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.
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.
Oren... Mr Bill must have spent a small fortune for that order. :)
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Mike1234
William was a genius and a marvelous human being. His photography left me speechless.
Michael, that may have been true at the end. But he got started in 8x20 way before there were computer technicians offering stitching services.
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.
Originally Posted by Oren Grad
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