5X7 Tmax 400

[tgtaylor]

$5 per sheet is a good deal!

I don't know - last month I paid Ilford $171 for a 100 sheet box of Delta 100.

Thomas

[plaubel]

Thomas, it's a bit off here, but could you name the source, please?

Thanks,
Ritchie

[Pere Casals]

Thomas, it's a bit off here, but could you name the source, please?

Thanks,
Ritchie

Being a bit off, B&H has Delta 100, 5x7 100 sheets box, at $177, but minimum order is 16 boxes, delivery term is 2 months, this is $1.8 per sheet if buying 1600 sheets...

But Kodak sheets are, in general, much more expensive than ilford. I'm a bit shocked because in the roll film range price is similar.

[plaubel]

Thanks for that, Pere.

Best,
Ritchie

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't know - last month I paid Ilford $171 for a 100 sheet box of Delta 100.

Thomas

For TMY, it is...

[tgtaylor]

Thomas, it's a bit off here, but could you name the source, please?

Thanks,
Ritchie

I ordered 1 box on the 2016 Ilford ULF film program from K&S Photography here in Palo Alto and received it the last week of September: $1.71 a sheet including shipping.

Thomas

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wow really? But again, a different film, different look...

[Pere Casals]

Wow really? But again, a different film, different look...

Well, as by now we are well off topic...

Delta 400 is not made in sheets... so ilford has no tabular counterpart for TMY sheets.

If we compare Delta 100 to TMX, I think they are very similar for LF, with smaller formats Delta shows a little bit more grain.

I think the different look (D100 vs TMX) can be made equal with some filtering. As TMX has more blue sensitivity than D100 it happens that it works better (faces) with tugnsten light and D100 works better with sun light, but using right yellow filter with TMX it looks like Delta, and placing a Blue filter with Delta it looks close to TMX. Curves are both very linear, difference is mostly in the spectral sensitivity, but this can be matched by filtering over lens of using light sources of different color temperatures. Another difference is reprocity failure, D100 is higher, but both have more failure than the (also expensive) Acros. Some say that D100 has better highlights...


Still, even it is too expensive, I think that it is worth to own some TMY assets For long exposures it is the ISO 400 thing with low reprocity failure.

This is IMHO

[Ray Van Nes]

I know the Kodak film especially the TMax 400 is highly valued among large format users. I also take the point that 5 x7 is not as common as 4x5 or 8 x10. I have pondered why would not Kodak have a similar program as Ilford with the once a year special order. Perhaps they would get an order of 700 boxes instead of 70 and then perhaps the price would come down to be more competitive. With their pricing and rather churlish marketing attitude, one wonders how they are going to survive if they make getting their product exceedingly difficult.

[Pere Casals]

With their pricing and rather churlish marketing attitude, one wonders how they are going to survive if they make getting their product exceedingly difficult.

Well, with roll film Kodak is way more competitive, near same prices than ilford, and they may sell much more rolls than sheets. It is true that they punish the sheet users... perhaps this market it is not interesting for them in the medium term, but IMHO also I think they are discouraging customers to buy their LF products.