Reasons for using reversal film?

[Oren Grad]

Lens for the Test: Nikkor-W f/5.6 240mm

It doesn't cover 8x10...

It should per Nikon spec, which says image circle is 336mm at f/22. Of course, that's still not much to work with if you're in the habit of using front rise for buildings photographed from ground level.

[r.e.]

It should per Nikon spec, which says image circle is 336mm at f/22. Of course, that's still not much to work with if you're in the habit of using front rise for buildings photographed from ground level.

Hi Oren,

That was meant to be a reference to the Docter Optic lens. I've re-worded the sentence to make that clearer.

Where I'm making these photographs, I'm not going to need front rise. Not a tall building in sight. There are a couple of exceptions, which I would photograph, if I do, with a different lens than the Nikkor 240mm. Buildings as buildings aren't my subject. They're backdrops.

[Drew Wiley]

Most people stop down significantly further than f/22 when using 8X10 film anyway, so the effective image circle would be bigger still at those smaller stops. Even a 30X40 inch print is just 4X linear magnification from 8x10 film size, so minor hypothetical diffraction-related sharpness issues won't even be detected unless one is printing really huge. Depth of field is the more common problem, and smaller stops help in that respect. Plenty of 240 and 250 lenses cover 8X10 with room to spare.

[Oren Grad]

Hi Oren,

That was meant to be a reference to the Docter Optic lens. I've re-worded the sentence to make that clearer.

Where I'm making these photographs, I'm not going to need front rise. Not a tall building in sight. There are a couple of exceptions, which I would photograph, if I do, with a different lens than the Nikkor 240mm. Buildings as buildings aren't my subject. They're backdrops.

Got it. Good luck, will be interested to hear more about your project when the time is right.

[r.e.]

I've included the Ilford partly for comparative purposes and partly because I haven't ruled out shooting this project in black and white, or a combination of colour and black and white. If I prefer Portra to Ektar, I may do a further Portra 160/400 test. At B&H, Portra 160 is less expensive than 400, by enough that it would add up over time.

Checking prices for film stock was an eye-opener on a practical financial level. I see these numbers as a strong argument for Portra 160 and Ilford B&W. I've watched prices for about five weeks. While there's been some fluctuation, and there was a temporary sale on Ektar in July, the relative prices have not changed.

B&H price per 8x10 sheet today (August 5, 2021):

Portra 400: $24
Ektar 100: $23
Portra 160: $19

Kodak Tri-X 320: $12
Kodak T-Max 400: $10
Ilford Delta: $7.45
Ilford FP4, HP5: $7.10

I've posted charts with more detailed information on prices in this thread: Charts Showing the Current Prices (August 2021) of Colour and B&W Film Stocks

[r.e.]

how is the project doing?

Well. I went with Portra for colour film. However, the most important decision was to acquire a Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 75mm lens for 4x5. This makes life a lot easier on city streets. I'm also currently considering a wide lens for 8x10. On that, see the current thread Wide Lenses for 4x5 & 8x10: 90mm to 165mm

I'm also finding Artist's Viewfinder invaluable. It's a director's viewfinder for iOS, and is discussed in the thread What Scouting/Planning Apps Are You Using in 2021?