Doesn't Kodak want to sell 8x10 Tri-X anymore?

[Wayne Lambert]

Received a Freestyle catalog in the mail today and turned to the film section and got quite a shock. Kodak 8x10 Tri-X is considerably more expensive per sheet in 10-sheet boxes than it was in 50-sheet boxes. And considerably more expensive than its competitors, Kodak T-Max 400 and Ilford HP-5 Plus.
To wit,
8x10 Tri-X in 10-sheet box: $46.99 for 10 sheets is $234.95 for 50 sheets or $4.70/sheet.
8x10 T-Max 400 in 50-sheet box: $153.99 for 50 sheets is $3.08/sheet.
8x10 HP-5 Plus in 25-sheet box: $81.99 for 25 sheets is $163.98 for 50 sheets or $3.28/sheet.

In January, 2008, I bought 50-sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-X from Freestyle for $152.99 ($3.06/sheet). The other 8x10's were roughly the same price.

I'm surprised Kodak would do this with such a popular and classic film, in a sense their flagship film. Just a few years ago they were praising its 50th anniversary.

I've been using 8x10 Tri-X for a long time and I would hate to switch, but I may have to. It's been years since I've looked at T-Max 400 and HP-5 Plus data/results. I know many of you really like these films. Any suggestions, especially for pt/pd printing?

[BradS]

Where the one goes the others are sure to follow. Stay with the Tri-X.

[Gene McCluney]

It has been said either here or on APUG that the 10 sheet packaging is a marketing strategy for the introduction of the improved emulsion. It is commonly felt that Kodak will go back to offering 50 sheet boxes in the future. After all, it is just packaging.

[John Bowen]

The new TMY is also only available in 10 sheet packages. B&H sells Tri-x 8x10 10 sheets for $42, TMY 8x10 10 sheets is $49....Ilford can't be too far behind.....

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ilford is selling film in 25 sheet boxes, which seems like a reasonable compromise between 10 and 50.

[John Kasaian]

Kodak used to offer sheet film in 25 sheet boxes as well.
I'd better shut up now.

[BarryS]

It has been said either here or on APUG that the 10 sheet packaging is a marketing strategy for the introduction of the improved emulsion. It is commonly felt that Kodak will go back to offering 50 sheet boxes in the future. After all, it is just packaging.

I've seen the same posts, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence that supports that infomation. I hope we'll see 50 sheet packages at a lower per sheet price, but until I see or hear something from Kodak--it's all wishful thinking. For black and white films, I honestly don't understand the marketing strategy of 10 sheet boxes.

[ViewIIguy]

I've seen the same posts, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence that supports that infomation. I hope we'll see 50 sheet packages at a lower per sheet price, but until I see or hear something from Kodak--it's all wishful thinking. For black and white films, I honestly don't understand the marketing strategy of 10 sheet boxes.

I'll try and call up our contacts in Kodak and see if I can get any answers from them a little later if I can. Who knows, maybe I can get an answer...but it is Kodak we're talking about. I love their films, but they're pretty silly.

[Dave Brown]

I'm not generally a big fan of Kodak, but in their defense, silver prices have been trending upward for at least the last five years (though significantly down over the past month). Likewise, packaging and shipping costs have seen recent price spikes. My guess is that market conditions will force other manufacturers to raise prices as well.

[Wayne Lambert]

On Kodak's website is a Q&A on the new T-Max 400. One of the answers is clearly misleading, if not deceptive. The question "Are you making any other changes?" is answered as follows, "...We will be replacing 50-sheet sizes of 8x10 sheet film with more economical 10-sheet sizes" (referring to T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Tri-X 320). Granted a 10-sheet box would cost less than a 50-sheet box, but a sheet in the 10-sheet box costs $1.62 more than a sheet in the old 50-sheet box. Obviously, not more economical where it counts, price per sheet. Their statement is clearly misleading, wrong. I hate to see Kodak act like this. I would like to think better of them.

[Nathan Potter]

Manufacturing operations are run wholly by marketing and business people now and every aspect addresses a bottom $$ line. This in turn is driven by shareholder and stock value interests. I'd guess that the 10 sheet per box strategy is simply a way for Kodak to make more return per unit of sales; and may be necessary to preserve Kodaks' film business on a firm financial basis. I can assure you that this has been carefully thought out by Kodak financial people.

Of course it does not mean that the strategy will be successful.

Nate Potter

[BarryS]

I wonder how many 8x10 shooters they surveyed to come up with that plan? Because a 10 sheet box just pisses me off and Kodak isn't fooling anyone with that "more economical" song and dance. I'm not thinking--"Hey a BOX of Kodak film is sooooo affordable now!", but "where can I find alternatives with packaging that suits my needs and a lower per sheet price?" If photographers look elsewhere, that contributes to a death spiral--not increased revenues.

[ic-racer]

On Kodak's website is a Q&A on the new T-Max 400. One of the answers is clearly misleading, if not deceptive. The question "Are you making any other changes?" is answered as follows, "...We will be replacing 50-sheet sizes of 8x10 sheet film with more economical 10-sheet sizes" (referring to T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Tri-X 320). Granted a 10-sheet box would cost less than a 50-sheet box, but a sheet in the 10-sheet box costs $1.62 more than a sheet in the old 50-sheet box. Obviously, not more economical where it counts, price per sheet. Their statement is clearly misleading, wrong. I hate to see Kodak act like this. I would like to think better of them.

Its 'more economical' for THEM! They get an additional $1.62 per sheet!:eek:

[Frank Petronio]

My thread asking for alternatives to 8x10 Tri-X was met with, "Don't change, film is the cheapest part of the workflow and don't take shortcuts." So we're faced with a monopoly situation and they can charge whatever they think the market will bear.

Shoot less film. It worked for oil prices, and if Kodak decides to shut down its B&W film lines then China or someplace will pick it up. But I doubt it will happen.

[Wayne Lambert]

I haven't even mentioned the aggravation that must ensue from loading a batch of holders from 10-sheet boxes vs. 25- or 50-sheet boxes or keeping up with all those boxes on a trip. Others have succinctly noted those problems. Those alone would be more than enough to drive someone to 25-sheet boxes of HP-5. But if you stick with Tri-X....a 100 sheets is only $164 more than what I formerly paid....and it's an awfully good film....and....so....

[Don7x17]

Here's the PER SQUARE INCH prices of recent film (at bottom are the Freestyle prices that started the discussion). Looks like a general price increase across their line. No unusual considering the price of silver, etc.
Still 8x10 in 10's is better deal than the ULF special cuts....

ULF price sq inch
TMY 25 14 x 17 $388.00 $0.065
TMY 25 11 x 14 $250.00 $0.065
TMY 25 7 x 17 $194.00 $0.065
TMY 50 5 x 7 $113.00 $0.065
TMY 25 20 x 24 $799.00 $0.067
TMY 25 6.5 x 8.5 $89.00 $0.064
Freestyle:
TriX 10 8 x 10 $46.99 $0.059
TMY 50 8 x 10 $153.99 $0.038 old price
HP5 25 8 x 10 $81.99 $0.041
Trix Jan 50 8 x 10 $152.99 $0.038 old price
Current prices from online:
B&H TriX 10 8 x 10 $41.95 $0.052
B&H TMY 10 8 x 10 $49.50 $0.062
Calumet TMY 10 8 x 10 $51.99 $0.065
Calumet TriX 10 8 x 10 $49.99 $0.062
Glaziers Nil


...and if you think 10 sheets per box is a PITA for 8x10, consider that previous cuts of Kodak ULF film in the past 8 years came in 10 sheet boxes BUT PACKED IN 16x20 KODAK paper boxes. Now that's a PITA to transport. (Cut recently came with film-sized cheap thin cardboard about half the thickness of the back-of-pad-of-paper cardboard. Still its better than a 16x20 box for 7x17 or 12x10 film....

[Wayne Lambert]

It's true, prices are going to increase, and we will just have to deal with it.

But then there's the inconvenience factor. Now I am imagining loading a batch of 8x10 holders from 10-SHEET BOXES IN A CHANGING BAG (in a hot humid hotel room, on your knees, on a bed, at midnight, after a long day...) Imagine this with me.

[BarryS]

Does anyone know of any stores that still have some 50 sheet boxes of TMX or (old) TMY?

[BradS]

Hotel room at midnight...turn off all the lights in the room , draw the curtains and use the bathroom.

[David A. Goldfarb]

In the short term, I think the solution is just to repackage the boxes oneself into larger boxes. This doesn't expose the film to any risk. A 50 sheet box of film contained two sealed lightproof packages of 25 sheets. So if I finish the 50 sheet boxes I have in the freezer before Kodak comes to their senses--if they do come to their senses--and starts selling larger boxes again, I'll just repackage 4 or 5 sealed 10-sheet packets into a 50 sheet box, if I'm traveling with the 8x10 camera.

[Wayne Lambert]

BradS---doesn't work in a Mexican hotel room at any hour of the night.:(

David---the best ideas are sometimes the simplest. Thanks.

[Don7x17]

It's true, prices are going to increase, and we will just have to deal with it.

But then there's the inconvenience factor. Now I am imagining loading a batch of 8x10 holders from 10-SHEET BOXES IN A CHANGING BAG (in a hot humid hotel room, on your knees, on a bed, at midnight, after a long day...) Imagine this with me.

Consider getting a Harrison Changing tent, whichever version fits your size needs. Lots less dust than a changing bag. When doing 8x10, I have room for stacks of 8x10 boxes (50's). No this isn't a justification for 10's, which I hate too.

[BradS]

BradS---doesn't work in a Mexican hotel room at any hour of the night.:(

David---the best ideas are sometimes the simplest. Thanks.


I've loaded film holders in a changing bag in the Mojave, in the galley of a ship at sea on the ecuator, and at 12,000 feet high in the Andes....I know all about sweating in the bag. I'll do anything in my power to load/unload in the bath tub of a motel room.

[Wayne Lambert]

BradS---The Mexican hotels I stay in don't have bathrooms---just more or less kidding, although one time in Sonora (Hotel Bavispe) the bathroom was out back, a scaffold over the pig pen. It did have a privacy curtain, though. Still you didn't tarry too long. A pack of enthusiastic pigs about 2 meters below tends to hurry you up, or shut you down completely! However, I greatly admired the ecological soundness of it all.

Considering your travel I'm sure you've experienced similar situations. I agree, unloading and loading large holders in a bag or even a darkroom tent is something to try to avoid.

[Gene McCluney]

Economical, in Kodak's eyes means a smaller package of film costs less to purchase than a larger package of film, thus more casual shooters might be motivated to try a 10 sheet box, where they wouldn't consider a 50 sheet box. I think they should offer both. I'm not opposed to 10 sheet boxes. Many times I have purchased 10 sheet boxes of 8x10 Ektachrome because that is all I needed for a job, but then I purchased 50 sheet boxes when I needed more film for a larger job. I like the idea of getting a 10 sheet box of something I haven't much need for, but Tri-X is a staple and should be available in both box counts.

[Wayne Lambert]

Gene, exactly. 8x10 Tri-X should be in both box counts.

[Gene McCluney]

Gene, exactly. 8x10 Tri-X should be in both box counts.


However, I wouldn't expect (when Kodak does offer 50 sheet boxes again) to get much of a cost break. The vendors that are still selling 50 sheet boxes are selling old stock, before the price hike.

[Frank Petronio]

I think their "modern business logic" is to reduce the numbers of items, and this was probably a way for a product manager to say that they eliminated X number of products so it met some arbitrary internal goal.

[Nathan Potter]

Gene, by that logic why not 5 sheet boxes or 21/2 sheet - oops, 2 sheet boxes.

Nate Potter

[dsphotog]

The worst thing about the Kodak 10 sheet box fiasco is,
the new TMY & TX films are superb...
but if nobody buys it in the stupid size packages, Kodak's accountants will stop production.
David Silva

[Allen in Montreal]

I stopped in my local camera store today to order some 8x10 TXP.

What I found more shocking than the new packaging issues, was that the shop owner (I try to deal with shops where the owner os the guy on the floor too) told me he has to call around to the brokers, he no longer is permitted to deal with Kodak to place an order and is forced to rely on what this brokers have stocked in their fridges!!

One broker told him no more 5x7 or 8x10 film, not made anymore.
The other gave him a quote on 25 sheet boxes as well as 10 sheet and 50 sheet boxes.

$254.00 for 50 sheets.
$100.00 for 10 sheets
$134.00 for 25 sheets! (old stock I assume?)

I asked to check the dates and storage conditions of the 25 sht boxes, I guess if they are in date and cold stored, it is worth it to grab a few boxes now.

The idea that he is not permitted to deal with Kodak makes me want to start ordering HP 5!

[Gene McCluney]

Yes, Kodak is requiring small stores to go thru large distributors. However the BIG stores, such as B&H, Adorama, Unique Photo, etc., still can order direct, once a week, however no small store is "forced" to just take what the "brokers" have on their shelf, as the "brokers" such as Unique Photo can order once a week from Kodak, and they can order one box.

[Gene McCluney]

The worst thing about the Kodak 10 sheet box fiasco is,
the new TMY & TX films are superb...
but if nobody buys it in the stupid size packages, Kodak's accountants will stop production.
David Silva

I don't think anyone that is serious about using the Kodak films are going to stop using them just because of a silly change in packaging quantity..even though we may gripe.

[John Kasaian]

I don't think anyone that is serious about using the Kodak films are going to stop using them just because of a silly change in packaging quantity..even though we may gripe.

The issue I see is---who is going to buy the stuff? Amatures who love txp and tmy are a fragment of the market. Pros who shoot a lot of txp or tmy are likely even a smaller percentage. Without new photographers becoming addicted to the stuff, who will swell the ranks of those in the market for Kodak film?

If I were starting 8x10 today, would I buy highly touted (and deservedly so) TXP or TMY at $50 for ten sheets, or highly touted HP-5+ or FP-4+ at $90 for 25 sheets? Or Arista at $100 for 50 sheets?

Even if I fell for the Kodak hype, could a new guy appreciate the high ticket stuff after only shooting 10 sheets (with a high probability that several would be accidentally wasted?)

It wouldn't be Kodak.

Would I "grow up" to be a Kodak consumer? It's doubtful and if Ilford or Arista or Foma or Efke or one of the chinese films filled the bill for me, why would I change brands? Isn't "pick one film and stay with it year" kind of a mantra for new large format 'togs?

If I were coming to 8x10 from 4x5, I'd likely use the same film I use in the smaller format. Are there any 4x5 B&W shooters here that find 10 sheet boxes of film satisfying?

If Kodak would at least make an attempt to stay marginally competitive price-wise by at least not burdening the consumer with the expense of wasteful packaging I'd bet they'd sell more film and possibly lure new customers into the yellow camp.

Oh well...

[Gene McCluney]

Kodak has to charge enough to make back the engineering costs on the new improved films...in a dwindling market, hence the higher prices. If you don't want to use Kodak films, then by all means use what you wish. Kodak films are the finest b/w films on the market. So are their color negative films. Fuji makes the best color transparency films, according to many people. While I do use some Arista b/w film, and get good results from it for my personal work, for paying jobs, for me, it is Kodak all the way.

And, if you haven't noticed, Kodak is the ONLY company that has engineered new improved b/w films in the last few years. Ilford hasn't, even though Ilford films are first rate they are not now "state of the art" like Kodaks new films are. All the newer films introduced by vendors such as Macco/Roelli, Adox and such are actually existing industrial films that have been repurposed for pictorial photography. No new engineering required...just cutting and packaging. Oh, perhaps a new developer is paired to give different results with these Industrial films.

[patfahey]

I don't think anyone that is serious about using the Kodak films are going to stop using them just because of a silly change in packaging quantity..even though we may gripe.

Here's one who did.

-Pat

[Gene McCluney]

If you quit using a particular film just because there was a change in packaging that didn't suit your fancy, then you really weren't committed to that film, were you?

[John Kasaian]

I haven't quit using txp or tmy, but I use a lot less of it. And I use it for specific applications where txp and tmy really shine. Spending top dollar on film dosen't bother me nearly as much as wasting my film money on packaging. That Kodak is so dense that it can't grasp the situation is wierd. 10 sheet boxes for trying out a new film is fine. If they kept the 50 or the 25 sheet boxes in the inventory to service customers who are committed to txp and tmy that would be great. Forcing 10 sheet boxes on guys who shoot a lot of Kodak film is flat out insulting to the customers they should be courting.

[Allen in Montreal]

Kodak has to charge enough to make back the engineering costs on the new improved films...in a dwindling market, hence the higher prices...... Kodak films are the finest b/w films on the market......... it is Kodak all the way.

And, if you haven't noticed, Kodak is the ONLY company that has engineered new improved b/w films in the last few years...........

Ilford hasn't, even though Ilford films are first rate they are not now "state of the art" like Kodaks new films are........



As a long time Kodak fan, a third generation Kodak shooter, the theory may be OK, but the reality is, if Kodak offers only 10 sheet boxes, at 10 dollars a sheet, I would suggest we all buy shares in Ilford real quick!

Everyone is willing to pay a little more for Kodak, but if Kodak thinks, for one second, that brand loyalty can carry them through any and every stupid move the marketing and MBA group make, they are sadly mistaken.

Kodak is in a very fragile spot, and so are we the consumer. If Kodak has any dreams of long term viability in the film production business, they may want to listen to the consumer first and the MBA crowd second!

Just a humble fotogs opinion. :(

[CG]

For me, 25 or 50 sheets are just barely enough to get a tiny sense of a film and 100 is a reasonable quantity to take on of a film I like. 10 sheets is half a taste, not enough to form an impression.

I'm really down on Kodak bashing, and I won't engage in it, but this wasn't their best decision. I hope Kodak hears that sheet film users want 25 or more sheets to a package.

C

C

[patfahey]

If you quit using a particular film just because there was a change in packaging that didn't suit your fancy, then you really weren't committed to that film, were you?

I went through several hundred sheets of 8x10 last year. More than one-half of that was TMX or TMY. Over the last six months, I haven't purchased any Kodak, and have no plans to do so.

Kodak makes great film, but so does Ilford and others. We can get excellent results from any modern film/developer combo once the time is invested to master it.

On one hand, Ilford listens to photographers and at least addresses the questions and concerns. Kodak, on the other, seems to ignore the coments from photographers, and appear to be focusing only on their own profits. That's OK, it's not my company -- they can do as they wish (and what their stockholders allow).

This grousing about 10-sheet-max boxes has been going on for quite a while, and I haven't heard a word from Kodak.

Given the reductions in Kodak's photo product offerings, it looks to me like they are systematically moving out of photography; and will in the future, only operate in the digital imaging market.

Oh well, times change.

-Pat

[John Kasaian]

I don't want to bash Kodak either. They've got great products---really great products. All the people I've talked to at Kodak over the years have been very helpful. Customer support is (or has been) second to none when it comes to problem solving.
I guess they just don't see only selling 10 sheet boxes as a problem.

[Allen in Montreal]

I guess the answer to this is, no they do not want to sell film!

I ordered a few boxes when my camera came in, I was quoted on some old stock as well as new. After nothing showed up, I called today, a mistake on inventory had been made, all the prices have changed, and nothing but 10 sheet boxes can be ordered.

I ordered 2x 25 sheets of FP-4 instead.

I know what it will cost, when I will get it and that the details of the order won't change day by day.

I will be writing to Kodak to express my displeasure, not only with the packaging, but the fact my dealer must buy through unreliable middle men.