Ouch! This hurts!

[AuditorOne]

You will have to pardon me as I have just found out how clueless I have been lately.

I have been working on a stash of 8x10 sheet film that was purchased several years ago and stored in my little freezer. The last time I bought 8x10 film I bought 10 boxes and I can't really remember when that was. This morning I loaded a couple of my film holders in preparation for a little shooting trip and realized I was down to the last 4 sheets in the box. Time to get some more out of the freezer. When I looked in the freezer I found that I am down to my last box of 8x10 film; time to order some more. No big deal, right?

Oh goody! Look at this, Freestyle is having a sale. That is great! My timing is perfect. A 50 sheet box of Fomapan 100 is on sale for............$197!!!!!! What???? That can't be!

So, time for more research and...I find....that is actually a pretty good price!!

I have been sitting here in front of my computer keyboard for the last hour trying to make peace with the fact that my days of shooting 8x10 are getting pretty short. I just cannot afford this. I am retired and I do not have that kind of discretionary income.

I mean, I will certainly sell some things, I do have a lot of unused cameras and equipment lying about that can be sold. I will probably raise enough money to pick up a few of boxes if I decide to do that, but I really need to think this over. That is still a lot of money. I can always shoot paper negatives.

Truthfully, it isn't actually the end of large format for me. I do have a fair bit of 4x5 film in the freezer and some Ilford Whole Plate film I picked up during their annual sale a few years back. I will actually be fine for a few years yet. And I do still have 50 sheets of film and a whole lot of photo paper to work with.

But this will certainly be an adjustment. I have an old Conley No 1 built around 1910 that I have owned for well over 30 years. Believe me, that poor thing has been through the wringer. Thank God they knew how to build cameras back then. I bought it at a yard sale in Salt Lake City back when my only camera was a Pentax K1000. I hardly knew anything about large format when I bought it. My wife was convinced I was crazy. What am I talking about, she still thinks I'm crazy. But I absolutely love working with that camera. I know it is an inanimate object but I swear it thinks the same way

I even picked up a parts camera a few years ago from Jim Galli so I could keep it going if things wore out. I have been shooting that camera for a very long time. Don't misunderstand me, none of it is Ansel Adams or Brett Weston material but I have some great memories of good times spent out in the boonies of Nevada, Idaho, Arizona and Utah with that camera, my old truck and an old aluminum tripod with the geared Majestic head. That old tripod is a pain to set up but believe me it takes a serious breeze to even phase it once it is set, even with a big 8x10 sail sitting on top of it. But it will certainly freeze your hands in the winter if you aren't wearing good gloves. And you know it is there when you are hiking up a hill. Carbon Fiber it ain't!

Anyway, forgive me. I know that there are probably others facing similar issues. I have just suddenly realized that it isn't age that will slow down my photography,at least the large format part, it is cost.

Thanks for listening to me. I will figure this out; I will come up with options. I usually do. But these film costs are crazy.

Ouch!

[Kino]

I feel your pain, but have always been a scavenger myself, so I thought I would point out some deals at Freestyle:

https://www.freestylephoto.com/clearance

Short-dated stock there now; you can buy 50 sheets of 8x10 cheaper than a boxy of 50 4x5 "new".

Check it out.

Edit: wait, I see a box of 50 sheets of 4x5 Fomapan 100 for $44.99. Sure it's short-dated, but...

[paulbarden]

Have you looked at the price for the 10 sheet box of 8x10 TMY lately? It's $210. for TEN sheets!! The Fomapan price starts to look a lot better.
Get a box of the short-dated Fomapan 100 (https://www.freestylephoto.com/42018151-Foma-Fomapan-100-ISO-8x10-50-Sheets-SHORT-DATE-SPECIAL) - it's only $129 right now. You won't find 8x10 panchromatic film cheaper than that, anywhere.

[Bob Kerner]

This is not an inexpensive hobby, no matter how you cut it. A digital camera capable of producing 4x5 quality images isn't cheap either. I returned to film about 2 years ago and quickly picked up a medium format camera, and then a 4x5 (had a 4x5 several years ago and sold it). For a while I was keeping track of cost per roll/box of sheet film and associated costs of color processing. I develop my own B&W but that carries with it the expense of chemicals and lab time to print. It can get pretty depressing looking at the costs mount all in service of a hobby.

I look at it this way. I'm far more deliberate with film because of the cost. I was out all day with the 4x5 and TLR yesterday and took 6 images (one was a double exposure....so I don't know how to count that), whereas I would have been spraying and praying with my digital camera. I like to think I'm making something with film, not just "capturing" as some people like to say....and that brings me joy. For the most part I control the entire process (exception being color) from arrival of film to print; no outside help/expense needed. So there's a small cost savings there.

I'm more or less "vice" free. Don't drink or smoke or gamble. So my disposable income--if you want to call it that---goes to my hobbies. Photography is the only one with an ongoing materials cost.

There's a cost to being creative....other than shopping wisely there isn't much you can do when your creative pursuit requires raw materials such as film and chemicals. The only way to have no expenses is to stop making photos. Unacceptable!

[Ulophot]

Auditor, many of us are indeed in a similar boat on the income front. Short-dated film at such reductions as indicated above for the 4x5 offer a great bargain. It's not even out-dated yet, and if all the folks here who use outdated film were to chime in, I daresay this would be a very long thread in no time. I have a (now) partial box of Delta 100 4x5, years outdated when I bought it for about $20 two years ago but stored in a freezer or fridge previously and I have it in a fridge. Tested beautifully.

So far, I have stuck with Ilford, for all reasons, and hope I can continue to do so, because I know the films and have extensively tested. Right now, though, I'm nearly out of paper, and my monthly self-allowance won't buy me another 100-sheet 8x10 box until April. Wise prohibitions here on political discourse constrain me from saying much I know about the global economic-financial system situation. I'll just say: it's highly unstable, and potential for positive change it great. Meanwhile, look around for short- or out-dated film. It can be a bargain indeed!

[AuditorOne]

Thanks for the heads up on the short date special. I have put in an order on a box of 50. That will help keep me going for a bit longer until I can sell a few things.

$200 for 10 sheets is way out of my league. I used to shoot Kodak film on a regular basis but I haven't done that in quite some time now. I do have a couple of boxes of 4x5 TMAX stored on ice but I haven't seriously looked at replacing it once I use it. I guess I better.

Like I said though, I am giving all this some very serious thought. Even selling unused equipment, which I need to do anyway, doesn't really change the situation. If prices were dropping it would be one thing, but they most certainly are not. Although I do love working with these big sheets of film it may be time to retire the big camera until my financial circumstances change for the better. I have resisted doing this as I have always felt that once I stop, even temporarily, I may never rekindle the ambition and the enthusiasm. It takes work to shoot large format and if I quit enjoying it I have always felt it was time to stop. Of course my problem is that I can't afford what I enjoy so much. But finding I was down to one box, and I couldn't afford to buy anymore, was a bit stunning. Now I have an extra box on the way so it doesn't feel as if the end is quite so imminent; I can devote some thought to my other options.

And I do have options. I have a couple of 4x5 cameras on the shelf that I haven't worked with in awhile. As you have pointed out, 4x5 is quite a bit less expensive. I just have to reconfigure my thought process as I have never really looked at 4x5 as a substitute for 8x10.

As my wonderful wife pointed out this afternoon, part of the reason I have been so bothered so much by this today is that I haven't really been paying any attention, either to prices or to how much film I am shooting. In a lot of ways it is my own fault I am in this spot. I go out a couple of times a month and I almost always carry a minimum of 6 film holders. I don't always shoot all that film but I do it often enough that it isn't unusual to use up a box in six months. I need to slow down. I just see so many beautiful things when I am out and about that the amount of film I am using isn't what is uppermost on my mind.

Anyway, I am rambling now. Thanks for your help. I will sort this out and I suspect that somehow I will come up with a plan that keeps me out there using my camera. Sometimes it helps just to talk/write it out.

[John Layton]

Interesting to think about this thread in light of the "how many holders do you take with you?" thread - that where this (number of holders) question is (was) often dictated by weight and logistics...now I find that, more often than not...price is the real issue which "helps" me to reduce the amount of film I take with me. Upsides are that this helps me to be very deliberate in my approach (which is, for me, a good thing), is better for my aging bones, and yes...it also saves some $$$!

[AuditorOne]

Interesting to think about this thread in light of the "how many holders do you take with you?" thread - that where this (number of holders) question is (was) often dictated by weight and logistics...now I find that, more often than not...price is the real issue which "helps" me to reduce the amount of film I take with me. Upsides are that this helps me to be very deliberate in my approach (which is, for me, a good thing), is better for my aging bones, and yes...it also saves some $$$!

Yes. I will have to learn to be a bit more deliberate in my approach to photography.

i read what some of you post about your hiking trips with backpacks and large format equipment with great interest but that just isn't me. Unless I am hunting I have never been much of a hiker so equipment weight or bulk has never really dictated what I do or do not carry with me. If I can't get close to where I want to be with my old pickup then I usually don't go there.

[Two23]

My partial solution was to switch to wet plate. There are set up costs of course and the learning curve was steep but the cost per image is reasonable.

[AuditorOne]

Hmm. Never thought of that. I did try some of Jason Lane's glass dry plates but that certainly was not a savings; although it was a lot of fun.

[Drew Wiley]

Two hundred bucks ain't nuthin' these days. Take a look at 8x10 color film, which is now running around $40 per SHOT if you factor in processing. Well, I wisely froze a stash of that back when the pricing was far more realistic. Otherwise, you have to either be rich or shoot strategically. Enjoy the groundglass image, but don't insert the holder and trip the shutter unless you feel the image is truly worthy of a print. Then go on periodic format diets by resorting to 4X5 or roll film, if that works suitably for your purpose instead.

My favorite and most versatile black and white films happen to be of the TMax genus; so I have to follow the same rules there. But actually, once I do thaw out a box of 8x10, it takes me quite awhile to shoot it, since my age itself, now 74, means I've often go out with lighter gear these days. So I meter my 8x10 film usage, and probably have enough on hand to last me till I'm 80.

The down side of that custom is that we actually need wasteful film shooters if the manufacturing volume is going to stay steady or even rise, making that end of things more cost-efficient. We need to recruit some billionaires to this forum.

[gypsydog]

The down side of that custom is that we actually need wasteful film shooters if the manufacturing volume is going to stay steady or even rise, making that end of things more cost-efficient. We need to recruit some billionaires to this forum.

Problem is if sales greatly increase at these prices they will figure the can raise the prices. Especially old yellow.

[Michael R]

Two hundred bucks ain't nuthin' these days. Take a look at 8x10 color film, which is now running around $40 per SHOT if you factor in processing. Well, I wisely froze a stash of that back when the pricing was far more realistic. Otherwise, you have to either be rich or shoot strategically. Enjoy the groundglass image, but don't insert the holder and trip the shutter unless you feel the image is truly worthy of a print. Then go on periodic format diets by resorting to 4X5 or roll film, if that works suitably for your purpose instead.

My favorite and most versatile black and white films happen to be of the TMax genus; so I have to follow the same rules there. But actually, once I do thaw out a box of 8x10, it takes me quite awhile to shoot it, since my age itself, now 74, means I've often go out with lighter gear these days. So I meter my 8x10 film usage, and probably have enough on hand to last me till I'm 80.

The down side of that custom is that we actually need wasteful film shooters if the manufacturing volume is going to stay steady or even rise, making that end of things more cost-efficient. We need to recruit some billionaires to this forum.

We need George Tice to stay around. He’s probably one of the few large volume users of 8x10 Kodak film (though it was always TXP unless he has switched now), unless he’s moved away from Kodak now. I don’t know. Christopher Burkett used a ton of 8x10 TMX for masking but I’m not sure if he’s even photographing anymore given his stash of Ciba finally started to crap out some years ago.

[AuditorOne]

We need George Tice to stay around. He’s probably one of the few large volume users of 8x10 Kodak film (though it was always TXP unless he has switched now), unless he’s moved away from Kodak now. I don’t know. Christopher Burkett used a ton of 8x10 TMX for masking but I’m not sure if he’s even photographing anymore given his stash of Ciba finally started to crap out some years ago.

A few years back I did some 8x10 portraits at our little, local, Art in the Park event. I did it only one day and still used over 60 sheets of film. I could see someone who does that for a living going though a lot of large format film. I'm sure they use far more than I do on a regular basis and I can certainly "waste" my fair share of film.

[AuditorOne]

My favorite and most versatile black and white films happen to be of the TMax genus; so I have to follow the same rules there. But actually, once I do thaw out a box of 8x10, it takes me quite awhile to shoot it, since my age itself, now 74, means I've often go out with lighter gear these days. So I meter my 8x10 film usage, and probably have enough on hand to last me till I'm 80.


I do like TMAX films and shoot a lot of it in 35mm but I learned a long time ago that I could not afford to use it in 8x10 sheets very often if I intended to eat at the same time.

[Drew Wiley]

Machine gunners like Avedon with his assistants probably shot more 8x10 film for a single project than I will in my entire lifetime. But there are plenty or much more wealthy people around who could probably buy out Kodak itself with pocket change if they wanted to. Folks who can afford $40,000 apiece patio chairs wouldn't have any problem with film expense. I've known of some who went out and bought fifteen thousand dollars worth of brand new 8x10 gear for sake of a single workshop, and then rarely if ever used the camera again, and just left it in storage for years until they finally decided to get rid of it.

But more down to earth, I see regular people all the time walking around with 7 or 8 thousand dollars worth of DLSR hanging on their neck, but constantly chattering about wanting something even better - the newest thing coming onto the market - and all for what? Some web selfie with a few blurry elephant seals in the background?

[Peter Lewin]

With apologies, a slight switch from 8x10 film to 11x14 paper that reinforces that this is an expensive hobby. Yesterday realized I was down to my last 3 sheets of 11x14, and re-ordered this morning. This is not a rant, because luckily I can afford the costs of our hobby, and while I could economize by choosing a cheaper paper, I like my results on Ilford MGFB Classic. But even in 100 sheet boxes from B&H, it still comes close to $3/sheet, and it can easily take me 5 or more sheets to get to the print I want, so while nowhere near the cost of 8x10 color film, it reinforces that film photography is not an inexpensive passion.

[LabRat]

A sale of a few prints should offset material costs if one works wisely...

Steve K

[monochromeFan]

A sale of a few prints should offset material costs if one works wisely...

Steve K

And if someone is actually able to sell a print.

[monochromeFan]

Well, i would hate to see what a true 4x5 or 8x10 Digital Camera sensor would cost.. I have a feeling it would make Kodak sheet film look like 35mm foma prices.

For paper sizes i believe that your ability to process a given size of paper will always control your paper needs. If you cant process anythign larger then 11x14 at the current time, the staggering cost of 16x20 will be meaningless to you.

[Merg Ross]

A sale of a few prints should offset material costs if one works wisely...

Steve K

You beat me to it, my thought exactly.

[John Kasaian]

I hear you!

All it does for me is it forcefully encourages me to slow down more and be extra careful and discriminating when to comes to firing the shutter.

[Tin Can]

Starving artist

common

plight

i have lost weight

[Rick A]

Of course, there is this option, it can be opened under a dark red safelight.

https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-accessories/x-ray-film/8x10-in-fuji-x-ray-film.html

[John Layton]

As for the "the sale of a few prints should offset material costs".... if there were enough eager buyers to match the amount of passion on this forum - then yes, but realistically?

And while I've sold many prints over the years - more than enough to offset costs (although I've never been quite able to subsist solely on that specific income stream, at least as a married human who likes to enjoy other aspects of life)...I'm now, as a "retiree," in the mindset that there are a few creative "itches to scratch" (like finally building an 11x14 enlarger) while I still have some energy, but which might not "pay off" financially...and as my other retirement income becomes a bit less generous, I do need to be more careful. But itches are itches...and scratch them I will!

(and might I dare to guess that many others here are very likely in the same boat?)

[paulbarden]

I find it far more difficult to sell prints now, than it was even five years ago. I suspect the ubiquity of high quality smartphone cameras and inkjet printers has devalued traditional printmaking. Why spend $300-$500 on a hand made print when you can get a nice print with your phone and an online print service for twenty bucks??

[Michael R]

I find it far more difficult to sell prints now, than it was even five years ago. I suspect the ubiquity of high quality smartphone cameras and inkjet printers has devalued traditional printmaking. Why spend $300-$500 on a hand made print when you can get a nice print with your phone and an online print service for twenty bucks??

It’s not easy out there. Every time the film price discussion comes up my mind goes to discussions I’ve had with Mark Citret over the years. A top tier artist in B&W photography with a long, distinguished history and plenty of gallery representation, and some years ago he decided Kodak had priced him out of their sheet films. He started using Ilford but found with the prices creeping upward he’d have to get ready for something else, so he tried Foma but found he was having difficulty tray processing it without scratches. Last I corresponded with him he was thinking he might have to dig out his roll film backs and stop using sheet film.

[Corran]

I find it far more difficult to sell prints now, than it was even five years ago. I suspect the ubiquity of high quality smartphone cameras and inkjet printers has devalued traditional printmaking. Why spend $300-$500 on a hand made print when you can get a nice print with your phone and an online print service for twenty bucks??

I feel like in the last 5 years print sales have varied wildly, but overall trending down. However I've always thought that photography, especially more traditional photography, is very hard to sell as anyone can make basically the same image. Of course we can argue all day about the composition or whatever but ultimately it takes a certain person to find good photography to be of interest, as opposed to other mediums which seem much more difficult to the average person.

Anyway, I've sadly run out of my stash of 4x5 TMX, more or less. Not likely to buy more. I still have many, many rolls of 120 TMX. Generally trending towards smaller formats lately, but also in a bit of a transitionary period so who knows.

[djdister]

As a point of reference, Tillman Crane, longtime large format photographer, has switched entirely to digital capture, digital negatives and then platinum printing.

https://www.tillmancrane.com/about-tillman/darkroom/

[AuditorOne]

Of course, there is this option, it can be opened under a dark red safelight.

https://www.zzmedical.com/x-ray-accessories/x-ray-film/8x10-in-fuji-x-ray-film.html

I tried x-ray once as well as some Ortho Litho. Still have some of the Ortho Litho lying around somewhere. I was never able to master them though. To be fair I probably could have tried harder.

I found I had better luck exposing photo paper in the camera.

[AuditorOne]

As a point of reference, Tillman Crane, longtime large format photographer, has switched entirely to digital capture, digital negatives and then platinum printing.

https://www.tillmancrane.com/about-tillman/darkroom/

I have read several examples where professionals have moved to digital. If I were a pro and making money I would likely have done the same. I own a Sigma DP1 Merrill that does a terrific job so I can certainly see the attraction for professionals doing this as a business.

I am just a poor amateur though (emphasis on the poor) and actually I still really enjoy the process.

[Corran]

As a point of reference, Tillman Crane, longtime large format photographer, has switched entirely to digital capture, digital negatives and then platinum printing.

https://www.tillmancrane.com/about-tillman/darkroom/

Same with Clyde Butcher.

[Kino]

I'll shoot out of date stock, cut aerial film, X-ray, paper negatives and will eventually learn to hand coat glass plates; whatever it takes to keep going.

It's all good. I'm not making my living from this, just having a good time in retirement.

And, yes, I deserve it...

[Kiwi7475]

I understand the shock if you haven't looks at film prices for a few years... (but maybe you should have been looking and restocking :-) ).
I am happy that film is still around today, it wasn't clear 10 years ago that that was going to be the case.
And yes there's various options with different price ranges... from Kodak to Ilford to Foma to x-ray...

At the same time, around me I see everyone and their mother buying new digital cameras, or new lenses, or new tripods... and those are multi $K expenses... and if you can buy a new $1K lens, then you can instead afford a few boxes of 8X10 a year...

most hobbies aren't free, but if you really want to sink all your money go out and buy a boat... so given that, photography isn't that bad. Save, buy what you can afford, get out with your camera, shoot, and enjoy the hobby... life is short, and you can't take money with you after your heart stops.

[AuditorOne]

I understand the shock if you haven't looks at film prices for a few years... (but maybe you should have been looking and restocking :-) ).
I am happy that film is still around today, it wasn't clear 10 years ago that that was going to be the case.
And yes there's various options with different price ranges... from Kodak to Ilford to Foma to x-ray...

At the same time, around me I see everyone and their mother buying new digital cameras, or new lenses, or new tripods... and those are multi $K expenses... and if you can buy a new $1K lens, then you can instead afford a few boxes of 8X10 a year...

most hobbies aren't free, but if you really want to sink all your money go out and buy a boat... so given that, photography isn't that bad. Save, buy what you can afford, get out with your camera, shoot, and enjoy the hobby... life is short, and you can't take money with you after your heart stops.

Oh I agree with you 100%. My shock would not have been as much if I had been tracking the cost of film on a regular basis so a large portion of this is on me.

I rarely buy those other things you mentioned either. For example, I have not bought a new lens in many years. The last one I bought was an S&K Symmar 150/5.6 L. Nice lens but I seriously doubt it cost me $1,000. I don't shoot as much 4x5 as I used to but I still have that lens. Nice one.

I used my digital camera to do a photoshoot for a friend at a company event this summer. The digital camera I used was my Pentax *ist DL2. Care to guess when that camera came out? It still takes great pictures though. Not even worth the money to advertise it for sale but I take care of it because I like it.

As for my tripod, it was built before my son was born and he now has kids of his own in college.

I do buy things on a whim once in awhile. I just picked up a new (to me) Pentax camera with a couple of lenses off of ebay for a tad under $40 before I was caught by surprise by this film problem. I am looking forward to getting it and I am sure I will enjoy it when it gets here.

For all that, you are absolutely right. I have not been paying attention like I should have, but I know what the prices are now so I will figure out how to get some more film into the house on a more regular basis. I will be a bit more careful in the future. I will not let my stock get this low again without getting some more.

My biggest problem was not being prepared. My wife and I manage our expenses so that we live on our retirement income and we rarely dip into our savings except for emergencies. We try to plan ahead. Regardless of how much I enjoy this hobby this is not one of those things that qualify as an emergency. Now that I know what is going on I will make adjustments so that I have enough extra cash on hand from time to time to cover the cost of a new box of film or maybe two.

I have no intentions of quitting but I do need to make adjustments, so I will. Thanks for listening to my little rant, sometimes it just helps to put things in words.

[paulbarden]

Oh I agree with you 100%. My shock would not have been as much if I had been tracking the cost of film on a regular basis

I remember it was only a few years ago that I was still buying boxes of 8x10 FP4 for just under $100 per box. (it's now over $200) A lot has changed in five years.

[John Layton]

The last box of TMY (50 sheets of 5x7) I'd purchased from B+H was a "great" deal as it was short dated (within but a few months of expiry). Thing is, if I can put this (or any other short-dated film) right into the freezer when I get it (assuming it was stored "correctly" beforehand)...I can realize an essentially "within spec" performance from such a film for quite a while. So this will now be my purchasing strategy going forward.

[jnantz]

it's brutal the cost of materials. im only shooting expired film and paper, and coating my own so I cut down on my expenses considerably
I can't imagine if I was buying a lot of film to feed the monkey .. and if it was chrome film feeding the monkey again

[Drew Wiley]

Even this forum probably represents only a fraction of sheet film users. I wouldn't place too much emphasis on only a relative handful of individuals only we ourselves have known. That can be said about film in general. Kodak wouldn't be spending so much right now on new equipment and training another generation of technicians for sake of more production capacity if there wasn't any financial incentive due to adequate sales volume. No, I won't be like in the past ever again; and their fresh investments comes with a price increase to us. But in other ways, it is a good sign.

And let's face it. There are certain things you can do with real Pan film which discount options like X-Ray and Ortho Litho simply don't provide.

But to me, the inflated cost of film is a relatively minor nuisance. It's the dramatic cost increase in materials like museum board and Plexiglas which is the real pain in the butt. That's especially the case with respect to framing big prints;
and I have my own framing facility. I can't imagine anyone putting up a serious show while both paying a frame shop and having a gallery take a 50% or more cut from the selling price; they'd be lucky to break even.

It's all relative anyway. I see people down the street dropping $4000 every six month for new off-roading tires, and gosh know how much for shocks and all that gasoline every weekend. Up in the hills, guys with modest incomes would drop $200 apiece every weekend for target ammo and a beer fest with their buddies (at least they were firing a safe direction even inebriated - many don't). Look at the ridiculous amounts families spend a month on cell phone and web media entertainment subscriptions just to keep up with a lot of nonsense. I grew up with puppies and kittens and and farm animals, and rocks and trees instead, and was probably a lot happier.

[monochromeFan]

Well isnt anyone going to chime in that they can make their own film for 10$ per hundreed feet?

[paulbarden]

Well isnt anyone going to chime in that they can make their own film for 10$ per hundreed feet?

WTF are you talking about now??!

[AuditorOne]

Well isnt anyone going to chime in that they can make their own film for 10$ per hundreed feet?

Not me!!

I am reading up on wet plate and that even sounds like a huge challenge. I certainly don't have what I need for that but it is intriguing. Gives you a whole different level of respect for guys like O'Sullivan romping around the American West in their wagons back in the 1800s.

[paulbarden]

Not me!!

I am reading up on wet plate and that even sounds like a huge challenge. I certainly don't have what I need for that but it is intriguing. Gives you a whole different level of respect for guys like O'Sullivan romping around in their wagons back in the 1800s.

I have been making 8x10 and 5x7 Wet Plate Collodion glass negatives since 2018. Yes, it's a huge technical challenge, and it's best done when you are within short walking distance of your darkroom. (I've got a portable darkroom, and it's a total pain to work with) But the negatives can be amazing. Storing a lot of glass plates is another challenge, of course. And by the time you've purchased the chemistry*, silver tank, plate holder and the glass, you aren't exactly saving money over film. Paper negatives are a much more attractive alternative (but are limited in how they can be used, of course)

*Silver nitrate is currently $418 per pound. Smaller quantities are far more expensive per gram.

[jnantz]

Well isnt anyone going to chime in that they can make their own film for 10$ per hundreed feet?

I'll bite ..

I make 100cc of emulsion for around $8,25. I could probably easily coat 100 feet of washi film for 8 bucks..

I currently make a simple .. silver chloride one, takes about 20 mins start to finish. ..
affordable 2KG Foma Emulsion sometimes on clearance from Freestyle
... if you have ammonium thiocyanate and dektol you can even make ferrotypes

[AuditorOne]

I have been making 8x10 and 5x7 Wet Plate Collodion glass negatives since 2018. Yes, it's a huge technical challenge, and it's best done when you are within short walking distance of your darkroom. (I've got a portable darkroom, and it's a total pain to work with) But the negatives can be amazing. Storing a lot of glass plates is another challenge, of course. And by the time you've purchased the chemistry*, silver tank, plate holder and the glass, you aren't exactly saving money over film. Paper negatives are a much more attractive alternative (but are limited in how they can be used, of course)

*Silver nitrate is currently $418 per pound. Smaller quantities are far more expensive per gram.

Thanks; This is one of the things that is on my short list to try out but I think I'll wait for summer to arrive before I give it a shot. I picked up a book titled "Primitive Photography" a while back which I think describes the process.

[paulbarden]

Thanks; This is one of the things that is on my short list to try out but I think I'll wait for summer to arrive before I give it a shot. I picked up a book titled "Primitive Photography" a while back which I think describes the process.

If you intend on pursuing the process, I strongly recommend you get a book that is dedicated to the actual doing of it, not just a chapter in a general book. Mark Osterman sells a very respectable beginner's guide for $38 (https://www.collodion.org/basic-collodion-manual), shipping included. You'll save yourself a lot of grief by starting with a good manual.

[AuditorOne]

If you intend on pursuing the process, I strongly recommend you get a book that is dedicated to the actual doing of it, not just a chapter in a general book. Mark Osterman sells a very respectable beginner's guide for $38 (https://www.collodion.org/basic-collodion-manual), shipping included. You'll save yourself a lot of grief by starting with a good manual.

On its way.

[Rick A]

I'm a dedicated follower of Denise Ross, bought her books and have been getting ready to start up.

http://thelightfarm.com/?fbclid=IwAR2cUcKvyqIEx88F_X0ltWkeb1gzc1IkhQVd7Xz6korFWqYj8TZDczcGpPg

[jnantz]

I'm a dedicated follower of Denise Ross, bought her books and have been getting ready to start up.

http://thelightfarm.com/?fbclid=IwAR2cUcKvyqIEx88F_X0ltWkeb1gzc1IkhQVd7Xz6korFWqYj8TZDczcGpPg

and one of her books. is free preview on blup,, huge photographic hero

[AuditorOne]

I thought I recognized Denise Ross's name. I do have one of her books. Its' volume 1: the basics. I even have a bottle of silver nitrate that I bought around the time I bought the book.

This happened about the same time that I had surgery so a lot of things were interrupted around that time, including photography projects. Needless to say my life was forcibly simplified when that happened. Some projects I have never gotten back to. As I remember, at the time I was a bit concerned that this was not a process I was going to easily be able to do in my little bathroom darkroom.

But I do have the book so I'll go through it again.

Lots of options. Sell some equipment. Short date sales. Wet Plate. Light Farm process. It does sound as if my summer will be eventful if nothing else. :D

[paulbarden]

About 2 weeks back it was widely discussed that Freestyle was having a really great sale on "short dated" Foma films. I bought some 5x7 Fomapan 100, and for the first time I also bought Fomapan 400, in 8x10 size to try (At $1.70 per sheet, I figured I could be more liberal with my film usage!) I've made a couple of photographs using the Fomapan 400 and I have been very pleasantly surprised by the results. It has a really beautiful tonal scale in a "Tri-X from decades ago" kind of way, and it handles very nicely in both PMK and 2-bath developer, but the surprise for me is how much better the results are when processing it in a 2-bath developer (in this case, Thornton's version of divided D-23): much better separation of values, especially in the high end, and significant suppression of grain. It also gives the impression of greater acutance.

Here is the Thornton processed photograph:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53584388577_f29557335a_b.jpg (compare it with the PMK negative (https://flic.kr/p/2pCYc1T))

And here is a 100% magnification of the two negs for comparison: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53584424457_6c1b0d7a23_h.jpg

The difference in the rendering of the high values, and the appearance of improved sharpness of the Thornton negative (thanks to the finer, less clumpy grain) is significant.

I know there are some who think Fomapan is a second-rate film, for novices and those restrained by budget concerns, but I'm really impressed by the 400 speed Fomapan and I plan to include it in my cache of films going forward, sale or no sale. But I am certainly glad I took advantage of the Freestyle sale - at $1.70 per 8x10 sheet, this feels like a real gift.

PS: I have two sheets waiting to be processed - one of which I will be developing in double strength PMK for Kallitype printing. I am hoping the Foma 400 is suitable for alt processes (not so much base density as to get in the way).

[Kino]

Beautiful!

[paulbarden]

Beautiful!

Thanks V much.

[Kino]

Did you tray develop this?

What's your opinion of using 2 bath developers in Jobo processors?

[Drew Wiley]

Foma 400 also looked a bit annoyingly clumpy grained for me too using PMK. If you want a wonderful smooth grained yet high acutance edge effect in a fast film, use PMK in conjunction with HP5 instead.

I suspect the high rotation speed and oxidation level of Jobo rotary processing would defeat the whole point of the soaking effect of two bath treatment. But you could test for that yourself if in doubt. I haven't done two bath D23 for a long time, and then in relation to former sheet films like Plus X Pan, but do know one doesn't want to be aggressive with it.

[Michael R]

An issue above is the difference in contrast, which makes evaluating graininess and perceived sharpness problematic. The image on the right looks more contrasty to me but not sharper. Although development times are relatively short in two-bath developers I would expect somewhat lower graininess from this divided metol-sulfite developer than PMK which has no solvent effect. That seems to be the case when looking at the scans above.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, D23 in general relies on a lot of solvent effect. There might be a way to tweak it with sodium chloride to improve acutance; but I've never tried that.

[paulbarden]

Did you tray develop this?

What's your opinion of using 2 bath developers in Jobo processors?

My sheet films are always developed in a tray. I don't own, nor have I ever used a rotary tube processor. (never will) The whole idea of working with a 2-bath developer is that the best results are obtained by employing a very limited, gentle agitation technique. A drum processor with continuous agitation would not be compatible.

[AuditorOne]

I develop by rotation quite often but I usually do it by hand so I can control the rate of rotation. I rarely use the Jobo itself unless I am developing color film. At the price of large format color sheet film being what it is today that doesn't happen very often and when it does it is usually expired film.\

Very nice shot. I do like the tones in Fomapan.

[paulbarden]

An issue above is the difference in contrast, which makes evaluating graininess and perceived sharpness problematic. The image on the right looks more contrasty to me but not sharper. Although development times are relatively short in two-bath developers I would expect somewhat lower graininess from this divided metol-sulfite developer than PMK which has no solvent effect. That seems to be the case when looking at the scans above.

I didn't say that the Thornton image was sharper - I said that the less coarse grain gave the appearance of greater sharpness. But my takeaway of the test is that the improved tonal rendering when using the divided developer was worth the effort, not to mention the more subdued grain. Contrast, of course, is something that can be manipulated to suit needs and tastes.

[John Layton]

Paul that's a beautiful image - and that test is meaningful to a degree...but there are some differences - specifically apparent print color and brightness/contrast, which you could likely manipulate further in the PMK image to bring it a bit "closer" to the Thornton 2-Bath image.

My gut says you can get them closer...but that the Thornton image would still have some qualities (high value smoothness and delicacy) which makes it very special. Its been a long while since I've souped in any sort of 2-bath soup...and your image inspires me to give this another try! Thanks!

[Michael R]

Yes, D23 in general relies on a lot of solvent effect. There might be a way to tweak it with sodium chloride to improve acutance; but I've never tried that.

Sodium chloride would increase solvent effect - that's what Microdol/Perceptol use in addition to sulfite.

In any case, these divided metol-sulfite developers will generally all do the same thing unless the differences in formulation are massive. The Thornton versions are superfluous. Adams is functionally identical. Actually you don't even need metaborate. The Stoeckler formula with borax in the second bath does the same thing. One could also use a Perceptol first bath with borax or metaborate second bath. The concentration of alkali in the second bath makes no difference as long as you have at least a few grams.

One thing this type of two-solution development tends to do from a sensitometry/tone reproduction standpoint is give a somewhat straightened curve - ie short toe and long straight line with little shoulder. Some people prefer that linearity for negatives destined for scanning/digital editing.

[paulbarden]

Paul that's a beautiful image - and that test is meaningful to a degree...but there are some differences - specifically apparent print color and brightness/contrast, which you could likely manipulate further in the PMK image to bring it a bit "closer" to the Thornton 2-Bath image.

My gut says you can get them closer...but that the Thornton image would still have some qualities (high value smoothness and delicacy) which makes it very special. Its been a long while since I've souped in any sort of 2-bath soup...and your image inspires me to give this another try! Thanks!

Thanks!
RE point 1) Yep, I agree - my test is of limited utility and only somewhat meaningful. So many variables, so many ways of interpreting a negative.
RE point 2) It's mainly the high value rendering I find of value (to me) with the 2-bath negative. Grain structure and sharpness don't matter a while lot, since my 8x10 negatives are created primarily for contact printing. But I've observed this effect with divided developers before, and they do seem to impart something special as regards the tonal scale and value separation/luminosity.