Silly Photographer, Tri-X Is for (Rich) Kids!

Snapshot · May 22, 2014

JW PHOTO said:
Kodak used to be "NUMBER ONE" when it came to publications and had all kinds of literature on every product they made. You don't have to publish a competitors equivalent when your "NUMBER ONE"! It's up to them to publish what they think is their equivalent to your product. JW

I do agree with this view. Kodak was the leader in film photography. Over time, however, their missteps and their competitors efforts have largely erroded this once unassailable position. I do appreciate Fuji's efforts and Ilford's commitment to us film users. Kodak, nonetheless, remains a solid part of my photography and am grateful for what that have done in the past and the films they produce currently.

MattKing · May 22, 2014

pdjr1991 said:
Don't forget that its not Kodak bumping up these prices. Its Kodak Alaris.

We don't know that Kodak Alaris has adjusted prices.

It could be the local retailer, or the intervening distributor.

And the retailers have the same challenge when it comes to support. They don't buy from Kodak Alaris, they buy from an intervening distributor.

Tom Duffy · May 22, 2014

Roger Cole said:
These are the closest equivalents but there are, of course, differences. TMX and TMY-2 are finer grained than Delta 100 and 400 but the Deltas are still very fine grained films. XP2 Super is a better film for wet printing, IMHO, than BW400CN. BW400CN is orange masked like regular color neg, for easier printing on automated machines using RA4 paper, but XP2 Super is not and looks like, and prints like, a regular black and white film (great stuff, and under rated.) FP4+ is closest to Plus-X though its response curve is a lot straighter. Delta 3200 is most similar to just-discontinued TMZ but available in 120. Pan F+ is really nothing like any Kodak film I've ever known. Speed is similar to old Panatomic-X but the look is very different (and it's not as fine grained, though it is quite fine enough as you'd expect from a conventional 50 speed film.)

Ilford films are excellent and I could happily shoot the rest of my life using nothing else for black and white, if they keep making the current line up. (Ok, I wish they'd make Delta 400 in sheets again! And XP2 Super in sheets.)

My wish has always been Delta 3200 in sheet film. I know, not going to happen.

pdjr1991 · May 22, 2014

Snapshot said:
Kodak seemed to have this wish as well. Rather than seeing the merit of their film products, it became a disdained association.

I agree its why Kodak went out of buisness but i disagree with Kodak Alaris not wanting to do film. Talking to the rep at SPE it seems like thats exactly what the aquisition wants. To produce film. The rep also said there was ahuge bump in medium format film.

Dr Croubie · May 22, 2014

Tom Duffy said:
My wish has always been Delta 3200 in sheet film. I know, not going to happen.

Wow, at least I know I'm not the only one. I've already told Simon that if I ever win the lottery I'm personally funding a ULF run of D3200 in however many sheets it takes to make it worth their while (and PanF, depending on how much I win). Until that day, it's HP5 for me...

Newt_on_Swings · May 22, 2014

It's kinda sad, I really love trix and tmax in 35mm and 120. I can not afford any of that with my income and expenses now, so I am forced to buy expired or from repackagers such as freestyle. Their legacy premium trix has kept my photoclass going with film of high quality but now I have to look at alternatives such as their 35mm arista edu (foma) which I don't have much love for. We did a few bricks of it in the past and it doesn't hold up to the rougher handling the kids put it through. I wish ilford would do another hp5+ buy one get one sale, I really loaded up on that a few years ago for the classroom.

I haven't had a chance to shoot trix or tmax in 4x5 yet (Ive been shooting some expired plus x, arista edu 400, and arista litho ortho , and fuji fp100c and 3000b), maybe I'll get lucky with a ebay buy, but it seems the days of cheap expired film is over, now that everyone is snatching it up, with buying competition with even larger retailers such as lomography that charge a premium on films that used to be pennies to the dollar.

Athiril · May 22, 2014

Roger Cole said:
These are the closest equivalents but there are, of course, differences. TMX and TMY-2 are finer grained than Delta 100 and 400 but the Deltas are still very fine grained films. XP2 Super is a better film for wet printing, IMHO, than BW400CN. BW400CN is orange masked like regular color neg, for easier printing on automated machines using RA4 paper, but XP2 Super is not and looks like, and prints like, a regular black and white film (great stuff, and under rated.) FP4+ is closest to Plus-X though its response curve is a lot straighter. Delta 3200 is most similar to just-discontinued TMZ but available in 120. Pan F+ is really nothing like any Kodak film I've ever known. Speed is similar to old Panatomic-X but the look is very different (and it's not as fine grained, though it is quite fine enough as you'd expect from a conventional 50 speed film.)

Ilford films are excellent and I could happily shoot the rest of my life using nothing else for black and white, if they keep making the current line up. (Ok, I wish they'd make Delta 400 in sheets again! And XP2 Super in sheets.)

