For those seeking 8x10 TMY-2

[Sal Santamaura]

Apparently, B&H decided it could sell enough 8x10 TMY-2 to justify placing a minimum order with Kodak and is now offering single boxes for sale:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html

As this is written, there are 271 boxes in stock.

[Daniel Stone]

but its still over $7/sheet...oof

guess you gotta pay to play...

[Jim Cole]

That's good to see. I hope it becomes a regular product again.

[jp]

Wonder if it's B&H taking a big step or Kodak waffling in the right direction?

[Sal Santamaura]

Wonder if it's B&H taking a big step or Kodak waffling in the right direction?Almost certainly the former.

[Tim k]

Maybe, they dont have anything better to do now.

[cdholden]

It's always timing... If I wasn't trying to buy a truck and get a few more boxes of Lodima before prices go up in March, I'd have more for film!

[Sal Santamaura]

Yesterday B&H sold its final four boxes of this film. It took more than two years to move those 271 boxes. The experiment apparently convinced them not to repeat their special order, since the above linked Web page now includes a "Discontinued" notation.

Looks like Keith Canham is the only place left to go for those seeking 8x10 TMY.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well, at $7 per sheet (and more up here), it's no wonder. Great film. Too bad.

[BarryS]

Yes, a terrific film and it's a shame it's not a regular stock item anymore. Kodak priced themselves out of the market and made a bad miscalculation moving to 10 sheet boxes.

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe their net profit per box wasn't all that high. But two years to sell nearly three hundred boxes of fim at over seventy
bucks a pop (and rising), on something that doesn't spoil all that fast, certainly doesn't sound too shabby. That's over twenty
grand in sales for just a single SKU. More and more, B&H is identifying itself as an "electronics" supplier, but I still routinely
used them for certain things. Keith Canham has turned several order of TMY in the same period, and deserves our support.
I doubt he makes much money at it, but it does evidence his committment to the large format community.

[Sal Santamaura]

Well, at $7 per sheet...That was in 2012. They had raised the price as Kodak announced increases. I think the final sales were at around $9 per sheet.

[Sal Santamaura]

...two years to sell nearly three hundred boxes of fim at over seventy bucks a pop (and rising), on something that doesn't spoil all that fast, certainly doesn't sound too shabby...It sounds plenty shabby to me.

TMY, even in frozen storage, is much more susceptible to fogging from cosmic and ground-source background radiation than TXP is. Also, film is marked with an expiration date. Even if one doesn't believe that TMY falls short in long-term storage capability, those willing to purchase it in 8x10 sheets will look askance at a $90 plus box that's expired or about to expire.

TMY has many positive attributes. In my opinion, anyone who desires to use it in 5x7 or 8x10 ought be thankful for the purchase opportunities offered by Keith Canham. Enjoy it while you can. :)

[Sal Santamaura]

Yesterday B&H sold its final four boxes of this film. It took more than two years to move those 271 boxes...


...But two years to sell nearly three hundred boxes of fim...doesn't sound too shabby...


It sounds plenty shabby to me...I seem to have a small math problem this morning. It was 14 months, not two years. Still sounds pretty shabby for a perishable item.

[Drew Wiley]

What on earth makes you think it's especially more prone to fogging? It has a steeper toe and slightly higher effective speed,
but a year or two in cold storage isn't going to make a signficant difference. It is certainly B&H's right to make their own
business decisions, but dropping a product like this isn't going to exactly endear related business. I use them, but they aren't
on the top of my list of suppliers anymore. From what I've heard from people outright visiting their store, they've pulled back
on film inventories in general. I'm glad to see they still list some 8x10 color neg products. There's is far more dollar inventory
sitting out everyday in the big local produce store I walked into yesterday, which is perishable in a day or two! But yes, each
time Keith is building up a new order, I should open my freezer and count what I have on hand. I don't necessarily consider
TMY expensive because it's so dependable and versatile. "Bargain" film, on the other hand, rarely turns out to be a bargain
in real world usage.

[Andrew O'Neill]

$9 per sheet? Good grief.

[Drew Wiley]

What's the big deal about nine bucks? I'm not rich, but how many damn shots do you need anyway? When are you going to
print them all? If I take just one good 8x10 shot per week, that's way more than I'll ever have time to print in a year (given
I've got other formats and color work to contend with too). Nobody has a perfect batting average, but if it's not worth printing, why bother tripping the shutter in the first place? Yeah, sometimes one just needs to test and practice to stay in
form, including me, and frankly I feel like a hypocrite, because I should be rooting for everyone to waste as much film as
possible so the demand would stay strong, and Kodak would have an incentive to keep making it. When my funds run low, I
switch to 4x5. But heck, nine bucks is about what all these techies around here spend on their morning lattes and munchies,
and that would all sure make an ugly print!

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I don't see much of a difference between buying 5 boxes of 10 sheets for $450 and buying 1 box of 50 sheets for $450.

And $9.00 per sheet doesn't sound all that far off. 4 x 5 is now over $2 a sheet, so 4 of the 4 x 5 sheets is over $8.00 a sheet. Not too much of a difference, and considering that 8 x 10 is even more of a specialty item than 4 x 5 is these days.

Its like anything else. You spend your time on what you want to spend it on, and you spend your money on what you want to spend it on. If you want to spend your time making 8 x 10 negatives you need to spend your money on 8 x 10 film instead of something else. Quit smoking. Have one less pack of beer per week. Eat out at a restaurant one less time per week. Whatever it is. The beautiful thing is that YOU get to choose what is important to you.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yeah, there was a $2 premium per sheet for 8x10 over what it might be based on the price of a 50 sheet box of 4x5. However, Glazer's has some 8x10 Tri-X in stock for $75, which is in line for current Kodak film prices. There's a difference between the prices at the various stores. If B&H wants to tack on $20 per box, it's their call.

However, the price of Kodak film, $7.50/sheet, is still much more expensive than Ilford, at $4.20/sheet. So it's nearly 80% more for the product.

This is the result of trying to keep a gargantuan manufacturing infrastructure alive based on a minute trickle of what once was. But there's only one way to keep the product alive: buy it. Kodak dumped its E-6 line. No wonder when the guys at Glazer's commented that the E6 film just didn't move. Kodak didn't diversify, so of course it's on the rocks. That's happened again and again.

[C_Remington]

If they had 271 boxes Feb 2012, it ony took one year to sell them.

That's 5.2 boxes/week. I'm not in the film retail business but, that doesn't sound to bad too me. A box a day. That's more than I would have even thought.

[Drew Wiley]

Those seemingly ridiculous Kodak prices will start looking more realistic as the other film brands also start climbing. It's
inevitable, and has already begun. Certain aspects of inflation have been basically at bay for awhile and are just now starting
to shift out of second gear. They'll stabilize at a point, but don't expect cheap film again. And as far as expiration dates go,
so what ... I'm using a bottle of HC110 with an expiration date ten years back. Some Tech Pan stocks were being distributed
to dealers ten years after the production line was shut down, and who knows how long they sat on a sheld cumulatively.
Gotta be fresher than the Pringles chips sold at WalMart!

[Sal Santamaura]

What on earth makes you think it's especially more prone to fogging?...Multiple forum comments to that effect made me suspicious. Then, when deciding what emulsion to stockpile for a "doomsday" supply, I relied on the corroborating input of a trusted friend:


http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1289023

It's likely that local background radiation, i.e. how much granite one is near, has a larger effect than the cosmic factor.

[C_Remington]

Those seemingly ridiculous Kodak prices will start looking more realistic as the other film brands also start climbing. It's
inevitable, and has already begun. Certain aspects of inflation have been basically at bay for awhile and are just now starting
to shift out of second gear. They'll stabilize at a point, but don't expect cheap film again. And as far as expiration dates go,
so what ... I'm using a bottle of HC110 with an expiration date ten years back. Some Tech Pan stocks were being distributed
to dealers ten years after the production line was shut down, and who knows how long they sat on a sheld cumulatively.
Gotta be fresher than the Pringles chips sold at WalMart!

Why do you think, in general, film prices (I assume you just mean fillm??) will rise accross the board??

Kodak couldn't support paper production but that clearly wasn't a precedent for other companies. I don't know why you think Kodak raising prices is a leading indicator in the industry. I think it's an idicator of a poor business model in that market. Not fair to lump in the other manufacturers.

Disagree??

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm... radon. I grew up surrounded by granite and granodiorite, but apparently our fine-grained Sierra batholiths are a different animal than certain other varieties. Perhaps tabular-grained T-Grainite behaves differently than the older Super-XX
and Tri-X granites. But ouch, takes me back to my school days. I'll ask the dude down the hallway. He was into igneous research more than me - I was more a Geomorphology guy, and more interested in how the stuff weathered, and how that
neg of it all carved by glaciation will turn out tonite. Radon, as I recall, is more an issue in Calif in relation to serpentine than granite. Hmmm... you've got me thinking, maybe rusty thinking, but at least thinking ...

[Drew Wiley]

Pricing? It's petrochem in general and esp film base which is starting to shatter like an Antarctic ice shelf. Paint, for example,
was very stable for over a decade and has only within the last year or two dramatically climbed due to significant increases in the cost of raw plastics. All kinds of inflation issues. And now that the basic Old West standoff between Fuji and Kodak per competitive pricing is ending, the market is free to find its natural equilibrium, which in the face of lessened demand can only mean higher pricing for film in general. Paper is a somewhat different subject, but is itself going up steeply in price.
And I mean paper per se, not just the coatings. That Kodak dropped out of the b&w paper market quite awhile back is probably more due to them treating that division like an unwanted stepchild. They are still a strong player in color (RA4) paper.

[Andrew O'Neill]

What's the big deal about nine bucks? I'm not rich, but how many damn shots do you need anyway? When are you going to print them all?

Jeez Drew, calm down. When one has mouths to feed, and other money responsibilites, one has to watch the pennies. You can only speak for yourself, correct?

[Corran]

I would like to know how Kodak (and Fuji) can manufacture x-ray film at $0.30 a sheet for 8x10 but not regular film.
Me, personally - I'd never pay $9 a sheet for 8x10 film. That's ludicrous. Unnecessary. I wish I could show some folks the 40x32 print I did from x-ray film (printed on an inkjet, gasp!) that is just fantastic in every way. Speaking of which I have to get ready for the gallery opening that is tonight where it is featured, so peace out...

[Drew Wiley]

So, Andrew, you are implying Kodak 8x10 is too expensive to shoot, and that only wealthy people can afford it? Sure, I'd like
to pay less for it, a lot less. But I know 35mm shooters who spend way more on film than I do. The difference is, they waste
a lot of shots because the film is cheaper. Now some of them just go out and buy a new digital camera every couple of years.
That doesn't make life any cheaper, either. If I want to experiment with film, I either do it with some smaller format or with
discounted out-of-date film. What on earth makes you think I don't have responsibilities just like everyone else? But one things I have learned is that cheaper film isn't always cheaper to use. Why bother with 8x10 if you don't want to do it right?

[C_Remington]

Hmmm... radon. I grew up surrounded by granite and granodiorite, but apparently our fine-grained Sierra batholiths are a different animal than certain other varieties. Perhaps tabular-grained T-Grainite behaves differently than the older Super-XX
and Tri-X granites. But ouch, takes me back to my school days. I'll ask the dude down the hallway. He was into igneous research more than me - I was more a Geomorphology guy, and more interested in how the stuff weathered, and how that
neg of it all carved by glaciation will turn out tonite. Radon, as I recall, is more an issue in Calif in relation to serpentine than granite. Hmmm... you've got me thinking, maybe rusty thinking, but at least thinking ...


Huh? Can you re-post in English??

[C_Remington]

So, Andrew, you are implying Kodak 8x10 is too expensive to shoot, and that only wealthy people can afford it? Sure, I'd like
to pay less for it, a lot less. But I know 35mm shooters who spend way more on film than I do. The difference is, they waste
a lot of shots because the film is cheaper. Now some of them just go out and buy a new digital camera every couple of years.
That doesn't make life any cheaper, either. If I want to experiment with film, I either do it with some smaller format or with
discounted out-of-date film. What on earth makes you think I don't have responsibilities just like everyone else? But one things I have learned is that cheaper film isn't always cheaper to use. Why bother with 8x10 if you don't want to do it right?

I shoot 35mm film. I don't waste any more or less than I do with 8x10. I think most serious artists are the same way.

[C_Remington]

Pricing? It's petrochem in general and esp film base which is starting to shatter like an Antarctic ice shelf. Paint, for example,
was very stable for over a decade and has only within the last year or two dramatically climbed due to significant increases in the cost of raw plastics. All kinds of inflation issues. And now that the basic Old West standoff between Fuji and Kodak per competitive pricing is ending, the market is free to find its natural equilibrium, which in the face of lessened demand can only mean higher pricing for film in general. Paper is a somewhat different subject, but is itself going up steeply in price.
And I mean paper per se, not just the coatings. That Kodak dropped out of the b&w paper market quite awhile back is probably more due to them treating that division like an unwanted stepchild. They are still a strong player in color (RA4) paper.

I don't know. That wasn't very convincing that all film prices are going to jump past the rate of basic inflation.

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, Andrew, you are implying Kodak 8x10 is too expensive to shoot, and that only wealthy people can afford it?

Too expensive for me. And yes, it is for people who have more money than I do.


What on earth makes you think I don't have responsibilities just like everyone else?

Your tone.


Why bother with 8x10 if you don't want to do it right?

And you're implying that one can only do it right if one uses the most expensive films? Lots of people are "doing it right" on x ray film.

[Sal Santamaura]

B&H describing the film as "Discontinued" (which it is as a standard catalog item) has created some stir. Take a look at Keith Canham's Facebook page:


http://www.facebook.com/pages/K-B-Canham-Cameras-Inc/131324393576850

Henry Posner jumped into the fray now too. It will be interesting to see what his follow up says. :)

[Drew Wiley]

People standing in line at the gas station spend way more on beer, cigarettes, corn dogs, and lottery tickets than I do on
8x10 film, or probably even on all my film usage combined. I don't want X-ray film. If you like it, fine; but I like what TMY does. And I've worked since I was 15 yrs old, so think I deserve to shoot something of that quality. Offer me a better price
on it, and sure, I'll go for the bait. But like I said, I learned the hard way that film which is cheaper to buy is seldom cheaper to use. TMY is very versatile and very high-quality. It handles the range of lighting I encounter as well as the wind issues.
It isn't easily scratched. It takes pyro beautifully. And it's not like I have the time to print hundreds of different images anyway. So I want each shot to count. And I'm darn glad Keith is supplying this item. I can't participate in evey single group
buy he offers, but will from time to time as my own inventory needs replenishment.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Henry Posner jumped into the fray now too. It will be interesting to see what his follow up says...He's now posted again, saying that B&H has placed another 8x10 TMY special order and will again offer it after Kodak's 10-week fulfillment lead time.

B&H has been my primary supplier of all things photographic since I walked into its original store in 1978 and bought an OM-1. It has about the best retail Web site extant. However, it could do better than to use the "Discontinued" label in situations like this, with "Temporarily out of Stock" being preferable. I hope Henry follows up on that too.

[henryp]

He's now posted again, saying that B&H has placed another 8x10 TMY special order and will again offer it after Kodak's 10-week fulfillment lead time.
According to our film buyer he's already placed our order and expects inventory later this month. The product is our KOTMY8110 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/) and the status should update from "discontinued" to "coming soon" (or whatever mellifluous prose we're using nowadays) in <24 hours.

[Sal Santamaura]

After a time when B&H hasn't shown 8x10 TMY-2 as available, it now has 170 boxes in stock:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html

A new wrinkle is that, unlike the previous one box minimum order, purchasers must now buy at least ten boxes.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd call em. That is either really stupid or some oversight they haven't corrected on the web yet. They've got a lot in stock at the moment but won't sell individual
boxes to anyone?

[John Kasaian]

After a time when B&H hasn't shown 8x10 TMY-2 as available, it now has 170 boxes in stock:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html

A new wrinkle is that, unlike the previous one box minimum order, purchasers must now buy at least ten boxes.
So this will make 17 fortunate TMY 8x10 shooters happy! Perhaps cash strapped, but happy!

[henryp]

After a time when B&H hasn't shown 8x10 TMY-2 as available, it now has 170 boxes in stock:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html
A new wrinkle is that, unlike the previous one box minimum order, purchasers must now buy at least ten boxes.

I see the min quantity for KOTMY8110 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html)was ten boxes, 10 sheets per box. Our buyer has removed this minimum requirement. It may take a few hours for the website to be updated.

[vinny]

Only $10.30/sheet!

[Drew Wiley]

Nearly all the shots I've taken so far this summer needed TMY. Lots of fog or overcast, combined with incessant wind. I ordinarily have a holder of something slower in the pack like 8x10 ACROS, but I kinda reserve that for when I actually want a long exposure.