, but that it provides more exposure for opening up the shadows. He shows a comparison of Ektachrome vs Velvia 50. The shadows have more detail in the Ektachrome. So because there are more stops available in Ektachrome, and you won't burn out the highs by adding a little exposure, you can reduce those blocked-up shadows that we suffer from with Velvia. I understand your point about color shifts that could occur by changing the ISO from box speed. But then again, scanning and digital allow more corrections of those shifts that may not be available with analog printing.

I know you're opposed to scanning. But it would really be great if someone with your long and expert experience with analog work through printing spent some time with scanned images and digital editing. Then you could provide an analysis based on experiences with both processes. I have little analog experience myself. But even with my limited ability with digital editing, I've been able to correct color fading and shifts in old photos and chromes. I also have seen details exposed in shadows with digitally edited scans, that could not be seen when looking at the original chromes. Digital processes seem to have tools that provide results not necessarily available with straight analog.

[Alan Klein]

In this case I let Nikon determine the exposure. For the Kallitype I let the spot meter and grey card determine the exposure. If the scene were at sea level, the resulting exposures may have been different due to the different physical conditions present.

Thomas

Only the settings would be different. If your setting at mountain elevation was let's say 1/125 at f/16, the less bright lighting at sea level might cause the Nikon to set it at 1/125 at f/11. But the exposures should look similar.

[Drew Wiley]

Alan - I know perfectly well what scanning does and how curve adjustments and so forth work. I've had my share of high end drum scanning done for commercial assignments involving publications or advertising applications, even had my own slide scanner too, still laying around somewhere. Just because I don't go that route for my personal work doesn't make me ignorant about it. In this case, concerning E100 exposure, it has nothing to do with "digital" versus "analog". The film has a native range, an inherent set of sensitometric curves of its own, which is then subjected to chemical interaction - entirely "analog" up to that point. That gives you the chrome which you can visually assess; and there's only so much you can bend during processing. Information at the nether regions of the contrast range can potentially be retrieved by any number of methods, including with advanced darkroom methods; but fishing things up from the depths or trying to pull it down from the very top seldom equates to quality content. One learns over time to seek out and use specific films for what they can actually do well, and not are unnaturally forced to do under torture.

Of course, many PS practitioners essentially add content that is not really there by artificially enhancing color or tonality in a manner the film itself does not; and that should not be mistaken for the real color signature and dynamic range of the film itself. An awful lot of outdoor photography seen over the web looks quite colorized to me, as well as a lot of what I see in inkjet prints. And frankly, it's kinda numbing when someone looks at a print attempting to communicate something I actually saw, and then say's, "Well, I done coulda done better just using the saturation slider more" ....I just think to myself, they never really saw anything like that in their life, never really experience that kind of light itself, missed the whole point ....

This Burke fellow knows what he wants, knows how to do it, and apparently enjoys it; so I hope he can make a decent living at it too. He can skew his own methodology any way he pleases. But when it comes to explaining particular films to others, and passing premature judgment on a product which, at that point of writing at least, he barely knows, it would be more helpful to make comparisons based on accepted objective standards rather than personal idiosyncrasies of - who knows? - how accurate a metering style or personal E6 processing variables ??

[Thad Gerheim]

I'm not an expert, but I love E-100 and here is my experience with it. I don't use filters, I expose 5x7 film using ASA 100 and try to place the highlights at no more than zone 7.5 or 8 and let the shadows fall where ever. I use a Tango drum scanner and wish I had the raw scan for the below crop for comparison. My scans come out fairly flat with a lot of information and room for highlight and shadow adjustment. I work in LAB mode for corrections in tonality, color and contrast. There isn't any problems with color shift when adjusting contrast while working LAB. The below crop of a whitebark pine was taken on a ridge above 9000 feet.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52267384424_e549284d08_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nCG1qq)E-100 crop (https://flic.kr/p/2nCG1qq) by Thad Gerheim (https://www.flickr.com/photos/191162430@N03/), on Flickr

[Dave Wooten]

Touch base with Keith Canham for next order

[Leszek Vogt]

Touch base with Keith Canham for next order

Upon your and Bernice's suggestion (thanks), I contacted him yesterday about E100 and a full order (months) is required. I also got an email from Freestyle echoing the requirement. Yep, there is that....I'm reduced to 4x5 on this trip and 120.

[Bernice Loui]

Option number two, cut down 8x10 film to 5x7 as needed. Not as difficult as it might appear.


Bernice


Upon your and Bernice's suggestion (thanks), I contacted him yesterday about E100 and a full order (months) is required. I also got an email from Freestyle echoing the requirement. Yep, there is that....I'm reduced to 4x5 on this trip and 120.

[PatrickMarq]

This Burke fellow knows what he wants, knows how to do it, and apparently enjoys it;
Is this not the most important?

[Leszek Vogt]

Option number two, cut down 8x10 film to 5x7 as needed. Not as difficult as it might appear.


Bernice

Bernice, good idea (Plan B), but there is scarcity of 8x10 in E100 as well and B&H doesn't even carry it. Freestyle has it, but there is no one nearby (horse/buggy area) who could chop this down to size.....and I don't have a decent cutter to accomplish this feat. No excuses....just extra complications.

[Drew Wiley]

At one point, Glass Key in SF had E100 8x10 in stock. You might call them. Otherwise, get onto Keith Canham's list or else wait for B&H to restock it (they often temporarily de-list things they don't expect back in stock anytime soon, but will make available again when Kodak offers a batch cut). But by that time, perhaps an actual 5x7 volume cut will be made as well for Keith. Dunno. Cutting a sheet down from 8x10 obviously involves two precise cuts, plus a token cut corner in lieu of a code notch to indicate the emulsion side, so might be a bit of a chore if you need a lot of clean usable sheets.