Tri-X Pricing, OUCH!!!

[grat]

Don’t buy from gougers.

I never do. But someone posted the new prices online, and I checked them on Target's site. Depressing.

I typically buy from Freestyle, B&H, Adorama or Unique. I would support my local camera store, but it's 60+ miles away, and thus, not local.

 

[madNbad]

It is understandable that TriX is so popular, especially with young shooters.
After all, Trix is for kids..

Cap’n Huss with yet another pithy observation.

 

[Moose22]

It is understandable that TriX is so popular, especially with young shooters.
After all, Trix is for kids..

There's great irony in the fact that the young shooters won't get this joke.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is understandable that TriX is so popular, especially with young shooters.
After all, Trix is for kids..

Rolling Haha Sticker - Rolling Haha Rofl - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It is understandable that TriX is so popular, especially with young shooters.
After all, Trix is for kids..

 

[jwd722]

Pricing for anything that goes up pretty much stays there and only goes higher. I remember in 1969 my dad bought a new Chrysler Newport for $4000 and I thought OMG that's way too much for a car. How much do they cost now?? 4K can't even buy a running used car hardly.

I switched from Tri-X to bulk loading HP5+ and am now (recently) bulk loading Kentmere 400 and 100.

Since I mainly use Nikon, I take a digital body with me and sometimes "preview" a shot before committing it to film to find best angle, light, crop, worthiness, etc.. I also use Minolta AF so am purchasing an inexpensive Sony to do the same. Works similar to a vintage Polaroid shot which I did years ago for 4x5 work.

Medium and large format will always stay film only until I can't afford any.

 

[gone]

Tri-X is, of course, a legendary film. I like it a lot. But the Foma 100/400 films are wonderful too, if not as flexible in their EI. I really like them in the right developers. That would be my suggestion. At some point, as in right now, 10 rolls of those films will not be such a huge investment. You won't worry about the expense, it frees you to shoot more, and you get to be a better photographer.

Even if I was independently wealthy, I wouldn't pay the prices I'm seeing for a lot of films today. They're not worth it, not when there are other films that can look just as good at a fraction of the price. In fact, the Foma 100 in Rodinal looks more like the Tr-X of old than the current Kodak Tri-X does. So celebrate the price hikes, try something different, these crazy prices are only going to go up, that's a safe bet.

 

[Wallendo]

TX400 May be expensive, but to me is still worth it.

I love FP4+, but find HP5+ somewhat bland.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Tri-X is, of course, a legendary film. I like it a lot. But the Foma 100/400 films are wonderful too, if not as flexible in their EI. I really like them in the right developers. That would be my suggestion. At some point, as in right now, 10 rolls of those films will not be such a huge investment. You won't worry about the expense, it frees you to shoot more, and you get to be a better photographer.

Even if I was independently wealthy, I wouldn't pay the prices I'm seeing for a lot of films today. They're not worth it, not when there are other films that can look just as good at a fraction of the price. In fact, the Foma 100 in Rodinal looks more like the Tr-X of old than the current Kodak Tri-X does. So celebrate the price hikes, try something different, these crazy prices are only going to go up, that's a safe bet.

I will pay the freight so that Ilford and Kodak continue to make film.

 

[Harry Lime]

Tri-X just hit $13 a roll.

That's pretty brutal if you re shooting on a daily basis. I used to average 1-3 rolls a day, which at that price is not doable. Maybe 10-15 rolls at an event. Just 10 years ago $25-30 bought you a 'brick' of 10 rolls.

Bulk loading helps cut the cost, but still it's pretty darn expensive if you are trying to shoot a project of reasonable size.

I just hope Kodak doesn't price themselves out of the market. Tri-X is supposedly Kodak's best selling film, but I also believe it is the most expensive film they sell, which doesn't make a lot of sense given the economies of scale.

It may be time to switch to HP4+, especially if you bulk load.

 

[alanrockwood]

Maybe it's time for me to switch my black and white shooting to half frame and also I could be more selective with my shots. Those two measures (as well as bulk loading and using less expensive brands) could bring the cost down considerably for me. On the other hand, I do not go through large volumes of film anyway, and I actually have a backlog of undeveloped rolls that I should probably process before shooting much more film.

And by the way, who else besides me is old enough to remember the ads for the bulk loaders that claimed a penny per shot? Those days are really long gone aren't they.

 

[snusmumriken]

I just bought a 400ft reel of Double-X for £250 including shipping, which works out at £3.37 per 36-exposure film. To quote prices from one supplier here in the UK, that compares with £6.26 for re-spooled Double-X or £10.00 for Tri-X. Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ are £7.82.

I probably now have enough film to last the rest of my life, so that worry is over. However, I also ordered some Ilford paper, and the price was up 25% from this time last year.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Buying bulk 100ft spools used to be the way to go, but if you look at Kodaks pricing on its bulk rolls, you might die of sticker shock. You'll save pretty much nothing. The only nice thing that I like about bulk-roll your own is that I can make short rolls of 10 or 12 exposures. For me, that's great since I don't use 35mm hardly at all anymore.

 

[GregY]

I have a soft spot for Tri-X that HP5 never hit. In the mountain town where i live, a café latté and a croissant costs $10, and is gone faster than a roll of Tri-X. In the last year, gas, food, all kinds of things have gone up more than the posted inflation rate. I rarely print on 20"x24" anymore, unless for a client..... but i'll continue to use Tri-X....(I'm not against Ilford.... FP4+ is still my favourite slower film)

 

[MattKing]

I've recently learned a bit more about Kodak's bulk film conundrum.
The entire Eastman Kodak bulk roll infrastructure was set up many decades ago for things like school and high volume portrait photo market cameras and other institutional users. Customers who would buy thousands of feet at a time. Bulk roll production for users like us was an afterthought and could only be done cheaply when the school photo and similar customers had the infrastructure running at high capacity anyways. The machines and people that do this now at Eastman Kodak are, relatively speaking, very manual, slow and expensive - very expensive when compared to the highly mechanized production of single rolls.
In contrast, Ilford/Harman and others only ever had in place small scale production equipment - the type that produces the bulk films that photographers like us use today. The costs for that are closer to the costs for producing single rolls.
So back in the day, struggled to compete in the school photography market, but were competitive in the hobbyist bulk film market. Now it is the case that the hobbyist market is the only one left.

 

[madNbad]

Helps to explain why the cost of a bulk roll of Tri-X has doubled in the last few years. Average now is $150 usd for a hundred foot roll.

 

[VinceInMT]

Film photography is somewhat like one of my other endeavors: vintage foreign cars. Like film, parts can be pricey but at this point when I am looking for something for my 1959 Volvo, I'm just happy that I can still get the part.

 

[madNbad]

I've recently learned a bit more about Kodak's bulk film conundrum.
The entire Eastman Kodak bulk roll infrastructure was set up many decades ago for things like school and high volume portrait photo market cameras and other institutional users. Customers who would buy thousands of feet at a time. Bulk roll production for users like us was an afterthought and could only be done cheaply when the school photo and similar customers had the infrastructure running at high capacity anyways. The machines and people that do this now at Eastman Kodak are, relatively speaking, very manual, slow and expensive - very expensive when compared to the highly mechanized production of single rolls.
In contrast, Ilford/Harman and others only ever had in place small scale production equipment - the type that produces the bulk films that photographers like us use today. The costs for that are closer to the costs for producing single rolls.
So back in the day, struggled to compete in the school photography market, but were competitive in the hobbyist bulk film market. Now it is the case that the hobbyist market is the only one left.

Perhaps for many years, Kodak was geared toward the production of movie stock and kept making consumer films at a reduced rate while Ilford continued to treat consumers as the primary market?

 

[MattKing]

Helps to explain why the cost of a bulk roll of Tri-X has doubled in the last few years. Average now is $150 usd for a hundred foot roll.

$341.00 CDN at one Canadian internet "store" that I was looking at yesterday.
The price is high, the stores aren't buying it from the distributors, so the distributors aren't stocking it, so the price is even higher.

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps for many years, Kodak was geared toward the production of movie stock and kept making consumer films at a reduced rate while Ilford continued to treat consumers as the primary market?

Ilford currently sells more black and white still film than Kodak.
Ilford didn't used to have nearly the international distribution that Kodak's black and white film did - thus the volumes for Ilford were lower.
And then the still film markets nearly collapsed, Kodak and Ilford went into receivership or bankruptcy, and everything changed.
It isn't really the film coating where the differences are most important. It is all the rest - including the distribution.

 

[Huss]

I am very happy using Kentmere 400, even if I have TriX. I like that Kentmere has more of that old school B&W vibe to it. And I can now get two rolls of Kentmere 400 36exp for less than one roll of TriX!

 

[GregY]

Tri-X just hit $13 a roll.

That's pretty brutal if you re shooting on a daily basis. I used to average 1-3 rolls a day, which at that price is not doable. Maybe 10-15 rolls at an event. Just 10 years ago $25-30 bought you a 'brick' of 10 rolls.

Bulk loading helps cut the cost, but still it's pretty darn expensive if you are trying to shoot a project of reasonable size.

I just hope Kodak doesn't price themselves out of the market. Tri-X is supposedly Kodak's best selling film, but I also believe it is the most expensive film they sell, which doesn't make a lot of sense given the economies of scale.

It may be time to switch to HP4+, especially if you bulk load.

Harry, 'just 10 years ago $25-30' bought a lot of things.... like gas @ $1.93/gal ....for example. $13 is the cost of doing business. There are still (as always) less expensive alternatives.... but if Tri-X is your thing (i like it), i use it for paid work, overseas travel photos....images of value to me. If you think $13 is expensive have. a look at 20"x24" paper, or large format sheet film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Harry, 'just 10 years ago $25-30' bought a lot of things.... like gas @ $1.93/gal ....for example. $13 is the cost of doing business. There are still (as always) less expensive alternatives.... but if Tri-X is your thing (i like it), i use it for paid work, overseas travel photos....images of value to me. If you think $13 is expensive have. a look at 20"x24" paper, or large format sheet film.

I agree. Other things have gotten more expensive and painful, such as dental work. At least Tri-X does not cause physical pain. But heck, someone has to stimulate the economy.

 

[Arcadia4]

However it does pay to shop around, tri-x price varies from about £10 best to £12 for a 36exp roll in uk, i see b&h charges about £9 in the us. Hp5 can be had for £6.5 here but plenty of places charge £7 - £8 or more.

The differential is more stark in 120, tri-x is £55-60 5 pk so whilst ilfords prices have gone up, hp5 is now half the cost. £27.50 by comparison.

 

[Sirius Glass]

However it does pay to shop around, tri-x price varies from about £10 best to £12 for a 36exp roll in uk, i see b&h charges about £9 in the us. Hp5 can be had for £6.5 here but plenty of places charge £7 - £8 or more.

The differential is more stark in 120, tri-x is £55-60 5 pk so whilst ilfords prices have gone up, hp5 is now half the cost. £27.50 by comparison.

It is always a good idea to comparison shop for anything, especially cameras, lenses and film.