XP2 works great through an automated machine, just as well as BW400CN in fact. They have colour neg, reversal and b&w neg settings, as well as an option for monochrome for B&W prints from reversal and colour neg - in case your BW400CN looks like it has a cast when printing through colour neg setting.

bluemooze · May 22, 2014

lxdude said:
The link is the one in the post you quoted, Ilford themselves. Why shouldn't it be believed that Ilford cut prices if they say they did? It's also clear that they only cut some prices.

That doesn't mean B+H will reduce prices if they don't want to- they can charge anything they want to.
Or it could be that B+H is selling out the product they bought at the higher wholesale price, and will drop their price with new shipments.

No sir. You post a link to where Ilford films are selling for less than before the Ilford announcement came out.

When I read something like "Why shouldn't it be believed that Ilford cut prices if they say they did?" I think of 'The Emperor's New Clothes.'

Roger Cole · May 22, 2014

Tom Duffy said:
My wish has always been Delta 3200 in sheet film. I know, not going to happen.

Other people have said that. If I had a 4x5 camera I could use handheld that might be very cool. I'm a backer of the Travelwide and have my viewfinder and Angulon so hopefully I will have at least that one soon, but the Angulon is not that fast at f/6.8. Something like one of the 3.7-4.5 Optars on a Graphic could make D3200 in 4x5 cool. But I don't have anything like that. Right now if I'm shooting 4x5 it's off a tripod so I don't really need that kind of speed. I guess I could push HP5+ if I wanted to go to 1000 or so, or back out on my "I'm done with Kodak sheet film at these prices!" pledge and go to TXP in Diafine.

StoneNYC · May 22, 2014

Tom Duffy said:
My wish has always been Delta 3200 in sheet film. I know, not going to happen.

I used to want that, until I actually tried out Ilfords suggestion that HP5+ could be shot at 3200, it honestly sounded like a marketing excuse for not carrying D3200 in sheet film, until I tried it...

Truly blown away, HP5+ shot EI3200 in DD-X for 20 minutes or so and yes the results at spectacular!! Try it!

StoneNYC · May 22, 2014

Okay, I also wanted to do something out from earlier in this thread....

400TX roll film is NOT 320TX sheet film....

They are not interchangeable, they do not have the same curves or spectral responses, different grain, and are completely different films despite the similarity in common name, and should not be confused with each other, this also will account for the difference in pricing.

wblynch · May 23, 2014

Newt_on_Swings said:
...but now I have to look at alternatives such as their 35mm arista edu (foma) which I don't have much love for.....

I know it's blasphemy but I don't like Tri-X all that much yet I adored Plus-X.

For 400 speed black and white I really do love Fomapan (am I alone?). Of course I always liked Fuji Neopan 400 but that's on the way out. And I need to try HP5+

But in the end, I won't miss Tri-X at all.

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

wblynch said:
I know it's blasphemy but I don't like Tri-X all that much yet I adored Plus-X.

For 400 speed black and white I really do love Fomapan (am I alone?). Of course I always liked Fuji Neopan 400 but that's on the way out. And I need to try HP5+

But in the end, I won't miss Tri-X at all.

Even though I praise HP5+ and sometimes mock Kodak, I actually really like Tri-X, but the 400TX, I don't like the 320TX, and I wanted specialize on just a few films, so Tri-X wasn't an option, now that the price is stupid, it's even less an option.

It's sort of the same thing with Acros100, the rolls are cheap but the sheets are expensive. I happen to like it for night work so I put up with it, but the sheets and rolls are the same, not so with Tri-X.

I like Foma100 a lot actually, but the emulsion lift issues I had made me choose something else, I probably would like FOMA400 also, and out of random circumstance I just ended up with a 25 sheet 4x5 box of Foma400 for $5 so I'll let you know what I think.

wblynch · May 23, 2014

I did like TXP in 120 but I don't have a sheet film camera.

I would like to hear your thoughts about Foma 400 in sheets. Are you printing or scanning?

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

wblynch said:
I did like TXP in 120 but I don't have a sheet film camera.

I would like to hear your thoughts about Foma 400 in sheets. Are you printing or scanning?

Scanning... Though I'm planning to go to school for photography and wet printing in the fall (kind of doing things backwards, obviously I have a know how to shoot and develop, but there are lots of gaps in between where I don't know how to do things like whet print) so maybe I'll save some for then.

Roger Cole · May 23, 2014

StoneNYC said:
I used to want that, until I actually tried out Ilfords suggestion that HP5+ could be shot at 3200, it honestly sounded like a marketing excuse for not carrying D3200 in sheet film, until I tried it...

Truly blown away, HP5+ shot EI3200 in DD-X for 20 minutes or so and yes the results at spectacular!! Try it!

Is that the usual 1+4 dilution of DD-X and 68F?

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Is that the usual 1+4 dilution of DD-X and 68F?

Yes sir it is, could probably go another minute based on how I meter, but the images looked good, I've posted them so many times, and they are in my gallery, I tested them in different light situations...

Dr Croubie · May 23, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Other people have said that. If I had a 4x5 camera I could use handheld that might be very cool. I'm a backer of the Travelwide and have my viewfinder and Angulon so hopefully I will have at least that one soon, but the Angulon is not that fast at f/6.8. Something like one of the 3.7-4.5 Optars on a Graphic could make D3200 in 4x5 cool. But I don't have anything like that. Right now if I'm shooting 4x5 it's off a tripod so I don't really need that kind of speed. I guess I could push HP5+ if I wanted to go to 1000 or so, or back out on my "I'm done with Kodak sheet film at these prices!" pledge and go to TXP in Diafine.

My plan is to use my 105/3.5 Xenar on the Travelwide, handheld with whatever FP3000B I can get my hands on, for a street/portrait project. It would be even better to be able to use D3200, but I could get away with HP5 wider open in decent light, maybe pushed to 800/1600 if I have to.

Roger Cole · May 23, 2014

wblynch said:
I know it's blasphemy but I don't like Tri-X all that much yet I adored Plus-X.

For 400 speed black and white I really do love Fomapan (am I alone?). Of course I always liked Fuji Neopan 400 but that's on the way out. And I need to try HP5+

But in the end, I won't miss Tri-X at all.

You may be the only one I've heard profess a "love" for Foma 400. I shoot some of it in 4x5 because it's cheap (as Arista) so I expose another sheet sort of as backup for my TMY-2, and in 120 because it's cheap and has a bit of old school look whatever that is (so it may be my imagination.) I don't think it's a bad film at all, if one can live without is limitations - actual speed more like 200, very responsive to development so builds contrast quickly (can be an advantage) a bit grainier than modern films (also can be an advantage) and delicate when wet, but not so delicate as to be a problem if handled reasonably.

I think it's a bargain and like it ok.

Roger Cole · May 23, 2014

Dr Croubie said:
My plan is to use my 105/3.5 Xenar on the Travelwide, handheld with whatever FP3000B I can get my hands on, for a street/portrait project. It would be even better to be able to use D3200, but I could get away with HP5 wider open in decent light, maybe pushed to 800/1600 if I have to.

I've got a few packs of FP3000b in the fridge but I'm not counting on it or stocking up on it (it's also often annoyingly contrast though sometimes that's ok.)

I love D3200 in my M645 Pro. That's a great combo with the 2.8 lenses I have (55, 80 and 150) and would be even better if I'd break down and buy an 80mm 1.9!

Dr Croubie · May 23, 2014

Roger Cole said:
I love D3200 in my M645 Pro. That's a great combo with the 2.8 lenses I have (55, 80 and 150) and would be even better if I'd break down and buy an 80mm 1.9!

Delta 3200 with the 80/1.9 you say?

In the aforementioned microphen, ei3200, 10 mins, 21C.

Buy one, you shan't regret it (even at f/4 it's got a very nice boquet)

(not the best shot on the roll, but it shows the tones and grain nicely, just a quick scan and haven't even de-dusted)

Newt_on_Swings · May 23, 2014

wblynch said:
I know it's blasphemy but I don't like Tri-X all that much yet I adored Plus-X.

For 400 speed black and white I really do love Fomapan (am I alone?). Of course I always liked Fuji Neopan 400 but that's on the way out. And I need to try HP5+

But in the end, I won't miss Tri-X at all.

Plus x was really good (even better for the wallet when it was arista premium 100), and I think fp4+ is a really good alternative for it. It's just great to shoot and print and one of my favorite films now. I actually just got another 100ft roll of it.

I just never liked the foma 400 films in 35mm and 120, maybe it was the constant fight with curling, or it being quite thin and grainy, or that you have to take care not to scratch it when wet, and still take care of it when cutting and sleeving or in the enlarger. I am currently giving the 4x5 version a shot and got a box of 50, hopefully the 4x5 version on the thicker base, and without the blue is something I can use long term.

jim appleyard · May 23, 2014

A price increase like this happened when Plus-X was about to die. I wonder if TX is next?

Tom Kershaw · May 23, 2014

Surely discontinuing Tri-X would be a dramatic step as it is so associated with Kodak; although personally I use T-max films and have never got involved with bulk loading.

Tom

Rick A · May 23, 2014

My GF and I were day tripping yesterday, and I realized I didn't have any film for the camera that lives in the car, so we popped into CVS to grab a roll. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw the price of Tri-x, $9.49 for a 24 exposure roll. My camera never came out of the car. I guess the rumors are true, Kodak is in its death throes.

Silly Photographer, Tri-X Is for (Rich) Kids!

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency