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.
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.
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.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.
400’ 500T in LA is $312 right now.
And btw Fuji does not make B&W film anymore.
Disturbing newsreel footage comes to mind.
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”.
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.
You mean this one they apparently don't make? Acros is lovely film, it is well loved by many.
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.
Fuji does not make that film.
Ilford does.
Umm, No.
Umm, No.
What is the logical explanation?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.
ACROS II may still be coated by Fuji in Japan. Nobody outside of the product chain is certain.
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.
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?