Tri-x 8x10 only in 10 sheet boxes now

[Troy]

Has this been discussed here?

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000002900

 

[PhotoJim]

Unfortunate, but far better than outright discontinuation of the product...

 

[Troy]

It's even MORE expensive at B&H... almost five bucks a sheet. Screw that!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533812-USA/Kodak_8179707_TXP_4164_8x10_Tri_X.html

 

[boyooso]

One more nail in the coffin of Tri-X. That is too bad, how about Tmax films, not that i use them, but has the same happened to them?

Someone recently made me aware that Fuji isn't importing 50sht boxes of RVP iso 50 That is terrible too.

HP5+ isn't so bad, I've actually come to like it in Pyrocat HD

Corey

 

[Alex Hawley]

The new Tmax 400 8x10 comes in 10 sheet boxes.

 

[RoBBo]

One more nail in the coffin of Tri-X. That is too bad, how about Tmax films, not that i use them, but has the same happened to them?

Someone recently made me aware that Fuji isn't importing 50sht boxes of RVP iso 50 That is terrible too.

HP5+ isn't so bad, I've actually come to like it in Pyrocat HD

Corey

Well there's always megaperls eh?
I ordered some Acros in 4x5 from them and it arrived promptly and cheaply yesterday, and they've got it up to 8x10!
I can't even wait to start shooting this stuff.

 

[Troy]

Acros 8x10 is $121.13 per 20 sheets from them. That's al little over $6 a sheet. Yikes! Tri-x is still cheaper than that.

Well there's always megaperls eh?
I ordered some Acros in 4x5 from them and it arrived promptly and cheaply yesterday, and they've got it up to 8x10!
I can't even wait to start shooting this stuff.

 

[Jordan.K]

I thought it now comes in both 50 sheet and 10 sheet? If it seriously only comes in ten sheet boxes then that is just dumb. Seriously what a waste of cardboard and overall packaging.............. I love Tri-X, but if this how Kodak plans on rewarding a loyal Tri-X user then I will finally switch over to Ilford films. I have wanted to switch for a while to support the good people over at Ilford.......... can you guys recommend the Ilford equivalent? Thanks.

 

[PhotoJim]

Ilford HP-5 Plus. Nice film. Not the same, better in some ways, inferior in others, but overall, a similarly good film.

 

[johnnywalker]

HP5+ isn't so bad,

Corey

Damned by faint praise!!

 

[John Kasaian]

IIRC Badger Graphic has 50 sheet boxes

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, it's kind of annoying, but I've got bigger boxes on hand to repack the little ones for when I travel with the 8x10" camera.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I hope this is not the case. I won't buy a 10 sheet box of film... damn. Delta 100 I guess, at least that comes in 25 though I would prefer 50.

 

[Troy]

The point, for me isn't the box, it's the price hike. $170 per 50 sheets is about $3.50 a sheet, compared to $47 per 10 working out to $4.70 a sheet. I don't like the thought of testing new film. I love my Tri-x in Rodinal. But at these prices!

 

[RoBBo]

Acros 8x10 is $121.13 per 20 sheets from them. That's al little over $6 a sheet. Yikes! Tri-x is still cheaper than that.

Just realized it's available on Badger for a good 40$ less.
And the 4x5 for 26 instead of 33+shipping from japan.
Wow.

 

[donbga]

Has this been discussed here?

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000002900

Better than 0 sheets per box!

 

[mjs]

Based on what their web site says (you have to look into the technical information sheets,) all of Kodak's 8x10 B&W film will now come only in 10 sheet boxes. There are still some remaining stocks of film in the 50 sheet boxes, but when they've moved through the system only the 10 sheet packs remain. From what I've seen of websites which have the new film, prices went up, too, to $3.79 per sheet from Freestyle (Tri-X.)

