Agfa APX 100 back?

[clayne]

400tx which many pro's use, but isn't a pro film

C'mon... Tri-X is absolutely a pro film. Do you know how many great images have been made on this film, by professionals and the like? Absolutely stellar film and it's deserving of it's reputation.

 

[zsas]

Well said^ and I might add 400CN is crazy sharp and beautiful. It clearly says on the box "professional", guess that is marketing lingo....

 

[Roger Cole]

If this statement is true, why then continue shooting analog?
Digital is much cheaper!

I like the current products fine. I'll be happy with analog as long as I can get them. Heck, I'd be happy with just those from Ilford though I like to see some competition so I'm glad Foma, Adox etc. are around.

 

[Roger Cole]

This film was sold to Freestyle by Kodak prior to Kodak going into chapter 11.
It´s for sure a good deal today. But will it keep film allive for long if costs for the materials, labour and energy are higher than the end users price?
Companies need to make a profit. For some reason I am under the impression that photographers in general deny this to film producing companies. They are all bust by now except for Fuji. Do you really think you made them to rhich?

Mirko

I use the best film for the job, not the cheapest. Sure, I shoot that Arista Tri-X because if I didn't I'd shoot Tri-X and it's the same. But if I want Delta 3200, I shoot Delta 3200, not the cheapest film I can find. I like your MCC 110 paper and use it. It isn't cheap - there are quite a few less expensive papers on the market but the difference is pretty small given my limited time for my hobby, and the difference in results is much larger than the difference in price.

If you make a superior product (in whatever way sets it apart) and price it for a reasonable profit, people will buy it unless it's way out of the zone of the competition. I doubt I'd use any 400 speed black and white film that cost, for example, $20 a roll, no matter how superior, when I can get TMY-2 or Tri-X or HP5+ for 1/5th to 1/4th that. But I said I would pay $20 a roll for some good infrared film that was like old HIE, for example - not a lot of rolls a year, but I'd buy some. And I'm buying some Provia 400X at nearly $16 a roll while I still can, because it's great film soon to be gone and nothing else like it.

 

[StoneNYC]

C'mon... Tri-X is absolutely a pro film. Do you know how many great images have been made on this film, by professionals and the like? Absolutely stellar film and it's deserving of it's reputation.

I like the other guys "I guess professional is marketing lingo" comment haha

I did state that even though pro's use the film, doesn't make it a "pro" film. Tmax400 is the pro film ... Portra is a pro film, and I guess the BW400CN is technically a pro film, but then why don't they offer it in other sizes that pro's use, 35mm is for amateurs hehehehe

 

[zsas]

^Oh Stone....ah oh....

Cue the HCB'rs.....

 

[MattKing]

I like the other guys "I guess professional is marketing lingo" comment haha

I did state that even though pro's use the film, doesn't make it a "pro" film. Tmax400 is the pro film ... Portra is a pro film, and I guess the BW400CN is technically a pro film, but then why don't they offer it in other sizes that pro's use, 35mm is for amateurs hehehehe

pffft

 

[Roger Cole]

BW400CN is capable of great results but is orange masked to print better on RA4 paper in automated machines. XP2 Super is a fantastic film without the masking, to print more easily on regular black and white paper.

/OT

There is a professional Tri-X, TXP 320, P for Professional, now available only in sheets but previously available in 120 though no more. It's a great film but quite different from TXT 400.

 

[clayne]

Thought the 'P' was for "Pan". Yeah I know they're all panchromatic.

Nope, just looked it up and I guess I'm wrong. Either way everyone has always know TXP as a upward swept "studio film" that lacks a compressive shoulder.

Anyway, all Tri-X films are pro level films.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

This film was sold to Freestyle by Kodak prior to Kodak going into chapter 11.
It´s for sure a good deal today. But will it keep film allive for long if costs for the materials, labour and energy are higher than the end users price?
Companies need to make a profit. For some reason I am under the impression that photographers in general deny this to film producing companies. They are all bust by now except for Fuji. Do you really think you made them to rhich?

Mirko

Just for the record, not everyone thinks like that. I understand completely the need to charge an amount that will cover costs AND supply sufficient profit to make it all worthwhile.

Sadly, most film consumers are still stuck in the old mindset that price is king and the customer always comes first. This is no longer the case. Manufacturers and customers now exist in something like a symbiotic relationship where both sides must give something in order to get something.

I wish more film buyers would realize this and be more willing to spend realistic money for their film. Film photography should be important enough for photographers to give up something else in their lives in order to be able to pay fairly for the film, paper and chemistry they want. In doing so they would also help assure the future availability of these products.

It's not very hard to price a company out of existence these days by demanding cheaper and cheaper products. Do that and in the end everybody will lose.

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

+1 Ken.

 

[ozphoto]

I buy what I like - and Agfa was *always* more expensive (and a hell of a lot harder to come by) than the other big brands. I didn't care - the results I achieved were fantastic and I was (and still am) more than happy to pay extra for it.

That does not mean however, that I'm willing to pay the (often) outrageous prices that float around Evilbay etc - more often often than not, outright price gouging!!. Give me a fair price, for a good product and I'll buy it - try to rip me off, and I'll ignore you, and shop elsewhere.

Companies go into business to make money - that is a given, and yes, "boutique" products do attract a premium - but there's a difference between a fair premium and ripping the customer off. I'd rather pay a little more and see it remain available, than expect it to be priced under it's fair-market value, and see it disappear forever.

Lets face it, film photography is now a "niche" market, and we are extremely lucky to have companies like Ilford (Simon) and Adox (Mirko) who can see the potential in keeping it alive for years to come - but that does come at a (premium) cost, otherwise they'll end up falling by the wayside and we won't have any supplies (or only have one company who charges like a wounded bull!) to look forward to.

It makes perfect business sense to remove *any* product from the shelf, if it costs more to produce than they make in return - no matter how much we want it to remain.

Maybe that's the way it will end up - only a few *niche* companies making film products, that will attract a premium price, but at least we will be happy that we can still shoot film. Otherwise it will, quite probably, become a thing of the past that we will only be able to reminisce over as we flip through our neg sleeves and contact sheets.

 

[Arctic amateur]

Acros100 for example, shoot it on 35mm, then 120, then we go to use 4x5 and it's twice the price of everything else in the same family, it makes no sense, at least none that we can think of. Is the price from 120 deferred to 4x5 in a market they assume can handle the difference? keeping costs down on the 120 versions? or is there some extreme extra waste associated with producing it in 4x5 that bumps up the cost to double?

AFAIK sheet film is usually coated on a different film base than 135 and 120 films, which means you can't just coat one master roll and divide it into 135, 120 and 4x5. If the sheet film market is smaller than the 135 market higher prices for sheet film are to be expected, as the overhead is probably about the same per master roll but fewer customers to split the cost on.

(This is just speculation from reading PE's tales of film manufacturing, I don't actually know if this is the reason for higher cost of sheet film.)

 

[StoneNYC]

AFAIK sheet film is usually coated on a different film base than 135 and 120 films, which means you can't just coat one master roll and divide it into 135, 120 and 4x5. If the sheet film market is smaller than the 135 market higher prices for sheet film are to be expected, as the overhead is probably about the same per master roll but fewer customers to split the cost on.

(This is just speculation from reading PE's tales of film manufacturing, I don't actually know if this is the reason for higher cost of sheet film.)

That would make sense... that would also explain why the Rollei IR400 film seems more even when it goes to 4x5 size because it's flimsy as hell because it's not coated on a thicker base and probably is all from the same master roll... that's all an assumption I don't feel like researching it lol, but it would make sense.

Still, a thicker base material isn't THAT much more, and fuji is not a tiny company, and the film sells at a higher rate so it shouldn't be such a difference even if it's a different base. Meh, I just want them to keep it around and keep it at a reasonable price... I know, it's one or the other, but still ...

 

[StoneNYC]

BW400CN is capable of great results but is orange masked to print better on RA4 paper in automated machines. XP2 Super is a fantastic film without the masking, to print more easily on regular black and white paper.

/OT

There is a professional Tri-X, TXP 320, P for Professional, now available only in sheets but previously available in 120 though no more. It's a great film but quite different from TXT 400.

Right because LF is a professional format and medium format are professional formats, I don't think TXP320 was ever offered in 35mm hehe (guys I'm totally messing around don't take this part seriously). but the fact that Trix pan professional came in 120 at one time and in LF as well even now, indicates that THAT is the professional version of tri-x remember it's tri x pan PROFESSIONAL regular tri-x on the drugstore shelf isn't as fine grained as the pan professional stuff. Heck i've compared some pan professional stuff from before the reformulation to the new 400TX stuff and it's still finer grained than the new stuff (marginally but still) so anyway my point is made, Tri-x (400TX) is the NON-professional version and the TXP320 is the Professional version...

 

[clayne]

Pretty sure you're going to have to prove 320TXP is more fine grained than 400TX in 120 format, sir.

Either way, who cares. Both great films. Both PRO (whatever the hell that even means).

 

[zsas]

Good points Ken! Though we can't forget that some folks are new to film, students, etc.; and that give-and-take-symbiotic-system can't exist (yet) because price is so much more important (vital)....

I wonder what the mix is of folks who'd rather get a bunch'a $2'ish rolls of low cost b/w film vs the $5+ roll-a-film-folks.....hummmm I smell a poll

For the record, I pay a lot more for APX100 here in the states because I love it! I am worried that any change to the emulsion will affect my art goals....so for me, I am like you describe the symbiotic buyer

 

[zsas]

But I agree, this rebranding business has to be kept secret as much as possible in order to prevent hurting the company.

What's funny to me is that in the US there is only one manufacturer of film. So if the box says made in the US, it's Kodak by default.

Now the whole EU thing allows these sellers like Lupus to say "...ohh it's made in the EU..." and walk away.

From a consumer perspective, like Ken describes, the symbiotic relationship can't be upheld when some of the varriables of the symbiotic relationship have been removed. For eg, if X factory in the EU, was known for producing film with pinholes, defects and whatnot, and the consumer can't be sure that the film isnt coated at X factory cus the obfuscation of who made it exists due to an "EU" stamp on the box.....well....the risk is there that your gonna get what your gonna get.....and thus the cost better be low...

I think in the US our import laws require the country of manufacture to be on the box....

When the APX400 hits the US shores I will buy some and see if we can put this shell game to a rest re the new APX400...

 

[zsas]

One more food for thought. I sit here typing on my Foxconn phone....I mean iPhone.

I believe 99% of the parts are Chineese made and the phone was assembled in China at a company called Foxconn, who Apple, an American company, contracts with to manufacture the phone.

What if, Apple has the same components, that I belive are 99% Chineese, sent to the US and the phone is assembled in the US. The country of manufacture is therefore the US

Anyway....I think this might happen in film. It could be coated at say Foma and cut/boxed (aka confectioned) in Germany. Same thing...

Now the difference is that when you buy OEM parts of a iPhone, lets say you break the glass and you want to swap it out (as I've done too many times to count).....the OEM part will say made in China.

That transparency doesn't exist with film...

Is this odd to some?

I once saw a documentary that said a major % of a Leica M7 is pre-assembled in Pourtugal and then assembled in Solms Germany. So can you get OEM parts of a M7 and find out that this was the case?

Is this a German-thing? Or a EU thing? I don't understand all this obfuscation...

Look, anyone who knows me knows I love ADOX and their films/chems and service - I am a diehard Adonal user!

 

[StoneNYC]

One more food for thought. I sit here typing on my Foxconn phone....I mean iPhone.

I believe 99% of the parts are Chineese made and the phone was assembled in China at a company called Foxconn, who Apple, an American company, contracts with to manufacture the phone.

What if, Apple has the same components, that I belive are 99% Chineese, sent to the US and the phone is assembled in the US. The country of manufacture is therefore the US

Anyway....I think this might happen in film. It could be coated at say Foma and cut/boxed (aka confectioned) in Germany. Same thing...

Now the difference is that when you buy OEM parts of a iPhone, lets say you break the glass and you want to swap it out (as I've done too many times to count).....the OEM part will say made in China.

That transparency doesn't exist with film...

Is this odd to some?

I once saw a documentary that said a major % of a Leica M7 is pre-assembled in Pourtugal and then assembled in Solms Germany. So can you get OEM parts of a M7 and find out that this was the case?

Is this a German-thing? Or a EU thing? I don't understand all this obfuscation...

Look, anyone who knows me knows I love ADOX and their films/chems and service - I am a diehard Adonal user!

Love Adox Adonal I would be curious about their APX400, I have one roll left from highshool of the original stuff.

So I can compare

Usually it says made in china, ASSEMBLED in the USA...

And you can tell by the edge marking "font" where film comes from... They never change that just what's written, so that's easy to tell.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Pretty sure you're going to have to prove 320TXP is more fine grained than 400TX in 120 format, sir.

Either way, who cares. Both great films. Both PRO (whatever the hell that even means).

Both are great films...

And I'm reminded of the comment yesterday about it must just be the marketing department calling it "pro" haha whatever that means


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lxdude]

C'mon... Tri-X is absolutely a pro film. Do you know how many great images have been made on this film, by professionals and the like? Absolutely stellar film and it's deserving of it's reputation.

I guess it's because of when I grew up, but if someone says "pro film", Tri-X is the one I think of. To U.S. magazine and newspaper photographers of the past five decades, the standard B&W film was Tri-X.

 

[StoneNYC]

I guess it's because of when I grew up, but if someone says "pro film", Tri-X is the one I think of. To U.S. magazine and newspaper photographers of the past five decades, the standard B&W film was Tri-X.

Regular Tri-X or Tri-X Pan Profesisonal? There's a difference...


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Stone:

Tri-X 400 (as it has evolved over the years) has had more shots taken on it by professional photographers for professional uses than any other film you could possibly buy new today.

It may not be the most popular film now for professional use (although I wouldn't be surprised if its numbers are still very high) but it is certainly of professional calibre, marketed to professionals and used by professionals.

And with respect to the rest of this thread, and the discussions about price, everyone here seems to be ignoring one important fact.

There is no longer anything resembling a rational distribution system for Kodak materials and, to a great extent, it is the distribution system that determines the price that consumers pay.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone:

Tri-X 400 (as it has evolved over the years) has had more shots taken on it by professional photographers for professional uses than any other film you could possibly buy new today.

It may not be the most popular film now for professional use (although I wouldn't be surprised if its numbers are still very high) but it is certainly of professional calibre, marketed to professionals and used by professionals.

And with respect to the rest of this thread, and the discussions about price, everyone here seems to be ignoring one important fact.

There is no longer anything resembling a rational distribution system for Kodak materials and, to a great extent, it is the distribution system that determines the price that consumers pay.

Ok I give up on the Tri-X ok haha.

But I wasn't complaining about their B&W film, only color. Though both Fuji and Kodak's B&W sheet film is double everyone else's B&W film and I don't know how that equates to distribution since the B&W in 120 or 35mm is distributed by the same trucks or whatever, how can Ilford, Foma, and the rest sell sheet film at a lower cost that's more equal to 120 but Kodak and Fuji have to double or triple theirs?

Anyway, I bet that this new APX in sheet film will be a reasonable price and I'll use it


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk