On another related thread (there was a url link here which no longer exists), I give my thoughts as to why Kodak would discontinue TXP...
Yes, and in that thread it was pointed out to you that the 120 and sheet films are separately manufactured on different bases.
...The cost of manufacturing is the lesser cost;...Thus, if it costs $50k to manufacture a small roll which sells for $75k over a two/three year period, is $25k worth the time, effort and cost for such a realistically small market...
Kodak doesn't manufacture a "small roll" of any film. Your numbers appear to be pure conjecture, based, it seems, on absolutely nothing. I have no hard knowledge about how much sheet 320TXP sells, only observations based on a major retailer's stock status and the expiration dates when I purchase film. If you are privy to Kodak's 320TXP sales data, please share it. And please tell us how you got around the proprietary information disclosure restrictions.
...I am unaware of a large format only film anywhere in the market. Does anyone know of a commerically available film that can only be bought in sheets and not rolls or canisters? Given the small market for sheet film, any business would likely not consider it worth the time and extra costs.
This is a red herring. Kodak is currently offering "Tri-X" in rolls and sheets. In rolls it's 400TX and in sheets it's 320TXP. No different than making any other "film" in rolls and sheets. Same double manufacturing runs, same double storage and finishing. The only difference is they use a different recipe when preparing the emulsions for each run. I'm not even certain that's a difference. TMY-2 differs between sheets and roll; is the UV absorber a separate layer simply omitted for sheets or is it mixed / not mixed in a layer that's coated on both? Ron?
...320TXP and Tri-X (ASA 400) are two different films with different formulations and characteristics. I think Kodak still sells a lot (relatively speaking) of Tri-X 400 in all formats...
Yes, they're different, but Kodak calls them both "Tri-X." It offers no lower-level detail when advertising that "Tri-X is the world's best selling black and white film." Do you have specific knowledge of the sales volume distribution? I don't.
...320TXP was intended as a pro film for use primarily in studio portraits. Since the studio pros have mostly moved to digital, the demand has probably collapsed..
Studio pros abandoned sheet film for rolls long before they went digital. Digital probably killed 320TXP in rolls, but it seems unlikely to have had a significant impact on sheets. Most users of sheet 320TXP are amateurs and "fine art photographers."
...There's not enough of a difference between 320TXP and Tri-X 400 to attract new fans to the film...Maybe there are enough LF shooters out there to keep both 320TXP and Tri-X 400 alive in the coming years, but I would be surprised.
Their common name ("Tri-X") is the real problem. 320TXP in sheets competes with other sheet films, not with roll films. In my opinion, it's sufficiently unique to have a competitive advantage in that market. I'm not certain how long Kodak will be in the film business period, but, if 320TXP disappears before Kodak's other sheet films,
I'll be surprised. Disappointed perhaps. Not shocked. My freezer is filling with the stuff while it's still easily purchased in a very fresh condition. It's that special.
I
am concerned that self-fulfilling Internet prophecies will hasten the demise of products which might otherwise remain commercially viable further into the future. When it's over, it's over, but why indirectly discourage anyone from using a film by posting speculative predictions without real supporting data?
One other thing to note. Purchasing a 10-sheet box of 8x10 film puts as much revenue in Kodak's coffers and uses as large a percentage of a master roll as buying 10 rolls in 120. The best way to keep film manufacturers in business is to move up-format. ULF anyone?
