Tri-X, OUCH!!!

The price increase will prevent me from buying high end film. Probably resort to kentmere bulk loaded when my stash of hp5 and Kodak films are gone. I just read that Kodak hired 300 people for their film production unit. Anyone else hear anything about this?
 
davidde1000 said:
I just get it developed by a local lab and scan at home. If you can do c41 at home, it would obviously be much cheaper. I read somewhere that XP2 could be developed in some kind of b&w process, but I've never tried it.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing something about that a long time ago. I don't recall if it was all color or just one. It might even have been Kodachrome, but I don't think so. It seems I recall it was C41 film and anyway it does make some sense since silver is involved.
 
Bulk loading can indeed reduce costs for 35mm. I've been doing this with Ilford films for years, and even set up for 70mm to make medium format less expensive. The problem with Kodak films is their pricing structure on 100 foot rolls may save you very little compared to other makers' bulk roll prices. A couple of minutes spent checking how much you might have to pay for a 36 exposure roll of Tri-X or TMX, for example, from Freestyle or B & H, (to name just a couple of the larger sellers) compared to the same sellers' prices for 100 feet, will soon confirm you might save the cost of one 36 exp roll, or so, but that's it. I would go so far as to say the only sensible reason to bulk load Kodak film at present is the ability to load whatever number of frames you wish to as and when required. The exact dollars savings one might make may vary, depending on your local sellers' asking prices for pre-loaded cassettes, postage etc. But they will probably be marginal.
 
Tom R said:
I have tried a few rolls of the Kentmere 400 (and 100) film(s)). A thread in this forum posts lots of images made with Kentmere 400, processed in HC-110 (or LegacyPro 110), dilution "B" (1 + 31) for about 5.5 minutes @ 20 degrees C. While does a nice job of rendering some tones (such as lighter skin), I don't find that it has the details in the shadows nor do I see a pronounced "shoulder" (roll-off) in the highlights--these are features I associated with TriX. But, I'm processing it in Clayton F76+, 1+9, for about 6:20 at 22-23 degrees C, following the recommended agitation schedule. Moreover, I am not certain of this, but it also appears that the Kentmere rolls (all 36 exposure) have more "surface" defects than HP5 or TriX. Perhaps others who have more experience with this particular film can shed some light?
Click to expand...

That's me posting a lot of images on the Kentmere 400 thread. I started using it as a budget-friendly film to document everyday life when Ultrafine eXtreme 400 became unavailable (or discontinued, who knows). I think it's a flexible film that can yield very good results. With better technique, a different developer, different digitizing/printing workflow, and/or different post processing, you might eke out better shadow detail. I bulk load and have not had any issues with surface defects. Is it "better" than Tri-X? Probably not, but it's a whole lot cheaper and doesn't have a pesky curl when dry, so it's got at least those two going in its favor.
 
If you search in here, you will find another thread were someone pushed foma200 to 400 and did side by side comparison to Tri-x.
 
davidde1000 said:
I read somewhere that XP2 could be developed in some kind of b&w process, but I've never tried it.
Click to expand...

XP2 stand develops in Rodinal at 1:100 dilution quite well. Contrast seems to be dictated by development temperature; changes in development time don't seem to do anything. Pour the developer in slowly, give it 30 seconds of gentle agitation, leave for an hour. Little to no speed loss. This was at 400 ISO:


A walk in the woods. by Tony Gale, on Flickr

The downside is that I occasionally get streaky, uneven development and it's nigh-impossible for me to do in the winter (my bathroom hovers around 7-10ºC without a heater on at this time of year). The negatives are also a nightmare to wet print due to the purple-tinted film base: I usually need +4 or +5 contrast filters with a straight exposure or excessively long split grade arrangements to get a decent print. It scans nicely, though.

I'm going to try to dial in some "normal" Rodinal times (i.e. regular development, 15 seconds of agitation every minute). As much as some people love stand development, it's never been consistent enough for me. Massive Dev Chart suggests 18 minutes at 1:25 and 20ºC - long, but hopefully more predictable.

Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
I would go so far as to say the only sensible reason to bulk load Kodak film at present is the ability to load whatever number of frames you wish to as and when required.
Click to expand...

There's also situation B: where the camera you're using doesn't play nicely with modern 35mm film cassettes. I started using FILCAs for this reason when my (early) Leica IIIf was showing the "sprockets in the image area" issue. It's similarly useful with Zeiss cassettes in a Contax.

Of course, it's extra cost and hassle to find the cassettes, but at least it's a one-off cost. Considering the amount of film I've put into FILCAs from 100ft rolls over the last 10 years or so, they've probably paid for themselves now.
 
That's great to know about Rodinal. Thanks!

I have found that some of the plastic reloadable cassettes do not even fit in my Leicas -- so I have to use those cassettes with SLRs (even so, a tight fit). The metal canisters with the snap-on caps seem to be the way to go, but the screw tops of the plastic ones make everything easier.

I played around with Ultrafine b&w films but was not a fan. They are ok film stocks but were pretty temperamental with developers and times. XP2 is better and worth the price difference.

It's a shame that Kodak today provides little cost savings with their 100 foot b&w rolls. I wish that someone would make a C41 color film in 100 foot rolls. This motion picture film thing is not a good solution -- with its obscure and expensive processing, rem jet issues, and/or the need for filter-based color balancing. If Kodak can crank those stocks out, why can't it give us something like Gold 200 in 100 foot rolls?
 
davidde1000 said:
I have found that some of the plastic reloadable cassettes do not even fit in my Leicas -- so I have to use those cassettes with SLRs (even so, a tight fit). The metal canisters with the snap-on caps seem to be the way to go, but the screw tops of the plastic ones make everything easier.
Click to expand...

I think I still have four of the all-metal snap-on cap cassettes left from before I moved to sourcing dedicated cassettes for all my different cameras - they're convenient and versatile, but I never really trust that they're totally light-tight. I suspect the screw top ones are probably better in that regard.

The only camera I have to use those in now is my Leotax - sourcing a late Leotax cassette (they moved to the Zeiss style with two little buttons half way through their run of LTM models) is proving near-impossible. I even managed to track down some FED and Zorki cassettes years back for when I want to use those (frustratingly, the two bodies use slightly different variations on the Zeiss style cassettes, and they're not cross-compatible).

I wish all the "Leica copies" had kept the FILCA design (and standardised on one reloadable cassette); the Zeiss style one is awful in comparison.
 
If you like XP-2 that's great, but at B&H Tri-x 35mm is only $1 more/roll and in 120 (propack) the difference is only $0.60/roll.....
My preference is for Tri-X, so it's certainly not attractive to me.
 
Deardorff38 said:
If you like XP-2 that's great, but at B&H Tri-x 35mm is only $1 more/roll and in 120 (propack) the difference is only $0.60/roll.....
Click to expand...

Here in the UK, it's a bit different; £8.15 for 36exp of 35mm XP2 at discountfilmsdirect.co.uk for XP2, £11.80 for the same in Tri-X. (Although HP5+ is £7.15, so that's more economical than both.)

Nik & Trik have it as £7.69 for XP2 vs £11.25 for the Tri-X and £6.59 for the HP5+.

I don't mind the XP2 - it's has it's place - but I'm mostly only shooting it because it's nicer in Rodinal than HP5+ is and I got two 100ft rolls on the cheap a while back. If I was still using LC29 (and buying fresh), I'd go for the HP5+ for 400ISO film.
 
I gave up on color as the amortized price per roll for what film I like is near $30/roll these days since I don't home develop C41/E6. That's too much as much of my enjoyment comes from the use of the cameras/lenses themselves (although I like the results of both color and B&W film process)

How do I combat the price hike?
  • I was historically a 24 shot/roll shooter so I switched to 36 shot rolls
  • I buy HP5+ and a little bit of FP4+ from our local art supply store which is cost competitive with every large business and always a bit cheaper than Kodak. HP5+ gives fairly comparable results for me at 400-800. I also buy short dated or anytime they do a 10-15% sale.
  • I buy my film for use approximately 1 year in the future and try to watch for sales (short date or promotional) where I can or any sellers that are possibly lagging at older prices before having to replenish stock (I recently got some of the last $9.95 TriX rolls from MPEX before they went on backorder).
  • I self develop with Diafine which keeps my chemical process costs VERY low.
I don't love $10-12 Tri-X (and I'm sure it's going to be $15-20 in another 3-4 years if not sooner thanks to the reckless financial policies and lack of sound money pushed by bankers and politicians throughout pretty much the whole world). Since I'm shooting less than 25-30 rolls per year, I'm glad we still have Tri-X and will still keep buying it (and Ilford) in my desire that it keeps going. I'd much rather pay $20/roll than $0/roll because it isn't available. The price of film is definitely low on the list of my worries. The long term sustainability of the Earth, cost of energy and food production are of much greater concern. The 30-50% inflation I've seen on pretty much all the food I buy is a much bigger challenge than anything going on with my small potato film consumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top