PDA

View Full Version : 8 x 20 film availability



Pages : 1 [2]

Mike1234
02-17-2010, 08:47 PM
Steve... I didn't know any color larger film than 8x10 was still available... good to know. However, I have my doubts that enough interest could be generated to convince Kodak to pre-cut color 8x20. I could be wrong... often am.

Jamie... I'll look for the Cirkut film... never seen it though.

Oren Grad
02-17-2010, 09:30 PM
It's been quite a few years now, but William Corey bought an entire special order of 8x20 color neg from Kodak, for his own use.

Mike1234
02-17-2010, 09:33 PM
Oren... Mr Bill must have spent a small fortune for that order. :)

Oren Grad
02-17-2010, 09:35 PM
$10,000. :)

Steve Hamley
02-17-2010, 09:45 PM
Mike,

Kodak will cut if you have the minimum order, no problem, as Oren mentioned William Corey doing.

You are correct about OUR interest. Michael's B&W order took a bit to get a 10-box commitment, I believe color would be less likely. People's comments in the forum are not a good indication of their willingness to make a purchase. A while back everyone was complaining (and still are) about Kodak only packaging in 10-sheet boxes for many emulsions, including Tri-X. So I started a thread to see if there was an interest in getting together an order for 50-sheet boxes - should be easy since Kodak already cuts 8x10 Tri-X. Not one person expressed an interest in a special order unless it was significantly cheaper.

So they didn't want it bad enough to pay the existing rate for it.

Cheers, Steve

Mike1234
02-17-2010, 09:59 PM
No surprises, Steve. Sorry your efforts didn't prevail. I'm not even going to try a color 8x20 group order. In fact, I resolved to buying an 8x10 camera rather than a 5x12 or larger 3 or 4 weeks ago because I know 135, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 are going to be the last contendors standing in the color film arena. Within the next few months I'll be looking to buy a used 8x10 Canham Traditional for its 10 inchs of rear shift... for stitching two shifted images.

Michael Kadillak
02-17-2010, 11:07 PM
No surprises, Steve. Sorry your efforts didn't prevail. I'm not even going to try a color 8x20 group order. In fact, I resolved to buying an 8x10 camera rather than a 5x12 or larger 3 or 4 weeks ago because I know 135, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 are going to be the last contendors standing in the color film arena. Within the next few months I'll be looking to buy a used 8x10 Canham Traditional for its 10 inchs of rear shift... for stitching two shifted images.

I purchased William Corey's 10x10 Durst enlarger a number of years ago and he mentioned to me that he had a talented computer technician in Boulder Colorado that would take his 8x10 color negatives and stitch them together for 8x20 and they looked great. FInishing our conversation about the enlarger purchase I asked him about a purchase of 8x20 color film and he told that Kodak was not interested in it and the price that they gave him was prohibitively expensive but consistent with their lack of interest. He may it sound like it was a no go but if something happened before or after this I am not sure. I came away from the conversation with the impression that he had put two sheets of readily attainable 8x10 color film in his 8x20 holders and let his computer jockey do his thing.

William was a genius and a marvelous human being. His photography left me speechless.

Cheers!

Oren Grad
02-17-2010, 11:55 PM
Michael, that may have been true at the end. But he got started in 8x20 way before there were computer technicians offering stitching services.

http://www.williamcorey.com/japanese-garden-photographer-about/photographerCamera.html

donbga
02-18-2010, 05:07 AM
Michael, that may have been true at the end. But he got started in 8x20 way before there were computer technicians offering stitching services.

http://www.williamcorey.com/japanese-garden-photographer-about/photographerCamera.html

Looking at the projected image of an 8x20 in the field is a marvel. I always wanted to shoot with one of these cameras but now the cost of film is prohibitive, at least for me. Using 2 sheets of 8x10 film could solve that problem. Seems like that is a legitimate reason for discussing scanning here.

illumiquest
02-18-2010, 06:29 AM
I was doing aerial surveying for awhile and they do make the aerial film in 125' rolls as well. compared to standard film it's relatively inexpensive but is quite a bit thinner than standard film so I'd be concerned that in ULF sizes the film wouldn't lay flat enough. I'm also not sure how you'd develop it as the emulsion is made for special aerial developer.

I certainly miss the days when I could just chop up whatever size film I wanted and not worry about the cost :) sitting in a little plane for 600 hours a year was definitely not worth it though.

If you found a way around getting the film developed I would be willing to be you could call any aerial surveying company and they'd have short bits of film laying around. We would always throw away anything under 30'.

