BH photo sells it for 85$.
Yes, Tri-x in bulk is illogically priced, especially in Japan where it was 300$.
Viva Ilford in Bulk! I LOVE them for that.
To me, it makes sense to transition to Ilford films just because of their committment to B&W.I'm about to place an order for 100 feet of Tmax 100 and I noticed that B&H has bumped the price up to $66 versus $55 for Tmax 400. Furthermore, Adorama doesn't even have it. Does anyone know why this is happening? If bulk Tmax 100 is going to be phased out, I will transition to Ilford Delta 100 (only $48). In fact, the price alone makes a case for transitioning.
In any case, I was just wondering if anyone knows why the price is so high and its availability seems to be weakening.
May have missed something. It is my understanding that there is no more Plus-X of any type. Am I wrong? By the way, there was a time when Kodak had more silver in their vaults that the U.S. government. That has been a long time ago and Kodak (and probably everyone else) must pay the going price for silver now. Just like those of us who use aluminum and steel in our businesses. If you are lucky you have a supplier who raises and LOWERS prices according to the market.......Regards!Thanks for all the replies.
I was just wondering if someone knew something I didn't know about this jump in pricing, but apparently no one has heard anything that suggests that bulk Tmax 100 is going to disappear in the near future.
Since there are no budget priced t-grain films, I'm obviously going to have to deal with the high prices.
One thing more of interest is that, while bulk Delta 100 is $18 cheaper than Tmax 100 at B&H ($66 vs $48), if you get it in 36 exposure rolls, Tmax 100 ($4.25) is cheaper than Delta 100 ($5.31). And Plus-x is a whopping $6.39.
So, Tmax 100 in bulk doesn't save much over buying in rolls, but Delta 100 in bulk saves a lot over rolls. Plus-X isn't available at B&H or Adorama in bulk.
Thanks again for all the responses.
Neil, there has been other threads and comments on the price of TMax bulk rolls compared to llford etc. I must admit I hadn't realised the trend had started as long ago as 2011. Several of us expressed views on why the price is so outrageous. There wasn't a consensus - well there seldom is on APUG. Some seem to believe its the Kodak manufacturing economics of bulk rolls that puts it at such a disadvantage compared to the likes of Ilford i.e. it is not deliberate profiteering and Kodak would reduce the price if it possibly could. Personally I was never able to reconcile the "economics" argument with the fact that in cassette form Kodak's apparent disadvantage disappears and it finds itself on a much more level playing field compared to the likes of Ilford.
Others believe that Kodak doesn't want to sell bulk so prices it so it gets the best of both worlds i.e. it sells the bulk at a vast profit to those who cannot do without it i.e. those buyers who occupy the inelastic part of the demand curve and will pay almost anything to get it - a bit like Kodachrome( sorry couldn't resist). It still then makes a "normal " profit on the cassettes and if it gets to the point that only a handful of customers are buying bulk then it can then genuinely say that as it only sold say, 10 bulk rolls at £1000 per roll then everyone will forgive it for then stopping sales of bulk so it is "win-win" all round for Kodak but perhaps not win-win in the book's "Getting to Yes" sense of the word.
It may work a bit like the quote from an overworked jobbing builder. He doesn't want to be seen to be turning away your business so quotes a price at which either you will not buy his services but it is you who refuses his business or you will buy his services in which case his margin is so vast that he fits you into his schedule.
pentaxuser
isn't there a real live management team who look at the sales figures and its rivals' pricing and then draw appropriate conclusions.
I'm about to place an order for 100 feet of Tmax 100 and I noticed that B&H has bumped the price up to $66 versus $55 for Tmax 400. Furthermore, Adorama doesn't even have it. Does anyone know why this is happening? If bulk Tmax 100 is going to be phased out, I will transition to Ilford Delta 100 (only $48). In fact, the price alone makes a case for transitioning.
In any case, I was just wondering if anyone knows why the price is so high and its availability seems to be weakening.
All my 35mm B&W is bulk. Except I can't get Acros anymore in bulk anymore. I like to be able to roll off shorter exposure rolls, say like 12 or 15 exp. I love Kodak film, but I certainly have no love for Kodak. Nor can I find any and I mean any justification for this marketing blunder. Yes, it is an outright, middle finger to the customer, blunder.To all those above who rather arrogantly assume to be all-knowing about the market and better at the job than Alaris' management, how about considering this: maybe, just maybe, people aren't buying bulk rolls any more.
