Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

[Pere Casals]

The Competition theory seems plausible for 400 speed film prices.

My idea is that Kodak makes more money by pricing one film size affordable and one size very expensive as a way to profit from people who want to use the same film in various formats including large. They can sell me affordable 120 tmy2 and make their money back on the LF options... Sort of like walmart selling a printer at cost and making money on the unobtanium plated USB cable, or ink refills. The reality is probably more likely that few photographers are hardcore consistent enough to demand the same film in all formats.

It's annoying that TMY price, one feels abused, but if it's for the sake Kodak film remains we cannot complain. Anyway I see a bad market practice for long term, as they discourage film usage. Perhaps a bad manager is there. Kodak had excellent technicians and not as good bussiness managers.

[jnantz]

It's annoying that TMY price, one feels abused, but if it's for the sake Kodak film remains we cannot complain. Anyway I see a bad market practice for long term, as they discourage film usage. Perhaps a bad manager is there. Kodak had excellent technicians and not as good bussiness managers.

they have good business managers, good films, high prices and it seems people will pay to get their product.
im glad someone is buying their film. while it is first rate product, they have priced themselves out of my wallet.
they have been raising their prices annually for decades, it is nothing new ... the thing that is new is
non-professionals buying what used to be top tier LF gear that used to cost thousands of dollars, now for a song and a dance,
and expecting the film to be equally inexpensive photography has always been expensive, the original "KODAK" cost 3 months salary
for the average person back in the 1880s.

[Pere Casals]

they have good business managers, good films and high prices that it seems people will pay to get their product.
im glad someone is buying their film. while it is first rate product, they have priced themselves out of my wallet.
they have been raising their prices annually for decades, it is nothing new ... the thing that is new is
non-professionals buying what used to be top tier LF gear that used to cost thousands of dollars, now for a song and a dance,
and expecting the film to be equally inexpensive photography has always been expensive, the original "KODAK" cost 3 months salary
for the average person back in the 1800s.

As a non professional, I think that film photography is not expensive at all, today. Problem is that sometimes we have GAS, "Gear Acquisition Syndrome"

If one needs to make money from photography it is another thing, or if one wants to add 100 to 1000 pictures to the computer disk every weekend. But for people that want to enjoy "presonal art" hobby... film price is not a problem, if it is more expensive you shot less pictures, and perhaps better pictures. Anyway one detects if somebody is chiseling you with film price.

I think I'm not able to shot more than one 8x10 sheet in a weekend, I would not have the spare time to process all as it deserves. If one weekend I shot 3 sheets I'll employ 2 additional weekends to process and print it. One has to know if by firing then one is to get the shot he wants.

Kodak comes from a multi billion industrial cartel bussiness, and his management structure does not suit the current market requirements, they are not close enough to every market niche. For example Ilford cuts ULF sheets in a yearly time window and Foma offers every format possible.

I feel that this 40% TMY price missmatch will finally kill the product, people will shot more TMX or Delta 100 (or HP5+ / TXP) and with the lower production run it will increase unit cost and it will drive the product to unprofitable state.

Perhaps with a 15% price missmatch they would get better results. That 40% increase looks like they are chiselling you (Thanks Bob, for the class ) and then you go to alternatives. This +40% looks from a novice marketing shark looking for inmediate results, not being aware of what he is to destroy. Will see what will happen with TMY sheets if this price continues...

[jnantz]

Perhaps with a 15% price missmatch they would get better results. That 40% increase looks like they are chiselling you (Thanks Bob, for the class ) and then you go to alternatives. This +40% looks from a novice marketing shark looking for inmediate results, not being aware of what he is to destroy. Will see what will happen with TMY sheets if this price continues...

i dont' think it is a mismatch in pricing at all.
some who use it believe it is the best film on the market, hands down.
it has very tight quality control and years of improvements made to it.
if it was a mismatch in pricing / too expensive no one would be buying it.

still it is a bargain if you want that film.

[Drew Wiley]

OK. Thanks for the tips on Salgado. But I still don't know how they combined them onto sheet film unless it was with a film recorder, which were still common
around then, though all this still seems like some sort of workflow and budget compromise, or perhaps limited by the skill set of the personnel. I don't have any
personal interest in follow-up research on his methodology. I have seen a fair amount of black and white ink printing done from drum scanning MF film that looks a lot better to me than direct MF digi capture. Maybe it competes better in color; but I doubt it. And I still hate Tri-X - not necessarily Tri-X images made by others - I love many of those, but relative to my own preferred image look.

[Pere Casals]

i dont' think it is a mismatch in pricing at all.
some who use it believe it is the best film on the market, hands down.
it has very tight quality control and years of improvements made to it.
if it was a mismatch in pricing / too expensive no one would be buying it.

still it is a bargain if you want that film.

There is a mismatch !!! With roll film it happens taht TMX and TMY have same price, with sheets TMY 40% more expensive than TMX. So why ? This is not a 10% or 15%, this is a 40% more. And TMY is not as good as TMX.

Yes, still is a bargain if you want that film, anyway most of the time TMX or Delta 100 is a better choice as a tripod is normally there... if one desires TMY then price won't be an obstacle...

[Drew Wiley]

That pricing discrepancy does not exist here, so we must be talking about distribution and not manufacture. It will probably reach equilibrium anyway once inventories turn over. But Ilford sheet film in general is much more affordable here than Kodak. Then there's Fuji ACROS, which has recently itself skyrocketed in sheet film pricing, but remains quite affordable in roll version.

[StoneNYC]

OK. Thanks for the tips on Salgado. But I still don't know how they combined them onto sheet film unless it was with a film recorder, which were still common
around then, though all this still seems like some sort of workflow and budget compromise, or perhaps limited by the skill set of the personnel. I don't have any
personal interest in follow-up research on his methodology. I have seen a fair amount of black and white ink printing done from drum scanning MF film that looks a lot better to me than direct MF digi capture. Maybe it competes better in color; but I doubt it. And I still hate Tri-X - not necessarily Tri-X images made by others - I love many of those, but relative to my own preferred image look.

He said they used a LightJet drew. So the PS file was grouped as a 4 image shot and then exposed onto the 8x10 as a single exposure.

[jnantz]

tmy has always been more expensive than tmx

[Pere Casals]

OK. Thanks for the tips on Salgado. But I still don't know how they combined them onto sheet film unless it was with a film recorder, which were still common
around then, though all this still seems like some sort of workflow and budget compromise, or perhaps limited by the skill set of the personnel. I don't have any
personal interest in follow-up research on his methodology. I have seen a fair amount of black and white ink printing done from drum scanning MF film that looks a lot better to me than direct MF digi capture. Maybe it competes better in color; but I doubt it. And I still hate Tri-X - not necessarily Tri-X images made by others - I love many of those, but relative to my own preferred image look.

There was no budget compromise there. Salgado didn't want to carry (IMHO, I guess) 600 TXP320P rolls of 220 size for each trip and all that gear with assistants around at remote locations. That was pharaonic, I guess that more than 100,000 shots and less that 250,000. A lot for a film project.

For Genesis digital shots beyond 2007: Salgado's team used a KODAK LTV Rhino ( 2540 dpi capable) to print groups of 4 images over 8x10" Delta 100 sheets, so a near 4x5" Delta 100 negative was used for each image, then with the 4x5 negatives Dominique Graniere printed optical darkroom copies on FB paper, and I guess they added selenium or gold sauce. The printing of digital images on Delta 100 sheets with the KODAK LTV Rhino was superintended by Gonzague Perney.

Dominique Graniere a superp printer, he had the challenge to obtain consistency, but from hybrid process I guess he saved a lot of burning/dodging labour.

There were a lot of skilled imaging technicians that worked out the Canon DSLR vs TXP consistency, and unsing Delta 100 as internegative !!! I guess that these were of that class of thecnicians that have the Beyond The Zone System book on the desk all day long...

About Tri-X... it is elastic... we can do a lot of things with it...