Tri X

[Nelson]

Every time I hear of a film that I use being discontinued, I panic and stock up on it while it is still available. I did that with Velvia 50 a few years ago, then Plus-X and then CHS 50 more recently. I've discovered that I now have a fridge so full of film that I can't justify buying new films when they come out. I really want to support Adox when they release a new film, for instance, but I have enough stocks of old film that I can't justify buying more film until I use what I have. Basically even though I like a certain film, I always seem to find a new film that I also like, even if it is different from what I've been using.

[kb3lms]

Yeah, I believe the brick and mortar stores don't have much film because just about everyone that seriously uses film buys it online. The local CVS has Tri-X (ONLY place that has it) but it's $6.99+tax for a 24-exp roll. FWIW, other than food and maybe clothes, I find that few b&m stores have much of ANYTHING that I want to buy and it's much quicker and simpler to buy it online. Probably saves money in the end, too.

If you really like Tri-X and you're going to use it then there's no harm in stocking up. The freezer in my garage is filled with all sorts of films and paper and now I'm starting to take over the refrigerator side as well. No regrets. Kodak could (and just might!) die off tomorrow and I'd be shooting for at least 5 years to burn it all up.

[NedL]

Unless you want to be able to load shorter rolls (which I do, as I often find 36 way too much) there's little reason to buy it though. It's $45.99 and 100' gets you about 18 rolls or $2.555 per roll. The prepackaged, DX-coded stuff is only $2.89. For that price difference I'd avoid the hassle of bulk loading every time, if it weren't for wanting shorter loads. The preloaded 24 exposure rolls are way more than 2/3s the price of 36, so for 24x load the bulk is a good savings.

Roger,
You're right about the cost of course. For me the 100' spools fit neatly in the my garage refrigerator and are easy to store that way. My refrigerator is a little one for storing seeds, and doesn't have much extra room in it. Also it gives me an irrational feeling of "safety" knowing there are a couple spools in there.

[John cox]

This is just what I wanted to hear. I'm also just about run out of 400 iso film so I'll need to place an order in the next few days regardless. Is the Arista Premium Identical to Tri X? Are there any downsides to it? It looks very appealing at that price.

[Roger Cole]

This is just what I wanted to hear. I'm also just about run out of 400 iso film so I'll need to place an order in the next few days regardless. Is the Arista Premium Identical to Tri X? Are there any downsides to it? It looks very appealing at that price.

It's Tri-X. The edge printing is different and says Arista, but it's clearly Tri-X. It behaves in Diafine just like Tri-X, which no other film I've ever tried does. (Many work well, but Tri-X seems to get the most effective film speed increase.)

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I buy Kodak Fuji Negative Color Film from Grocery , yes you read it right. I shoot 2 rolls in two months and wait another two months to order process. Another point , I shoot these two rolls in 15 minutes. It makes I shoot 90 minutes a year.

[tsiklonaut]

For me the Tri-X was already dead in the water when they discontinued the mighty Tri-X 320 in 120 roll format (was shortly continued only in 4x5" that I even considered converting into this format just because of this film).

I don't know why but the 320 was just like from another planet compared to the 400 although the emulsion supposed to be the same(?) The 400 while good film it just never quite didn't "hit the spot" for me while the 320 did wonders for me and I even shot them in parallel to be sure I don't mess up something between them, the 320 was still the clear winner and the most versatile film I've EVER shot - from portrait, architecture to landscape, it just works everywhere giving images a distinct character while the 400 was just a dull b&w that barely fit doing semi-decent portraits for me, I never understood the fuss around the Tri-X 400 being some worldbeater film while the 320 ran circles around it from my experiences.

Would be interesting to know what was the actual emulsion/backing difference between 400 & 320 versions?

I'd kill for Kodak (erm, or some future aquireing company) to bring back the Tri-X 320 in 220(preferred) or 120 roll format, it was that good that now I'd gladly pay "silly money" ($8+) per roll for it (no joke! ) just to have it back and support it going on.

[Andre Noble]

I agree with you totally, tsklonaut. TXP 320 is in a league of its own. I was sleeping when Kodak discontinued both 125 Plus-X and TXP 320 in 120 format.

TXP 320 sheets and the 160 and 400 Portras are Kodak's best still -manufactured products. These are like Gold as far as I am concerned. Stockpile it now like crazy - 35mm, rolls, sheet sizes to 8x10.

Everything else they have you can get as good - if not better with Fuji and Ilford - but not for long.

[M Stat]

A few years ago I purchased two fifty sheet boxes of 8"x10" Tri-X film as well as a twenty-five sheet box of Ilford Delta 400 in 8"x10" size (all being stored safely in my garage freezer). I am so glad that I did because the cost of film has sky rocketed since then, and the Delta 400 is no longer even made in that size. Now 8"x10" Tri-X only comes in ten sheet boxes at the outlandish price of more than six or seven dollars per sheet! I can only expect the prices to go up since everything else is getting more and more expensive. By all means, do yourself a favor and stock pile NOW!

[Roger Cole]

Kodak took their current pricing model, for sheet film anyway, from the kid with the lemonade stand who priced it at $500 per glass. When told he wouldn't get many customers at that price he replied, "I know, but I only need one."

Not that other films haven't gone up, but Ilford is superb quality and much cheaper than Kodak in sheets. I still shoot Kodak in 4x5 but if I get into 8x10 I won't. Just not worth it compared to Ilford.