New FP4+ Price Premium: Rather (Lose $ the) Fight or Switch?

[JWMster]

Since falling under the LF 4X5 spell earlier this year and going in whole hog - even moving from Delta 400 (of necessity) to FP4+ and D-23, I've come to wonder: How did I pick the most expensive Ilford film as my go to? Huh? Delta 100 is $35 or so less per 100 sheets? What am I thining?

I even ordered some Shanghai GP3 for almost $90 less, and I'm rethinking my Foma aversion. "Maybe that was just me and I wasn't fair to the poor Bohemian....". Can't imagine I'm the only star-crossed Ilford FP4 lover. It might even be time to give the "French" Bergger a more serious try (I have a box in the fridge and a box in my "cart" at B&H sending me love notes). The thing I just don't get is the FP4+ premium over the other Ilford films.

So what are others doing? Anything? "Sucking it up and going with it?" If you're switching... even if this is a short-term price gouge until supply gets ironed out... what's your back-up plan?

 

[Donald Qualls]

The premium you're seeing might be related to production dates. Lots of top-brand film products have been going up recently.

 

[JWMster]

Don: Yeah... I'm R-E-A-L-L-Y hoping that when Ilford re-opens (When????), the price will come back down. Kind of waiting a bit to re-order on that basis. Meantime, I'll try other films (while still shooting the FP4 I have). If no one else measures up (unlikely), the answer will be to just start the stockpile. Problem is that I'm kind of shooting quite a bit these days. Good problem to have! The more I shoot, the more I like B&W, but I'm also getting my courage to splurge on some color - once I decide what to do about a new order of C-41 chemistry.

 

[halfaman]

I am a Foma + Rodinal guy in 4x5'' due to economic contraints but I can't say anything bad about Foma 100 and 200. The later has even some really interesting character.

 

[Alan9940]

Have you seen the pricing on 8x10 film these days? Wow, that'll make your toes curl! I shoot a lot of 8x10 Fomapan 100 and, in my experience, it's a quite versatile film as far as developers are concerned. I regularly use Pyrocat-HD, HC-110, and Sprint and it performs well in all. Luckily, I have a stockpile of film in the freezer...

 

[JWMster]

Alan: Thanks for the encouragement. I think I probably just need to adjust my head.... it's not THAT bad. And the thing is simply to stockpile the stuff. Warming up to the idea. Of course the thing is that with sheet film, I thought 3 boxes of 100 sheets WAS a stockpile. Not! But it's good to be out shooting.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I guess it depends on your priorities. Personally I think it is worth it to pay for Ilford because I know I will never have a problem. When I am using cheaper sheet film like Foma, I feel the need to shoot 2 of everything because of the issues it has so I am not saving anything in the end. And ask yourself if your time is worth the difference in price? I'd say yes. I still work in the darkroom though. If all you are doing is scanning it doesn't really matter what film you shoot.

 

[Vaughn]

Money speaks, but it always says good-by.

I expose less film, but with the most intensity per sheet I can muster. Makes film cheap.

 

[NB23]

Foma aversion? Foma is fantastic.where did you get the aversion from?

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used Forma and it's Freestyle house version for years, 100, 200 and 400, developed in a number of developers, right now MCM 100, but D76, Iflord ID3, in 4X5 Rodinal all give good results. I bought 50 sheets of 400, an impulse buy, thought I would an extra stop, but looking at Foma's data sheet, 200 is almost as fast. Still contrast is good, gain not a problem problem in 4X5. I just picked up a 6X9 ground glass back for my Maymina Universal and Press, 25 sheets of Ilford PF4 is only a couple of dollars less than 50 sheets of Foma 100 or 400, I never shoot 2 sheets at the same exposure of the same scene, what brought that about?

On the other side of the coin, what can I say bad, other than price, about Tmax 400.

 

[pentaxuser]

Huh? Delta 100 is $35 or so less per 100 sheets?. The thing I just don't get is the FP4+ premium over the other Ilford films.

Well IlfordPhoto who sell directly to customers in the U.K. charges £170.57 for 100 sheets of FP4+ 4x5 and £185 for the same quantity of Delta 100. This is what I had expected in that Delta is the more expensive film so it would look to me that the differential being turned on its head has nothing to do with Ilford. It has to be somewhere else in the chain from maker to consumer.

Is this one retailer or all of them doing this and when did this happen? Answers to these and possibly other questions might at least explain it although may not justify it

pentaxuser

 

[JWMster]

pentaxuser: Yes, both Freestyle and B&H both show basically the same price. Difference is shipping. Freestyle also doesn't carry the variety of quantity offering that B&H does (i.e. fewer 50 and 100 unit boxes). Oddly, B&H is higher priced than Freestyle only in 100 sheet boxed of FP4.

Maybe I should have written differently about FOMA and called it "Ilford preference"? There's a degree of confidence in working with their stuff that's harder to replicate and match without a high degree of solid experience. You have that with FOMA 'cause you've worked with it for a good period. I don't, but do have the same with Ilford. Thanks for indirectly pointing this out.... I think I just missed that.

But I can see that working with 100 sheet boxes whenever possible will tend to cut costs in many cases, and of course compared to a PhaseOne digital LF.... film is a cheap avocation. With film, Kodak remains the top dollar B&W 4X5 for TMAX 400 ISO (although Fuji might be the real $ king), and Ilford remains a relative bargain. Sometimes its hard to allow the facts as they are rather than as we want them to be, but that's the truth. So thanks to you guys, maybe I'm starting to think the FP4 price isn't all that bad. Just takes getting used to.

 

[Vaughn]

I often use two sheets of film for an image...especially, as you mentioned, on what looks to be an important image. I'll use a different exposure, but many times I will use the same exposure - for possible variations on development to match my needs (different alt processes that require different contrast ranges, for example).

Also some alt processes can be hard on negatives, so it can be nice to have an (almost) identical negative as a back-up.

Going to university, I could afford to take one photo class a year. We were on the quarter system (3 quarters a school year), so it was a 9 week class. I could only afford to attend university for two quarters a year, so actually half the time I had a photo class. But anyway -- I'd buy all my film and paper up-front, and hold off worrying about eating until towards the end of the quarter. Having all the film and paper on-hand helped prevent artistic constipation caused by money-supplies issues.

 

[JWMster]

Now for a quantitative analysis? Okay... within the range from Arista EDU Ultra at the lowest to Kodak TMAX 400 at the highest cost, Freestyle lists 16 different price points.
Take the range from low $ 1.09 to high $ 3.40 per sheet, and FP4 is only 30% off the low. So I'm through with griping. My bad. Thanks for your patience.

 

[BrianShaw]

I just paid $44.90 for a 25-sheet box... and was glad that it was available.

 

[NB23]

Ok, and? Why is the excellent foma so bad to you?

 

[JWMster]

NB23: Thought I answered this? Will it NOT offend you... because I'd prefer to NOT to offend, if I say I simply that as a matter of personal preference, I prefer the ease with which I was able to hit the tonal palette I wanted with FP4 in 35mm, 120 and now 4X5? I gave FOMA 100 sheets of my life. That was enough to say my heart wasn't in keeping at it. I'm trying Shanghai GP3, too. I've kept trying Bergger in various formats, too, but it's not clicked either. Fair to say the problem is me. Yes of course it is.

But also it's fair to suggest that when your process just works and the results come along as you want without a whole lot of work, you just keep loading it. I'm not saying my FP4 shots were amazing.... only that I could produce them quite easily. As for your part, if you've found that with the excellent FOMA, why wouldn't you stick with that? You're a better man than I am for doing so, and saving more $'s for stuff that will make your own work shine even better. Instead, I have to up the $'s I spend on materials and try to save elsewhere. Maybe that's my loss.

 

[pentaxuser]

pentaxuser: Yes, both Freestyle and B&H both show basically the same price. Difference is shipping. Freestyle also doesn't carry the variety of quantity offering that B&H does (i.e. fewer 50 and 100 unit boxes). Oddly, B&H is higher priced than Freestyle only in 100 sheet boxed of FP4..

So FP4+ is pretty much the same at all the major retailers in the U.S. so it isn't just one retailer. When you say the difference is shipping do you mean that the difference in shipping accounts for the fact that the normal price differential working in FP4+'s favour in the U.K. v Delta 100 is what is working against its favour in the U.S. The extra cost of shipping FP4+ compared to the shipping cost of D100 is enough to make it higher priced than D 100?

If this is the case then I cannot work out how this should be the case. Has FP4+ always been a higher price than D 100 or is this a recent change?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Me offended? Please!

I am a proud owner of two bollocks, sir. There is a very limited way that strangers on the internet can offend me. Disliking foma, or even my work, is not one of them

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Don: Yeah... I'm R-E-A-L-L-Y hoping that when Ilford re-opens (When????), the price will come back down. Kind of waiting a bit to re-order on that basis. Meantime, I'll try other films (while still shooting the FP4 I have). If no one else measures up (unlikely), the answer will be to just start the stockpile. Problem is that I'm kind of shooting quite a bit these days. Good problem to have! The more I shoot, the more I like B&W, but I'm also getting my courage to splurge on some color - once I decide what to do about a new order of C-41 chemistry.

Price ain't going back down. They raise prices at least every April, so unless you're seeing a huge price jump and almost nothing in stock, that's probably where it's going to stay.

 

[JWMster]

Adrian: Thanks. Good advice: Stop complaining and stock up now!" Yeah... that's the ticket.

 

[guangong]

While reading this thread, it occurred to me that the money spent for film in different formats may not be so wide if the way of shooting is considered. LF is primarily a pensive activity that is more deliberative and also requires time for camera set up, etc. The days of LF press photographer ended in 1950s. Hence more keepers. At the other end, 35mm smaller, more handy camera promotes a more reckless willingness to shoot what may be quite iffy circumstances, taking more exposures but far fewer keepers than LF. In between is MF, not quite as demanding as LF but more deliberative than 35mm. I suspect that the final cost of a really good photo is about the same for all formats...unless one is a member of the 1% of the 1%. The handling of cameras of different formats varies, but cost of feeding may be about the same considering final results.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I think FP4+ is one of the finest emulsions ever made, and still pretty far from unaffordable (like 8x10 color film). I'm not sure how prolific you are but a 100 sheet box is likely to last me a year or more, and in that way the cost is quite low. Some people spend the price of a 100 sheet box of FP4+ just to watch cable and sports every MONTH. So it's all relative.

If you're looking for less expensive films there are plenty of options. I like Catlabs X 80 and Bergger Pancro 400. Many people shoot Fomapan too!

 

[Vaughn]

I spent a month in southern Chile traveling/camping with my two sons...rented a small vehicle with a tent on the top. The trip was around $5000 (one son was already in Chile). Took the 5x7 and exposed 32 sheets of film. I am not going to the math, but film cost was insignificant...even if I had exposed 200 sheets.

However, this reasoning makes no sense at all if one is photographing in one's garden -- but I do like the comparison of the cost of the film and the average monthly media/electronic entertainment bill. People actually pay a hundred dollars or more a month to watch TV...amazing!

 

[Donald Qualls]

People actually pay a hundred dollars or more a month to watch TV...amazing!

"How to boil a frog: Start with one frog and a pot of cold water."

When I was a kid, in the late 1960s, TV was either free, or cable (CATV, Community Antenna Television, if offered in your community) cost $5 or so a month and included two or three channels that you couldn't get with a reasonably sized rooftop antenna, as well as (usually) better reception than over the air for local channels (note that gas was around 30 cents a gallon in most of the USA in 1970).

As cable started to carry stuff you couldn't get, at all, on an antenna (unless you had one of those satellite dishes as big as a kids' wading pool -- and pretty shortly those stopped working if you didn't pay someone by the month to have a decryption box), they started to charge more for the "extra services", and then they started to "bundle" those services at a "discount". Fifty years later, "basic cable" has more channels in Nowhere, USA than you could have gotten with an antenna in Los Angeles in 1970, including stuff that simply didn't exist, anywhere, that long ago. And if you want to watch sports, or lots of movies, or series that don't have to abide by archaic network rules, you have to buy a "package" to get what you need.

The frog's just about done, time to set the table.