Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,420   Online: 948
      
Page 21 of 32 FirstFirst ... 111516171819202122232425262731 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 312
  1. #201
    LJH
    LJH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    543
    Funny that those who fall under the title of this programme (i.e. those shooting ULF) aren't complaining about paying for film (over $8 per sheet/shot for me), yet those who shoot small formats are.

    We all individually choose the formats that we shoot, so perhaps we all should take responsibility for the costs associated with using said format?

    IMO, some here are coming across as ingrates. Keep poking the (Ilford) bear and we might all be shooting digital some time soon...

  2. #202
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,545
    Images
    15
    Yes, that's most likely the case. It's like making a bookcase out of a sheet of plywood. Just run it through a "best fit" software program. But that's probably been done by hand many years ago.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  3. #203
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,239
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by LJH View Post
    Funny that those who fall under the title of this programme (i.e. those shooting ULF) aren't complaining about paying for film (over $8 per sheet/shot for me), yet those who shoot small formats are.

    We all individually choose the formats that we shoot, so perhaps we all should take responsibility for the costs associated with using said format?

    IMO, some here are coming across as ingrates. Keep poking the (Ilford) bear and we might all be shooting digital some time soon...
    I noticed that, I think it's two fold, one is that I think we tend to think of LF sheet film as more surface area so more cost to begin with. But also just that the LF shooters are kind of used to paying high prices, this is new for us smaller format shooters so there's a little sticker shock going on with an expectation that the 120ish equivalent in price per surface area of film would be a lot closer.

    And I also agree, we asked for it, we got it, and now we are bitching lol, pretty ungrateful.

    I do think it would be nice to know if they meet the quota this year, if next year it will be cheaper because tooling costs are then covered.

    Also since I wast around (or aware) then, can anyone tell me if any of the smaller format roll films had been part of this run in the past? (And actually cut, not just offered). Thanks.


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #204
    Roger Thoms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    851
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    Roger, from what I see the prices must be figure by a formula more complex than just surface area. They must be putting a value on each format based on volume, cost of production including confectioning etc.. I would guess that the cost is offset by a higher cost for the format and adjusted prices for the more popular formats to cover the cost.

    I'd be interested in seeing Pan F+ in sheet film sizes but the capability of production doesn't exist.

    Curt
    This did cross my mind but the 4x10 is over three times the surface area and yet the price is within a dollar or two. Maybe I'll PM Simon about this as it is really bothering me.

    Roger

  5. #205

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by LJH View Post
    Funny that those who fall under the title of this programme (i.e. those shooting ULF) aren't complaining about paying for film (over $8 per sheet/shot for me), yet those who shoot small formats are.
    I'm not complaining. But I will admit that as a shooter of mostly 35mm, and forgetting just how cheap that can be, I had a hic-up at the bulk roll prices of the ULF. Then I did the math to get a per/roll price and things get more real.

    I initially choked on one price for 46mm, then realized that it was lower than Efke's 127 (disregarding the need to hand roll).

    I'm happy. But I still have to wait for the June budget before I buy.

  6. #206

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    324
    Simon,

    I wanted to thank you for the 46mm/127 offering. I will be placing my order once the money-wheel crosses into June. I just wanted to add my vote for next year offering this in FP4 (or alternating years of FP4/HP5). I'm sure I will find many good uses at ISO 400, but the cameras I have for 127 are more geared at 100-ish (or lower, if you have secret plans).

    (Keeping my eye out for a gray baby.)

  7. #207

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I do think it would be nice to know if they meet the quota this year, if next year it will be cheaper because tooling costs are then covered.
    My impression (from Simon's comments) is that retooling is not a major part of most of these costs. It comes down to waste relative to "normal" production. That and labor for what is really *several* special order runs.

    Also since I wast around (or aware) then, can anyone tell me if any of the smaller format roll films had been part of this run in the past? (And actually cut, not just offered).
    It (in my impression) keeps expanding, if slowly. This is the first year that I've seen 46mm/127 bulk rolls. So the first year that I've been more than an observer. Lots of discussion say this is the first for 122. I think *some* 120 and 70mm happened before, though the 120 backer paper is (I believe) new.

  8. #208

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    ...can anyone tell me if any of the smaller format roll films had been part of this run in the past?...
    Only 90mm FP4 Plus as of last year. Here's the 2012 list:
    Attached Files

  9. #209
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,545
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Thoms View Post
    This did cross my mind but the 4x10 is over three times the surface area and yet the price is within a dollar or two. Maybe I'll PM Simon about this as it is really bothering me.

    Roger

    I agree, an explanation is needed, asking Simon is the way to get it. We've tossed around our ideas but it appears only Ilford / Harmon knows. Our money is relavent here.

    Curt
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  10. #210
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,239
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Only 90mm FP4 Plus as of last year. Here's the 2012 list:
    Can you tell me the difference between the 90mm and the 91.whateveritis mm film? I know the latter is 122? So then what's the 90mm?

    Thanks, just curious.


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin