Sustainability of 8x10 film given the pricing situation

[Drew Wiley]

Serious tricolor work involves, first of all, finding a suitable subject outside a studio still life setting which holds steady; second, having a triple set of exposures all with the same linearity with strong separation filters in place, and with as closely matching reciprocity and even development characteristics as possible. By far the best film in these respects is TMax 100. Then supplementary masking is likely to be involved. All in all, once you've burned through I don't know how many boxes of film just to get all the necessary steps calibrated, there is nothing inexpensive about it. Cheaper film options would just make it worse - more expensive, because it's not going to be anywhere near as cooperative or likely as batch to batch consistent. A second choice would be FP4. But why would anyone even choose to do this with 8x10 film if they're just going to scan it, snap align it, and digitally print it afterwards? Pipe dreams.

Of course, if one just wants to fool around with a set of tricolor filters, and is satisfied with funky "artsy" results, there are all kinds of ways to skin the cat. But once I had accurately calibrated my own methodology, I allowed at least $90 apiece for any 8x10 tricolor image prior to actual printing, and that was back when I paid a fourth as much for 8x10 TMax as the present asking rate! And I have the luxury of very precise pin registration carriers and easels. But what I don't have is the luxury of is waiting forever till the right subject turns up. If I lived in the desert it might be different. But here on the coast, it's windy almost all the time. Maybe in another location, in another lifetime ...

But it's safe to assume Stuart won't go that route.

[Michael Kadillak]

Anyway, Foma film is no substitute for TMax quality and versatility, not by a long shot. But if you can live with its idiosyncrasies, you might or might not save money, depending on how many sheets you have to burn to get what you want from it.

Have to disagree with you Drew. I have been shooting Foma 200 in 8x10 for some time now and it has been just fabulous. Ordered another box last week. Great density building character, sharp and great tonalities. And its quality control has not been an issue at least for me. No problems with three boxes I have burned through so far. Its only caveat is reciprocity (which is probably manageable if I were to make it a priority to validate some of the recommendations) and that is where I revert to better sheet film alternatives. Agree with Stuart that 8x10 is the best tool out there and hope he can stay the course with this format. With inflation nowhere near under control we can expect further price increases so we need to up our game with new levels of efficiency in the field and the darkroom.

[Drew Wiley]

I've repeatedly stated my reasons for giving up on Foma film, especially the alleged 200 speed product. Two separate bad batches of 8x10 with zits and cracks on them.
Nowhere near alleged 200 speed. Cannot significantly build gamma (more an issue for the late Michael Smith, who cursed it for that reason, rather then me; but I prefer versatility in a film myself). Abominable reciprocity characteristics; the worst of any film I can think of. Fussy in development; fragile, and it develops very very fast. I'm not saying it's an unusable film by any means. I did get some exceptional shots myself, albeit with a lot of wasted shots due to quality issues. But I am implying very firmly that is has almost no resemblance to TMax quality and versatility whatsoever, or even compared to FP4.

Otherwise, I found the 100 and 400 versions just OK, and certainly not anything with a special look. You get what you pay for. At least their 200 speed offering, even if misleadingly speed rated, is a unique product with a unique look, and with an exceptionally long straight line scale. But despite some people endorsing it, others are still complaining about quality control issues; so at this point, as far as I'm concerned, it's guilty until it's proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said that, the kinds of defects I did experience, which were a nightmare to try to retouch in the enlargements, were small enough that they might not bother a contact printer to the same degree. By small, I mean physically small, but not scarce. It should not be assumed that what is acceptable to one printmaker is acceptable to another. And just so much work goes into 8X10, getting to and fro with a limited number of holders, that is the last scenario where I want to gamble.

[Bruce Watson]

The price of film / processing was never the limiter for me. What was, was the cost of travel. Airline tix, car rentals, meals, hotels, all completely dwarfed the cost of film and processing.

That said, it was clearly noticeable. When I was starting out, every time I'd pull a darkslide I thought about how much an exposure was going to cost me. But then I thought about how much money I'd already spent to get to the location I was in, and how much time and effort I spent climbing up a mountain with full pack, often pre-dawn, to be set up on a scene I could not get in my back yard. Learning to let those negative thoughts go was the hard part -- the Zen of Photograpy maybe.

In the end I learned to be thrifty. Not like you think. I would only "burn a sheet of film" if I thought it was necessary: If it revealed a truth, if that truth revealed an insight, and if I thought that truth wanted to be heard. IOW, only if the scene spoke to me in such a way that I *had* to make the exposure. At the end of my most active period as an LFer I set up on lots of scenes where looking through the ground glass did not compel me to make the photograph. But my "hit rate" of "keeper" to total photographs was considerably higher than when I was starting out.

I'm just sayin' that you might be barking up the wrong tree here. You do have trees in Iceland, yes? Maybe not, but the metaphor might still work.

[Jim Andrada]

Come to think of it, MF digital isn't so cheap either on a per shot basis for folks that don't shoot weddings etc.

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's why I hoard whenever a deal comes up, usually on expired films.
I've accepted the fact that I will never shoot 8x10 TMY again, unless I strike it rich in the lottery. In fact, I probably won't be shooting HP5 in 8x10 either, especially after I retire next year. CatLABS 80 is still affordable.
Over the past few years, I've been shooting a lot of 120...

[Greg Y]

That's why I hoard whenever a deal comes up, usually on expired films.
I've accepted the fact that I will never shoot 8x10 TMY again, unless I strike it rich in the lottery. In fact, I probably won't be shooting HP5 in 8x10 either, especially after I retire next year. CatLABS 80 is still affordable.
Over the past few years, I've been shooting a lot of 120...

Me too!

[jnantz]

I think someone used to have a signature that said "photography isn't for the faint of wallet". it's as true now as it was then.. (20 years ago )
the price of photography has never been cheep, affordable for some, but not cheap.

[Tin Can]

X-Ray is still made

Maybe not in USA

Vets use it world wide

Also Industrial in countless ways

[StuartR]

That is certainly a consideration. That said, I live in the Icelandic countryside, so I am not really paying anything other than diesel to do my work. Rarely I will stay in a guesthouse in another part of the country, and it is expensive, but kind of crazy to say, ten sheets of film costs more than a night in a beautiful country cottage that I stay in, with its two bedrooms and a full kitchen, living room etc...and that is here in Iceland, one of the most expensive hotel markets around.
I am a careful photographer...sometimes coming back with only one or two photos...or none. As I said, I will make it work. I am just concerned that a situation is arising where even being careful will not be enough, because there will be so vanishingly few people willing to pay the extreme price that it will simply fade away. And yes, we have trees, lol. Not as many as most places, but certainly more than you might expect based on the clichés. I lived in a forest surrounded on three sides by spruce and birch trees.

By the way, I had a look at prices from 2005, and at Adorama at least, 8x10 sheet film price has increased at 500% the rate of inflation. It was 3.10 a sheet. With inflation adjustment it should be 4.85. It is 20. So it is not quite "it was always expensive etc". I know that historically it has been at times, but at least in the last twenty years I have been doing it, it has never been anything like it is now.