Wisner users working in 7x17/8x20

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

what price would you be willing to pay for a 12x20 sheet of T Max 400 sheet film? $9, $12, $15

Badger graphics is selling 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 for $175. This comes to about $3.50 per sheet or 80 sq inches. A 12x20 is 240 sq inches, so the price per sheet should be around $10.50. If we allow another .50 cents for special cutting I figure $11 per sheet is a fair price. This includes the profit for Kodak and the reseller. A 50 sheet box would cost $550 dollars, I would max out my credit card and buy at least 6 boxes.

What I dont understand is that they are willing to cut tri x in 12x20 but flat out refuse to do it for Tmax 400. Even if the minimum order was 50, 25 sheet boxes I think there is enough of us out there to buy them, but Kodak just wont budge. Why is that?

[Michael Kadillak]

Jorge:

When I go the Badger web site I see $147 for a 50 sheet box of T Max 400 in 8x10. Are you using a net delivery to Mexico as your base cost?

Anyway, to answer your questions about Tri X I can only tell you that if you had zero knowledge of photography then film is film. Therefore, if no differentiation is made by the business people offering any 12x20 film is their way of meeting demand. Wanting another film is to far out of the box for the uninformed. That is my view of the situation.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Is it that cheap now?....no, shipping the film to Mexico adds another $80 bucks to the price.

Anyhow, I guess you are right and to the bean counters film is film......shame you would think even them would have enough interest to learn just what the heck they are supposed to be selling .....

[Sal Santamaura]

I suspect there was at one time a catalog number for 12x20 Tri-X, but not for TMY. If that's the case, it's simply a matter of bean counters being unwilling to incur the cost they allocate to each SKU number for a new special-order product. I don't know what today's figure is, but at one time heard $25k/year/number bandied about.

[CP Goerz]

To answer the original question I own both a Korona and a Wisner(8x10 covertible), while the Wisner is a lot sturdier you pay for it in the weight department which is always the fly in the ointment. A Korona with the rail braces and possibly even the Brubaker Stabalizer kit make it as rigid but its a lot of fussing. If you are fit enough for the weight go with the Wisner, if not brace the Korona. In either case though the 8x20 is a MANS camera!!! ;-)



I have old Korona holders and new Brubakers, I was fortunate to get the older holders in almost new condition and they work very well. I have had Wisner holders that were.......lacking in certain respects but the AWB holders are just beautiful. I don't worry about light leak, T distance or whatever, they are well made and worth the extra. There are few large format film holder makers around...for a reason! Making holders is FAR more difficult than making a camera. Just spend a day in any of the makers workshops and you'll see that the price you pay is a really really good value, for proof try making one of your own!



I don't mind spending a little extra in an area where others may be willing to spend less but thats the choice we all make as LF guys. I plan to use my 8x20 for as long as I can get my ass off the chair and I want a holder that will be there when I need it.

CP Goerz

[robert_4927]

Andrew, My Wisner 8x20 Expedition weighs 14.5 lb....Today I was shooting with Bob Herbst. His 12x20 Tech. Field felt like lifting an anvil in comparison . I would Guess at least 28 to 30 Lb. Also if you check Wisner's old Prices his film holders are only 50.00 less than AWB holders. In quality it's a no brainer I'll buy Alan's any day. It's refreshing to see someone in this day and age so committed to quality. His double light trap design alone is worth the extra 50. I agree , I feel that it is a lifetime investment so I'll opt for the best I can get.