Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,849   Posts: 1,582,848   Online: 681
      
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 98
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
    Sixty exposures for $20? Now that's twice as much as Kodak proposed to the OP....
    It's three 20 exp loads, PLUS OP gets to see if he really likes the film before committing to a bigger $ layout. That's not worth something in your books?

    s-a
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    577
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    It's three 20 exp loads, PLUS OP gets to see if he really likes the film before committing to a bigger $ layout. That's not worth something in your books?

    s-a
    Just noting how the three-pack set is double the price of a 100' roll, considering the ire projected at pricing of the 100' roll compared to the 400' roll (not just on this forum).

  3. #73
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,202
    Quote Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
    Just noting how the three-pack set is double the price of a 100' roll, considering the ire projected at pricing of the 100' roll compared to the 400' roll (not just on this forum).
    The comparison of the 100' roll price should rightly be to 100' rolls of other films. The proper comparison for 3x20 exposures should be to others of that loading but 20x loads aren't common now commercially. The closest would be 24x. Of course the per-shot price for the 100' roll will be a lot less. I'd be shocked it it were not.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    577
    Images
    1
    Most expensive 24 exposure rolls I see are $5.49 each, so $16.50 for three. And the most expensive 100 foot rolls I find are $90. Hmm. Seems that no matter what the price is it's maybe the IDEA of allowing Kodak to charge a premium for a special order that is the problem. At these prices XX isn't much different At all than shooting factory spooled HP5 135/24 or TMAX 100 bulk rolls. But I guess nobody would ever do that...

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    577
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by RidingWaves View Post
    "Turns out that Plus-X is gone because the one particular machine that coated it broke, and it couldn't be repaired any more, same as Efke"

    I call BS on this. Kodak shifted all of its film making to one plant in 2002 that could make all of the films under one roof, just changing the emulsions for the master rolls to be cut. One Kodak machine 'wearing out' for Plus-X? Ha.
    Perhaps you got the previous version mixed up, that version of Plus-X pre 2002 had the distinctive blueish film base.
    I'm relaying what I was told from a reliable source who deals directly with Kodak regularly around film. I was certainly not much of a Kodak fan after seeing Plus-X go- which this source did not know, and hearing this was a surprise to me. Believe whatever you want I really could care less.

    At this point I could give a sh1t about any of this. A couple of us were wondering about getting XX respooled and asked a question of Kodak. One of us thought that years ago it used to come in 100' rolls. Doesn't hurt to ask right? We were given a price and a minimum amount of film needed to make it happen. I put the info out there wondering if there would be enough interest. There isn't, instead there is just a lot of complaining about the price, even though it is only $10 more than the Freestyle price for TMAX100 in a 100' roll and 30% more than Tri-X (Kodak's cheapest B&W film) For a special order. With most things these days convenience is king- even if it comes at something of a premium- we thought this might have a chance at working for folks. To those of you who contacted me with interest- sorry it isn't going to happen. To those who felt the need to complain. Pi$$ off.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    If Double-X was a magic film or exceedingly superior to Tri-x, T-max or Ilford still films then maybe $1 per foot would be worth it. But everything I've read indicates that Double-X is substandard to those films.

    NOW... If Kodak would make Ektachrome (any version) for $100/100ft I would be all over that deal immediately.
    - Bill Lynch

  7. #77
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,020

    Double-X 100' rolls Special Order??

    If you were really dedicated to getting xx out to people you should have just bought the 1000ft reels, a set of cheap rewinds, and some black plastic bags and separate it out for your self instead. There's a thing called self reliance, and you don't need to ask a bunch of people to chip in $100 a can for cine stock and get pissy when people pointed out that the price is way high.

    I remember fairly recently a member offered cine stock here respooled himself for $30-$50 a roll shipped. He had it asked if people wanted an it was at a fair price and it was snapped up. Simple.

  8. #78
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,250
    Images
    1

    Double-X 100' rolls Special Order??

    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    Rich, that is a compelling photo of the Bay Bridge.

    Although I haven't been up there for 30 years, I used to commute daily on that bridge for years.

    Looking at your photo I feel I'm actually there. The detail and tonality is great.

    -Bill
    Thanks for comment Bill. :-)
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  9. #79
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,185
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    If Double-X was a magic film or exceedingly superior to Tri-x, T-max or Ilford still films then maybe $1 per foot would be worth it. But everything I've read indicates that Double-X is substandard to those films.

    NOW... If Kodak would make Ektachrome (any version) for $100/100ft I would be all over that deal immediately.
    Well, I doubt there really is a magic film, but XX is not bad at all, and having used it, Tri-X and several others it certainly doesn't act substandard to me. In fact, it is actually a very flexible emulsion.

    Either way, I thought this was actually a good idea that would allow a lot more people the opportunity to try it out. Face it, picking up and using 100 foot is not so bad, but if you do not know that you will like it, 400 foot is a pretty big commitment. But it appears that everyone is still perfectly happy with what they already have and the ones who were willing to try it are already comfortable with the larger rolls. I will continue to buy the 400 footers every month or so since I already know I like it, but others may miss out on that opportunity. Takes a while to shoot 400 foot of film but I put the spare on ice until I'm ready for another roll. It is certainly a very nice film, and the 400 foot rolls stack and store nicely in my freezer.

  10. #80
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,975
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
    Well, I doubt there really is a magic film, but XX is not bad at all, and having used it, Tri-X and several others it certainly doesn't act substandard to me. In fact, it is actually a very flexible emulsion.

    Either way, I thought this was actually a good idea that would allow a lot more people the opportunity to try it out. Face it, picking up and using 100 foot is not so bad, but if you do not know that you will like it, 400 foot is a pretty big commitment. But it appears that everyone is still perfectly happy with what they already have and the ones who were willing to try it are already comfortable with the larger rolls. I will continue to buy the 400 footers every month or so since I already know I like it, but others may miss out on that opportunity. Takes a while to shoot 400 foot of film but I put the spare on ice until I'm ready for another roll. It is certainly a very nice film, and the 400 foot rolls stack and store nicely in my freezer.
    I like the look of the Eastman High Contrast film that that guy mentioned earlier is offering on his site, it's nice, and double x looks nice too of course, but I would prefer some Panatomic-x or some other slow speed film, I like slow contrasty films.... I love PanF+ as it's the ONLY slow film from the major manufacturers at a decent price, I won't spend $10 per roll that's just silly when there are lots of good $5 per roll films, still, it's sad to see kodak go, but they got rid of all their good offerings in B&W, Tri-x is nice but so is the comparable HP5+ and Tri-x is more expensive than Tmax which is just silly.

    Ah well... I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore... I shoot 120, show me where I can get bulk rolls of 120, I never understood why those aren't available...

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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