I Want Kodak 8x10 B&W Film in Larger Boxes

[Bruce Barlow]

I want Kodak to package Tri-X and TMax 8x10 film in 25 (or even 50) sheet boxes. 10 sheet boxes are way too inconvenient, especially when traveling.

If you'd like to see Kodak B&W 8x10 film come in bigger quantities per box, too, add a reply and I'll send it to Kodak.

A recent email reply from Kodak on this issue told me to go find a Kodak rep and "build a business case." Well, let's try this.

Please stay on this specific topic in this thread. Just quantities, just B&W, just 8x10, just Kodak. That'll help when I forward it.

Help! Thanks.

[Fred L]

Would love to be able to buy Tri X in 50 sheet boxes and would be down for 2 boxes for sure.

[memorris]

I have been shooting 8X10 for about 1 year now and have shot about 150 sheets of film. The 10 sheet boxes are too small and inconvenient and in part because of this I am looking at other films which do come in larger boxes. I typically shoot about 1 50 sheet box of 4X5 film every month. When I find an 8X10 film that I like and is available in larger boxes I will be switching the 4X5 to the same film.

[John Bowen]

I too would appreciate 8x10 TMY in 25 or 50 sheet boxes. When traveling (and most of my LF photography is done on photo trips) the larger boxes are MUCH more convenient. Thanks Kodak for listening.

I typically shoot between $1,000 - $2,000 of Kodak LF film per year.

[BILL3075]

I AGREE! The Minimum, even number for Kodak's 8x10 B&W film should be 20 sheets/box. 50 would be better. Over the last 3 months I've bought 5 of the current boxes. What a waste of cardboard, not to mention extra bulk and weight.

BILL

[Sal Santamaura]

...What I suspect is going on is:

1) Kodak is marketing to Pros who shoot a very small mount of 8x10 and don't want to pay for any more film they have to...What I suspect is that there are virtually no professional photographers using 8x10 film for paying work and haven't been for years. Fewer and fewer of them are even using film. The 8x10 market is down to mostly amateurs plus personal work by a smattering of professionals. The move to 10-sheet 8x10 boxes was a reaction to this situation and the sales figures that result from it.

The only way Kodak could sell to those amateurs was by making per-box cost low enough for them to afford. There's no reason to suspect trends have changed. Numerous posts here and elsewhere since the smaller quantities became standard indicate that even fewer people are purchasing Kodak 8x10 film. Don't hold your breath on making a "business case" for larger boxes. Especially if you're looking for TMY-2. That emulsion has only been sold in 10-sheet boxes since its introduction, meaning Kodak doesn't even have an SKU for anything larger. You'd probably need to find even more people willing to step up to a special order for something completely new than you would for, say, 25-sheet or 50-sheet boxes of 320TXP, for which earlier SKUs did exist.

I think this contiuous whining about 10-sheet boxes accomplishes nothing. If someone is a fan of Kodak film, the real problem facing them is its viability in the medium to long term. Ilford has around fifteen years left on its site lease, so, as long as sales remain strong, I expect it to last at least that long. However, if one wishes to use Kodak film for the same period of time, it may be necessary to purchase a large stock and freeze it. For that, TMX is worth considering. It comes in vapor-sealed envelopes and has excellent keeping qualities. In 4x5 and 5x7 it's even available in 50-sheet boxes.

In the meantime, here are a couple of suggestions. If you're a 320TXP fan, buy it in 5x7 and enjoy. Fifty sheets per box, good size for contact printing and stands up to moderate enlargement. An 8x10 print from one of those negatives is not a contact print, but mighty fine nonetheless. Or, if you think the Kodak product is so superior to Ilford's, bite the bullet and purchase whatever quantity of 8x10 you "need." Consolidate two 10-sheet envelopes into one box and responsibly recycle the extra box. Realize that you only paid pennies for that box. The film would cost almost as much per sheet regardless of quantity per box. Otherwise, just purchase HP5 Plus. It's got a different curve than 320TXP, but one that's, in my experience, fairly similar to TMY-2's.

Seriously, good luck with this attempt. Just understand that, by "build a business case," Kodak means assemble sufficient folks willing to lay down cash for a special order. Size of such a special order would be challenging for 320TXP and even more so for TMY-2.

[A49]

I agree with Barlow´s initiative. If someone decided for shooting one special Kodak 8x10 inch film, a box of 10 seems like a joke to me. A box 25 would be a good amount. But it was a bad thing for those who are searching, trying or shooting little projects, if the 10 pieces boxes would be canceled. If I as a consumer could wish for something, then it was a more expensive box of 10, for trying or little projects, one economy priced of 25 for larger things and one (even a little more) economy priced of 50 for those who are shooting much or always with the same film.

The market for 8x10 inch is not as big. Maybe some 100 requests to Kodak could move something.

Andreas

[jp]

I've preferred Kodak film for 20+ years of photography for B&W. TMY has been an excellent film in 35, 120, 4x5 and I use it 80% of the time. I've tried lots of other stuff but end up reordering Kodak most of the time.

I recently started doing some 8x10 and I went with Foma film in a box of 50. ten sheets isn't much more than testing, so I didn't even consider Kodak really. If it were in 25 or 50 boxes, I'd be glad to keep it in personal stock.

[David E. Rose]

When I started using 8x10, Kodak's 10 sheet boxes made my decision for me- I use Illford HP-5+. If Kodak films were available in larger quantity boxes, I would consider them.

[Bob McCarthy]

It's about serving the non commercial market.

One box allows them to stay under $100 per box. With the latest film they now exceed $5 per sheet.

20 sheets exceeds the magic marketing number, $100.

Marketing 101' (though a pro pack of 50 sheets would work for the professional market).

Tells me, most sales are not to the commercial pro but the low consumption markets.

Bob

[jp]

I'm not a commercial user, and I can easily spend more than $100 on film. 50 4x5's and a pro pack or two of 120 film, and I'm over $100. I try to get at least $100 worth at a time, so I don't pay shipping as often compared to smaller orders.

[BetterSense]

How hard is it to repackage the film in larger boxes? It would seem pretty easy, although a waste of boxes.

[Richard M. Coda]

In this age of environmentalism, why would a company purposely make a move that created MORE waste in packaging? My college roommate is Worldwide Director of Marketing at Kodak and, believe me, I have asked him this very question.

[civich]

If Kodak had tmax in 25 count boxes of 8x10 film I would buy some. So yeah - include me in your business case. But 'til then it's Ilford.

[IanMazursky]

What I suspect is that there are virtually no professional photographers using 8x10 film for paying work and haven't been for years.

I wouldn’t say that virtually no photographers are using 8x10 for paid work. I scan for a some of the pro labs in NYC and i get a lot of 8x10’s (new film).
I know a fair amount are for magazine, gallery, or campaign work. And yes a more is for personal work. Probably a 40/60 split (just a guess).
From my metrics, 8x10 (Color & B&W) is up year over year rather then down. So are requests for 8x10 film output, chromes mostly and a few negs here and there.
35mm/MF scans win by a small margin, then 4x5, 8x10, 5x7 and misc. I have even had some NEW 11x14 kodak film (400NC3) come in.
I think that film is garnering a new following by new and established photographers, especially LF and ULF.

I also find it annoying that 8x10 only comes in 10 sheet boxes but id rather have that then nothing. Im interested to see how Fuji’s 20 sheet packaging will work out.
Ive gone through a lot of 8x10 RDP3 for the LVT. I bought 25 10 sheet boxes of it earlier in the year and im half way through them.
I miss the 50 sheet boxes already. Went through 2 of those in the first 6 months. Now im inundated with a bunch of 3 part 8x10 10 sheet boxes.
I remember not long ago begging some of the labs i work with for them. Now they want some back :D
Its still a huge waste of packaging but i can see their point. If people complain about $100 for 10 sheets, then what would they say about $500 for 50.
I only hope tat RDP3, FP4/HP5, TMX, TriX, 160s and 160VC stay around a long time in 8x10. Im stocking up none the less.

Another fun bit (of topic though) is finding the frosted backed 8x10 chrome sleeves. I think only one company makes them now, Climax photo.
Luckily one of the labs i work with let me in on their large order.

[Daniel_Buck]

I contacted Kodak about this exact issue just a week ago or so. I explained to them (kindly) that I enjoyed using Tri-x320 in 8x10 sheets, but since I've only been able to find boxes in 10 sheets and I find them to be an unnecessary hassle, I have slowly switched to other brands that still offer 50 sheet boxes.

Their reply was:

"Currently, Kodak Professional Tri-X 320 Film in 8x10 is only available as a 10-sheet box. However, you might inquire of your dealer of Kodak Professional products (like B&H Photo and Badger Graphics) to see if they can work with their Kodak Professional Account Representative to put together a business case to do a special order for the 50-sheet boxes. "

[Bruce Barlow]

Special Smeshul. I basically got the same reply.

I punt. HP5 is nice film.

[dsphotog]

For me it comes down to price per sheet, Ilford is $3.20, Kodak is $4.70 - $5.30.
If only Kodak was $99 for 25 sh......

[Michael Graves]

Hear, hear! Give me 24 sheet boxes. I want to fill both sides of the holder, and I have 12 holders. :)

[Pawlowski6132]

I use TXP. Would like 50 sheet box please.

[Sirius Glass]

I would like to be independently wealthy instead of being so incredibly handsome. Do you think that if I wrote to Kodak they would fix that for me?

But really I do feel your pain. I would like to get 4x5 Tri-X 400. After all they do still make master rolls of it. It would not take up all that much of a roll.

Steve

[Sal Santamaura]

...I would like to get 4x5 Tri-X 400. After all they do still make master rolls of it...Only on roughly 5 mil acetate for 135 and 3.9 mil acetate for 120. None on 7-mil stock for sheets. It would be a whole new product.

[CG]

I'd really like to see 25 or 50 or 100 sheet boxes of 8x10. I appreciate that Kodak is under terrible pressure and that any decision on large film will leave someone unhappy, but if they read anything here, it would be that 10 sheet boxes are seen as largely for testing, not for shooting. I like to shoot more film than less and it feels wasteful to me to use up all that cardboard

[Daniel_Buck]

For me it comes down to price per sheet, Ilford is $3.20, Kodak is $4.70 - $5.30.

Indeed. Kodak is expensive compared to others (especially compared to some films like Efke) but if i were to find 50 sheet boxes of tri-x I'd shell out for Kodak, because I like the film. It's development is incredibly forgiving (tri-x 320 anyway), the emulsion is strong, and I like the look that it gives. But being both expensive, and being available only in 10 sheet boxes has put it off my shopping list.

[BarryS]

The 10-sheet boxes, coupled with the high price per sheet has driven me to Ilford films. If the major use of 8x10 black and white film has shifted toward fine art photographers, the 10 sheet boxes seem geared toward sporadic professional use. I'd like to see 50 or 100 sheet boxes with per sheet costs comparable to Ilford. I think the 10 sheet packaging is driving away a good share of their market and could put sales in a death spiral. The idea of a "special order" with even higher costs per sheet is ridiculous--no thanks!

[Bob McCarthy]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I buy color in 10 sheet boxes and put all but one box in the freezer. Doing the same in B&W doesn't feel like a handicap.

On the otherhand I do buy 4x5 in a 50 sheet box (TMX) but my consumption rate is MUCH higher.

Is there any purpose in putting B&W in the cooler also??

bob

[Sirius Glass]

Is there any purpose in putting B&W in the cooler also??

Yes. Black & white film in the freezer can last 10 years easily.

Not a guarantee, but my experience.

Steve

[Elliot Puritz]

I would also purchase several 25-50 sheet boxes of TMY-2 and TriX 320. Currently I tend to purchase 2-4 boxes of each ( 10 sheet boxes ) at one time.

I would think the only way that such packaging would take place is by special order with a certain number of boxes minimum.

Elliot

[Elliot Puritz]

So Bruce, is the thread now dead? No reason to have responded at all?

[Elliot Puritz]

Hear, hear! Give me 24 sheet boxes. I want to fill both sides of the holder, and I have 12 holders. :)

NO no Michael....the 25th sheet is there to replace the one that is always fogged at the most inopportune time:) :)

[Michael Kadillak]

When Kodak continues to force this issue into the domain of the "Special Order" as they have been doing you may as well just acquire as many 10 sheet boxes of the film you want and take it out and put it into the older 50 sheet boxes and call it good. The mention of a purchase point of less than $100 is something that is likely going to remain with this product for a considerable time.

As a point of reference Kodak has been doing the Special Orders for a very long time.

In 1990 Kodak was selling Super XX film to ULF shooters at prices that rival even what we are facing today and folks had no choice but pay it. 12x20 Super XX was sold in 1990 in 10 sheet boxes at $123 per box and they had a minimum order of 45 boxes. Many call TMY the modern equal of Super XX with its straight line film density curve so at the end of the day it comes down to how bad to you want what works for you or if you are comfortable with the alternatives? The market will sort it all out as the numbers get tallied.

The other thing to remember is that the reason that Ilford, Fuji, Kodak, Efke and others have the price point that they do is because of the market balance at this point in time. Take any one of them out and it is a dramatic game changer. The best recommendation to deal with this issue is to purchase a large chest freezer and buy as much of your favorite sheet film as possible at regular intervals. A hedge against uncertainty.

[jp]

You'd be rich if you had a chest freezer full of tech pan.

[Bruce Barlow]

So Bruce, is the thread now dead? No reason to have responded at all?

Speaking solely for myself, I have neither the time, temperment, inclination, freezer space, nor spare cash to put together a special order for something I think Kodak should offer as a regular item.

Thanks to all who responded.

[Michael Kadillak]

Speaking solely for myself, I have neither the time, temperment, inclination, freezer space, nor spare cash to put together a special order for something I think Kodak should offer as a regular item.

Thanks to all who responded.

I for one completely understand Bruce. I have beat my head against this corporate wall sufficiently in the last few years hoping that things will change and they never do. Kodak to their credit kept the UV coating off of TMY sheet film at our request for the alt process folks but for some reason this issue continues to be a PITA. I asked Kodak to leave the packaging intact in 10 sheet envelopes and put four or five of them into a box and nothing. Checking with Keith Canham for special order pricing to get Kodak to sell us 50 sheet boxes that they previously did for years came back with a go away price that was simply insane. It was as though we as customers were being financially penalized for wanting to use more of a particular product without the excessive packaging. Cripes, in this save the earth mentality you would think that this would be a desirable objective for which the seller would be falling over themselves to accommodate us?

While Kodak has shown the door to a myriad of folks within their organization, they have obviously not shown sufficient numbers to the door to change their corporate culture.

[Sal Santamaura]

..While Kodak has shown the door to a myriad of folks within their organization, they have obviously not shown sufficient numbers to the door to change their corporate culture.Having survived corporate life for 35 years (not at Kodak or an industry related to photography) so far, I speculate that the packaging decision was made very high up in Kodak's chain of command. Those who are left at lower levels dare not continue to take the customers' side over leadership's, lest they too be shown the door. Survival in this situation depends on avoidance of boat rocking, not passionately advocating for those who purchase the product.

[jp]

In fewer words, they should be working to increase film consumption by offering larger quantities.

I had another idea. I understand many people leave a filter on their camera all the time for B&W film use. I leave a yellow one on. Many people also do not like using filters needlessly as it could cause flare and decrease lens performance. I'd suggest that a film manufacturer sell a film with the filtering already on the film. It would wash off in the prewash like the green/blue/purple we see now. Instead of just buying a box of TMY, you might buy a box of TMY, a box of TMY-yellow, and a box of TMY-orange. It'd be a natural boost for sheet film use or 120 users who use interchangeable backs, or 120/35mm users who never change from their yellow filter. People who never use a filter would think, I should just use this film instead of investing in filters.

[Michael Kadillak]

Having survived corporate life for 35 years (not at Kodak or an industry related to photography) so far, I speculate that the packaging decision was made very high up in Kodak's chain of command. Those who are left at lower levels dare not continue to take the customers' side over leadership's, lest they too be shown the door. Survival in this situation depends on avoidance of boat rocking, not passionately advocating for those who purchase the product.

Point well made Sal. The solution is needing to come from above the push back level.

I know how to solve this problem. I will have to go up the chain of command. At this stage I don't give a #$*& about being politically correct because it cannot get any worse than it is now.

[matthew blais]

Yep. I would order several boxes. Just do it Kodak, just do it!

[Bruce Barlow]

Sal and Michael:

They didn't show the RIGHT ones to the door...