Someone mentioned that the Kodak special orders were packed in different boxes and prone to dust. Does anyone know if the 8x10 films will be packed in the same yellow box that we are used to? I don't want to pony up for a bunch of dusty film.
As an aside, I know the line that anyone who knows what he is doing can use any film, etc. So the likely, cheaper, more available alternative to TMY is HP5. Does anyone prefer HP5 to TMY?
OK, just put on my flack jacket...
So B&H sells TMY-2 @ $72 for 50 sheets of 4x5. That's $1.44 per sheet.
If my math is correct, 8x10 is 4x 4x5. 4 sheets of 4x5 cost $5.76.
8x10 is a niche of 4x5. The price of $6.20/sheet is less than a 10% premium over the price of the higher volume 4x5 sheets.
I don't understand the problem here.
Fire when ready...
I do. But it's not like TMY. If you really prefer and depend on the characteristics of TMY, best to buy TMY if you can manage it.Originally Posted by jeroldharter
Dear Allen, et al...Damn you Jim!
TMY, and its most recent sibling, happens to be an amazing film, and I truly enjoy how it works with XTOL. When Kodak decides to reevaluate TMY's market share a few years or months from now, for whatever reason, and whether their marketing decision is unfavourable and, or they introduce TMY-3 because we are willing to pay a premium for this film's exceptional characteristics, I will take comfort knowing that I exercised a traditional Boy Scout motto by exploring an alternate film, developer, and maybe a new development process, going forward today.
jim k
Not here. I gave Chauncey Walden a free 24 sheet box of HP5 in 11x14 so I could free up the space in my chest freezer for TMY. That said if you shoot under normal conditions for sliver enlarging papers it can work just fine.
If you are an alternative process or print with Lodima you use TMY because of your inherent need for a greater delivered density range and the potential to kick it up a notch and have the operating elasticity for N+ development to your full expectation. HP5 is just not the tool for this job. Period.
If you insist on looking at it that way -- the stick that is poked in your eye is held by 8 x 10 users. Kodak is just responding to their actions, and being a convenient fall guy that you can point to.
Kodak hasn't abandoned you. It is 8 x 10 users that have abandoned Kodak. If people don't buy the film, Kodak isn't going to make it available. Why should they? What is it about any of us, myself included, that is so special that Kodak should subsidize our art?
Come on now. Y'all can't really believe that Kodak put in the R&D to create TMY-2 expecting it to have a life of just a few years. But if photographers like us refuse to buy it, that's what's going to happen to TMY-2. If we abandon it, Kodak will abandon it.
Bruce Watson
I'm pleased that Keith C is keeping TMax going, as did Glazers and the view camera store with runs of TMY2 last year. I'm sorry to see that the 5x7 boxes have been reduced to 25s. 50s are convenient, and sure save on boxes....10 holders and one sheet left over doesn't go very far...
Thanks Bruce and Greg.
We all recognize that there will be those that like to sit back and find 101 reason not to look at this situation as an opportunity and continue to fire bullets. If that makes them feel good that is great. All I know is that is not going to put this marvelous sheet film in my holders now and in the future. That is really all that matters.
Over the years we all have heard posts from photographers about their favorite film or paper that was pulled from the market and how they lament not being able to maintain access to it. Then we see the situation replaying in front of us with the opportunity to do something about it or play the broken record of "Another One Bites The Dust".
Kodak dropped over a million dollars two years ago to make TMY(2) even better. They also kept the UV coating off of the sheets for alt processes users. Increased costs? Yes. many items we consume now costs more. Even Adox and Efke increased their costs recently over 25%. This business is also now a niche market from which costs are not passed over a broad seller base as was the case years ago. This is just a reality of where we are NOW. Many of us do not want to acquiesce to the market drivers with digital. I can coat paper but I do not want to coat plates.
Are we so naive to think that if Kodak stops selling 8x10 that other manufacturers will likely follow? Ilford sent out a student survey for folks to fill out. That tells me that they are similarly in a quandry as to how they posture their business for the future. I pray that many of you are not waiting for Ilford to announce their formal transition from the analog business before you take this issue seriously.
Ilford (Harman) is pretty well married to the analog market, especially given its increased commitment to enlargement paper with the acquisition of Kentmere. Its
digital paper interest was sold to Oji along with Ilfochrome. Specific products within
the overall mix which sell poorly are always susceptible to review. But lets remember
the importance of sheet square inches. Every single time one of us 8x10 shooters pops
the shutter, that's equivalent to two rolls of 35mm film being sold, or four sheets of
4x5.
Actually, it's one roll of 35mm. If you do like I did, you'll find that one 135-36 covers just one 8x10 holder. (And yes, I'm planning to do it again! Bwahahahaha!)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks