Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,299   Posts: 1,535,804   Online: 680
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    As long as it's under, say, ten bucks a roll I will buy and shoot Tri-X. This isn't a big deal. It's still cheaper than Delta 3200 and I shoot quite a bit of that.

  2. #12
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    As long as it's under, say, ten bucks a roll I will buy and shoot Tri-X. This isn't a big deal. It's still cheaper than Delta 3200 and I shoot quite a bit of that.
    For me, photography is a hobby and not a career. I shoot as much film as I can afford both in terms of cost of film and in time away from family, work, etc. As long as I have both the disposable income and the time to shoot, I will continue to do so. This last year, the bigger issue for me has been time, where I have been too busy at work to spend any significant time shooting. In the summer of 2009, I put 60 rolls through the camera in June-August (I am a fairly deliberate shooter, so I might use 1-2 rolls a day on a busy day); last year during the same time frame, I did 10 rolls (3 coming on the same day) as I logged 200 hours of overtime during those months. While I am not rolling in cash by any stretch of the imagination, my biggest "cost" is the time required for me to go out shooting. So while these price increases are annoying, the cost of a roll has rarely been the determining factor of how much I will shoot or which films I will shoot. I shoot the films I like (Tri-X being my personal favorite) and as much as I can afford.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,912
    I knew this was coming once Chapter 11 rumors started flying, so in the past few months I have ordered 200 rolls of it in 120, 200 in 35, 100 rolls of TMX in 120 and 100 of Ektar 100 in 120. These price increases are neither surprising or painful yet, cost of doing business.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    A lot of Kodak's films have seen some price increases over the last 3-4 years. Tri-X has been holding remarkably steady, so it's not too surprising to me to see this.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,803
    It could be worse, they may stop making it!

    Jeff

  6. #16
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    For me, photography is a hobby and not a career. I shoot as much film as I can afford both in terms of cost of film and in time away from family, work, etc. As long as I have both the disposable income and the time to shoot, I will continue to do so. This last year, the bigger issue for me has been time, where I have been too busy at work to spend any significant time shooting. In the summer of 2009, I put 60 rolls through the camera in June-August (I am a fairly deliberate shooter, so I might use 1-2 rolls a day on a busy day); last year during the same time frame, I did 10 rolls (3 coming on the same day) as I logged 200 hours of overtime during those months. While I am not rolling in cash by any stretch of the imagination, my biggest "cost" is the time required for me to go out shooting. So while these price increases are annoying, the cost of a roll has rarely been the determining factor of how much I will shoot or which films I will shoot. I shoot the films I like (Tri-X being my personal favorite) and as much as I can afford.
    I don't shoot a lot of film but this is pretty much my point too. I can afford all the film I have time to shoot, and I have time to shoot more than I have time to develop and print!

    I'm not insensitive. I shot a lot of film (a lot more than now) in my college and high school days when I had to buy the cheapest stuff I could find. I made test strips on absurdly narrow (counterproductive, but never mind) strips of paper to save paper and so on. I understand it, but I don't think most people here are in that position. If you are, then Tri-X may not be the film for you. Fortunately at B&H HP5+ is cheaper as someone posted, and it's a really good film. Freestyle still has 120 TX for $3.79, and since it's my favorite film too I'm tempted to stock up - probably will if they still have it at that price next time I put in an order. I can afford the higher price but I'm not stupid - if I can get it more than a buck cheaper, I will. If one is really on a budget the Arista re-branded Foma is $2.89 a roll. It's not Tri-X, it's not really box speed, but I've seen a lot of images on it that I really like.

    Give me ten more hours a week for darkroom work and I'll be a lot happier about that than if the price of film and paper dropped by 25%.

  7. #17
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    What's worse than the increased per-roll price is that B&H does not list tri-x pro-packs!

    I'm in the same boat as PKM-25. I've got what I need in my freezer.

    I theorize that tmy2 can do everything tri-x can, given the right development technique, because I'm a fan of tmy2. But if Kodak ended tri-x for that reason, they'd be missing the point that it's easy to use and develop and has a big fanbase.

  8. #18
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    I shoot Tri-X at 1200 in Diafine. Nothing I've done with TMY gives me results at that kind of speed that I like as well as the Tri-X/Diafine combo. At box speed I agree, TMY-2 is a superior film, but not in ways that matter to me very much or at all in medium format. If I were shooting 35mm to print larger than 8x10 it might, but I don't so it doesn't. I shoot TMY-2 in 4x5.

  9. #19
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Welcome to the new reality. Consumer C-41(Fuji) is scarce and remarkably pricey and pro films (Fuji and Kodak) rose several times in the past year--Fuji pro films now extortionately priced in Toronto.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    413
    Stick w/ freestyle and adorama for now, still under $4. And buy that Arista premium in 35mm like crazy, b/c that certainly isn't forever.

    I agree that tri-x has held steady for a long time, and like everything it's bound to go up. Frankly, from a cost of doing business stand point everything has been going up so much that this price increase in film seems more than reasonable.
    Last edited by GraemeMitchell; 02-13-2012 at 07:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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