PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Increases Price of 8x10 Tri-X 320 Sheets by 40% Overnight!



Andre Noble
28-Nov-2012, 11:52
Did any one else notice that Kodak just raised the price of their 8x10 TXP Tri X 10 sheet box from $54 to $77?

On the positive note, they *slightly* decreased their price of 8x10 Portra 160 8x10.

Curt
28-Nov-2012, 11:54
Wow what a bargain!

Brian C. Miller
28-Nov-2012, 12:10
That would mean Tri-X is now nearly on par with Acros 100 from Japan Exposures.

But so far that's just B&H. Badger is still $48, and Glazer's is $55.

jp
28-Nov-2012, 12:17
Didn't make sense that Tmax 400 was 50+ % more per sheet than Tri-x.

Wish they'd make it all $54/box instead of jacking up the Tri-x. I've got a bunch in the freezer from B&H and also ordered some from Canham at similar prices.

Andre Noble
28-Nov-2012, 12:39
I think it means that Kodak has sliced up their last master roll of Kodak TXP 320 and will discontinue it soon in favor of TMax 400. That's what it says to me.

John NYC
28-Nov-2012, 12:43
Kodak TXP 320 in 8x10 was a while ago discontinued except for special orders.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?84366-More-Kodak-discontinuations

jp
28-Nov-2012, 12:54
If it was discontinued, then B&H was reguarly getting new inventory of it for the past year.

Vaughn
28-Nov-2012, 12:55
Buying/investing in Kodak film and freezing it yields greater returns than buying their stock!

John NYC
28-Nov-2012, 13:06
If it was discontinued, then B&H was reguarly getting new inventory of it for the past year.

This has been typical for Kodak. It took ages to run out of the old Portras and new stock kept showing up for a long time after it was discontinued.

John Kasaian
30-Nov-2012, 22:53
Alas! Poor Kodak, I knew you well!

ic-racer
1-Dec-2012, 08:24
Did any one else notice that Kodak just raised the price of their 8x10 TXP Tri X 10 sheet box from $54 to $77?

On the positive note, they *slightly* decreased their price of 8x10 Portra 160 8x10.

No, I did not notice. Nothing about it here (http://www.kodak.com:80/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/triX2.jhtml?pq-path=13401). Where is that information from?

John Kasaian
1-Dec-2012, 08:30
$76.50 at B and H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533812-USA/Kodak_8179707_TXP_4164_8x10_Tri_X.html

Lenny Eiger
1-Dec-2012, 15:42
Kodak is going bye-bye. Whether they are able to spin off (to another company) a film division is, well let's just say they are too stupid to make it a likely proposition.

I used Tri-X for many years, and so did a million other photographers. It's like car company discontinuing their best and most classic car. Tri-X has been a classic, by any standard.

However, I have been sick of Kodak for so many years, I am just done. It isn't their technical division, by any stretch, its their line of CEO's that have been ignoramuses and made every mistake in the book, since the beginning of time, actually.

I find that Ilford film works very well for what I am after. Instead of buying more Kodak to keep them alive, I suggest that people buy more Ilford to keep them going. The Delta 100 has been great. I'm done with Kodak.... they burned off any loyalty I had a long time ago...

Now, I don't mean to disrespect the OP, or the thread, I know everyone has feelings for the various parts of their working processes. I do, too. I would just say that I've moved on and haven't been the poorer for it.

Lenny

Cletus
1-Dec-2012, 20:34
+1 on buffet line remark. Still, I support Ilford because Ilford supports me. (bastardization of the expression, but....)

Roger Cole
1-Dec-2012, 21:58
I don't really understand the buffet line post, but that's ok.

I also don't understand why folks would pay that much for 8x10 TXP when 2.5 times as many sheets of HP5+ is just about ten bucks, less than 1/7th, more. I've never used TXP since I started right out with TMY. I've been tempted just because I still can and ought to try this classic film (4x5 only at this point, so cost isn't as big a difference.) Still, I'm more likely to give up TMY for HP5 than TXP, given costs even in 4x5 and probable future availability.

It's different in color because there really aren't readily available alternatives to Portra and Ektar. Heck, that's even true in 120 these days. :( But at least the 120 films are reasonably priced.

bikeamtn
4-Dec-2012, 21:59
@Lenny Eiger and John Kasaian

Dido that; apparently Kodak doesn't know how to run a modern company and it is just a shame. I recall a 84’ish conversation with Kodak promising that they would always be in the business film. Well, that’s not.

I've been converting to digital but it has a little way to go yet; I want my Kodachrome!

By the way (on freezing film); while working as lab/darkroom tech, there was some testing done on long & short storage of films and paper. Yes there’s all the logarithmic-plots and densitometry regarding process management but, for the common person, it is mainly color-shift scenario in a short-term cycle. We would leave the stock out as it is radical only within marginal temp shifts but will begin to stabilize as long as there is a steady base temp. This actually helped us keep our pots in-line (process color management) and more stable. Long-term (archival) is more of an issue (seasonal environmental temp changes) and can benefit greatly from stable refrigeration but that doesn't need to be freezing or even below say 47F. You may be fine at say a stable 58F which would save energy. Just get a small type electric cooler. That would change if you plan on keeping a batch for more than say, 3 years.

Hope that’s helpful to you.
Cheers

bikeamtn
4-Dec-2012, 22:14
F.Y.I

Jul 19, 2012 - Fujifilm discontinues two professional films [update]
bjp-online.com

Fujifilm Professional is putting an end to the production of its Fujichrome Velvia 100F in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 formats, and Velvia 50 in 4x5 and 8x10, BJP has learned. The last shipment of these films will arrive in the UK in December 2012.