Just an idea

AgX
02-18-2010, 06:47 AM
Not all aerial films have special emulsions, there have been terrestrial films emulsions just adapted to the different base.

illumiquest
02-18-2010, 08:28 AM
I only had experience with Agfa Aviphot PE200 and their color 100 (can't remember the name of it). If there is films which use standard processing I should think it would be quite easy to befriend your local aerial surveyor and beg some film off of them. Better than spending 10k with Kodak ;)

Mike1234
02-18-2010, 10:22 AM
...

I was doing aerial surveying for awhile and they do make the aerial film in 125' rolls as well. compared to standard film it's relatively inexpensive but is quite a bit thinner than standard film so I'd be concerned that in ULF sizes the film wouldn't lay flat enough. I'm also not sure how you'd develop it as the emulsion is made for special aerial developer.

There are ways of dealing with that but I don't think it would be an issue ayway.

I certainly miss the days when I could just chop up whatever size film I wanted and not worry about the cost :) sitting in a little plane for 600 hours a year was definitely not worth it though.

If you found a way around getting the film developed I would be willing to be you could call any aerial surveying company and they'd have short bits of film laying around. We would always throw away anything under 30'.

Yes, the Kodak color negative film is designed for a special process BUT it's C-41 compatible. It also has no orange base but that actually makes scanning easier... for those who are interested in that. :)

Michael Kadillak
02-18-2010, 03:02 PM
Michael, that may have been true at the end. But he got started in 8x20 way before there were computer technicians offering stitching services.

http://www.williamcorey.com/japanese-garden-photographer-about/photographerCamera.html

Thanks for the link. That fills in the details nicely.

Dropping $10,000 on sheet film for a camera that you have not truly familiarized yourself with is pretty gutsy. I looked at his images close up and personal and I was truly impressed at his skill and vision. Not being a color guy previously, I took a U turn at these images. It is a shame he is no longer with us as I would have loved to take a workshop with him.

Steve Hamley
02-19-2010, 07:21 AM
Thanks for the link. That fills in the details nicely.

Dropping $10,000 on sheet film for a camera that you have not truly familiarized yourself with is pretty gutsy.

Well, maybe not that much. In the article, he states that if it didn't work out he could always cut the 8x20 to 8x10 which he was using, and that the frozen film would last a long time, or at least long enough.

It highlights again to me the difference between working pros I've known and most of us who enjoy photography as a hobby. The working photographers I've known wouldn't think twice about ordering $10,000 worth of film, a $15,000 Technika with 3 cammed lenses, if they needed them because those are the materials needed to create a return on investment and pay the bills.

Cheers, Steve

Michael Kadillak
02-19-2010, 09:40 AM
Well, maybe not that much. In the article, he states that if it didn't work out he could always cut the 8x20 to 8x10 which he was using, and that the frozen film would last a long time, or at least long enough.

It highlights again to me the difference between working pros I've known and most of us who enjoy photography as a hobby. The working photographers I've known wouldn't think twice about ordering $10,000 worth of film, a $15,000 Technika with 3 cammed lenses, if they needed them because those are the materials needed to create a return on investment and pay the bills.

Cheers, Steve

Good point. It was not that long ago when things were good and credit was cheap and available. But we also have to remember that the dynamics of film consumption have shifted 180 degrees from back in the good old days from being dominantly pros to currently being dominated by serious hobbyists and semi-pros. Add a crappy economy, dramatically increases in unemployment and a tight credit market and it is a challenge for the pros to have that much operating flexibility as was the case in the past. To be perfectly honest I don't know how the pros are making ends meet.

Like many of us I am hanging in there but I am working damn hard to make sure that the train stays on the tracks. Yes, it is eating into some time I would like to be allocating to photography, but priorities are what they are.

DanielStone
02-19-2010, 10:30 AM
I wish I could afford a Master Technika with some cammed lenses....

eventually! Gotta sell the sinar first. split between that and a gandolfi variant.....

oops, off topic ;) dreaming again :D

-Dan

RobertP
02-20-2010, 08:02 AM
William Corey was a very dear friend of mine. I was fortunate to be able to spend some time with him near the end of his life. He was a great artist and his approach to his work was exceptionally emotional.

ncholmes
02-28-2011, 09:58 PM
Keith Canham informed me today that he will start a co-op for 8x20 TMax 400. it will take 44 boxes to reach completion, which, if it succeeds before the beginning of April, will beat Kodak's price increase. It's not up on the website yet, but the cost will be the same as Tri-X 8x20., $363 for a box of 25.

keithwms
02-28-2011, 10:28 PM
If I remember correctly, 9.5" (or 9.7" ?) roll film was still being sold by HAS imaging in Ohio until recently. Maybe you can still get some panatomic x or such.

If I were shooting ULF, I think I'd look into coating my own dry plates and let the charming little defects fall where they please. I don't see much reason to use a high quality / high price film for something that's just going to be contact printed. But that's just me. I do need to get my 11x14 moving. Time to bite the bullet and learn how to coat!