Well, in my book it's more a list of "facts" of reasonable provenance than it is hard evidence. For me evidence would be more along the lines of an invoice from Kodak charging Freestyle for the film. But I'll admit that it is good fodder for speculation and conjecture, as in your second paragraph.
I assume it is rebranded Tri-X. If so, how do you like it?
I have never used any Kodak films other than T Max 400, so I have no idea how good it is. Thinking of buying 25 rolls of the 100 ISO Arista stuff. Would it be worth my time buying it?/QUOTE]
the AP 100 is actually Plus-X 125. the 400 ISO is Tri-X. both films are really great. I have never used AP 100 but i do use Plus-X and it is fantastic stuff and the Arista is simply the bargain of the century in that case. shoot away and have fun!
...If it gets popular enough in 35mm, it will be offered in larger formats.
Is that you Mark Felt?So let me just say that if you want something just like Tri-X, then get some of the Arista Premium 400.
Times were apparently posted today. See (there was a url link here which no longer exists) for a comparison. No times for Neopan SS are on the Freestyle database that produced the times in the linked table.It will be interesting to see if the two legacy films match up to the listed dev times (and oher criteria) for Acros and Neopan.
Use the ignore thread function. That's what it's there for. Besides, with all 30,800 of us in the store the other day we couldn't all get close enough to eavesdrop on your private conversation.It is exactly the same as Plus-X and Tri-X. Period. End of story. How obvious does it have to be? Quite [sic] wasting server space arguing about it. I was at Freestyle the other day, asked straight out, and got the answer we all know is true!
Too bad I shoot Ilford!
Use the ignore thread function. That's what it's there for. Besides, with all 30,800 of us in the store the other day we couldn't all get close enough to eavesdrop on your private conversation.
If I believed everything a photo sales clerk told me, or everything I read on the internet without some other verification, I'd be a lot poorer in more ways than one.
Lee
Use the ignore thread function. That's what it's there for. Besides, with all 30,800 of us in the store the other day we couldn't all get close enough to eavesdrop on your private conversation.
If I believed everything a photo sales clerk told me, or everything I read on the internet without some other verification, I'd be a lot poorer in more ways than one.
Lee
Kodak is now in the situation that Ilford was in before their receivership. Ilford had over-capacity due to "no layoff" union labour contracts. That was fixed through receivership. Kodak obviously has substantial fixed costs, but they are probably things like property tax on plant and equipment. (I can't imagine Kodak has any "no layoff" union contracts.) There's a whole coating line just for making B&W film up there in Canada.
That makes the marginal cost of making an extra master roll, and selling it house-branded through Freestyle, be very low. Obviously, Kodak takes a risk of cannibalizing Tri-X sales, but they seem to think this will increase their profits.
What you're very unlikely to see is the same deal on T-MAX films. They already cost a buck more a roll than Tri-X and Plus-X, and they have a lot of product development costs to recoup on TMY-2.
I think you will find that Canadian coating line closed years ago, the Kodak complex in Toronto is a mere cloudy day shadow of what it once was..... It really comes down to, when you have the machinery and it's operating you make something on it, when it's sitting idle you don't.
The thing with rebranded film is that often the supplier contracts for the cheapest price they can on a regular basis, that basis is probably annually. Current batches are Tri-X, next year it could be HP-5, the year after it could be Foma, and a year after that it could be Efke, then back to Kodak. This makes it more difficult to make decisions on how to handle the film.
The thing with rebranded film is that often the supplier contracts for the cheapest price they can on a regular basis, that basis is probably annually. Current batches are Tri-X, next year it could be HP-5, the year after it could be Foma, and a year after that it could be Efke, then back to Kodak. This makes it more difficult to make decisions on how to handle the film.
If Kodak is selling this to Freestyle cheap enough that they can then sell it to us for half the price of Tri-X/Plus-X, what's the deal?
A large part of the cost of a product is the advertising budget asociated with it. Kodak doesn't have that when selling a product to be rebranded.
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?