Kodak tri-x 120 price increase?

msbarnes · Feb 12, 2012

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29167-USA/Kodak_1965599_Professional_TX_120_Black.html

Granted, it's still cheap on other sites (adorama, freestylephoto) but what gives? I generally ignore all the kodak is going out of business threads, but I thought that the film department was doing well? Did I miss the memo about kodak discontinuing 120 or something?

I might have to stock up on some more tri-x and/or look into the alternatives (hp5)

Kevin Kehler · Feb 12, 2012

It's past $6.50 a roll in Canada, has been past $5 for years here. Not as cheap as last year but neither is silver or labour costs. I was going to order some Tri-X in 5x7 sheets from B&H but it went up 25% 2 weeks ago (they were sold out prior to that); will have to wait a while now.

dr5chrome · Feb 12, 2012

..get used to it.

brian steinberger · Feb 12, 2012

Wow, I think it was 4.25 last time I bought some just a few weeks ago. I'd say my search for a 400 speed film is over, at 3.89 HP5 it is. That's a shame.

brian steinberger · Feb 12, 2012

I stand corrected.. it was $3.75 and that was 2 months ago. WOW!! A $1.25 increase per roll.

wildbill · Feb 12, 2012

It really doesn't matter what the price is, it's tri-x and there will always be guys to buy it.

dehk · Feb 12, 2012

Local camera shop been selling 135-24 Tri X for 5.99 a roll for a year or two. I still go buy a roll or two once in a great while just to support local business.

stormbytes · Feb 12, 2012

Odd...

35mm/36-exp hasn't budged.

Richard S. (rich815) · Feb 12, 2012

Wow. I've been loading up from Amazon @ $3.99 a roll with no tax and free shipping (for Prime members). Last bought 50 rolls day after the BK was announced. Looks like that's gone too. (Edit: source on Amazon I bought from is now $6.76 a roll but free shipping for anyone...)

slumry · Feb 12, 2012

Eventually only the one percent will be able to afford film, and then Kodak will be in the same position as Gucci, making luxury goods for the few.

Roger Cole · Feb 12, 2012

As long as it's under, say, ten bucks a roll I will buy and shoot Tri-X. This isn't a big deal. It's still cheaper than Delta 3200 and I shoot quite a bit of that.

Kevin Kehler · Feb 13, 2012

Roger Cole said:
As long as it's under, say, ten bucks a roll I will buy and shoot Tri-X. This isn't a big deal. It's still cheaper than Delta 3200 and I shoot quite a bit of that.

For me, photography is a hobby and not a career. I shoot as much film as I can afford both in terms of cost of film and in time away from family, work, etc. As long as I have both the disposable income and the time to shoot, I will continue to do so. This last year, the bigger issue for me has been time, where I have been too busy at work to spend any significant time shooting. In the summer of 2009, I put 60 rolls through the camera in June-August (I am a fairly deliberate shooter, so I might use 1-2 rolls a day on a busy day); last year during the same time frame, I did 10 rolls (3 coming on the same day) as I logged 200 hours of overtime during those months. While I am not rolling in cash by any stretch of the imagination, my biggest "cost" is the time required for me to go out shooting. So while these price increases are annoying, the cost of a roll has rarely been the determining factor of how much I will shoot or which films I will shoot. I shoot the films I like (Tri-X being my personal favorite) and as much as I can afford.

PKM-25 · Feb 13, 2012

I knew this was coming once Chapter 11 rumors started flying, so in the past few months I have ordered 200 rolls of it in 120, 200 in 35, 100 rolls of TMX in 120 and 100 of Ektar 100 in 120. These price increases are neither surprising or painful yet, cost of doing business.

Tim Gray · Feb 13, 2012

A lot of Kodak's films have seen some price increases over the last 3-4 years. Tri-X has been holding remarkably steady, so it's not too surprising to me to see this.

Jeff Kubach · Feb 13, 2012

It could be worse, they may stop making it!

Jeff

Roger Cole · Feb 13, 2012

Kevin Kehler said:
For me, photography is a hobby and not a career. I shoot as much film as I can afford both in terms of cost of film and in time away from family, work, etc. As long as I have both the disposable income and the time to shoot, I will continue to do so. This last year, the bigger issue for me has been time, where I have been too busy at work to spend any significant time shooting. In the summer of 2009, I put 60 rolls through the camera in June-August (I am a fairly deliberate shooter, so I might use 1-2 rolls a day on a busy day); last year during the same time frame, I did 10 rolls (3 coming on the same day) as I logged 200 hours of overtime during those months. While I am not rolling in cash by any stretch of the imagination, my biggest "cost" is the time required for me to go out shooting. So while these price increases are annoying, the cost of a roll has rarely been the determining factor of how much I will shoot or which films I will shoot. I shoot the films I like (Tri-X being my personal favorite) and as much as I can afford.

I don't shoot a lot of film but this is pretty much my point too. I can afford all the film I have time to shoot, and I have time to shoot more than I have time to develop and print!

I'm not insensitive. I shot a lot of film (a lot more than now) in my college and high school days when I had to buy the cheapest stuff I could find. I made test strips on absurdly narrow (counterproductive, but never mind) strips of paper to save paper and so on. I understand it, but I don't think most people here are in that position. If you are, then Tri-X may not be the film for you. Fortunately at B&H HP5+ is cheaper as someone posted, and it's a really good film. Freestyle still has 120 TX for $3.79, and since it's my favorite film too I'm tempted to stock up - probably will if they still have it at that price next time I put in an order. I can afford the higher price but I'm not stupid - if I can get it more than a buck cheaper, I will. If one is really on a budget the Arista re-branded Foma is $2.89 a roll. It's not Tri-X, it's not really box speed, but I've seen a lot of images on it that I really like.

Give me ten more hours a week for darkroom work and I'll be a lot happier about that than if the price of film and paper dropped by 25%.

jp498 · Feb 13, 2012

What's worse than the increased per-roll price is that B&H does not list tri-x pro-packs!

I'm in the same boat as PKM-25. I've got what I need in my freezer.

I theorize that tmy2 can do everything tri-x can, given the right development technique, because I'm a fan of tmy2. But if Kodak ended tri-x for that reason, they'd be missing the point that it's easy to use and develop and has a big fanbase.

Roger Cole · Feb 13, 2012

I shoot Tri-X at 1200 in Diafine. Nothing I've done with TMY gives me results at that kind of speed that I like as well as the Tri-X/Diafine combo. At box speed I agree, TMY-2 is a superior film, but not in ways that matter to me very much or at all in medium format. If I were shooting 35mm to print larger than 8x10 it might, but I don't so it doesn't. I shoot TMY-2 in 4x5.

CGW · Feb 13, 2012

Welcome to the new reality. Consumer C-41(Fuji) is scarce and remarkably pricey and pro films (Fuji and Kodak) rose several times in the past year--Fuji pro films now extortionately priced in Toronto.

GraemeMitchell · Feb 13, 2012

Stick w/ freestyle and adorama for now, still under $4. And buy that Arista premium in 35mm like crazy, b/c that certainly isn't forever.

I agree that tri-x has held steady for a long time, and like everything it's bound to go up. Frankly, from a cost of doing business stand point everything has been going up so much that this price increase in film seems more than reasonable.

Kevin Kehler · Feb 13, 2012

Roger Cole said:
I don't shoot a lot of film but this is pretty much my point too. I can afford all the film I have time to shoot, and I have time to shoot more than I have time to develop and print!

Well said and exactly my point as well.

PKM-25 · Feb 13, 2012

I might pull the trigger on another 100 rolls of Tri-X / 120, there is a big difference between $379 from Freestyle and $499 from B&H and we all know that price difference won't last.

Curt · Feb 13, 2012

The last time I bought Tri-X roll film it was $1.35 a roll for 120.

brianmquinn · Feb 13, 2012

Curt said:
The last time I bought Tri-X roll film it was $1.35 a roll for 120.

So how much did you earn the in the last year you bought Tri-X in 120? Maybe your take home pay was only $13,500 that year. With that income a roll would be quite expensive.

Athiril · Feb 14, 2012

Kevin Kehler said:
It's past $6.50 a roll in Canada, has been past $5 for years here. Not as cheap as last year but neither is silver or labour costs. I was going to order some Tri-X in 5x7 sheets from B&H but it went up 25% 2 weeks ago (they were sold out prior to that); will have to wait a while now.

Silver price has dropped to nearly half of what it was at the spike last year, but that's not the entire cost of film granted.

$4.99 is cheap. In Melb we group buy from B&H, and it's generally +15% on cost of top of that to split shipping in a $1k order. Which becomes basically $5.75/roll, which is still cheap.

Local price is $7.15/roll at Vanbar online I just checked.. which is surprising I was expecting to be over $10. At Michael's in the CBD it will be.

$7.15 is real cheap here now that I think about it.. they must have dropped the price... because Delta 100 in 120 is $11 a roll.

120 Velvia 50 is $17/roll
120 Portra 160 is $10/roll

120 Provia 400X is $27/roll.
35mm Provia 400X 36exp is $42.21/roll.

And you complain about a few cents increase in the U.S...

$7.15 Local vs $4.99 B&H
$27 Local vs $6.29 B&H

Kodak tri-x 120 price increase?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency