Ilfochrome - worth shooting direct on 4x5"?

[Athiril]

I can get 25 8x10" sheets locally from a shop (on order) for like $110 AUD (so 100 of 4x5" cut down).

Versus like $50 or $60 for 10 sheets of 4x5 Pro 160S etc

Say for landscape work etc, am I going to be at a significant disadvantage to shooting straight on ilfochrome paper and scanning versus colour film?

Currently cant do any tests, smashed the ground glass with my butt accidentally, waiting on a replacement.

Currently scanning on a V500 and stitching 4x5" transparencies in 2 passes, I'd like to sell and upgrade to a V700... but I think I may save and look for a used Flextight or other more capable than a flatbed scanner.

So I think I may be at an advantage if ilfochrome paper has decent enough resolution and contrast both on cost and covenience of scanning.

Just wondering if I am missing something?

[nickrapak]

One thing for sure, it will be in mirror image.

[DanielStone]

where are you that you are paying that much for 10 sheets of film? have you ordered from b&h or samys online?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...fessional.html

http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=2049

personally, i would shoot the film and then scan. it will have more resolving power (l/p mm), and the film will have considerably less contrast compared to the paper.

in the end, its up to you, i had a friend who shot 8x10 with ilfochrome paper, and it looked really cool, but in the end, he just ended up shooting 8x10 chromes and negs because he started scanning.

you also have to factor in chemistry as well,

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...d_Kit_for.html

it gets expensive, depending on your budget, b/c that is the deciding factor in many cases after all

just my $0.02, shoot film and scan, or print it optically.

scanning will offer more options over local contrast, dust elimination, etc

you might get hooked on color printing though. i have, its a blast.

that's the ra-4 process, not ilfochrome (my student budget can't allow that right now )

-dan

[BetterSense]

I don't see the point if you are going to scan it and re-print it. I think in-camera Illfochromes are a pretty neat idea because they give an in-camera original. If you are going to scan I would just shoot film.

[Athiril]

Australia, I already ordered my Pro 160S 10x 4x5 from Freestyle, this is the price it works out to with the bullshit shipping charges shops charge us, yet when we get the package shipping is nowhere near that much >

Anyway, that is still twice as cheap as 4x5 colour in Australia -before- domestic shipping (which is another $18).

Chemistry is another cost factor which makes ilfochrome look attractive, have been doing chromes using Xtol or R09 + C41 as a colour developer and colour negs too, but the chemistry is $180 for 5 litres (C41 dev, bleach, fix), B&W is cheap though hence ilfochrome = looking good.

[Athiril]

I don't see the point if you are going to scan it and re-print it. I think in-camera Illfochromes are a pretty neat idea because they give an in-camera original. If you are going to scan I would just shoot film.

cheaper, easier development.

easier more convenient scanning.

much much cheaper per sheet (not sure about the ilfochrome backlit film prices) than 4x5" colour film.

As I said, $60 odd for 10 sheets of 4x5 film.

$110 for 25 sheets of 8x10 = 100 sheets of 4x5 for $110.

[tiberiustibz]

I don't think you would get good results. Proper printing from slides requires contrast masking. Doing that in the field is relatively impractical. I think you'd have way too much contrast, and you'd need to filter it.

[Aurum]

Its worth noting that the colour balance of Ilfochrome is towards the tungsten end of the spectrum as it was designed for use in enlargers.

The pinhole brigade has done this sort of thing before, and certainly for outdoors daylight shots, a blue cast is often seen.

You may need to try a few filters to get the best balance

[Photo Engineer]

The color balance of Ilfochrome is more towards daylight than Endura or CA and so will require much less filtration to get right than the latter two papers if you use them in-camera.

Typical Ilfochrome filtration is say 30C 30M and the other two 50M 50Y. This is indicative of the large difference between the two media.

The contrast of the material is about 1.0 to make prints from slides with a contrast of 1.8, and so you may get results that are not pleasing due to the contrast mismatch. In fact, you might observe it to be lower than you like due to the mismatch. Remember that the contrast is the gamma of the original x gamma of the print material. In this case if you were printing on-easel, you would then have 1.8 x 1.0 = 1.8. In the case of in-camera, you have 1.0 x 1.0 = 1.0.

If you do go ahead, make sure you can get the chemistry.

PE

[Dug]

What is your time worth?

I have printed Ilfochromes for about 6 years, so I am no expert. However, the whole slide film/e6 processing/Ilfochrome workflow was engineered to give good results on Ilfochrome. Ilfochrome chemistry is a lot more expensive (and hard to find) than c-41 chemistry (assuming you would do the color negative/scan route). You will have to get some kind of jig to cut the paper in the proper dimension. The paper is thicker than film so all of the ANSI-standard tolerences for holding the film in the holder are off. When you mess up the development process (not if...but when) you will have lost the original.

If you have time to trim sheets of paper in complete darkness, like to make lots of dupe exposures to make sure you don't lose the photo due to processing error, can absorb the higher cost of the chemistry, can tolerate focus issues, and can spend time on your computer correcting fairly significant color shifts, go for it. If you would rather spend you time taking pictures rather than battling your materials, you may want to reconsider this.

The direct positive method has been used for an "alternative" rendering of a scene. Look up some of the photographers who do direct Ilfochorome prints (Willie Anne Wright, Carol Henry ). It is quite an interesting medium, but not one I would use to get a more standard result in a time-effective or cost-effective manner.