Personally, I can't fathom what's going through the big brains at Kodak. Why on Earth would I want to buy film in 10-sheet boxes, unless it was new to me and I just wanted to try it out? Even then, ten sheets probably isn't enough. I can understand wanting to reduce the perception of price from 50-sheet boxes (at roughly $160 each,) but wouldn't 25 sheet boxes make more sense?

Ah, well. Kodak's sheet film sales will fall and the Big Brains in the front office will use it as justification for re-investing into something that will pretty up the balance sheet for a quarter or two. Kodak brand muffins, anyone? Lemon-yellow frosting, yum! Sorry, Kodak: I gave up on you when you dropped paper. Ilford has committed to the market, so Ilford gets my money. Nothing personal, just business: I need vendors I can rely on.

Mike

 

[Tim Boehm]

It's a double whammy - reduce content, raise prices. You see that a lot in the potato chip and protein bar isles. Bizness skules teach those abusive concepts. Have you heard about the guy who worked at a lemon drop company? He saved them a million bucks by reducing each bag of lemon drops by one (without lowering the price.) That’s pretty sneaky, he knew no one counts lemon drops. However, we APUG folks are perceptive, and we can count too.

That’s what Kodak is doing; one of their MBAs probably came up with the idea. Kodak may be telling us, “Look folks, we’re not making enough money with film, and if you don’t accept this, that will be our excuse to stop making it.” Well, they could at least let us send the empty boxes for reduced-cost refills. Nah, those MBAs will stick us with a $5.00 surcharge per box; that’s the way they think, I’ve been in a few of those "learned" classes.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Based on what their web site says (you have to look into the technical information sheets,) all of Kodak's 8x10 B&W film will now come only in 10 sheet boxes. There are still some remaining stocks of film in the 50 sheet boxes, but when they've moved through the system only the 10 sheet packs remain. From what I've seen of websites which have the new film, prices went up, too, to $3.79 per sheet from Freestyle (Tri-X.)

Personally, I can't fathom what's going through the big brains at Kodak. Why on Earth would I want to buy film in 10-sheet boxes, unless it was new to me and I just wanted to try it out? Even then, ten sheets probably isn't enough. I can understand wanting to reduce the perception of price from 50-sheet boxes (at roughly $160 each,) but wouldn't 25 sheet boxes make more sense?

Ah, well. Kodak's sheet film sales will fall and the Big Brains in the front office will use it as justification for re-investing into something that will pretty up the balance sheet for a quarter or two. Kodak brand muffins, anyone? Lemon-yellow frosting, yum! Sorry, Kodak: I gave up on you when you dropped paper. Ilford has committed to the market, so Ilford gets my money. Nothing personal, just business: I need vendors I can rely on.

Mike

Reality check

Kodak made a decision based upon market intelligence to package their film in a certain quantity. If you are not confortable or happy about this decision or the purchase price then you are perfectly within your rights as a consumer in a free market economy to opt for an offering more to your suiting. We could be so fortunate.

To make the ascertion that because Kodak is not complying with your desire in sheet film packaging quantity they will lose money and continuing to make poor corporate decisions demonstrates your lack of understanding of the real business world. Get over it and get on with life.

Go purchase a freezer full of Ilford film and make some photographs. We will all be the better for it. Complaining about things accomplished nothing.

 

[PhotoJim]

That’s what Kodak is doing; one of their MBAs probably came up with the idea. Kodak may be telling us, “Look folks, we’re not making enough money with film, and if you don’t accept this, that will be our excuse to stop making it.” Well, they could at least let us send the empty boxes for reduced-cost refills. Nah, those MBAs will stick us with a $5.00 surcharge per box; that’s the way they think, I’ve been in a few of those "learned" classes.

I have an MBA, and I have to take exception to these stereotypes. Saying that about MBAs is just as bad as accusing film photographers of clinging to the past.

I don't know what Kodak's motivation was here, but I agree that it was a little short-sighted. 25-sheet boxes might have been a better compromise.

Frankly, the packaging is not that expensive (and it's recyclable anyway), but I'm sure the demand for large boxes of 8x10 film is dropping. So far, all I shoot is 4x5, and the largest box of that film I've purchased is 25 sheets. It takes me awhile to go through a box of it (because I shoot two or three different types of film, depending on the available light and the results I'm seeking).

Anyway, MBAs aren't idiots. We aren't taught to blindly make decisions. Business decisions need to be made in context, considering customer demand, costs of production, costs of carrying stock, costs of distribution, etc., etc., etc. Business decisions aren't made in a vacuum. If companies make dumb business decisions, it's not because they have MBAs, it's because they have bad MBAs (just like bad film images aren't the result of film photographers, they're the result of bad film photographers).

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Packaging a film in 10 sheet boxes only doesn't alter the photographers requirements, for those of us who like to take on projects that use a lot of film. I work on my personal b/w project about one day a week. In that long day, I shoot about 60 sheets of 5x7 b/w film. If it were 8x10 (which I may go to) it would be the same number of sheets, as the quantity used is dictated by the project and subject matter. I like the fact that I can get Fomapan 200 in 50 sheet boxes (Arista label). I would get very frustrated if I had to open multiple 10 sheet boxes just to load up the film for one days shooting. I don't see what the deal is with packing 8x10 in 50 sheet boxes. It's not like each emulsion has to have a custom offset printed label, since the label is the adhesive seal..it is just printed by inkjet anyway. The box can stay the same throughout all the b/w films in a given format. I would also think Kodak could put 5, 10 sheet foil packs in a 50 sheet box. They do this with 25 sheet packs in a 4x5 50 sheet box, (2 to a box of 50 sheets 4x5 color transparency), and they used to put 4 25 sheet packs in boxes of 100 sheets 4x5 b/w.

But what do I know. I have only been shooting film for 45 years or so, and I like to load up enough holders for a whole day or more. I usually go out with 60 loaded holders, total of 120 sheets, sometimes more. When I am out, I want to shoot, not load and unload holders in a changing bag.

 

[John Kasaian]

Reality check

Kodak made a decision based upon market intelligence to package their film in a certain quantity. If you are not confortable or happy about this decision or the purchase price then you are perfectly within your rights as a consumer in a free market economy to opt for an offering more to your suiting. We could be so fortunate.

To make the ascertion that because Kodak is not complying with your desire in sheet film packaging quantity they will lose money and continuing to make poor corporate decisions demonstrates your lack of understanding of the real business world. Get over it and get on with life.

Go purchase a freezer full of Ilford film and make some photographs. We will all be the better for it. Complaining about things accomplished nothing.

Respectfully, there has been quite a bit of unfavorable comment on Kodak going to 10 sheet boxes. Weren't Kodaks "marketing intelligencia" listening?

That the price of film would increase can be expected, but to have to pay for more cardboard packaging and less film is just a bit insulting, is it not?

I mean, two big considerations when designing a product's packaging is convenience and economy. A ten sheet box isn't very convenient unless all you've got are five holders, and charging the consumer for the five boxes for the same amount of film that we have become acustom to getting in one slightly larger box can't be economical.

There are a lot of people who complain about Kodak, who absolutely hate Kodak for some reason of other, perhaps because Kodak discontinued a favorite product because it was unprofitable and a customer threw a temper tantrum. Too bad. But if sheet film is still profitable enought to produce and there are still customers (like me) who buy Kodak sheet film, why would Kodak "stick it" to loyal customers in this way?

Since you "know" Kodak, what explanation do they give?

Michael, if your "...complaining about things accomplishes nothing" remark echoes Kodak's sentiment then Old Yellow has indeed lost touch with consumers and the future will be just that much brighter for Ilford, Efke and Foma, but sadly not for Rochester and the Kodak employees who manufacture the film so many of us love.

Please convey my sympathies to the loyal employees of Kodak who have to watch as Old Yellow drives yet another nail into it's own coffin.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I would get very frustrated if I had to open multiple 10 sheet boxes just to load up the film for one days shooting.

