erickpro Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>I was looking at doing my own TriX bulk loading and read that on a 100' Bulk Film Roll that costs $100 USD I can get about 18-20 rolls of 36 exposures. If I do the math that is roughly $5 USD per roll. IF you look at current film prices, a roll of TriX 400 is about $5 USD so where are the savings right now? Did I get something wrong or at this moment is useless to roll your own film?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>Not useless just don't roll Tri-X. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickpro Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>Illford HP5 is $50 USD, that is a better deal but what film is contrasty similar to TriX that is currently cheap?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>I like the Ultrafine Xtreme. I believe it is Kentmere 400.<br> http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulxtblwhfiis9.html</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>HP5 is for all practical purposes the same as Tri-X. It's the same tradtional grain structure as opposed to Kodak TMax and Ilford Delta.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>You get about 17 1/2 rolls of 36 exp. from a 100' roll of bulk film. I like rolling my own because I may only need a short one or because I like doing it myself. Tri-X has gotten pricey which I hate to see so I'll be doing more HP-5 than I used to. What replaces Tri-X that is currently cheap? Nothing.</p> <p>Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 <p>Rick, everything can replace TriX that is currently cheap......but I don't like TriX.... :)</p> <p>But for a fair comparison......I rate a bulk roll at about 30 rolls of 24 @ 1 roll = 3 ft.</p> <p>Based on B&H....</p> <p>1 roll = 4.35<br> 100' = 99.95 = 3.33 per 24 roll.</p> <p>Still a significant savings.</p> <p>What you have to consider is that 100' roll, not too long ago, was half the price and the roll of 24 might have been a few percent cheaper. The reality is Kodak doesn't really want to sell you bulk film anymore.</p> <p>I still have some 100' rolls of PlusX I bought at $45 when prices were more normal and I knew supply was going to run out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 <p>I used to pay $20 to $30 for 100 feet of Tri-X but that was in the 70s, and got 19 36-exposure rolls out of it. (Maybe I cut my leaders a little shorter than Rick.) Newspapers I worked for mostly used bulk and mostly Tri-X but some would use HP (probably HP-4) back then or Neopan, whatever was cheapest. You couldn't tell the difference on newsprint.<br /><br />I think Peter is correct that Kodak isn't interested in selling bulk film anymore. Honestly it's surprising that they are still selling Tri-X at all. Newspapers, magazines, wire services etc. were among the biggest buyers but that market evaporated when news photography went color, long before digital. Most bread and butter professional work today -- weddings, portraits, news, advertising, etc. -- is color and digital. Consumers don't shoot film anymore let alone b&w. There's obviously somebody still using it but I suspect the market is mostly advanced amateurs and fine arts shooters. At this point we are lucky to get it in whatever version Kodak wants to give us, and who knows how much longer they are going to be around. A 100 foot roll of Tri X costs $99 because nobody buys it and nobody buys it because it costs $99. Easy to see where that's headed. Sorry -- didn't mean to go down the death of film route. But this is an example of the death of 1,000 cuts along the way there.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 <p>Yeah Craig I used to roll mine just a bit long. A motor driven f2 makes an awful noise if you run a little short. Peter when I say nothing I mean that for me anyway, Tri-X is unique, nothing else looks quite the same and it's a look I like. I also use HP-5 but I get a slightly different result. I agree though that there are several films out there that can do the job. I also think you are right that Kodak doesn't want to sell bulk film any more. I'm honestly not sure what they are trying to sell now. I do know that my local camera store is busting me for $6 for a 24 exp. roll of HP-5 so I'm definitely rolling my own.</p> <p>Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj8281 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 <p>If you want cheap Kodak Tri-X, check out Freestyle's Arista Premium 400, 24 exposure roll for $2.69 and it is Tri-X. Get it before it is all gone. I just ordered another 20 rolls myself.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickpro Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 When I started I was shooting Fuji 800 and 1600 and very few times 3200 for journalism. I didn't have to pay for any of that at the time since it was provided. Now that I have to pay for it myself, I wanted to find a cheaper alternative so I started shooting Agfa Vista 400 but was looking into shooting better film again. I plan on shooting lots of black and white and develop my own. Already have the equipment since those film days. I plan on shooting lots of film while my M9 is in Germany. Probably lots of Portra 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erickpro Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 It's $2.69 per 24 exposures then you add 10 dollars shipping If you get around 30 rolls of 24 exposures you pay about $90 and for real Tri-X for a roll of 100' is $99 or $95 for TMax and is free shipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 <p>For me, I shoot a lot of 12 (and less) shot rolls. Bulk rolling is preferred. I tend to take the camera in hand for a single purpose these days, so shooting an excessive amount of film to get it is rare. Day trips and walk-abouts are usually handled in MF these days.</p> <p>The last few purchases have been 400' rolls and I will likely continue to do that. It's not that much cheaper than 100' rolls, but I can get the film I like (DoubleX, N74+, UN54). Another advantage is the 'batch' of film stays more consistent as it comes off the same spool for longer periods of time.</p> <p>TriX that I remember in the 70s is more like HP5 of today. It's fame then was that it could be pushed, and we did a lot of that. Not much else. People remember the high contrast results and not the abuse we gave it... ;) If you wanted what we rave about it today, we shot PlusX or PanatomicX (when we could get it). I wish my lab skills were as good then as they are now. I might have had some images worth keeping. Oh well.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 <p> If you want to Bulk load and save the secret is..... Get 400-1000 feet of B&W movie film in B&W these days. It is not like the days when we got XX for 3-6 cents a foot but You can still do it the you have to learn how to break down huge reel to fit the loader. It is not like the days of Short ends that we used to get But It is new and one can said on it recently. George Lucas.. :D That was the name on the can and it was covered in sand and CGI :-)<br> I am not kidding to really enjoy a price cut you need to get large roils then make them fit in the daylight loaders. Kodak only sells one emulsion that way in B&W and it is of all things one of the oldest ans most loved.<br> http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Production/Black_And_White_Films/index.htm</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotohuis RoVo Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 <p>My last Optima 400 (Agfa) C-41 bulk is in the freezer. When Agfa Photo went in bankruptcy (2005) it was Eur. 9,- for 30,5m/100ft exp. 2007 (when you cut straight it is 18 films) . It is coming to an end now.</p> <p>Last week I was at Fuji in Tilburg. They are selling out production materials via an auction. I just found there a box of 256 Fuji Superia 100 films. Even not expired.<br> What do you think about €0,43 for each 35mm film. You can not even think about bulk loading .....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_campbell1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 <p>By the way if you haven't noticed Fuji discontinued all 100' rolls production a few years back, I think Kodak is heading into that direction. Way to go now is Ilford if you want to save money and still make sense out of the practice of bulk loading.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 <p>And that would sell me on Ilford....Foma or ORWO</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotohuis RoVo Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Foma and OrWo are selling bulk film for about almost half price then Ilford/Harman. At least the mentioned prices in W. Europe main land. Compare FP4+/Delta 100 with FP100/200 and OrWo Filmotec UN54. Or HP5+/Delta 400 with FP400 and OrWo Filmotec N74+. Even Rollei RPX-100/400 are much cheaper hence these are also Harman products. And I am not talking about cheap Arista EDU films but premium Foma quality Fomapan Professional B&W films. When going to Filmotec 122m/400ft assy the distance is even 50% in price difference. Kodak double X is not very cheap overhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 <p>Even after they are discontinued, people will have them frozen or maybe only cool, and sell them on eBay many years from now. <br> Panatomic-X comes up on eBay often enough, and goes for a lot less than $100/roll.</p> -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_mont Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 <p>I have noticed all of the same things that have been mentioned here. I think bulk loading to save money has become mostly a thing of the past unless using things like Ultrafine Xtreme. I guess one could save some money in one sense if they only needed a couple of exposures on a given roll. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 <p>Bulk loading is a way of life, for me. It bothers me to have to shoot 24 or 36 because that's all I can buy. I don't see it as a thing of the past.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_campbell1 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 <p>Way to go at this moment is ILFORD stay away from Ultrafine and Arista unless you want a fool of yourself. Wait for the weather conditions and order from B&H</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 <p>If you want to use the occasional short roll of Tri-X but don't want to pay for 100' just buy a few 36 exp. rolls. Take a roll in a darkroom and attach the leader to an empty film cassette that has a bit of leader still attached, In total darkness roll about half of it into the empty cassette and take up slack until cassettes are almost in contact. Turn on lights, cut leader and trim leader for easy loading. You will lose a few shots but when I've done this I usually get one roll with about 15 or 16 shots and another with around 18. Don't expect to get two 18's though. I've done this when trying a new film so I can perform tests without buying a bulk load or sacrificing a long roll. If you're going to shoot a lot of photos, though, go with the Ilford.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 <p>It's still cheaper to buy it bulk. If you only need it once in a while, it will be expired by the time you finish it. Then you can brag on what a sweet deal you got it for, as Kodak will have raised the price significantly by then. You can still win.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now