PDA

View Full Version : Is There ANY Reason To NOT Buy a 5x7 Today... COLOR NEGS Only?



Old-N-Feeble
25-Feb-2012, 09:33
Per the title...

I know that 5x7 film is less popular and, therefore fewer film makers are supporting it. All I'll ever want to shoot is Extar 100 because post-processing will be digital.

I performed a 'shopping' searched for "Kodak Ektar film" without the "quotes" and nothing came up. So my concern is any 5x7 camera I buy (for my needs) will be relegated to 6x17cm roll film and 4x5. Fortunately this camera has a generous 7 inches of rear slide so I could turn the 4x5 adapter back vertically and take 3 images overlapped 1/2 inch and create stitched 5x9 or so. Horizontally I can stitch 3 pieces to get a 4x11 using a wider, more comfortable overlap.

So... is 5x7 Ektar NLA? Anything else available that compares to Ektar 100?

** Posted on APUG also.

sully75
25-Feb-2012, 10:32
You could cut 8x10 into 2 5x7s and a 1x10 inch panorama. People do this (not the panorama part). But cutting film is an excepted technique in LF photography.

Ektar has never been available in 5x7. You'd have to check if it's available in 8x10. Fuji may be a better bet in the long run for LF color but it's all a crap shoot right now.

I have a 5x7 Deardorff available here, price is now $1200 with a few extra goodies (see the bottom of the thread)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?87323-FS-Deardorff-w-5x7-4x5-backs-%28or-trade-for-Chamonix-045n-2-cash-or-accesories%29

vinny
25-Feb-2012, 11:08
as paul said, ektar in 5x7 didn't/doesn't exist. they've axed in in 8x10 too so forget that unless you stockpile it now. Any 5x7 color is hard to find and usually a special order item. Badger graphic sometimes does a special 5x7 order for provia but not for c41 films. What the hell to you wanna stitch frames for? Is 4x5 not enough resolution?

Old-N-Feeble
25-Feb-2012, 11:52
Thanks, folks. I was afraid of that. I can still shoot multiple 4x5 and stitch the scans.

Why do I want more resolution than 4x5? Because I like wider images and don't want to crop 4x5 to get them. I know I could shoot 6x12cm roll film but I want more film area than that. Due to very high drum scanning costs I'll be using a flatbed scanner at home so I need more film area to make that work to my satisfaction. I want the ability to make large prints at very high resolution.

If I can stock up on 8x10 then maybe I'll do that. I just hope I can find a quality film processor who will trust me enough to process the piece with no edge markings.

jackpie
25-Feb-2012, 12:36
If you really have to shoot colour 5x7 then the only readily available fresh film I know is E6 transparency from Germany in 13x18.

http://www.macodirect.de/kodak-ektachrome-e100gbr13x18cm-sheets-p-1782.html

Get some 13x18 film holders and that will work just fine in a standard 5x7 back.

mdm
25-Feb-2012, 12:52
5x7 Portra is available as a stock item from B&H. For how much longer I dont know. I have a 5x7 but am using a 4x5 reducing back for colour, for the most part.

Ivan J. Eberle
25-Feb-2012, 13:16
Buying a camera for which film is unavailable--so that you can use a cheap flatbed scanner-- seems like no solution at all (but maybe that's just me?)
For what you'll have into all the grief of this you could buy a higher end drum scanner or flatbed and extract better images from 4x5 or 6x12, I reckon.

Old-N-Feeble
25-Feb-2012, 13:33
I thought decent used mid-priced drum scanners cost $5000+. Has that changed since the last time I researched it several years ago?

The camera in question comes with a 4x5 back and has seven inches of rear shift so I can capture the wide images I like with two or three sheets of 4x5 film and stitch them together for 5x8 or 4x10 formats.

I can also use the Canham 6x17 roll film back and stitch two or three vertically moved images together for 8x17 or 12x17 ratios.

I was really hoping that Kodak Ektar 100 was available in 5x7 but, as with many of my wants, that was a pipe dream. :)

jnantz
25-Feb-2012, 13:40
call freestyle,
i bought a boatload of expired / short date e6 from them
this was years ago, maybe they still have a stash ,,,

Old-N-Feeble
25-Feb-2012, 14:19
Actually, I'm currently selling several boxes of 4x5 and some 8x10 color neg and slide film. I also have some B&W that needs to go. This is because I want to stick to just one type of film and I've settled on Ektar 100. I've learned that Ektar 100 isn't available in 5x7. I can live with shooting 4x5.

vinny
25-Feb-2012, 14:47
I own two drum scanners. The first one was $226, the second $100 on ebay local pickup. I can't tell the difference from my scans and west coast imagings and others I've had done. There are lots of threads on this subject.

Old-N-Feeble
25-Feb-2012, 16:41
^^^ REALLY?? ^^^ I'll research drum scanners further!!

Jim Andrada
26-Feb-2012, 20:49
Hell, even if you stick to B&W 5 x 7 is a really nice format - I've used one since 1970 or thereabouts. I find it so much easier to compose on the ground glass than on a 4 x 5.

Old-N-Feeble
7-Mar-2012, 18:54
Yeah, I've decided the 5x7 back is here just for nostalgia. The 4x5 back will do the work making 3.33x5 (I don't like 4x5), 4x8, 4x12, and 5x10 images. I understand your reasoning to go straight to 8x10 after 4x5... I really do. However, 8x10 cameras are pricier plus lenses to cover 8x12 stitched images (I don't like 4:3 ratio) to 8x16 and wider are also pricier (6.67x10 is a different story... lots of lenses for that). Lastly, a large kit like that is bulkier and heavier than I can carry. I'll be happy with the 4x5 back with lots of rear standard slide.

roresteen
13-Mar-2012, 12:56
I plan on shooting as much Ektar 8x10 as possible...5x7 is a sweet format...if you shoot 4x5, why not 6x7 and call it a day? True no movements on a 6x7 MF camera but most shoot for the resolution...

Not sure all the hoopla about C-41 processing for 5x7...many labs do it. Or you can do it yourself.

I think 5x7 is a little longish for portraits compared to 4x5, 8x10, but landscapes seem more natural with 5x7 for me. But for ports I can just compose and crop the bottom later.

Old-N-Feeble
13-Mar-2012, 18:55
I prefer a 2:3 or 1:2 ratio most of the time. Sometimes 2:5 or 1:3 work but I seldom like 4:3 for a given subject. I agree that it works well for portraits but I won't be shooting any portraits. BTW, I have a lightweight 4x5 camera that's dedicated solely for shooting 6x12cm roll film. The heavier Canham has seven inches of rear shift so it'll be used for 4x5 sheet film making 4x8 to 4x10. Now that I think about it 4x12 is impractical since there will be so little image overlap. 5x10 is doable with three sheets though.

sully75
14-Mar-2012, 02:10
What's the camera younare talking about?

sully75
14-Mar-2012, 04:59
That was supposed to say what camera are you talking about re: the 5x7 back, just wondering...

Michael Jones
14-Mar-2012, 14:30
Canham traditional 5x7/4x5.

Mike

Old-N-Feeble
14-Mar-2012, 16:59
^^^ Yes, the larger camera with seven inches of rear shift, for use with 4x5 sheet film (multiple stitched images), is a Canham 4x5/5x7 Traditional. The lightweight 4x5, dedicated to 6x12cm roll film only, is a Chamonix 45n-1 with a Maxwell screen.