The same reason GM won't sell the tooling for the old corvette when they make a new one. They want you buying the new product. I wouldn't expect Kodak to do anything that would stop people from buying Kodak film. Well no more then they usually do-)))
Sheet films and rollfilms have a different base, which is of different thickness. That's why sheets and rolls do not come rom the same film stock. I think the boxes say what the thickness is on each type.
But I have an ancillary question: not all sheet films, as an example, have bases of uniform thickness, or so it seems. Bergger, for instance, feels siginificantly thinner than HP5, when you hold a single sheet. I wonder if this is a question of hardener in the base, or of thickness. And if it's of thickness, I wonder if that would affect depth of field at very wide apertures or very wide angles?
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Mar 5 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But I have an ancillary question: not all sheet films, as an example, have bases of uniform thickness, or so it seems. Bergger, for instance, feels siginificantly thinner than HP5, when you hold a single sheet. I wonder if this is a question of hardener in the base, or of thickness. And if it's of thickness, I wonder if that would affect depth of field at very wide apertures or very wide angles?
dgh </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I am almost sure it is thickness, but not enough of a difference to make difference in DOF or Sharpness.
Just by way of info. The quote at photowarehouse on 12X20 film is about $45.00 lower then other retailers. Since they cut the film themselves, the potential savings of coop buying may not be worthwhile in terms of coordinating, shipping, etc. All reports that I have received indicate that this is Ilford film, even though photowarehouse doesn't advertise it as such. Most probably due to some agreement with the mfg.
Cooperative purchasing is something I've done a bit of on a relatively small scale, say to find one or two people to split a 500 sheet box of Azo gr. 3, before it was available in 100-sheet boxes from Michael and Paula, and before I was quite ready to commit that kind of cash to Azo. Occasionally on the LF forum, people have announced plans to make a minimum order of a certain film in a banquet size, and those seem to have worked well. I'm considering doing the same at some point for Tri-X in 11x14", if Kodak will still do it, and if new Tri-X (which I haven't tried yet) is as good as old TXT (which I've bought from B&H in other sizes as recently as a month ago).
if you decide on the Tri-X send me an E-mail. I would be willing to buy a portion of the order.
I seem to have a vague recollection of hearing about silver prices going pretty high years ago. I mean YEARS ago. Like Super-XX years ago. Could that also be the reason for the lack of a Super-XX replacement? Prices went up, it became cheaper to switch and go with the thinner stuff. Then prices dropped and well...the switch was made.
Just a theory. Plus Kodak has to move forward. It is poor marketing to NOT improve emulsions somehow....
I've heard that Super-XX had gold chloride or some such in it that made it about twice as expensive as other films of its day. I'm sure that the days of $80/oz silver and $1000/oz gold in the mid-1980s had an impact. Hungary has significant silver resources, and I'm sure that's had something to do with the growth of Forte films and papers.
You guys are talking about a co-op. Would it make sense to pool resources and buy a whole ROLL of a Kodak film such as Tri-X or Tmax100, and then let photowarehouse store and cut it to whatever size we need, and pay them for storage and cutting? That way, you would have a much bigger base of potential buyers since they could cut it to 5x12, 7x11, 11x14, 7x17, 14x17, 8x20, 12x20 or whatever. I was told that Kodak's increasing reluctance to do custom orders has more to do with making unusually sized boxes and packaging than it does with the actual cutting process itself. If you're willing to accept photo warehouse's somewhat spartan packaging, this might be a real option that would put film in lot of hands. We could call in APUG-XXX ISO320 pan film! Sounds like a porn film.
Whaddya think? Would this work? Anybody have a contact at Kodak?
Clay that is a great idea. I am using PW now for the "FP4" film and they have great service. Personally I would like to see the roll in TMX400. But I woul dbe willing to settle with anything faster than 100 other than HP5 or Bergger 200.
If you guys want to do the roll thing count me in. If we get enough people I guess we can contact PW and ask them if they will be willing to do this with us.
No contact at Kodak, but I think I know someone who does.