Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I've seen a lot of talk about Double X film lately, and I've never really understood what the appeal of it is compared to something like Tri-X? Does it have special characteristics of some sorts (bear in mind, I know very little of the film itself).
Anyway, it's great that Kodak are trying to introduce a "new" film product, even if the price seems a little high.
Greaaat, now I definitely need to buy a can..
Now how to load it..
People seem to have not read the full letter where it states 4x5 film not the 35mm bulk rolls. I have used this film before in 35mm but the cost of the 4x5 seems to be quite unreasonable. What I found was the film was good but NOT that good that I can justify a $ 309 purchase for 50 shts.
we are all sad for you.
Yeah, $2 a sheet is ok for 4x5 B+W, at least new stock. But $6 a sheet is pushing into the territory of Velvia prices, and I know what I'd rather have for my (limited) money.
But I do hope the sale goes through and goes well, if this becomes a permanent thing then there's a chance that the price would come down. And it might convince the new Kodak/Alaris to do a yearly ULF-run like Ilford. And that's only a good thing for everyone.
?
why are you sad for him ..
lots of people don't have the $$$
to spend on the most expensive b/w film ever ..
(sorry stone)
good luck with the 11!
it sounded like if he were richer be might have been one if the eleven.
maybe Im wrong?
largest I have is a 67 so I don't need to consider.
Basically though I have not exposed ANY 4X5 film yet. Just waiting for a lens and a few holders before I make the plunge. I did a few 5222 35mm film but like I said it is NOT worth the extra $$ especially with Delta 100 and TMX at a reasonable prices why would I want to ? Here are some of the pics of the 35mm I used:
View attachment 80742 View attachment 80743
Nice yes but not $6 a sheet nice ;o) Yes I have been considering a 400' of the 5222 in 35 but I have to reserve my funds for a few extravagant purchases such as FOOD & SHELTER. But now having getting the LF bug who knows were this will end.
Why don't you help with just 1 box
4x5 is dangerous, once you're hooked there's no where to go but bigger...
4x5 is dangerous, once you're hooked there's no where to go but bigger...
Very nice by the way, what dev did you use?
ID-11 @ 1-1. I really liked the look of it but why was there no 120 offered ?
(Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...))
I'd love to, but on the weekend I was changing lensboards and put a screwdriver through the blades of my 90mm SA, ended up spending $200 on a Fujinon 90 SWD as replacement, so there's my budget gone for the month. If I get any money re-flogging the SA lens elements I'll consider adding a pack of something else to the already-overflowing freezer...
Tell me about it, I'm at 20x24" and have a roll of 47" awaiting some time.
Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...
nice to see Kodak respond in a positive direction even if it is a "bit" (lol) pricey.
good luck you guys, I think you should be able to get the remaining stock spoken for.
ID-11 @ 1-1. I really liked the look of it but why was there no 120 offered ?
(Only thing after that is Liquid Light and bedsheets...))
this is thicker than normal 35mm base so 70mm perforated might have been possible if enough people wanted it.
I only use 33frames in some of my reloadables.
this is just the cost for a cut into a master roll they might not be able to sell anyway.
The cine people are all going digital...
Orson Wells Citizen Kane Rosebud... final cut privilege...
Kudos to Keith Canham for doing this.
But I have to award Kodak Alaris the Roger Smith Management award (Roger Smith was the CEO of GM - during his tenure GMs market share dropped from 45% to 36%). The difference between $100/box and $300/box is $60,000 for 300 boxes. Even in the current depleted state of Kodak Alaris that's less than a tiny fraction of a rounding error of monthly film sales.
But what do they get for that "loss" of $60k? Well I wouldn't buy 5222 even at $2/sheet. But even so, I'd personally look at this and think that Kodak was going out of their way to support the film community and being innovative (if you can consider offering a legacy film in a new size innovative). But now I look at it and think they just want to get what they can while they can. In other words, ride this pony until it drops.
You could say that "well, that's what it costs them". But I doubt it. Sure, in a strict cost accounting process, they probably aren't making money even at $300 a box. But how much of the that cost is a) overhead and b) cost that is, in the short term, fixed (i.e. people time where there is excess capacity)? Granted, I don't know. But I strongly suspect that the $300/box was an accounting decision, not a marketing decision.
If so, that's very unfortunate and not a good sign for the future.
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?