Stepping outside of your mentalité/ doctrine might be enlightening. Most people have better things to do with their lives than bulk loading film.
I doubt Kodak would contract out to Ilford/Harman, but maybe somebody else.If people are not buying bulk rolls anymore and it is this that makes Kodak's bulk roll price extortionate then I wonder why this isn't having the same effect on bulk v cassette prices for Ilford, Foma etc. I presume that the bulk roll machinery remains much as it was when Kodak bulk rolls did compare reasonably in price with cassettes in the same way that Ilford's bulk roll machinery remains the same so I am still at a loss to understand why Kodak bulk rolls have become extortionate in price.
I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes. In this case it comes back to how much blame attaches to Kodak.
If the answer is "no blame" then I'd prefer Kodak to be honest and say it is stopping bulk roll sales as the price genuinely reflects costs but Kodak recognises that customers cannot be expected to pay such prices.
Better still, it could always produce its range of films, sell the cassettes and contract out its Kodak bulk rolls to Ilford who seem to have the means of doing it much more cheaply. That way it satisfies its customers so retains a bigger customer base and a reputation for customer care and and passes work to Ilford rather than letting a product, namely bulk rolls wither on the vine.
Sounds like a win-win solution to me
pentaxuser
You may well be right, John. It is the idea of contracting out rather than to whom the business goes that's important although in today's hard times for analogue not contracting out to a rival on principle might be very short-sighted and result in losses for both partiesI doubt Kodak would contract out to Ilford/Harman, but maybe somebody else.
Freestyle's price for T-Max 100 in 100 foot rolls is 16 x its price for a single 36 exposure roll: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=63&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=2-5I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes.
If people are not buying bulk rolls anymore and it is this that makes Kodak's bulk roll price extortionate then I wonder why this isn't having the same effect on bulk v cassette prices for Ilford, Foma etc. I presume that the bulk roll machinery remains much as it was when Kodak bulk rolls did compare reasonably in price with cassettes in the same way that Ilford's bulk roll machinery remains the same so I am still at a loss to understand why Kodak bulk rolls have become extortionate in price.
I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes. In this case it comes back to how much blame attaches to Kodak.
If the answer is "no blame" then I'd prefer Kodak to be honest and say it is stopping bulk roll sales as the price genuinely reflects costs but Kodak recognises that customers cannot be expected to pay such prices.
Better still, it could always produce its range of films, sell the cassettes and contract out its Kodak bulk rolls to Ilford who seem to have the means of doing it much more cheaply. That way it satisfies its customers so retains a bigger customer base and a reputation for customer care and and passes work to Ilford rather than letting a product, namely bulk rolls wither on the vine.
Sounds like a win-win solution to me
pentaxuser
Freestyle's price for T-Max 100 in 100 foot rolls is 16 x its price for a single 36 exposure roll: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=63&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=2-5
It may be as simple as Kodak being unwilling to accept a lower per item profit on bulk rolls than Harman. Remember that not only is there a difference in the packaging, but in the edge numbering & a number of other aspects. I understand that compared to regular 135, there are significantly more manual operations involved in assembling bulk rolls.
I also recall Alaris saying that their market research stated that consumers would rather pay higher prices than see products withdrawn. So for those complaining, you might want to look for your petard.
Manual labour vs. automation.What the hell is so expensive to manufacturers to cut some ft of original master rolls and put it in a plastic container instead of confection in 20 single metal cans 135 ?
Thanks for that Matt. This made me do a quick check on U.K. stockists. Most no longer seem to stock bulk TMax now. Maybe those retailers have decided that the price of bulk Kodak rolls means that they will not sell so in effect have made the decision for Kodak. I found one retailer who does still sell both cassettes and bulk. In the first case it was TMax 400. The 36 frame cassette is £6.19 and the equivalent bulk roll is £8.40 based on 18 x 36 frame from a 100ft rollFreestyle's price for T-Max 100 in 100 foot rolls is 16 x its price for a single 36 exposure roll: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=63&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=2-5
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?