Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
There's a lot to reply to...

For those that think its easy to find ilfochrome paper and chemistry, tell me where, I've been trying to print a Kodachrome slide I have since last year and have only found one person who has the paper but no chemistry. So I call BS on that.

I also want to reiterate that I still don't know where I can even get an optical print from a lab, I know there are probably a few places in NY but I don't sell a lot of prints and its never mattered to anyone except you guys, and since no one has asked to buy a print from me, I've not looked. There's only one photo lab around here (I actually live in CT) and they don't print optically.

All the stuff you guys suggest costs a lot of money, it's truly a stupid thing to go and make a print and waste more film to make a copy by photographing the print with B&W film (on 35mm when the image is 120 so you're also losing tons of detail) and then process and scan that all just to post it in my gallery, that's really quite a waste if time and money and frankly I can't see why anyone would bother doing that just for an APUG gallery. I'm already scanning it, so I've introduced non-traditional process in the mix, what the hell's the difference after that.

I'm not saying I'm mad about the policies, I got over that a while ago, I'm saying that the suggestions for "traditional work around" a are honestly kind of dumb, and the suggestion that its EASY to traditionally print slides is a joke. If its do easy why don't I send you my slides and you can make lots of prints for me

I like you all, and thanks for the thorough amount of response, but you're all nuts

For those that simply answered my initial question, I thank you. And those that complimented my photo as it stands with no conversion, I thank you, and I agree I like the color, it's just so far from the original tone, that's why I felt B&W might be better.

For those that suggested wild ideas, I just ask you to realize its not not fair to me because I have no access, I guess that's why I get set off buy these suggestions, because I have no one who I can even approach to do this for me and certainly no way to do it myself. Yes I post A LOT because I don't have a single film person in my life, NO ONE shoots film that I know, even the pro's I know don't shoot any film and don't have a clue, and it makes me feel lonely, so I come here to talk about it. I would certainly post less if there were real film interactions in my daily life.

I just woke up mind you so I'm a little grumpy, I haven't had coffee and my car broke last night, have to work on that and I have $60 in my bank account right now... Not in a great mood so sorry if I sound like a jerk, I'm not I swear.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't say it was EASY, just possible. B&H sells the chemistry. And I didn't say it was cheap either. Just calling BS on the "impossible"/"NOBODY does it". If you REALLY want to print from transparencies, contact Stephen Frizza (he's a member here on APUG and owns a photo lab in Australia. IIRC he bought a huge stock of Ilfochrome paper and chemistry so he could continue to support the process).

Making internegs has been around since forever, and it used to be a very popular way to make prints from slides. So if you don't want to make direct prints from your transparencies, and you don't want to make inkjet prints, then it's not a big deal to fire up your preferred camera that can handle close-focusing, pop the tranny on a light box, and copy away using a nice copy film, (ideally a duplicating film, worst case scenario, Portra 160).