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

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

Rick A said:
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.

However... I'm guessing that was the ONLY film on the shelf.... That's the bigger issue, ilford doesn't have the distribution kodak does... If they stop making trix ... There may be no true B&W left for those emergency needs... I don't think I've seen Tmax400 at CVS lately... Just Tri-X and the BW400CN stuff...

AgX · May 23, 2014

Rick A said:
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.

Most probably that was not the best place to check prices. Over here at a post-order dealer Tri-X is still the same price as T-Max.

Snapshot · May 23, 2014

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

Considering Tri-X is probably Kodak's best selling B&W film, I don't think that would be the case.

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

Snapshot said:
Considering Tri-X is probably Kodak's best selling B&W film, I don't think that would be the case.

It may not be... Tmax400 might have taken the lead in the age of scanning and sharpness...

Truzi · May 23, 2014

The only B&W film I've seen in a drug store in the past decade has been BW400CN, and that was a couple years ago (and at a CVS).

I'd also not judge by the price of any drug store, let alone CVS. I often find potato chips and pop at least 50% higher at our drugstores than at our grocery store - which is only 2 minutes away from the drug stores. Same for most other products.

(Stone, pop = soda, lol.)

jp498 · May 23, 2014

Tom Kershaw said:
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

tmy2 is capable of pretty closely emulating tri-x depending on developer choices, etc... as tmy2 is very versatile, more so than most people have figured out. Just a little more particular than Tri-x as far as development. Spectral sensitivity? Put a filter on it. Curves? Development options or scanning options.

Just like the big companies have consolidate c41 color film choices, KA could consolidate B&W film choices too.

Not suggesting this is good, but technically viable.

Snapshot · May 23, 2014

StoneNYC said:
It may not be... Tmax400 might have taken the lead in the age of scanning and sharpness...

According to Kodak's website, they tout it as the "World’s best-selling black-and-white film" and I think they would more than likely have a handle on their sales volumes.

mweintraub · May 23, 2014

Rick A said:
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.

Don't blame Kodak, it's been that price at CVS for a while. Before any Kodak hike, AFAIRecall. I bet that's CVS pricing it like that. It's a convenience store. You pay for convenience of getting drinks, medication, films, etc.

snapguy · May 23, 2014

I would suggest that before one blames Kodak for the price of Tri-X at a certain chain drug store you check and see how obscene the drug store chain's CEO salary is. If you don't want to help pay for another Rolls Royce for his garage, shop elsewhere.

JW PHOTO · May 23, 2014

snapguy said:
I would suggest that before one blames Kodak for the price of Tri-X at a certain chain drug store you check and see how obscene the drug store chain's CEO salary is. If you don't want to help pay for another Rolls Royce for his garage, shop elsewhere.

It's that way with everything now. When GM was going belly-up their top CEO was getting 24 million that's just the "TOP" CEO, plus stock options. While all the time the line workers were getting cuts and cut. So much for the trickle down idea! Just amounts to greed, but what PO's me is that after they do start having problems that they can't reverse they never seem to be able to figure out the problem was at the top and not the bottom. AIG did the same thing! It seems these corporation just like to get milked and the customer and worker pay for it. I like Kodak film very much, but there comes a point when enough is enough. I'll now buy from either side of the pond with no guilty feelings whatsoever. JW

Tom1956 · May 23, 2014

CVS has jumped on the PC bandwagon. They will no longer carry "tobacco products". All they're interested in is the new heathcare law--they prefer to be just a pharmacy collecting dollars from that. All they have is a pharmacy and a well-stocked department of overpriced cosmetics, and absurdly priced convenience-store goods, and greeting cards. That's all. No soda fountain, no film, no pipes, cigars and tobacco, none of the things that make up a "drug store". They've pulled out their C-41 machines. They don't have zilch. You can buy their roll of Tri-X for 10 dollars though.

kb3lms · May 23, 2014

....saw the price of Tri-x, $9.49 for a 24 exposure roll.

It's been this price at CVS in my area for well over a year. Unfortunately CVS is no longer a viable place to buy film. Walmart upped teh price of the Fuji CN films by about 50% recently - although the website deal still seems to be in place.

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

Snapshot said:
According to Kodak's website, they tout it as the "World’s best-selling black-and-white film" and I think they would more than likely have a handle on their sales volumes.

Companies often use claims like this for products to disseminate the failings in their product.

They also have a tendency to push their new films even if their old ones are more popular. Just Kodak's history.

Not saying that's what's happening, just saying, don't trust advertising to get your info...

StoneNYC · May 23, 2014

Tom1956 said:
CVS has jumped on the PC bandwagon. They will no longer carry "tobacco products". All they're interested in is the new heathcare law--they prefer to be just a pharmacy collecting dollars from that. All they have is a pharmacy and a well-stocked department of overpriced cosmetics, and absurdly priced convenience-store goods, and greeting cards. That's all. No soda fountain, no film, no pipes, cigars and tobacco, none of the things that make up a "drug store". They've pulled out their C-41 machines. They don't have zilch. You can buy their roll of Tri-X for 10 dollars though.