Just wait until you order a few boxes and they all come from different batches. :rolleyes:

I guess the ten sheet boxes are great for people just starting out and not sure but how many people are jumping straight into 8x10?

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Respectfully, there has been quite a bit of unfavorable comment on Kodak going to 10 sheet boxes. Weren't Kodaks "marketing intelligencia" listening?

That the price of film would increase can be expected, but to have to pay for more cardboard packaging and less film is just a bit insulting, is it not?

I mean, two big considerations when designing a product's packaging is convenience and economy. A ten sheet box isn't very convenient unless all you've got are five holders, and charging the consumer for the five boxes for the same amount of film that we have become acustom to getting in one slightly larger box can't be economical.

There are a lot of people who complain about Kodak, who absolutely hate Kodak for some reason of other, perhaps because Kodak discontinued a favorite product because it was unprofitable and a customer threw a temper tantrum. Too bad. But if sheet film is still profitable enought to produce and there are still customers (like me) who buy Kodak sheet film, why would Kodak "stick it" to loyal customers in this way?

Since you "know" Kodak, what explanation do they give?

Michael, if your "...complaining about things accomplishes nothing" remark echoes Kodak's sentiment then Old Yellow has indeed lost touch with consumers and the future will be just that much brighter for Ilford, Efke and Foma, but sadly not for Rochester and the Kodak employees who manufacture the film so many of us love.

Please convey my sympathies to the loyal employees of Kodak who have to watch as Old Yellow drives yet another nail into it's own coffin.

This is not a case of Kodak walking away from the art of listening to their client base. I have been fortunate to gain access to the inner workings of this corporation and factually nothing could be further from the truth. Making a comparative analysis to the old Kodak to the new Kodak is meaningless because they are not the same company - not even close.

Two facts. Kodak spent over a million dollars of R&D to bring out the new technology we know as TMY(2). It is the sharpest 400 speed film available. Kodak felt that the optimal way to recover this sizeable investment was to reach new customers hence the smaller unit packaging. It was a decision made after a world wide film survey was conducted not spinning a random decision wheel in a managers office. They are kick starting their sheet film business virtually from scratch and want to recover this investment as soon as possible. Just because many of us are at the mature end of this consumer spectrum should not translate to feelings of being alienated. The objective should be the FILM. Improvements in the quality of the emulsion are going to cost more. I also have to remind people that in this day and age when film was predicted to be a thing of the past we not only still have it but we have companies willing to make it better. Call me old fashioned but I am feeling pretty damn good about the situation as we all should.

If I have learned anything it is that nothing in this business is static. As a function of time we can proactively get things to improve but I am not a fan of shooting ourselves in the foot just before we go to the big dance. We are all better served to let those that cannot for whatever reason get past the packaging to stop complaining about Kodak and go ahead and purchase other sheet film and stop the complaining. It is about making photographs and all of this negativity is terribly distracting. At the end of the day it is about using the film that meets the unique needs of the LF photographer. In closing all I want to say is that fortunately we have choices. Exercise them and we will all be the better for it. I don't want to come across as not caring because I do. I just feel that given the concessions that I have gotten Kodak to make earlier and within the last week they sometimes do not get the credit for listening to us. The best example of this is the fact that Kodak went to considerable expense to keep the UV coating out of the TMY(2) sheet film which was huge. Plus, they are showing a willingness to put the correct box size and the 20 or 25 sheet packaging in the next ULF sheet film deal. This speaks for itself.

Cheers!

 

[c6h6o3]

The objective should be the FILM.

And what a marvelous film TMY is. (Either one of them.) If they want to sell it in one sheet boxes I'll still buy it.

Thanks for all your efforts in helping to facilitate the bringing to (what is now a niche) market a truly first rate product. I find it miraculous that they're still making this stuff at all, much less that they're planning to do oddball sizes for us.