 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / December 2004What happened to the price of 35mm bulk TMAX?
Back in August I bought a 100' bulk roll of TMY 35mm for $22.50 from Adorama. Today I find that the price on both Adorama and B&H is $39.95. While this still represents a substantial savings over buying rolls (I figure about 18 rolls of 36 exp. from 100', which would cost about $60 otherwise), it's a big jump. Did I luck out on a huge bargain in August, or is something strange going on here? --Phil > Back in August I bought a 100' bulk roll of TMY 35mm for $22.50 from > Adorama. Today I find that the price on both Adorama and B&H is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > --Phil Probably just greed. But 22.50 sounds really low.  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : > Back in August I bought a 100' bulk roll of TMY 35mm for $22.50 from : > Adorama. Today I find that the price on both Adorama and B&H is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > : > --Phil : Probably just greed. But 22.50 sounds really low. I thought that I paid ~$40 a couple of years ago. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com >: > Back in August I bought a 100' bulk roll of TMY 35mm for $22.50 from >: > Adorama. Today I find that the price on both Adorama and B&H is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I thought that I paid ~$40 a couple of years ago. You're right, you did. That's why I swtched to movie film short ends and saved Hundreds of dollars. I did my own darkroom work making up formulae from scratch, so nothing got in my way. When I had to have some color neg developed and printed by the drugstore, I used Fujicolor, which was never refused, as it had an Anti Halo layer built inside the film, not a RemJet black backing on the base, as does Eastmancolor. Just ways to skin the cats. Just remember, Tri-X is called Double X negative in movie packaging. Differences are insignificant. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > You're right, you did. That's why I swtched to movie film short ends > and saved Hundreds of dollars. I did my own darkroom work making up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just remember, Tri-X is called Double X negative in movie packaging. > Differences are insignificant. This sounds _really_ cool. I am intrigued by this but am completely clueless as to how to proceed. 1) Where do you get "short ends" and how many feet do you get on a short end? 2) If you get the Double X negative movie film, _does_ it have an anti-halation layer? 3) I am confused by what you say about "making up formulae from scratch": if Double X negative is the same thing as Tri-X, can't you just use D-76, XTOL, or any of the other usual developers? 4) Aside from the form in which you transfer the movie film to your bulk film loader, are there any other mechanical differences between packaged still camera rolls and the short ends? 5) Are there an_ other issues about processing I need to be aware of? 6) Is TMAX produced for movie production? If so, under what moniker? 7) Are there other, potentially obscure or interesting brands of 35mm movie film for black and white that I should know about? I await your answers on the edge of my seat. Many thanks! --Phil >> You're right, you did. That's why I swtched to movie film short ends >> and saved Hundreds of dollars. I did my own darkroom work making up [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >This sounds _really_ cool. I am intrigued by this but am completely >clueless as to how to proceed. Online searches are useful. If you live in Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, Chicago, Toronto, or some other area within the vicinity of these or other centers of film production, you can usually find a seller of short ends by asking at a film processing lab or equipment rental house. >1) Where do you get "short ends" and how many feet do you get on a >short end? Once you find a supplier, you can arrange to purchase your desired emulsion by the foot. If you can work out a method of spooling the stuff down in complete darkness at home, just walk away with whatecer you want. It is not a trivial consideration. If you cannot manage that, ask to have your purchase spooled down by the supplier into 100 foot lengths. >2) If you get the Double X negative movie film, _does_ it have an >anti-halation layer? Yes, an internal one, just like the still version. RemJet is a consideration for Eastman color negative and most color print films. While it may be found on some monochrome emulsion, I know of no specific instance. I think most Ektachromes are free of RemJet, except for a few special instances, which do not come to mind. >3) I am confused by what you say about "making up formulae from >scratch": if Double X negative is the same thing as Tri-X, can't you >just use D-76, XTOL, or any of the other usual developers? Yes, I was referring to the formulae for color films. That was because a lot of what I had was Eastmancolor with the troublesome RemJet backing. Fuji film was fine to send to a still film photofinisher. You can process all the MP color negative films in C-41 kits at home. Respooled DoubleX is essentially Tri-X, aside from some overcoating differences, which are almost always trivial; really trivial. >4) Aside from the form in which you transfer the movie film to your >bulk film loader, are there any other mechanical differences between >packaged still camera rolls and the short ends? Depending on the cartridges you use, your respools will not send DX coding to the camera's meter. You have to set the speed yourself. Most camera negative films will come with Bell and Howell perforations with a short pitch (the distance between one edge of a perforation and the same point on the next perforation). Given that the Leica was designed to use MP film, and the years of use of short ends by people in the MP industry, this is another piece of trivia. >5) Are there an_ other issues about processing I need to be aware of? Nothing beyond Remjet considerations, comes to mind. You may locate an emulsion that requires a special process, ECO, ME4, GAF/Ansco, or other older specified for other films. Since I had access to a lot of the formulae and procedures, as well as exotic chemicals, I could handle anything I was likely to encounter. If you avoid these intriqueing items and stick to the usual ltems, there should be no problems. >6) Is TMAX produced for movie production? If so, under what moniker? I'm not aware of such. Ask Kodak, as I haven't been active lately. >7) Are there other, potentially obscure or interesting brands of 35mm >movie film for black and white that I should know about? >I await your answers on the edge of my seat. Many thanks! Well, there were, but many have been discontinued. One such item was valled XT-Pan and Background-X negative. This was essentially the MP version of the, then current, Panatomic -X. Some is still available. In 16mm the Plus-X reversal is this same Panatomic emulsion at its core. If you really search around, there were some slittings and spoolings of this emulsion in 35mm. This may be true of other oddball emulsions by other manufacturers. I did pick up some ends of VNF, a color reversal usually found in 16mm for video news, in 35mm. It used a process that was sort of midway between E4 and E6. Since I had the formulae, I was home free. If I didn't, I might have been stuck. Ib any event, I obtained a cheap source of color reversal tungsten balanced film with a rating of 125. It really worked out well. Good luck, Robert Vervoordt, MFA Well, this certainly has been an education. It looks to me like the only issue here is using Tri-X instead of TMAX. I'm guessing that the cost savings will cause me to seriously consider this option. Many thanks! --Phil >: Probably just greed. But 22.50 sounds really low. > >I thought that I paid ~$40 a couple of years ago. You did. I imagine that Kodak et all were just flushing the supply chain of the older versions of the film. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email Hi If your interested in bulk film try Ebay. I find many good deals on fresh dated film. Now me I used 70mm Color Unperfed in my Hasselblads (converted 70mm backs). I get fresh dated 100 ft film for under $35. That's 5 frames to a foot for 35 cents or 7 cents a picture. A 12 exposure roll has to be 84 cents to beat that price. Larry |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.