[Silent Street]

Looking at some costs associated with film (UK prices), a 120 roll of chrome (Provia/Velvia) is about £9, colour print (Ektar/Portra) about £6.50, B&W (FP4+/HP5+) about £4. Processing and low-res scanning comes in around £10 for each (various 'pro' labs). So you're £15-20 per roll - I have developed B&W myself, but it's easier and more convenient for me to get the lab to do it (particularly the scanning). In comparison, a roll of 35mm chrome film is much more expensive to buy at £13-15, I can't see myself by buying that anymore.

I'm ploughing my way through a bag of expired (probably badly stored) film of all types at the moment, once I've shot it I'll probably concentrate on mono and will hopefully be able to get my dev tank out again.

_____________________________

Velvia 50 in 35mm is $29 in Australia, and Provia 100F/35mm $24.00. Significant discounts exists with retailers if buying in quantity. The trouble is most amateurs and hobbyists only buy one or two rolls and think they are being ripped off — chrome film was never cheap. If they are griping about the cost, they are better off using negative film, especially if they are not printing from slides and only storing roll upon roll of scans on a computer — which for that purpose, a digital workflow from camera-to-desk is better. And no, don't start me on that "slides are not meant for printing!!" bogey! You say!? The how and wherefore of printing from slides, from any format, was refined way, way back in the 1960s with the Cibachrome (latterly, defunct Ilfochrome) process, then the RA-4 process that we have today.

I work my way through, $4,000 worth of 120 chrome film each year, and on top of that comes E6 processing, Heidelberg Hell scanning, colourimetrics, profiling and the whole shebang of RA-4 printing, then matting and framing and finally, export to Singapore, Shanghai and Tokyo.

[Wheatfield]

Could you expand on this a bit? What exactly is wrong with the old 6x7 cameras?

The very first generation 6x7 didn’t have mirror lock, and there were reports of bad clutches in the film advance allowing frames to overlap. The second generation had MLU added, and a more robust film transport, though I was still able to cause the advance on my 6x7 to go out of whack by shooting original T-Max film with it’s thicker estar base.
Back in the day, the Mamiya Owners Group filed a class action suit against Kodak because the film was thicker than the ISO standard allowed. Apparently it was causing problems for Mamiya 6x7 cameras as well.
I got the film advance adjusted, and switched to Ilford film and never looked back. Kodak, by the late 1980s was so far behind the curve in film technology that their stuff wasn’t worth using anyway.

As far as which format to choose, I started with medium format with a Bronica ETR-S. I was shooting a lot of weddings and the Bronica gave sufficient quality and five more shots per roll. What I didn’t like about it was that the film transport was ninety degrees off conventional (I believe the Pentax 645 is the same) which made printing the negatives on an enlarger a pain in the butt. Everything was sideways.
My Bronica suffered a major disaster during a shoot that was taking place on the roof of a ten or so story building. I was sitting on a false wall at the edge of the building and managed to knock the camera over the side while reaching for a cup of coffee. A ten story fall to a concrete pad is not good for the life of a camera.
I took advantage of the accident to switch systems to the Pentax 6x7, using the insurance money and my available discount with Pentax Canada to go from the ETR-S and it’s 75mm lens to the 6x7, 75, 105 and 135 mm lenses. Eventually I added the 45, 90 leaf, 165 leave, 200 and 300 mm lenses, as well as the bellows to my system.
The 6x7 never let me down on the job, the glass is excellent, and the cameras are tough.
I eventually moved to 4x5 for my landscape work, which turned out to be an excellent move. The downside of the 6x7 was depth of field. It was difficult to impossible to secure sufficient DOF on May occasions with that camera, while the 4x5 with it’s flexible body allowed for much greater control, and much deeper depth of field.

[Silent Street]

[...]and there were reports of bad clutches in the film advance allowing frames to overlap.

This fault can also occasionally show up in the Pentax 67 (newer generation) which has seen robust, heavy and aggressive professional use. The well-known frame overlap is one of the reasons people like me don't recommend the early Pentax 6x7 cameras on the basis of doubtful reliability over any term.

[Wheatfield]

This fault can also occasionally show up in the Pentax 67 (newer generation) which has seen robust, heavy and aggressive professional use. The well-known frame overlap is one of the reasons people like me don't recommend the early Pentax 6x7 cameras on the basis of doubtful reliability over any term.

The MLU and later models were very reliable cameras. Mine was good until I put 50 rolls of T-Max through it, and after I got the adjustment that was necessitated by that done, it was good for several thousand more rolls.
The problem was rather overblown by people who didn't understand that every now and again machines need to be adjusted.
35mm mostly got away with long life because the components didn't have the stresses put in them that medium format cameras did.

A fellow I knew shot Hasselblad. Apparently there was a steel ring coated with Teflon in the lenses that the shutter rode on. Eventually the Teflon would wear and the shutter pretty much stopped working.

With the Pentax, the drive needed adjustment from time to time, especially if the user was rammy with the advance lever. It wasn't a motor driven camera for a reason.

The 6x7 II is still on the Ricoh website. They are now bragging about the more robust advance.
I think as long as one stays away from the really early ones, and isn’t planning on beating the heck out of it, the 6x7 would be a safe bet. Mine was a mid 80s build and stood up to a lot of use with few problems. I didn’t abuse the drive though.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 07-27-2019 at 06:33 PM.

[Zooland]

Better to bet on an upgradable system than to be stuck, it’s always easier to upgrade than to downgrade just to stay current.

[Wheatfield]

Better to bet on an upgradable system than to be stuck, it’s always easier to upgrade than to downgrade just to stay current.

We are talking about systems that date back 4 decades. They likely aren’t going to be upgraded any further, and are also mature well fleshed out systems.
The 645 has the advantage of being able to sub in a DSLR for the FSLR, which could well be a deciding factor in choosing which system to get into.

Also, if one is planning on wet printing, 6x7 negs are easier to handle in an enlarger.

[stevebrot]

Hmmmm...I will weigh in here with a few comments that are not direct to the original post, but might still be pertinent. The bits below are based on my personal exploration and nothing else.

• Several years ago, I started shooting 35mm film again after several years doing digital
• It was not long before I decided to explore large format with a 4x5 field camera, a decision I would not regret. I had heard that the negatives would be impressive, but I was not prepared for just how impressive that might be.
• Part of the large format exploration was purchase of three Graflok compatible 120 roll film holders for 6x7 format negatives. That also is a decision I would not regret in I could still use the field camera's movements to good effect on 6x7 but at a much lower cost per exposure than 4x5. I also noticed that the 6x7 negatives were also very impressive, despite being much less so than the 4x5s.
• With the above as a background, I was intrigued by the idea of getting a Pentax 645N. Prices were quite low for gear in excellent condition and when I expressed interest in getting first hand exposure, a forum member was good enough to extend a short-term loan of a very nice Pentax 645N with two lens kit for the cost of shipping.
• About this same time, I had seen a Pentax 67 at a local shop, but was put off by both the camera's (huge) size and by the high asking price (about 2 1/2 times the price of a clean 645N).
• The 645N arrived and I was totally taken by the camera, its ease of use, and its field-worthiness. I gave it a thorough run and even took it hiking before reluctantly sending it back to its owner. I got very nice results and probably would have made an offer except for some personal turmoil at the time and uncertainty as to whether the format provided any advantage over 35mm for the films I was shooting (mostly slower fine-grained B&W) and my usual subjects (landscape and urban). 6x7 was demonstrably better than 645 and worth the inconvenience of the view camera for the capture, but I was not sure that 645 was that much better than 35mm to justify the bulk of the kit. The field camera with roll film holder and two lenses is about the same size but lighter than the 645N kit.
• I am still not sure I made the right decision regarding the 645N; what's more, the existence of the 645D and later 645Z have NO role in that uncertainty. At issue for me is whether 645 as a format would deliver for my intents.
• Back to the Pentax 67, yes it was still there and yes, it was still too much money and yes, if I see one cheap, I will be tempted, despite the bulk, partly because of user experience expressed by owners on this forum and the work they have posted.

Having not actually shot with a Pentax 6x7 or 67, I cannot recommend or caution against a purchase. That said, I also have no reservations against a 645N except that I know its negative is not in the same league as 6x7 and possibly not worth a purchase if 35mm and 6x7 options are already part of the mix.


Steve

(...still feels conflicted as images are reviewed and remembering the experience of shooting with the 645N...sweet camera...)

[ZombieArmy]

Also, if one is planning on wet printing, 6x7 negs are easier to handle in an enlarger.

This is actually a potential consideration as I have been wet printing some of my B&W in 35mm (mostly for the experience, it is quite fun )

Thank you for your great write ups Wheatfield they have been very helpful.

[gofour3]

I work my way through, $4,000 worth of 120 chrome film each year, and on top of that comes E6 processing, Heidelberg Hell scanning, colourimetrics, profiling and the whole shebang of RA-4 printing, then matting and framing and finally, export to Singapore, Shanghai and Tokyo.

Kodak is supposedly releasing their new Ektachrome in 120 this fall, so that may be another option for you. I've shot the 135 version a fair bit already and it's superb.

Phil.

[ZombieArmy]

Kodak is supposedly releasing their new Ektachrome in 120 this fall, so that may be another option for you. I've shot the 135 version a fair bit already and it's superb.

Phil.

I'm shooting 2 rolls of E100 on my trip to Washington in a couple weeks for the first time. Any tips?

[gofour3]

I'm shooting 2 rolls of E100 on my trip to Washington in a couple weeks for the first time. Any tips?

As long as you have a camera with an accurate light meter, you are good to go.

Also I always use a skylight/warming filter when shooting E6.

Enjoy, it's a great film and it likes lots of colour. That's where it really stands out.

Phil.

[Silent Street]

Kodak is supposedly releasing their new Ektachrome in 120 this fall, so that may be another option for you. I've shot the 135 version a fair bit already and it's superb.

Phil.

I may shoehorn in a roll or two of 120 later, plus 4x5 if it ever comes out; results can be significantly different from 35mm where contrast and tone is compressed into a very small format. My own testing of Ektachrome 100 in 35mm did not reveal any compelling reasons to change from, particularly, Fuji's Provia 100F, even in its extremely limited 35mm use, which was unsurprisingly quite similar. But the dominant format of 120 that I use wasn't available anyway. The similarities of Ektachrome 100 were within its own stable -- with Ektar 100!

None of these E6 films are particularly suitable for bright sun/summer shooting; that sort of stuff won't put your images on the podium. Ektar or Portra are better alternatives.

[gofour3]

may shoehorn in a roll or two of 120 later, plus 4x5 if it ever comes out

Kodak is doing testing this month, so it should be soon. Larger formats hopefully will follow:

Kodak Ektachrome E100 120 Medium Format Film Tests to Start in July 2019

My film store up the street, should get some right away when it comes out. It will be a nice change from the Fuji Provia 400x that I have been shooting in 120 for the last few years.

Kodak has a lot riding on this, so I'm sure the new E100 in 120 will be as colourful as the 135 version. I've had enough of Fuji, who seems to be going in the opposite direction and just happily discontinuing E6 films...

Phil.

[Silent Street]

I've had enough of Fuji, who seems to be going in the opposite direction and just happily discontinuing E6 films...

In Japan, which is Fuji's primary market, and unfortunately where it bases its global economic decisions, E6 is very much an outlier: many active photographers don't even know what it is for, or what to do with it! There have been some anomalies: the storied chapter of Fuji's discontinuation of ACROS 100 is as much about the hushed-up fact of people not buying it when it was available, rather than Fuji's assertion that raw materials had made its production too problematic. And suddenly along comes ACROS Mk II. Where is the stampede??


On the other hand, it is not news to anybody that the global market for E6 is contracting, and will continue to contract to the point of no return, likely within 5 years (I'm thinking it will likely be sooner). E6 take-up and processing in any format (labs) around the world are nowhere near the halcyon levels of 20 years ago, when it was very widely used for magazine spreads and covers (almost always from 35mm then but with some 4x5 covers too). The takeaway is that E6 is not increasing, nor will Kodak's E6 products propel an increase — it will introduce an element of diversity and choice: all well and good. People should make good and best use of E6 while it is still available now, and hope for nothing more than its continued availability by whatever grace or favour from all of the players still offering it.

[tuco]

... People should make good and best use of E6 while it is still available now, and hope for nothing more than its continued availability by whatever grace or favour from all of the players still offering it.

I hear that. I plan on doing home E-6 after I get more experience with C-41 and acquire some new gear like a pH meter. But I've have noticed fewer color choices in sheet film than ever before. At my usual place of getting film, which has always had a large variety, I only see Kodak's Ektar and Portra for C-41 choices and Fuji's Provia and Velvia for E-6. I think sheet film foreshadows what will happen to roll film. So I'm going to shoot this stuff while I can.