Umm...

CVS refusing to carry tobacco products is a GOOD thing... Something other family businesses should follow...

Snapshot · May 23, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Companies often use claims like this for products to disseminate the failings in their product.

They also have a tendency to push their new films even if their old ones are more popular. Just Kodak's history.

Not saying that's what's happening, just saying, don't trust advertising to get your info...

I trust random Internet posts even less. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think Kodak is reliable source for commenting on their sales regarding Tri-X.

Ko.Fe. · May 23, 2014

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

My English isn't very good. How to pronounce it? Kod-YAK All-are-as, with slightly double ss at the end?

TMAX first went high, now this...

Cheers, Ko.

cmacd123 · May 23, 2014

If one really needs to have bulk ASA 400 film, there are a few options.

Kentmere 400 is one.
Arista.EDU Ultra (Foma) is another
Filmotec Orwo N74 is a third.

Just looking at Freestyles page and a 100 ft roll of the first two is in the 40-45 dollar range. while both 400TX and T-max 400 are 89 dollars. (HP5 is at 65 bucks)

the N74 is 55 dollars at Orwona.com and 173 for a 400ft roll ($43.25 a hundred feet) if you want another alternative. Those in Europe will have to order from the distributors in your own area, or the factory http://www.filmotec.de

Sirius Glass · May 23, 2014

yurisrey said:
a buck per foot = too rich for me. Cine reversal also went up.

A buck a foot is much better than $99.00/30.48 meters = $3.25 per meter!

lxdude · May 23, 2014

DF · May 25, 2014

Since when are "rich kids" into analog photography? They like expensive trendy electronic digital gear.

Kitschretro · May 25, 2014

Most rich kids have the digital stuff and also like retro film and quirky lomo type cameras.
sends me nuts at the craft markets when they always have £50 notes each

tokam · May 25, 2014

In Australia, up until recently, the Kodak bulk films were much cheaper that the Ilford equivalents. I'll have to check Vanbars current pricing.

In any case, rolling you own down under has always been cheaper than buying individual 36 exp cassettes which can go for $10+ each. Ouch!!

Developer prices are also starting to get a bit savage down here. I think that the last 1 litre pack of D-76 I bought was around $11. If I process at 1:1 per
Kodak's suggestions of 250ml developer per 80 sq inches, (1 x 36 exp film) it will cost me $2.50 for the developer for each film. I don't really want to mix up
a gallon of D76. I could reuse the D76 without dilution but that would mean trials to determine additional development time per roll. I like nice, neat consistent
development times. I have a part-used bottle of HC-110 but I'm not overly fond of it. I believe HC-110 was a quick and dirty product aimed at newspapers
who only require 130 dpi screening for BW shots on newsprint. Can't seem to get smooth mid-tones and newsprint never needed them.

RattyMouse · May 25, 2014

tokam said:
In Australia, up until recently, the Kodak bulk films were much cheaper that the Ilford equivalents. I'll have to check Vanbars current pricing.

In any case, rolling you own down under has always been cheaper than buying individual 36 exp cassettes which can go for $10+ each. Ouch!!

Developer prices are also starting to get a bit savage down here. I think that the last 1 litre pack of D-76 I bought was around $11. If I process at 1:1 per
Kodak's suggestions of 250ml developer per 80 sq inches, (1 x 36 exp film) it will cost me $2.50 for the developer for each film. I don't really want to mix up
a gallon of D76. I could reuse the D76 without dilution but that would mean trials to determine additional development time per roll. I like nice, neat consistent
development times. I have a part-used bottle of HC-110 but I'm not overly fond of it. I believe HC-110 was a quick and dirty product aimed at newspapers
who only require 130 dpi screening for BW shots on newsprint. Can't seem to get smooth mid-tones and newsprint never needed them.

From what I read here, Ansel Adams was a big proponent of HC-110 so I don't think your understanding of it is correct.

tokam · May 25, 2014

My usage is/was with 35mm. 10x8 would look a lot different at low magnification or even contact printed.

I love it's convenience and I will persevere. I am currently in the process of buying a Mamiya RZ67 from a
fellow APUG user. Perhaps the larger neg with lower magnification for printing will get me where I want to
be. My exposure s and developing, (35mm), seem to yield good negs but by the time I have enlarged, the
mid-tones are a disappointment, even on slower films like FP4 which use to look beautiful in Patterson
Aculux. Just depends on the end result I'm after for a particular shot.

john_s · May 25, 2014

At Vanbar (Australia's biggest supplier of photo materials as far as I know) the price of Tri-X (120) is now 52% more than TMax400 (same size).

For 35mm, prices are not altered (Tmax slightly more than TriX). Maybe the next shipment will go up.

(Edit: I've just noticed that the 35mm TriX at Vanbar is "out of stock," making a price rise soon more likely)

Although I haven't used Ilford film for years (been using Neopan) Ilford are looking better all the time despite being very expensive here. There's always mail order from, not the country of its origin, but the USA.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency