• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Kodak 8x10 320TXP price jump

Sal Santamaura

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,537
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format
I keep tabs on the prices of certain films at B&H. Yesterday, and for quite some time before that, 10 sheets of 8x10 320TXP was $74.95. Today it's $119.95:


I contacted Henry Posner to ask whether the 60% increase was an error or resulted from Kodak Alaris raising the wholesale cost. Henry just answered: not an error. Alaris almost doubled its price, retroactive to April 1.

Methinks Kodak is exhibiting a level of desperation so great that it has shot itself in the foot. Also, the 100 sheets of 8x10 320TXP in my freezer will be the last I purchase.
 
The only cut sheets of RA-4 that's available now is Fuji CA, it gone up but still very affordable. Kinda scary I have 1 10 sheet box of 8x10 TXP left, moving all sheet film into Ilford. At least Ilford is trying to stay in business. I love Kodak sheet films, sad.
 
I don't like the smell of this. First Kodak bulk films are price in outer space somewhere, then the paper offset number problem on 120 film and now this hike in 8x10. The thing that bothers me is the percentage of the hike. You might expect 10% and even if it were 20% one might let it go by thinking you're doing your part to help a "FILM" company out. This is around a 55% increase and it not only smells bad, but stinks to high heaven. I'm done and won't be using anything from Kodak film department unless somebody gives it to me. I feel sorry for them, but I'm on a fixed income and can't afford to bale them out. Hell, I can just barely keep my own nose above the water as it is. Life will go on with or without them. Johnw
 
I'd make enquiries of K.B. Canham, whio I believe sell most of the 8x10 Kodak film.
While it is certainly possible that Kodak Alaris' prices have increased that much, like as not that jump relates to B&H losing access to a preferential price or some other special access.
EDIT: I note that B & H are not listed on the list of Dealers that, through K. B. Canham, handle most of the large format Kodak film sales. For Sal's info, Samy's is on that list.
 
It's been a custom order item for years. B&H may be moving enough stock on their own to meet the MOQ, but Kodak may have decided that the minimum advertised price was too low or something as simple as that. There's a long list of more realistic reasons for why it's gone up rather than price gouging - not least of which is how long ago the batch they were selling was bought. I should also note that B&H sell 8x10 HP5+ for about 60% of what Ilford would probably prefer it to be sold for - and Kodak Alaris said that their own research had indicated that people would prefer to pay a higher price than see films withdrawn due to low demand.
 
mshchem said:
Adorama still lists it for 75 bucks, but it's on back order
Click to expand...
Freestyle already reflects a price hike like the one at B&H. You can count on Adorama's price, when it gets in more stock, matching B&H's exactly. I'm sure they don't collude , but always watch each other's prices and are unwilling to let one undercut the other.
John Wiegerink said:
...This is around a 55% increase...
Click to expand...
It's 60%. Henry Posner characterized the wholesale increase to B&H as "almost doubling," so I suspect retailers are taking some pain via reduced margins too.
MattKing said:
While it is certainly possible that Kodak Alaris' prices have increased that much, like as not that jump relates to B&H losing access to a preferential price or some other special access...
Click to expand...
I doubt that's the case. Adorama, B&H, Freestyle and Keith Canham all have to meet Kodak Alaris' minimum order size for non-stock, special-order sheet film like 8x10 320TXP. Those dealers placing such orders on regular bases and selling from store stock (B&H, for example, got in approximately 150 boxes several months ago, and is down to only 21 left in stock this morning. That has been, in my observation, a typical turnover rate for them.) means they're more likely to get deference from Alaris than Canham, who only orders sporadically when he books enough pre-paid orders from end users. I've seen far fewer Canham 8x10 320TXP special orders than B&H sell out / replenish cycles of the same film.
 
Last edited:
Ilford seems to be priced in the range of $120 but for 25 sheets. Bergger is about $110. Time for a different manufacturer?
 
Ilford at $120.
voceumana said:
Ilford seems to be priced in the range of $120 but for 25 sheets. Bergger is about $110. Time for a different manufacturer?
Click to expand...
voceumana said:
Ilford seems to be priced in the range of $120 but for 25 sheets. Bergger is about $110. Time for a different manufacturer?
Click to expand...
Ilford at $120.00+- for 25 sheets or Kodak at $120.00 for 10 sheets??????? Be slightly Dutch it's a "no brainer" for me. I hate to see this going on, but that's life I guess. JohnW
 
I wonder if this is a consequence of them moving to a smaller coater for Ektachrome?
 
[QUOTE="Lachlan Young, post: 2066155, member: 9175" - and Kodak Alaris said that their own research had indicated that people would prefer to pay a higher price than see films withdrawn due to low demand.[/QUOTE]

For KA's future their research better be right, given these kind of increases.

pentaxuser
 
Has anyone tried Foma Retro 320. 50 sheets $198 at Freestyle. They say out of stock till June 22. The description of the film sounds good to me..
 
dpurdy said:
Has anyone tried Foma Retro 320. 50 sheets $198 at Freestyle. They say out of stock till June 22. The description of the film sounds good to me..
Click to expand...
If you want Kodak quality then buy kodak..retro 320 ain't trix!
 
voceumana said:
Ilford seems to be priced in the range of $120 but for 25 sheets. Bergger is about $110. Time for a different manufacturer?
Click to expand...

I've used Bergger Pancro400 for about a year now and its quite unlike HP5, if you find HP5 too "neutral" for your tastes. Pancro400 takes some trial and error to get right, but what film doesn't? It can do wonderful things - I recommend it highly.
 
Peter Schrager said:
If you want Kodak quality then buy kodak..retro 320 ain't trix!
Click to expand...
So have you tried it or not? I couldn't care less if it is made by Kodak. I just hadn't heard of the Foma retro 320 and am interested if anyone has tried it.

Dennis
 
I suspect that the price of TXP in 8x10 is not a big deal for people who use it regularly . I switched to Ilford when I need new sheet film. I still have a lot of frozen out dated TMY and TXP that I got for less than cost. The biggest competition for the film folks are freezers
 
voceumana said:
Ilford seems to be priced in the range of $120 but for 25 sheets. Bergger is about $110. Time for a different manufacturer?
Click to expand...
Some photographers see Bergger Pancro 400 as a substitute for Tri-X.
 
mshchem said:
I suspect that the price of TXP in 8x10 is not a big deal for people who use it regularly...
Click to expand...
At least with respect to me, your suspicion is unfounded. This 60% retail price (not MSRP) increase was the last straw. I'll be purchasing no more of it.
Doc W said:
Some photographers see Bergger Pancro 400 as a substitute for Tri-X.
Click to expand...
Does the Bergger film have a retouching coating on the base side like 320TXP? One that completely eliminates any concern about Newton's rings?
 

i don't know, Sal. I have been using it and quite like it, but I shot very little Tri-x in large format, However, the people who recommended it to me photographed mainly people in 8x10 and were talking mainly about tonality, especially in the mid-range. I suggest you drop a line to Bergger.
 
dpurdy said:
I just hadn't heard of the Foma retro 320 and am interested if anyone has tried it.
Click to expand...

I have not had a chance to use it, yet, but I found this video about it, reviewing the 35mm version. The basic characteristics are probably similar across formats.

 
MultiFormat Shooter said:
I have not had a chance to use it, yet, but I found this video about it, reviewing the 35mm version. The basic characteristics are probably similar across formats.

Click to expand...
Thank for posting that. He seems like an interesting guy and it is a pleasant video to watch, however his testing technique is too out of control and I don't think much can be drawn from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register