Shocked at how much bulk TMY-2 costs

[Agulliver]

Riiight....so what I am getting from some posters is that Kodak could really sell 100 foot bulk rolls of Tri-X for about 90 dollarpounds and make a profit....but they choose to sell at 150 dollarpounds because they have some personal thing against bulk rolls or the people who use them.

Perhaps I am too kind, but I tend to assume there's some truth in the info passed on by MattKing and that they're continuing to supply a product which in this case really isn't economically viable to them. And as I hinted above, when they cancel it....y'all will complain about that and take it personally too.

Small hint. Kodak isn't much aware that any of us exist. It's not personal.

 

[Radost]

Sorry but it is WAY higher. What Mat quoted is the stated price but you include taxes on that $55.26 freight $30 with the total being $515.78 for the 400' roll. Quite a significant increase from a few yrs ago but I never was a big fan of Kodak film with so many others with same or even better results. Never thought that Kentmere film would get to be as popular as it has been but it has been doing quite well in the film market especially the new production of the 120 film.

400’ 500T in LA is $312 right now.

 

[Radost]

Riiight....so what I am getting from some posters is that Kodak could really sell 100 foot bulk rolls of Tri-X for about 90 dollarpounds and make a profit....but they choose to sell at 150 dollarpounds because they have some personal thing against bulk rolls or the people who use them.

Perhaps I am too kind, but I tend to assume there's some truth in the info passed on by MattKing and that they're continuing to supply a product which in this case really isn't economically viable to them. And as I hinted above, when they cancel it....y'all will complain about that and take it personally too.

Small hint. Kodak isn't much aware that any of us exist. It's not personal.

So you think XX is 2 times cheaper to make than TriX?
Is vision 3 times cheaper than portra?
Look at the prices.
Make your own conclusion.

 

[Radost]

I really don’t give a <> how much film is. I will still find something to shoot.
What sucks is like everything else in this society it is becoming a rich people thing.

 

[Don_ih]

Foma is likely the only company that's treating bulk film as if it is actually a bulk product. Maybe it's not labour intensive for them to spool 100 feet into a can.

Anyway, someone up above said Kodak made most of its money selling instamatic film.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy alone used 6 million feet of film.

 

[madNbad]

Foma is likely the only company that's treating bulk film as if it is actually a bulk product. Maybe it's not labour intensive for them to spool 100 feet into a can.

Anyway, someone up above said Kodak made most of its money selling instamatic film.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy alone used 6 million feet of film.

Kodak sill makes a lot of motion picture film but I was thinking about consumer films and the ubiquitous displays that were just about everywhere for decades.

 

[aparat]

This video helped me understand Kodak's current film manufacturing and the issues and challenges involved:

 

[MattKing]

400’ 500T in LA is $312 right now.

Which means it is $433.00 CDN right now in LA. Plus at least shipping and 12% tax when it crosses the border.

 

[Craig]

And btw Fuji does not make B&W film anymore.

You mean this one they apparently don't make? Acros is lovely film, it is well loved by many.

Neopan 100 Acros II | Fujifilm [Canada]

www.fujifilm.com

 

[pentaxuser]

Disturbing newsreel footage comes to mind.

So true. Mind you it would seem that we are in a more disturbing world now

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

But bulk is not only about money. It’s about flexibility. Combined with replenished developer it gives you flexibility. You can do 1 frame or even 40 “ I rolled 40 frames by mistake”.

Right! Good thing I kept that Ilford 72 frame reel

 

[Agulliver]

So you think XX is 2 times cheaper to make than TriX?
Is vision 3 times cheaper than portra?
Look at the prices.
Make your own conclusion.

And you've had it all explained. But choose to believe something else.

Fair play, that's your right. I'm done arguing the point.

 

[Duceman]

Was just browsing Freestyle.... Bulk roll of TMY-2..... $175.

Kodak TMAX 400 ISO 35mm x 100 ft. TMY | Freestyle Photo & Imaging

Kodak Professional T-Max 400 is a high-speed, medium grain black and white film suitable for sports/action and lower light situations. It is the sharpest 400-speed black and white film in the world, in addition to being the finest-grained.T-Max 400 film has a…

www.freestylephoto.com

 

[Radost]

You mean this one they apparently don't make? Acros is lovely film, it is well loved by many.

Neopan 100 Acros II | Fujifilm [Canada]

www.fujifilm.com

Fuji does not make that film.
Ilford does.

 

[Radost]

And you've had it all explained. But choose to believe something else.

Fair play, that's your right. I'm done arguing the point.

When it comes to math there is no believing or an opinion…
Cinema film bulk loading comes to around $4.33 for 36 frames for both B&W and color.
Now compare that to whatever Kodak charges now days for still film bulk or not.

 

[Craig]

Fuji does not make that film.
Ilford does.

Umm, No.

 

[Radost]

Umm, No.

Umm Yes.
Unless Fuji opened a factory right next door to Ilford in England.

 

[koraks]

Umm, No.

Alright then, Harman.

 

[Radost]

 

[Agulliver]

ACROS II may still be coated by Fuji in Japan. Nobody outside of the product chain is certain. It's almost certainly finished/confectioned by Harman (Ilford, if you prefer for simplicity). But then so is CatLabs recent offering.

Regarding the Kodak cinema film and still film...MattKing has explained why it's different but again, if people choose to believe he and Kodak are lying there's nothing I or anyone else can do to change that opinion.

I tend to operate on the assumption that medium and large size companies aren't aware of me and aren't personally trying to pee me off. They're doing their best to supply products that most people in their sector want to buy.

 

[Don_ih]

Fuji having Acros II made in the UK may be temporary, anyway - like the Kodak colour film they sold under the Fuji name.

 

[Radost]

Regarding the Kodak cinema film and still film...MattKing has explained why it's different but again, if people choose to believe he and Kodak are lying there's nothing I or anyone else can do to change that opinion.

What is the logical explanation?
Cinema film is 3 times cheaper to manufacture and sale?
Still film is 3 times more expansive to manufacture than cinema film?

 

[Radost]

ACROS II may still be coated by Fuji in Japan. Nobody outside of the product chain is certain.

That would be one long and humid ride from Japan to England.

 

[koraks]

ACROS II may still be coated by Fuji in Japan. Nobody outside of the product chain is certain.

Oh?
AFAIK ACROS is made by Harman and Harman (formerly Ilford) & Fuji have had manufacturing and supply agreements for many years, predating ACROSII by a mile.

 

[pentaxuser]

Oh?
AFAIK ACROS is made by Harman and Harman (formerly Ilford) & Fuji have had manufacturing and supply agreements for many years, predating ACROSII by a mile.

Does Harman do all the manufacturing i.e. its the whole process as in Ilford films? I presume that this is done to a recipe that has been given to it by Fuji?

Can I also ask: Is this the same kind of co-operation as was (still is?) true of Fuji's equivalent of Ilford XP2 Super? I was never very clear if Fuji's chromogenic film differed from XP2 or was this one really a case of an XP2 film with a Fuji label?

Before anyone says that that they are not the same because Simon Galley, formerly of Harman Technology, stated that Ilford does not allow its Ilford films to be rebadged, can I just add that this was then and not now. Harman is now owned by a a company called Pemberstone who as far as I know has made no such statement

pentaxuser