PDA

View Full Version : How popular are the ULF panoramic formats



Craig Griffiths
27-Oct-2010, 22:56
Was thinking about some of the more esoteric panoramic formats and how common they are in use today. I would be particularly interested in how many cameras are being used in sizes other than 4x5, 5x7 , and 8x10.

My 8x20 gets fairly regular use these days, but I am not sure how many others are in Australia let alone anywhere else. I know there are a number of 8x20 shooters around but it would be interesting to know how popular the 8x20 size is compared to say the 7x17 and 5x12 formats.

I am interested specifically in panoramic formats larger than 4x10.

Any ideas/guesses/suggestions about how I can find out.

thanks

Bruce Barlow
28-Oct-2010, 03:14
Talk to Kodak and Ilford about film sales, if they'll talk to you. Who's done the group-buying efforts? I wasn't invoilved, so wouldn't know.

The guys who make holders may have some clue.

APUG.org has a ULF forum, which may hold some hints.

Richard Ritter does OK selling his ULFs, but I don't know his actual volume.

Sorry that these are all pointers rather than real information.

Why?

John Bowen
28-Oct-2010, 04:36
This is all heresay, but.....back in '05 when I was purchasing a Ritter 7x17, I inquired about purchasing some 7x17 holders from AWB. I didn't want to wait a year to receive them, so inquired if there were any available for immediate purchase. I learned that AWB had made something like 50 7x17 holders for a single user in the middle east.

My only concern going forward is the availability of film. My freezer has at least a 5 year supply and perhaps as much as a 10 year supply, but I know I'll want/need more before I turn up my toes. Film availability was also my concern when purchasing a camera, and the limited research I could do led me to believe that 7x17 was more popular than 8x20.

Craig Griffiths
28-Oct-2010, 04:56
Bruce, in terms of why, it was just one of those thoughts I have from time to time. I have no concern regarding film or holders or the like, it was more a case of wondering how popular the sizes are.

I guess it was a case of wanting to find out. My 820 is a Chamonix with the serial number of 39, and when I saw that again today I wondered how many there were around that are being used.

sanking
28-Oct-2010, 05:11
Was thinking about some of the more esoteric panoramic formats and how common they are in use today. I would be particularly interested in how many cameras are being used in sizes other than 4x5, 5x7 , and 8x10.

My 8x20 gets fairly regular use these days, but I am not sure how many others are in Australia let alone anywhere else. I know there are a number of 8x20 shooters around but it would be interesting to know how popular the 8x20 size is compared to say the 7x17 and 5x12 formats.

I am interested specifically in panoramic formats larger than 4x10.

Any ideas/guesses/suggestions about how I can find out.

thanks


Based on sales of S&S film holders over the past decade or so I would estimate that 11X14" is the most popular ULF format, followed (in order of perceived popularity) by 7X17", 12X20", 8X20", 14X17", and 20X24".

I agree with an earlier assessment that going forward the most pressing issue for ULF work is the ability to purchase at a reasonable cost film for these large cameras. It seems to me that it would be in the interest of ULF camera makers to purchase ULF film in sizes of cameras they make and to make it available to users with a modest mark up. Most individuals will balk when faced with the complications of trying to place an individual order for film as the minimum order to likely to be far more than they are willing to risk.

Quite frankly both Ilford and Kodak have pretty much priced themselves out of the market for many potential film buyers what with prices of $30 and more for a single sheet of 20X24" film. Just a few years ago it was possible to buy FP4 in this size from Photo Warehouse for just a bit more than $5 a sheet, which was cut from over-stocked rolls of Ilford film. In an effort to maximize their own profit Ilford put a stop to that source, which has resulted in a rather dramatic increase in the cost of ULF film. Course, there will always be some buyers who are willing to put any amount of money down for good quality ULF film, but ultimately the high cost of film will limit the sale of cameras and film holders.

Sandy King

cdholden
28-Oct-2010, 05:32
Craig,
Depending on your film needs, some of these sizes are also available in X-ray film, which is much less expensive. It's a different film though. If it works for you, great! If not, then you'll be into photographic film for more $$$.
Does the Chamonix back come off the camera? If it does, you could possibly get a 7x17 back and holders for it, to get some (long term) cheaper use out of it.
Chris

Craig Griffiths
28-Oct-2010, 14:55
Film is not the issue for me. At then moment I have plenty and dont foresee it being a problem provided I plan for it in advance. And if film is not available then I might look at calotypes etc. There are always options that can be explored.

It was more a question of how many are around.

Sandy,
Thanks for the info regarding the popularity of various sizes. That was the info I was looking for.

John Powers
29-Oct-2010, 06:16
[QUOTE=sanking; It seems to me that it would be in the interest of ULF camera makers to purchase ULF film in sizes of cameras they make and to make it available to users with a modest mark up. Most individuals will balk when faced with the complications of trying to place an individual order for film as the minimum order to likely to be far more than they are willing to risk.
Sandy King[/QUOTE]

I think the problem with this is that many of the builders are individuals with the same budget problems the shooters have. Ritter, Canham, recently retired Phillips.

I shot 250 sheets of Ilford 7x17 last year but could only afford to buy 125 sheets this year. I will happily rent freezer space to any 7x17 shooters, especially those with bad credit who shoot Ilford and think they might default on the terms of rental.

John

Robert Skeoch
29-Oct-2010, 06:40
I think you would be shocked at how low the numbers are. There might be a fair number who own the cameras but don't actually take many pictures with them. And the numbers get confusing because one or two photographers in a single format who shoot a lot... or buy a bunch of holders.... will make a real difference.

I was part of the Ilford ULF sale this past year. I sold 21 boxes of 8x20 film last year. Not bad, but there were only three customers. One photographer bought most of the film for a single project.

Next year he might need a refill, but when the project is done, he might not.

For a long time 7x17 was the top seller but that has dropped right off... again because a couple photographers switched formats and they were heavy users.

Right now 4x10 is popular.... although I would say that whole plate was the most popular of the "off" sizes, and I say that with all respect because most people with "off" sizes are nervous about getting the products they love down the road... it takes a real love of the format to carry on.

Just my 2 cents worth.

-Rob

Richard K.
29-Oct-2010, 06:49
Just my 2 cents worth.

-Rob

Rob, you charged me way more than 2 cents!!:D

Should I take my WP or 7x11 to Death Valley in Feb.? Or both?

Robert Skeoch
29-Oct-2010, 10:18
Both. It's your major shooting trip of the year.... might as well take all the toys.

-rob

Kirk Gittings
29-Oct-2010, 11:18
Quite frankly both Ilford and Kodak have pretty much priced themselves out of the market for many potential film buyers what with prices of $30 and more for a single sheet of 20X24" film. Just a few years ago it was possible to buy FP4 in this size from Photo Warehouse for just a bit more than $5 a sheet

Ouch!

sanking
30-Oct-2010, 09:04
I think the problem with this is that many of the builders are individuals with the same budget problems the shooters have. Ritter, Canham, recently retired Phillips.

I shot 250 sheets of Ilford 7x17 last year but could only afford to buy 125 sheets this year. I will happily rent freezer space to any 7x17 shooters, especially those with bad credit who shoot Ilford and think they might default on the terms of rental.

John


I really don't know anything about the finances of camera makers but the bottom line is that these guys are not going to sell ULF cameras unless there is a source of film that folks can afford to buy. I won't argue as to which film(s) are best but the fact of the matter is that the cost of both Kodak and Ilford ULF films has become prohibitively expensive for many people. I think they should look to making deals with film makers in other countries, say in China or Eastern Europe. I checked into this for myself a couple of years ago and found that I could buy Shanghai ULF sheet film in 20X24" size, delivered to the US, for about $7 a sheet. Unfortunately I could not get any people to go in with me on this and the minimum made it too expensive for this one person. With a modest mark up one could sell this film for about 1/4 or 1/3 the price per sheet of Kodak or Ilford film.

I think what Canham is doing in organizing orders with Kodak is a good thing but the premium pricing of Kodak still makes this a no go for many persons.

Sandy King

Richard K.
30-Oct-2010, 09:12
Both. It's your major shooting trip of the year.... might as well take all the toys.

-rob

Good advice Rob. But this year I also plan to go to Nova Scotia and return to Utah in the summer. I'm rereading my Ed Abbey...

Oren Grad
30-Oct-2010, 09:17
Just for reference, and taking 12x20 as an example, Canham's posted price for a box of 25 sheets of TXP is $536, the price for FP4+/HP5+ in the most recent Ilford run was about $330, and Freestyle stocks Efke PL100 at $189.

sanking
30-Oct-2010, 09:49
Just for reference, and taking 12x20 as an example, Canham's posted price for a box of 25 sheets of TXP is $536, the price for FP4+/HP5+ in the most recent Ilford run was about $330, and Freestyle stocks Efke PL100 at $189.

I did not check the posted pricing at Canham's site but I assume that if 12X20 is over $20 a sheet the price of 20X24" would be $40 or more per sheet?

Now how many people are going to invest in a 20X24" camera and a few holders when the market price of Kodak film is $40 a sheet and the price from the only other supplier is not far behind.

Sandy King

Hugo Zhang
30-Oct-2010, 12:33
I really don't know anything about the finances of camera makers but the bottom line is that these guys are not going to sell ULF cameras unless there is a source of film that folks can afford to buy. I won't argue as to which film(s) are best but the fact of the matter is that the cost of both Kodak and Ilford ULF films has become prohibitively expensive for many people. I think they should look to making deals with film makers in other countries, say in China or Eastern Europe. I checked into this for myself a couple of years ago and found that I could buy Shanghai ULF sheet film in 20X24" size, delivered to the US, for about $7 a sheet. Unfortunately I could not get any people to go in with me on this and the minimum made it too expensive for this one person. With a modest mark up one could sell this film for about 1/4 or 1/3 the price per sheet of Kodak or Ilford film.

I think what Canham is doing in organizing orders with Kodak is a good thing but the premium pricing of Kodak still makes this a no go for many persons.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Chamonix was actually looking at this last year, working with Shanghai ULF sheet films. I shot the idea down as we had absolutely no control of the quality of the film, unlike cameras we make in our workshop. Shanghai film is cheap for a reason and you only need to check Chinese LF forum to find out: pinholes and relabeling the old films. Many Chinese LF guys use Kodak and Ilford films just for the peace of mind.

Hugo

sanking
30-Oct-2010, 13:13
Sandy,

Chamonix was actually looking at this last year, working with Shanghai ULF sheet films. I shot the idea down as we had absolutely no control of the quality of the film, unlike cameras we make in our workshop. Shanghai film is cheap for a reason and you only need to check Chinese LF forum to find out: pinholes and relabeling the old films. Many Chinese LF guys use Kodak and Ilford films just for the peace of mind.

Hugo

Hugo,

My own experience with Shanghai LF film has been very positive. I have used several 50 sheet boxes of it in 5X7 size. The film was very fresh, as indicated by a low B+F, and I did not find a single surface blemish in any of the sheets I exposed and developed. Course, the larger the film size the more likely one would be to encounter irregularities.

Sandy

Lachlan 717
30-Oct-2010, 14:21
I've had pin holes in 120 Velvia, so it's not limited to "cheap" Chinese film.

Jim Noel
30-Oct-2010, 21:32
Each year I purchase what I hope will be a little more than a years supply of 7x17 from Ilford. I also keep a fair supply of Efke as an emergency source. This is myfavirut3e format although it is heavy and awkward for me at age 80+.

John Powers
31-Oct-2010, 03:41
Each year I purchase what I hope will be a little more than a years supply of 7x17 from Ilford. I also keep a fair supply of Efke as an emergency source. This is myfavirut3e format although it is heavy and awkward for me at age 80+.

God Bless. At 70 you give me great hope. Thank you.

John

Diane Maher
31-Oct-2010, 06:36
I shoot whole plate, 5x12 and 8x10 (not necessarily in that order). :D I do not buy film every year, as I do not necessarily shoot the majority of it in a year. When I do order, I find that it is currently enough to last me for at least two years. I did participate in this year's Ilford order, but only for whole plate.