I buy Kodak Fuji Negative Color Film from Grocery , yes you read it right. I shoot 2 rolls in two months and wait another two months to order process. Another point , I shoot these two rolls in 15 minutes. It makes I shoot 90 minutes a year.
Tri X
-
A
- Thread starter John cox
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 34
- Format
- Multi Format
no 320 = no Tri-X (let alone 400)
For me the Tri-X was already dead in the water when they discontinued the mighty Tri-X 320 in 120 roll format (was shortly continued only in 4x5" that I even considered converting into this format just because of this film).
I don't know why but the 320 was just like from another planet compared to the 400 although the emulsion supposed to be the same(?) The 400 while good film it just never quite didn't "hit the spot" for me while the 320 did wonders for me and I even shot them in parallel to be sure I don't mess up something between them, the 320 was still the clear winner and the most versatile film I've EVER shot - from portrait, architecture to landscape, it just works everywhere giving images a distinct character while the 400 was just a dull b&w that barely fit doing semi-decent portraits for me, I never understood the fuss around the Tri-X 400 being some worldbeater film while the 320 ran circles around it from my experiences.
Would be interesting to know what was the actual emulsion/backing difference between 400 & 320 versions?
I'd kill for Kodak (erm, or some future aquireing company) to bring back the Tri-X 320 in 220(preferred) or 120 roll format, it was that good that now I'd gladly pay "silly money" ($8+) per roll for it (no joke!
) just to have it back and support it going on.
For me the Tri-X was already dead in the water when they discontinued the mighty Tri-X 320 in 120 roll format (was shortly continued only in 4x5" that I even considered converting into this format just because of this film).
I don't know why but the 320 was just like from another planet compared to the 400 although the emulsion supposed to be the same(?) The 400 while good film it just never quite didn't "hit the spot" for me while the 320 did wonders for me and I even shot them in parallel to be sure I don't mess up something between them, the 320 was still the clear winner and the most versatile film I've EVER shot - from portrait, architecture to landscape, it just works everywhere giving images a distinct character while the 400 was just a dull b&w that barely fit doing semi-decent portraits for me, I never understood the fuss around the Tri-X 400 being some worldbeater film while the 320 ran circles around it from my experiences.
Would be interesting to know what was the actual emulsion/backing difference between 400 & 320 versions?
I'd kill for Kodak (erm, or some future aquireing company) to bring back the Tri-X 320 in 220(preferred) or 120 roll format, it was that good that now I'd gladly pay "silly money" ($8+) per roll for it (no joke!
) just to have it back and support it going on.
I agree with you totally, tsklonaut. TXP 320 is in a league of its own. I was sleeping when Kodak discontinued both 125 Plus-X and TXP 320 in 120 format.
TXP 320 sheets and the 160 and 400 Portras are Kodak's best still -manufactured products. These are like Gold as far as I am concerned. Stockpile it now like crazy - 35mm, rolls, sheet sizes to 8x10.
Everything else they have you can get as good - if not better with Fuji and Ilford - but not for long.
TXP 320 sheets and the 160 and 400 Portras are Kodak's best still -manufactured products. These are like Gold as far as I am concerned. Stockpile it now like crazy - 35mm, rolls, sheet sizes to 8x10.
Everything else they have you can get as good - if not better with Fuji and Ilford - but not for long.
A few years ago I purchased two fifty sheet boxes of 8"x10" Tri-X film as well as a twenty-five sheet box of Ilford Delta 400 in 8"x10" size (all being stored safely in my garage freezer). I am so glad that I did because the cost of film has sky rocketed since then, and the Delta 400 is no longer even made in that size. Now 8"x10" Tri-X only comes in ten sheet boxes at the outlandish price of more than six or seven dollars per sheet! I can only expect the prices to go up since everything else is getting more and more expensive. By all means, do yourself a favor and stock pile NOW!
Kodak took their current pricing model, for sheet film anyway, from the kid with the lemonade stand who priced it at $500 per glass. When told he wouldn't get many customers at that price he replied, "I know, but I only need one."
Not that other films haven't gone up, but Ilford is superb quality and much cheaper than Kodak in sheets. I still shoot Kodak in 4x5 but if I get into 8x10 I won't. Just not worth it compared to Ilford.
Not that other films haven't gone up, but Ilford is superb quality and much cheaper than Kodak in sheets. I still shoot Kodak in 4x5 but if I get into 8x10 I won't. Just not worth it compared to Ilford.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,932
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Depends what you are doing, Roger. If Kodak 8x10 gives you the shot with just one sheet, and you
know you've got it, it might be cheaper than guessing or shooting more than one sheet. When I wanted to goof off I'd use out-of-date bargain film. But when paying full price, you'd be amazed how
careful 8X10 can make you behave, esp if it's color film involved. But like large format in general,
at the end of the year, you might have more seriously printable shots on hand than the machine-
gunners with smaller gear. I already have too many. Now it's hoping I live long enough to print some
of them, and wondering how classy a dumpster my heirs will choose to dispose of the prints.
know you've got it, it might be cheaper than guessing or shooting more than one sheet. When I wanted to goof off I'd use out-of-date bargain film. But when paying full price, you'd be amazed how
careful 8X10 can make you behave, esp if it's color film involved. But like large format in general,
at the end of the year, you might have more seriously printable shots on hand than the machine-
gunners with smaller gear. I already have too many. Now it's hoping I live long enough to print some
of them, and wondering how classy a dumpster my heirs will choose to dispose of the prints.
I do understand that Drew. If Kodak meets your needs much better it might be less expensive than fooling around trying to make Ilford behave like Kodak. OTOH my needs are pretty simple for straightforward darkroom printing. For that, Ilford has always worked well for me in 35mm and 120 (I haven't shot Ilford in 4x5 but I'm getting sorely tempted as the price of Kodak has escalated so far.) In color you have little choice anyway. But from B&H Ilford 8x10 is $3.48 to $3.58 per sheet depending on which Ilford film, while Kodak ranges from $5.49 for TXP to $8.49 for TMY-2 to an outrageous $9.39 for TMX.
Wow....you large format people have to spend enormous money per image. I like slowing down with film compared to digital, but shooting only a few shots per week would kill me.
I don't shoot 8x10, not yet anyway. 4x5 is slow but not THAT slow. I can go out with one of my medium format cameras and shoot a roll or so, maybe partial rolls of more than one emulsion with my 645 with interchangeable backs. 12 shots on the Yashicamat or 15 on the Mamiya. In the same time I'd shoot a few sheets of 4x5, maybe two or three photos and a couple of sheets each.
I have trouble shooting 36x of 35mm. I have a roll of Provia in one 35mm body that's been there since July (almost finished though) and a roll of Rollei IR that I loaded in September (2/3s done) and a roll of Neopan 1600 someone on here gave me in exchange for an eventual print from it that's been in the camera for MONTHS. I really need to finish all three up as none are my most used films.
12-15 in medium format is just about perfect. I find my film costs are pretty similar whether I shoot 35mm, 120 or 4x5. I think 8x10 would escalate that a lot, though.
I have trouble shooting 36x of 35mm. I have a roll of Provia in one 35mm body that's been there since July (almost finished though) and a roll of Rollei IR that I loaded in September (2/3s done) and a roll of Neopan 1600 someone on here gave me in exchange for an eventual print from it that's been in the camera for MONTHS. I really need to finish all three up as none are my most used films.
12-15 in medium format is just about perfect. I find my film costs are pretty similar whether I shoot 35mm, 120 or 4x5. I think 8x10 would escalate that a lot, though.
I agree, 15 shots in medium format really seems ideal. I am sorely tempted to go 6 x 7, but the 10 shots/roll seems like a step back. I still might do it if I can figure out my place in the film world. I am still struggling with this because the printing situation is SOOOO different from back when I shot film full time. All the advantages of film (to me) are in the print, and despite shooting 40 rolls of film so far, I have yet to see a single print. It is so damn hard to get prints made here in China. Developing and scanning, no problem, but a print? BIIIG problem.
Most of us don't pay that much; Kodak is pricing themselves out of business. Ilford, Arista (Foma) from Freestyle are all cheaper although excellent films and I'd you really want to go cheap there's always X-ray film.
Look at it this way: a sheet of 8x10 film has about the same surface area as a 36 exp. roll of 35mm and I can get it for about the same price. Not much difference, really.
Mike
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 28
- Format
- Multi Format
Well, looking at it as price per square inch, it's really not that bad. When I bought some 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-x this year, it was like $5.50 per sheet. Not bad, but of course not great. But if you think that price is "bad," go to JapanExposures.com and see what Fuji Acros 8x10 costs: y14,690. That's about the price for Kodak color 8x10 film. So I'll shoot Kodak Tri-x while I can get it in the store, and then I'll be shooting Ilford. Yes, I absolutely agree that Ilford is great film. I sure wish that I could get Delta 3200 in sheet format!
You guys that are using the bulk film. May I ask what bulk loader you are using and what are you using for new/used film canisters?
Additionally, never having used or even seen anyone use a bulk loader.......is it hard? Can I do it on my kitchen counter or do I need to be in the dark? Seriously, for a noob, will this be hard to do?
I really haven't looked, are any of the E-6 slide films available in bulk? I am trying to switch to much more slide film usage and getting away from negative type film.....what are my options? I mainly will be using 120, with some 35mm usage too.
Thanks,
Bob E.
Additionally, never having used or even seen anyone use a bulk loader.......is it hard? Can I do it on my kitchen counter or do I need to be in the dark? Seriously, for a noob, will this be hard to do?
I really haven't looked, are any of the E-6 slide films available in bulk? I am trying to switch to much more slide film usage and getting away from negative type film.....what are my options? I mainly will be using 120, with some 35mm usage too.
Thanks,
Bob E.
I have not had a friendly camera shop here for at least ten years, 1 shop that stocks ilford B/W film only, and only 6 rolls of 120 at any time, and I don't use Ilford, so I have been getting my film mail order for a long time, not a problem, and much cheaper than buying from a film, and I can phone an order though today, it will be here within 2 days so I don't even have to hold vast quantities in stock, mail order beats shop buying any time, at least for me,
Richard
Richard
SavetyBob. Youtube is your friend. There are a bunch of videos on how to use them. You need darkness only when loading the big roll into the loader. You can do that in a dark bag. Then there are plastic and metal canisters to choose from. Opinions vary between the two types. For film availability, check out the major online retailers. It can save you a bunch of money.
I use the Llyod because it's stone simple and wastes less film. All of them expose some of the film closest to the spool so you can't just wind until your camera won't wind, or you'll have the final frame fogged. Others like the designs with the mechanical frame counters. The Llyod's has a felt light trap. Some people worry about scratches if it gets grit embedded in it. While that could certainly happen, if you keep it even reasonably clean it won't, in my experience. No one worries about the felt trap on a film cartridge, and the film passes through that at least twice, three times if you don't open the end in the darkroom.
No, it's not hard. It's actually pretty easy, but can be a bit fidlly especially at first. You will need to load the 100'* roll of bulk film into the loader in total darkness, but once it's loaded you can close the loader and then load all your film cartridges in room light. (*Some films used to also be available in 50' lengths and occasionally shorter but I haven't seen one shorter than 100' in many years. If it's still sold that way I'm not aware of it.)
Kodak E6 is no longer made at all of course, and hadn't been available in bulk for some time but some might still be around. Fuji is not available in bulk AFAIK. I've heard the Rollei CR200 film is, but I haven't actually seen it listed for sale in bulk.
AFAIK color neg is not available either, other than re-packaged motion picture film (and then there are issues with the processing to be dealt with.)
To my knowledge only black and white films are still readily available in bulk rolls.
....I didn't bother reading the rest of the posts, but I live in Canada too and Henry's sells 100ft bulk rolls cheaper than anywhere in the world I'm told. Even B&H doesn't match them. But don't tell Henry's...just keep buying. I get my brother to buy them for me for an additional 10% off for student discounts, so I get like 6 bulk rolls at a time. Works out to less than $3/roll for me. I have about 8 in my freezer right now and looking to buy more.
Bulk rolls of Tri-X are $10 cheaper than Henys at Beau Photo... Even cheaper if you buy 20+ at a time. I don't shoot 35mm but I just picked up a pile of 120 Tri-X from them.
Maybe I'm just not navigating the site right, but I looked at Beau's and they seem to only have a few films available, and only in 35mm film, except the TIP film they have which is the "cool" film, which is the old generation film that's all bad and not the "color protection" film that TIP now sells, so what am I missing?
~Stone
http://www.stonenyc.com
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 62
- Format
- Multi Format
Just wanted to that I am another ontario film shooter that buys from the states. I regularly buy from BHphoto and freestyle. We have a darkroom at work (sometimes god smiles at you) and we have been getting our chemistry there too.
The shipping is not too bad from these places and you know what it is before you place the order. I have ordered some of that Arista tri x stuff and it worked out to be cheap.
The shipping is not too bad from these places and you know what it is before you place the order. I have ordered some of that Arista tri x stuff and it worked out to be cheap.
even with the price creep, Arista Premium is still a better option (for me and many others I'm presuming) than bulking. Less work and fresh cassettes.
fwiw, as of a few seconds ago, Henrys was listing 100' Tri X for....get this, $104.99. Pretty sure that's a typo though
fwiw, as of a few seconds ago, Henrys was listing 100' Tri X for....get this, $104.99. Pretty sure that's a typo though
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
At least in Germany it was always available in bulk. There are several films made by Agfa-Gevaert available in bulk as 35mm and 70mm, including the infrared ones, all reasonably priced.
In Germany Tri X is priced even more than that. Think ~ $130 Of course almost nobody buy it. You can get a few 100' perfect Fomapan rolls for that price.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait can you link that site where I can buy fresh 70mm?? Infrared you say?? In 70mm?? Please share that precious info!
~Stone
The Important Ones - Canon: AE-1, 1V | Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Mamiya: RZ67 Pro II, 7 II
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
Sure, http://www.macodirect.de/rollei-infrared-400sbr70mm-305m-p-428.html
Rollei Infrared 400S 70mm x 30,5m
Double perforated, 70mm x 30.5m,.
Suitable for Hasselblad 70mm film magazine.
Rollei Infrared 400S 70mm x 30,5m
Double perforated, 70mm x 30.5m,.
Suitable for Hasselblad 70mm film magazine.
Thank you this is awesome!!
~Stone
The Important Ones - Canon: AE-1, 1V | Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Mamiya: RZ67 Pro II, 7 II
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |