The mystery of tri x

Gunfleet · Aug 26, 2014

Silverprint have bulk tri x at £136 for 30.5 metres. I calculate this as a max of 24 rolls (you'd be lucky - I haven't allowed for leaders). However 24 rolls of tri x in boxes is £115. Shurely something wrong...

Gunfleet · Aug 26, 2014

Sorry the pound sign is coming out wrong from my Samsung S4. It should be 136 pounds sterling for the bulk pack and 115 pounds for 24 rolls of tri x

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 26, 2014

This is why I stopped bulk loading 35mm film. It used to be 50% cheaper to bulk load, and now there is something of a premium on long rolls, at least from the major brands, or maybe the preloaded rolls are domestic, while the long roll is a special import, so there is often no savings. The price can vary by market and how the film is sourced, so you have to check it before deciding, but for the films I was bulk loading, it hasn't made sense to bulk load for the past five years or so.

ciniframe · Aug 26, 2014

Yeah, I've noticed there is no longer any advantage to buy bulk, at least in price. Perhaps if you simply must have short loads then you would have to load them yourself. In fact it is now cheaper to buy film already spooled. Maybe they are putting the price of bulk very high to force you to buy their spooled film.

pentaxuser · Aug 26, 2014

Yes, when you look at what the manufacturers have to do in terms of the equipment needed to make 36 or 24 frame cassettes it is difficult to understand why a bulk roll is more expensive. What has changed in the economics to make it cheaper for the film manufacturer to sell the same amount of film as cassettes as they sell in a bulk roll?

pentaxuser

Gunfleet · Aug 26, 2014

Thanks David. I thought I was going mad. In fairness you can get Kentmere 400 30.5 metres for forty quid, but I have little idea how that compares in terms of performance. I think the bulk loader is going back in the loft.

summicron1 · Aug 26, 2014

Ilford in bulk is half the price of tri-x,or at least was when I bought 200 feet last month. Explain that, why don't you?

John Bragg · Aug 26, 2014

summicron1 said:
Ilford in bulk is half the price of tri-x,or at least was when I bought 200 feet last month. Explain that, why don't you?

Ilford is committed to supporting the film photographer. We should show them loyalty in return. I have found a new liking for HP5+ as well as my usual Tri-X. If I was still bulk loading then that would be my choice.

Hatchetman · Aug 26, 2014

there was a big thread about this a couple months back.

PtJudeRI · Aug 26, 2014

Wait it out. Deals pop up on the bay and a few other places from time to time. A gent on here was selling 100' packs of Tri-x a few months back for $45 a pop.

RattyMouse · Aug 26, 2014

John Bragg said:
Ilford is committed to supporting the film photographer. We should show them loyalty in return.

Absolutely spot on.

Michael W · Aug 26, 2014

Earlier in 2014 Kodak (Alaris?) pretty much doubled the price of bulk 35mm but left single rolls unchanged. Madness.

JW PHOTO · Aug 26, 2014

Michael W said:
Earlier in 2014 Kodak (Alaris?) pretty much doubled the price of bulk 35mm but left single rolls unchanged. Madness.

Obviously the name Kodak is worth twice as much as the name Ilford! Just a matter of sucking the life out of a well known name and a film with a very good reputation. I won't buy it just for GP. I'd rather spend my money on HP5+ or Delta 400 from a company that seems to be bending over backwards to try to keep us happy. Is Ilford perfect? No! At least they try. JW

NB23 · Aug 27, 2014

David A. Goldfarb said:
This is why I stopped bulk loading 35mm film. It used to be 50% cheaper to bulk load, and now there is something of a premium on long rolls, at least from the major brands, or maybe the preloaded rolls are domestic, while the long roll is a special import, so there is often no savings. The price can vary by market and how the film is sourced, so you have to check it before deciding, but for the films I was bulk loading, it hasn't made sense to bulk load for the past five years or so.

What do you mean by "this is why I stopped..."? Getting your facts straight would be more helpful.

FP4+ or HP5+ is available for 50$-55$ per 100ft. roll and therefore it is indeed a 50% cheaper alternative.

Xmas · Aug 27, 2014

If you do a blind test on 16x20 of Kentmere, HP5+ and Trix off a tripod you need to get close to print to tell the difference, shadow and grain signature...

A can of 400 foot of Doublex in Oct13 was 124 GBP if you bought five off next day delivery, but at the same time Trix was 122 GBP for 100 foot in shop.

KA (more) greedy in '13 but both the (EK) cine and bulk have increased since by more than inflation and currency movement, Harman now cheaper / more convient so...

When films are the same what is brand loyalty...

I was shooting a wedding couple in '81 when a voice behind said what film are you using.

'Kodachrome 25'

Voice was grooms dad a Kodak employee his passing comment was we won't last long as we have let green boxes into every chemist (sic pharmacy) shop. Fuji had offered better deals to shops and customers.

In '60 the most local suburb pharmacy only had Kodak I needed to walk two blocks further to wedding photo shop to get Ilford 35mm - it was cheaper.

By '97 I needed to walk 2km further to get 120 Ektachrome from different wedding shop.

By '04 an additional 2km to get Fuji Velvia from dcamera shop they also gave me all their 3x packs of Fp4+ (expired) cause no one was using mono any more (promo Delta100 free in pack). I had asked to buy any mono as well as Velvia... Since I had bought all their Velvia and was a frequent customer for film cams as well as film since they said they did not sell expired. They had no Kodak film.

note it is easy to respool 400 foot to 100 foot even with changing bag- even if you are handicapped.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 27, 2014

NB23 said:
What do you mean by "this is why I stopped..."? Getting your facts straight would be more helpful.

FP4+ or HP5+ is available for 50$-55$ per 100ft. roll and therefore it is indeed a 50% cheaper alternative.

You didn't ask what films I was using. They weren't FP4+ or HP5+. Perhaps if they were, I wouldn't have stopped bulk loading.

Mostly I was using Provia 100F. In New York at the time, this was a special Japanese import, so the cost per roll was about the same as pre-rolled film.

To a lesser extent, I would roll Tri-X, but this also got to be about the same price per roll as preloaded film.

As I said, you have to check for the films you actually use, from the sources you actually have in your location.

pdeeh · Aug 27, 2014

location is all too often forgotten about in these types of threads
price and availability vary radically from country to country.
what can be got cheaply and readily in LA or RI might be two or three times the price in the UK (and the OP is in the UK)
almost without exception APUG classified ads for cheap film are from the US, and even if the seller is willing to ship abroad, shipping, import taxes and VAT soon kill any advantage.

The mystery of tri x

Gunfleet

Gunfleet

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

ciniframe

pentaxuser

Gunfleet

summicron1

John Bragg

Hatchetman

PtJudeRI

RattyMouse

Michael W

JW PHOTO

NB23

Xmas

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

pdeeh

The mystery of tri x

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency