Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,592   Posts: 1,546,059   Online: 929
      
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 98
  1. #81

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Newt_on_Swings View Post
    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.
    I have no interest in "getting XX out to people" I was simply asking the question if there would be enough interest in getting factory re-spools of XX in 100' lengths for a tiny bit more cost than TMAX. There isn't. There are however lots of people (yourself included) who know best how I should have gone about this, and I apologize for not checking with the assemble brilliance here so I could find out how this should have been done before contacting Kodak. A few trips out to Hollywood, a few ebay purchases of equipment, and several hours hand winding 135-36 cassettes for folks sounds so much better than spending ten extra bucks for XX? A film which I foolishly believed was liked for what it looks like not because it can be got on the cheap. Moron at work here. Again- I'm not re-spooling this myself, this was coming from Kodak at their quoted price, a little bit more than the retail price for TMAX. Yep, more than Tri-X. Yep, more than TMAX, Yep, more than buying a 1000' roll and chopping it up into lengths yourself in a black bag. A SPECIAL ORDER. Did that somehow get missed?



    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.
    Thanks for the calm response. There are a few here who do seem to like it,who understand that it is a very flexible film with a really pleasing grain, and there was some interest- but not enough to make this work. SO the question is politely withdrawn, I no longer want to know if anyone is interested in Factory re-spools of 5222 in 100' rolls. Nor do I want to hear yet again how terrible the price was.

  2. #82
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,891
    From the Nov 2012 price list: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...ls_Nov2012.pdf

    Double X is $178/400ft and $444/1000ft, which is about $44.50/100ft, or $44.40/100ft respectively. Did you honestly think that people would pay more than double that for a company to put it into a smaller canister? Whats so special about it, that it comes in the same kodak can that other bulk rolls come in, in the same black plastic baggy? That there is a special label? I doubt they will make a smaller label for a smaller can on such a run.

    A better approach would to just buy the rolls, and charge $10-$15 on top of that $44.50 for respooling yourself, and in the end everyone one gets a reasonably priced film, conveniently packaged in 100ft lengths, and you get a free 100ft out of it for your troubles. With a set a rewinds respooling is just a few rotations of a crank.

  3. #83
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
    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...
    I think you still don't get it.

    You're right - shooting the Double-X from bulk would cost about the same as factory spooled HP5 or TMX. But you have to bulk load it. It would cost more than bulk loading HP5 or TMX. Sure, buying some from someone loading it for you ends up costing more than the bulk roll, and more than other films pre-loaded, but lets you try it without as much commitment.

    My original question about the price was based on an apparent misunderstanding that people shoot this film to save money over more common films. Apparently that's not the reason. That's fine with me. But I'm happy with the commonly available black and white films for my own use.

  4. #84

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Newt_on_Swings View Post
    From the Nov 2012 price list: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...ls_Nov2012.pdf

    Double X is $178/400ft and $444/1000ft, which is about $44.50/100ft, or $44.40/100ft respectively. Did you honestly think that people would pay more than double that for a company to put it into a smaller canister? Whats so special about it, that it comes in the same kodak can that other bulk rolls come in, in the same black plastic baggy? That there is a special label? I doubt they will make a smaller label for a smaller can on such a run.

    A better approach would to just buy the rolls, and charge $10-$15 on top of that $44.50 for respooling yourself, and in the end everyone one gets a reasonably priced film, conveniently packaged in 100ft lengths, and you get a free 100ft out of it for your troubles. With a set a rewinds respooling is just a few rotations of a crank.
    I honestly didn't know if 50 or 60 people would be willing to spend $10 more than they would for TMAX 100 to get Double-X before I asked the question. I suppose this is very hard for someone with your obviously brilliant ability to divine public opinion & desire, but then I actually wasn't thinking about asking Kodak to make special labels either...

    Again, I'm not looking to make money on this, I'm not looking to have a new project re-spooling films for people I have plenty to do. I was asking a question to see if there was interest. Turns out, as you knew all along there isn't. I wish you could have divined that I was going to ask the question and gotten ahold of me before I went to the trouble. Maybe next time.

    So, do let me know when you've gotten those 100' rolls spun up for us and maybe I'll get one.

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I think you still don't get it.

    You're right - shooting the Double-X from bulk would cost about the same as factory spooled HP5 or TMX. But you have to bulk load it. It would cost more than bulk loading HP5 or TMX. Sure, buying some from someone loading it for you ends up costing more than the bulk roll, and more than other films pre-loaded, but lets you try it without as much commitment.

    My original question about the price was based on an apparent misunderstanding that people shoot this film to save money over more common films. Apparently that's not the reason. That's fine with me. But I'm happy with the commonly available black and white films for my own use.
    I think you still don't get it. TMAX 100 in a 100' roll is $90. You still have to bulk load that. I wasn't expecting everybody that read the thread to go out and buy some 'just to try it'. But one reads LOTS of queries from folks looking to try XX on the forums, on Flickr, etc. and I and a few other folks were wondering how much interest THERE MIGHT BE in doing this. Kodak said they would do it at x price for x many rolls. We expected that there MIGHT be enough people willing, but as we are not as clairvoyant as ol' Newt we needed to ask around to see. And exactly-
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    buying some from someone loading it for you ends up costing more than the bulk roll, and more than other films pre-loaded
    but surprisingly hardly at all more than buying TMAX100 in a 100' roll. I guess Kodak doesn't sell any TMAX100 in bulk, as it is so outrageously priced?

    I'm really shocked that this is so difficult for people to understand. I did think the original post was pretty clear:

    Quote Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
    Wondering how much interest there would be among apug folks for getting Eastman Double-X (5222) movie film as factory spooled 100' rolls for bulk loaders.
    I really didn't ask "How outraged can people get for being asked if they're interested in buying a film that is only available in large quantities in small quantities instead?" Oh, "for $10 more than a commonly used film." That's apparently the kicker. Everything is cheaper in bulk: oats, firewood, paint, beef, cheese. Some folks like buying a 1 lb block of cheese instead of a 50 lb block, as it is easier to deal with, there's no cutting and wrapping and storing. But what fools they are. Just cut it up and wrap it- a few flicks of the knife and you're done. And you've saved $300! Why ANYONE would ever buy a 1 lb hunk of cheese is beyond me.
    Last edited by sepiareverb; 02-24-2013 at 01:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #86
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,405
    Images
    60
    Hi sepiareverb:

    I appreciate your efforts in inquiring and then starting this thread.

    I think the problem that some people are having is that they just cannot believe/accept the fact that films like T-Max 100 are now priced as high as they are for a 100 foot roll.

    $90.00 is a little high though - B & H has it for $60.00 with free shipping.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #87
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
    I think you still don't get it. TMAX 100 in a 100' roll is $90. You still have to bulk load that. I wasn't expecting everybody that read the thread to go out and buy some 'just to try it'. But one reads LOTS of queries from folks looking to try XX on the forums, on Flickr, etc. and I and a few other folks were wondering how much interest THERE MIGHT BE in doing this. Kodak said they would do it at x price for x many rolls. We expected that there MIGHT be enough people willing, but as we are not as clairvoyant as ol' Newt we needed to ask around to see. And exactly- but surprisingly hardly at all more than buying TMAX100 in a 100' roll. I guess Kodak doesn't sell any TMAX100 in bulk, as it is so outrageously priced?
    No one is outraged. You're just upset that not enough people want to go in on this deal on your favorite film. I understand being disappointed. The apparent outrage is misplaced.

    I also have no idea where you're pricing TMX at $90 a roll but it's $59.95 at B&H:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._100_Roll.html

    I'm not saying this is "too expensive" for Double-X but I am suggesting it is more than I, and many other people, are likely to pay just to try out a new film.

  8. #88
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    Hi sepiareverb:

    I appreciate your efforts in inquiring and then starting this thread.

    I think the problem that some people are having is that they just cannot believe/accept the fact that films like T-Max 100 are now priced as high as they are for a 100 foot roll.

    $90.00 is a little high though - B & H has it for $60.00 with free shipping.
    Bulk loading in general is no longer worth it to me. I have a roll of Arista Premium 400 aka re-branded Tri-X in the loader now but once I'm done with that I probably won't get another roll of anything. Too much trouble, not enough savings for it.

  9. #89
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,132
    Your playing to a cheap crowd
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    Your playing to a cheap crowd
    He said it not me.


Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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