Kodak Tri-x Price Drops

aside from tail ends of movie cans
do they even sell 200 foot cores for bulk loaders ?
ive been buying them off and on for decades
and never saw film in bigger than 100'
unless it was 5222 / movie film ...

StoneNYC said:

I'm done with 5222, after the 4x5 incident and kodak dicking everyone around combined with wanting to focus on emulations they were available in all formats, I'm just done with kodak, now I'm one of those grumpy people sick of their BS and not worth my time supporting them.

Click to expand...

Well they have not been small for a long time a custom cut was bound to have been eye watering $ wise, they are only used to movie studios and feature film prints.
It probably cost them a lotta $ doing the costing, so Id not feel too bad in your shoes.
Nothing like the amount they gave Polaroid...
I've worked for large companies they operate in a different world.
If you buy trix in 135 it is more expensive than a short end of doublex?
Apart from 220 I've never used trix, so I can't really post on this thread... only got the 220 cause it was last mono man standing.

I don't know if this is the right thread or not, so if it's not please forward it to the right spot please admins.

Is there anyone purchasing a roll of 5222 in the near future? If so I would be willing to send some $$ to help with the cost as I would like to get 100 feet or so to try out.

Thanks

jnanian said:

aside from tail ends of movie cans
do they even sell 200 foot cores for bulk loaders ?
ive been buying them off and on for decades
and never saw film in bigger than 100'
unless it was 5222 / movie film ...

Click to expand...

I've had

48 m of APX 400S (about 150 feet)
50 m of ortho

both on thin PET so the 48m fits easily in a 100 foot loader the 50 maybe. Think some cameras take the bulk spool or core.

madgardener said:

I don't know if this is the right thread or not, so if it's not please forward it to the right spot please admins.

Is there anyone purchasing a roll of 5222 in the near future? If so I would be willing to send some $$ to help with the cost as I would like to get 100 feet or so to try out.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Look up Rapakpan on here

Whoops!

"Nickrapak" is his name here

Looking at a $1 per foot for Tri-X in bulk along with it's propensity to curl when drying pushed me to use Ilford's HP5.

I've never had any problem with Tri-X curling.

The bulk prices are something else but in pre loaded rolls does a difference of sixty cents d roll really matter? That's less than two cents a shot more.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Roger Cole said:

I've never had any problem with Tri-X curling.

The bulk prices are something else but in pre loaded rolls does a difference of sixty cents d roll really matter? That's less than two cents a shot more.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

Click to expand...

If you're buying 30 rolls, that's a whole box of Ilford 4x5 you could have gotten instead

Roger Cole said:

I've never had any problem with Tri-X curling.

Click to expand...

You're lucky because it's a bitch! It almost made me switch to HP5 (almost...).

The Tri-x curl depends on where you live, at 8,000 feet the air can often be quite dry so mine curled like Shirley Temple as well, hence my switching to the best black and white film made, Tmax 400, I'd pay double what they ask for it.

Oh, do your homework folks, you can get Tri-x in 36 for $4.39 a roll at Freestyle right now:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1470764-Kodak-Tri-X-400-ISO-35mm-x-36-exp.-TX

You do realize that much of the time, these price fluctuations are on the retailer selling the product...right?

PKM-25 said:

The Tri-x curl depends on where you live

Click to expand...

Not true. My basement darkroom hasn't changed in 17 years but I've been encountering curling problems since last year.

Pat Erson said:

Not true. My basement darkroom hasn't changed in 17 years but I've been encountering curling problems since last year.

Click to expand...

Did you get a new central heating unit? Very interesting...

Just one more data point....

Tri-X has longitudinal curl for me, but HP5 is totally flat. North Carolina; humid and low altitude.

StoneNYC said:

I'm just done with kodak, now I'm one of those grumpy people sick of their BS and not worth my time supporting them.

Click to expand...

I can just see it now, you at 90 years old, storming into the graveyard to the Kodak company headstone saying "I want my two dollars!!!", kicking dead horses along the way...

You don't own any guns, right?...Oh, that's right, you could not afford the ammo...

PKM-25 said:

I can just see it now, you at 90 years old, storming into the graveyard to the Kodak company headstone saying "I want my two dollars!!!", kicking dead horses along the way...

You don't own any guns, right?...Oh, that's right, you could not afford the ammo...

Click to expand...

Haha!! It's true I couldn't afford the ammo haha, I do have a pistol permit though

But sorry for the outburst, I know you warned me not to try the whole Eastman Double-X thing, I'm not mad that they didn't do it, I'm mad that they started saying we need x people at x price, then tripled the price, then when we got the order for enough people for triple the price, they said "oh we know we said we would attempt cutting at tripple the price at X number of units, but now we want tripple the unit orders, whoops sorry about that" and it's the kind of thing they would have known ahead of time, so either they just didn't want to do it in the first place and didn't think we would come up with the original order, or they just got greedy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that people were willing to spend $300 on a box of Eastman Double-X 4x5 might have had something to do with their sudden price increase in their other films "oh there suckers were willing to spend 3 times the price, let's double the price of our normal films and they will still buy from us... "Muahahahha"

I'm exaggerating but it's possible.

I tried giving kodak their fair chance, and I did, and I'm still keeping them open as an alternative to Fuji slide film should that cease, they have an amazing line of films. Truly. But there's a certain point where you begin to carry a certain air about you, to which it can affect your business, there's a certain processing unit seller which is the only option in the US, but I only buy from them when I can find a product no other way... Because I don't like the personality behind the product seller, and that means something to some people. It's the same with kodak. Just bigger.

I'm still open to buying their color but their B&W is off my list at this point in time.

I will not kick their headstone, and I won't be happy when they are gone, I think any loss of film is bad. But I won't sing their praises either, and I won't trust them, because they pulled a bait and switch on me...

A hundred bucks for a bulk roll? How can it cost more to produce something that takes a minimum of 48 fewer operations to make? I'm sure volume of bulk rolls moved has gone down, but that shouldn't make the cost go up, since they're already making Tri-X in 35mm. Why offer it at all if it costs more than buying pre-rolled? Why keep making a product you want people NOT to buy?

markaudacity said:

A hundred bucks for a bulk roll? How can it cost more to produce something that takes a minimum of 48 fewer operations to make? I'm sure volume of bulk rolls moved has gone down, but that shouldn't make the cost go up, since they're already making Tri-X in 35mm. Why offer it at all if it costs more than buying pre-rolled? Why keep making a product you want people NOT to buy?

Click to expand...

Who says the price change is motivated by pricing decisions of the manufacturer?

More likely, it is due to a supply shortage, or pricing decisions of the distributor(s), or both.

If stores cannot get a product from their usual supplier, they go to someone else, who can charge a premium, when there currently isn't anything easily available from the original source.

I wouldn't be surprised if Eastman Kodak only produces bulk Tri-X once a year.

Whoever is responsible for it, charging more for film in an inconvenient format is a good way not to sell it. Has anyone asked B&H/Adorama about the sudden price hike?

markaudacity said:

Whoever is responsible for it, charging more for film in an inconvenient format is a good way not to sell it. Has anyone asked B&H/Adorama about the sudden price hike?

Click to expand...

My local sources, who would have to order to either to sell me a 100 foot Tri-X roll, or replace the one or two in their system, tell me that their recently revised current price from their source (the intervening distributor(s)) requires them to now charge me about $140.00 CDN.

They could sell me a 100 roll of T-Max 100 or 400 for about $100.00 Canadian.

I can get a 100 foot roll of T-Max 400 from Amazon Canada for about $100.00 Canadian - if I am willing to wait a month.

markaudacity said:

Whoever is responsible for it, charging more for film in an inconvenient format is a good way not to sell it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is the idea, Kodak was never happy selling bulk film, the data sheets used to describe it as "for long roll cameras" the cassettes changed to the staked end caps partly to discourage bulk loaded (and to discourage unscrupulous parties selling refilled cassettes as new).

The price may be to see if there are still any "Long roll Camera" users out there, and if not they can happily drop another SKU.

How did the caps used to be attached to the cartridges?

markaudacity said:

How did the caps used to be attached to the cartridges?

Click to expand...

They used to be removable by the user, which permitted re-use with bulk film.
I doubt that the change happened because of a desire to discourage bulk loading. Most likely, it was to prevent disasters due to clumsy photographers or, even worse, curious photographers.
The Ilford cassettes used to be excellent for loading Kodak bulk film .

I missed all of the good ol days.

Boy am I glad to have purchased 13 cans of tmax 100 at 59.99$ each (until last month).
Now the store asks me 140$.

Ilford, Foma, that's where my next orders are going.

I'm just thankful that I'm not particularly attached to Tri-X as a film, I'll use whatever.
Speaking of reloadables though, I got 2 lots of about 20 rolls of Tri-X from a guy on fleabay, it expired in 2003 and he bulk-loaded it in 2005, besides that it's been frozen all its life (and looks fine to me).
The reason I bought it (besides being rather cheap), was for the bulk-reload cassettes. Except that he didn't use proper reloadables, he just taped it to the ends of the original film.
Still works fine, and was cheap enough so I'm not complaining, but just shows that you don't need reloadable cassettes to bulk-load.

(speaking of which, I scored a lot of about 50 or 100 old Polaroid reloadables that I don't think I'll ever use enough of, anyone want?)