Mr. Canham is putting together another order. Kodak, amazingly, has lowered the price for 50 sheet boxes so with shipping it will be $255. It was $360 last time around. Contact Keith if you are interested.
Printable View
Mr. Canham is putting together another order. Kodak, amazingly, has lowered the price for 50 sheet boxes so with shipping it will be $255. It was $360 last time around. Contact Keith if you are interested.
The price is ridiculous.
WHERE IS THE Tmax 100 in 5x7
I have one box in my freezer and I am too scared to use it - because it would REALLY PISS ME OFF if I end up liking it so much better than FP4 (and I will) and there is no more to use
so there it sits....so Great Yellow Father in the East - please save me from my conundrum and make more Tmax100 in 5x7
This is not a severe problem, don't get scared. You can always cut a 8x10 sheet in two 5x7 sheets and also you'll obtain a remaining 1x10 sheet that can be useful for calibraton tests or to make drop tests to know how developer is working.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTang
I've 8x10 and a 5x7 gear and I made some custom tooling to cut it with necessary precission for films not available in the 5x7 size, I do it just when loading it to holders. The 5x7 box is the convenient way to go, of course, but cutting it from 8x10 it is also well straight when necessary, some precission required.
With TMY at $255/box one get the same cost per 5x7 sheet as it was cut from 8x10. When price was $360/box the 5x7 Sheet was 40% more expensive than if it was cut from 8x10, enough for me to take the cutter :)
Well, if you don't like the price then don't sign on. He needs 70 people.
IMHO $255 is a fair price, given that 5x7 product is made in much lower production runs, and TMY sheets are expensive, as there is no ilford competition for the ISO 400 tabular grain in sheets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
$360 it was discouraging (to me at least), but $255 looks fair.
$5 per sheet is a good deal!
Ah. Thanks for the pointer. I never would have thought of that strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
I like simple solutions, you're welcome.
In the first day, 25 of 70 box minimum are committed.
I don't know - last month I paid Ilford $171 for a 100 sheet box of Delta 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Thomas
Thomas, it's a bit off here, but could you name the source, please?
Thanks,
Ritchie
Being a bit off, B&H has Delta 100, 5x7 100 sheets box, at $177, but minimum order is 16 boxes, delivery term is 2 months, this is $1.8 per sheet if buying 1600 sheets...Quote:
Originally Posted by plaubel
But Kodak sheets are, in general, much more expensive than ilford. I'm a bit shocked because in the roll film range price is similar.
Thanks for that, Pere.
Best,
Ritchie
For TMY, it is...Quote:
Originally Posted by tgtaylor
I ordered 1 box on the 2016 Ilford ULF film program from K&S Photography here in Palo Alto and received it the last week of September: $1.71 a sheet including shipping.Quote:
Originally Posted by plaubel
Thomas
Wow really? But again, a different film, different look...
Well, as by now we are well off topic... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Delta 400 is not made in sheets... so ilford has no tabular counterpart for TMY sheets.
If we compare Delta 100 to TMX, I think they are very similar for LF, with smaller formats Delta shows a little bit more grain.
I think the different look (D100 vs TMX) can be made equal with some filtering. As TMX has more blue sensitivity than D100 it happens that it works better (faces) with tugnsten light and D100 works better with sun light, but using right yellow filter with TMX it looks like Delta, and placing a Blue filter with Delta it looks close to TMX. Curves are both very linear, difference is mostly in the spectral sensitivity, but this can be matched by filtering over lens of using light sources of different color temperatures. Another difference is reprocity failure, D100 is higher, but both have more failure than the (also expensive) Acros. Some say that D100 has better highlights...
Still, even it is too expensive, I think that it is worth to own some TMY assets :) For long exposures it is the ISO 400 thing with low reprocity failure.
This is IMHO
I know the Kodak film especially the TMax 400 is highly valued among large format users. I also take the point that 5 x7 is not as common as 4x5 or 8 x10. I have pondered why would not Kodak have a similar program as Ilford with the once a year special order. Perhaps they would get an order of 700 boxes instead of 70 and then perhaps the price would come down to be more competitive. With their pricing and rather churlish marketing attitude, one wonders how they are going to survive if they make getting their product exceedingly difficult.
Well, with roll film Kodak is way more competitive, near same prices than ilford, and they may sell much more rolls than sheets. It is true that they punish the sheet users... perhaps this market it is not interesting for them in the medium term, but IMHO also I think they are discouraging customers to buy their LF products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Van Nes
Oh gosh, now you're trying to convince yourself that tofu burgers and ground sirloin taste the same? People who want TMY want TMY, not Delta with a lot of ketchup on it to hide the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
:) good point... and one vote for the sirloin ! (tofu may be toxic)
Anyway it would be interesting to make some side by side tests with "filter bracketing" and see how close can be the thing. I've the view that, in practice, main difference is spectral response... but this is for another thread !
You should buy a couple boxes and make those tests.
The curve shapes are radically different, not just the speed. Bracketing won't change that. If you want to do a test, compare TMX100 to Delta 100. They're both
T-grain medium speed, but again, with VERY different toe characteristics. Delta is a fine film in its own right, provided you're a vegan !
I think those tests can be done with some two 35mm rolls of each film. I would take a color check target, then make the shots with filters, this with tungsten and daylight, then referencing to standard gray in the target and let calibration software work to see corresponding shifts in the color triangle, this would spend one roll of each.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
Second test would spend remaining two rolls with real subjects, faces, landscapes, fabric, fruits... with better matching filtration found.
A perfect match by filtration requires very professional resources, it would require developing an special new filter, this is using software to combine absortion bands from some 20 dyes to obtain a filtration that transforms the spectral sensitivity of one to the other.
It is possible that some wratten gelatin makes it match in the way than even an expert film user cannot see spectral response difference. That formal test would determine that.
Beyond what's spectral response... we'll, this is calibration. Ilford pfd shows curves until 1.8D, Kodak (I like kodak charts!) shows curves until 3.0D for advanced printers.
I think that toe is not that different, but there is a D100 very important (can be nasty) factor : reciprocity failure. Delta has much higher reciprocity failure that can act like benzotriazole toe cutter, the typical case is a 4 sec exposure (to smoothen water) in a river, then Z-IV can be sent to Z-III a ....and Z-III to zero. (shadows of the rocks)
3 years ago I made informal but extensive personal tests of Delta vs TMax vs Acros. I found that Spectral Response could be well matched (to my eye) with pale filters. Also I found that for long exposures Delta has the mentioned issue, and Acros was the best for that. Also I found TMax exceptional in resolving power and density buildup.
IMHO TMax range has too much blue sensitivity for what today can be considered natural look (faces, outdoors in special), but it's also vintage look. Anyway this is solved with mild yellow filtration.
So my personal conclussion is that I can obtain similar results with Delta for most situations, and TMax/Acros may be required with long exposures, at 2x the sheet price.
As until recently I was shooting rolls, and as Ilford vs Kodak rolls have similar price, I was using TMax.
Now I plan to shot mostly 5x7 and 8x10 and the price difference is too high for an amateur like me, so I'm thinking to adjust my process with Delta.
¿Why Kodak sells TMax rolls at the same price than Delta, and sheets at those expensive prices?
To continue the off topic discussion.
For my work, a straight line is a straight line, and I use 4x5 Delta 100 or 4x5 T-max 100 interchangeably, depending on what I can get. If one likes processing to a 'curve' then be shackled to the differences you find.
Attachment 157634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
Quite straight !
I'd like to make you two questions. First is about the exposure time of this calibrabration, is this "in camera", or around 1s under enlarger ? How that would change if test was made with 8s?
Second question is about spectral response, do you need to use some filtration to get similar look when you interchange films? I'm specially interested in skin tonality...
This is Delta:
Attachment 157664
This is Kodak:
Attachment 157665
In the case of Kodak they say that the exposure for each wavelength is equal in Ergs, this is very well specified, but in the ilford case they don't tell, unfortunately (even they don't say if linear or log). Anyway the Kodak curve shows a clear step ramp from 500nm to UV,
my guess is that when combined with sunlight spectrum...
Attachment 157666
... it happens that blue renders lighter tones with TMax. So a mild blue or cyan filter should be used with Delta to get similar spectral response...
Thanks in advance,
Regards
PD: Sorry for the off
I endorse that and would expand the sentiment to "if you want to disparage the film compared to alternative emulsions, please do so in a separate thread."Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
Kevin, if you're keeping in touch with Keith on progress toward the minimum quantity, please update this thread periodically to share that status. Thanks in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
You are right, perhaps this should be moved to another thread, just the thing has gone a bit too off topic, anyway my intention was not at all to disparage the film by comparing it, just wanting to learn differences. What's for me the off topic posts can be moved away if disturbing.
At the risk of getting back on topic, Keith sent me an email indicating he has orders for 38 boxes. So if the price isn't too high from your perspective and the toe is OK.....you could order some?
Show me the rest of the curve, not one with both the toe and shoulder lopped off, which all films have. I just a question of how much and where; and that it what
functionally separates Delta from T-Max. A real curve that ain't, Ice Racer.
Risk mitigated. Back off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Crisp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Topics have curves too, Sal, unless you want to resuscitate Super-XX and include it in the discussion too, just to get a real straight line.
Back on topic. Keith tells me he is getting close -- 51 boxes committed of 70 boxes needed for the order. If you are interested, please sign up.
As of tonight, Keith reports he has commitments for 56 boxes; 14 more are needed.
Great news ... almost there!
Mr. Canham is 4 boxes short of commitments but is placing the order. If you want a box now is the time to get on board.
The order is a "go" per Keith. Paid for my film today. Get on board now if you want in.
Today Keith announced that there are still four boxes (extra he ordered) of 5x7 TMY-2 available from this group purchase: