Also I did notice most drug stores sold rolls of 24 where the B&H is a 36 frame roll, so they aren't the same, the only good things to compare are the pro packs, who (on this forum) just buys ONE roll? its silly to do that, so I'll compare the "Packs" which BTW are also 4 packs while the B&H are 5 packs of course, so for $25 you get 5 rolls of Portra 160 while at the drug store it costs $24 for a 4 pack of Gold 200...
So, I'm NOT wrong, the prices at B&H are MUCH better, for $1.99 more you get 84 more frames!
HOWEVER for some reason the Gold 400 is much cheaper for the 4 pack at $14 while the Portra 400 is $35 so in that case it's STILL better for portra at 68 cents per image for the Gold but only 51 cents per image for the portra, again because of the 1 less roll and the 12 additional images per roll...
This is my logic...
I'll go tomorrow and actually shop a store to get official prices as I'm going off of the online prices listed for Walgreens and CVS.
Either way, I wasn't wrong.
HOWEVER it appears B&H ALSO sells gold, and they sell the 36 frames for $12 for a 5 pack which is MUCH better.
Still means I'm right, better to buy from B&H.
As far as quality, I'm given to understand that Gold is portra (or whatever the current pro color film is), basically they do a run, test it, if it doesn't pass for pro film by Kodak standards, they make it Gold, if it passes they make it portra.
PE can correct me.
So it's still pretty good stuff.
Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk