Rebranded Plus-X & Tri-X, cheap from Freestyle

[sockeyed]

All evidence suggests that Freestyle Photo out of the US has made a deal with Kodak to rebrand their Plus-X and Tri-X as Arista Premium 100 and Premium 400.

$2/36exp
$30/100'

This is surprising as Kodak generally doesn't rebrand their film for third-party sale. Freestyle won't come out and say that it's Kodak stock, but folks are pretty sure that it is because 1) it's made in the US, and 2) development times are identical to PX and TX in all developers listed. Obviously PX is an ISO125 film, but it is close enough to 100 to not be a big deal.

I've browsed a number of threads elsewhere by folks who have tried the stuff, and all evidence suggests that it's Kodak. Of course there are all sorts of theories why Kodak would suddenly do this (excess stock, weak sales, etc), but regardless it's an excellent price for a pair of classic emulsions.

 

[Morca007]

I hope it really is, I'm ordering 15 rolls of the 400!

 

[oscroft]

That looks cheap - does anyone know of a UK outlet?

 

[sanmich]

Is there a way to be sure we are talking about PX / TX?

 

[JRG]

Just ordered some myself. At $2/36x, it's a bit too tempting to ignore.

 

[sockeyed]

Is there a way to be sure we are talking about PX / TX?

Well, there are no other BW film manufacturers in the US. Some suggested that the film could be older TMAX, but the development times aren't right for that, plus it's not advertised as a t-grain film.

Have a look at discussions on other forums:
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00QJnE
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/53037-new-arista-premium-100-400-films.html

 

[Aziz]

It supposedly has the same effect when souped in diafine as well (+1.5 - 2 stops push)

 

[kxl]

I placed an order last week for the Premium 400 before Freestyle received the first lot, since it's probably going to be a popular item. I just called to confirm -- they did indeed receive their shipment on Friday, and my order is being shipped today.

As to whether or not it is re-branded Tri-X, online discussions come to the concensus that "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, ..."

 

[wayneb]

Shame they don't also have it for 120 size

 

[jbf]

I thought the same. Wish they had it in medium format.

 

[Ray Nalley]

So Kodak is now dumping B&W film through a discounter? I'm not sure that is encouraging.

 

[sockeyed]

Freestyle is a huge player in the film market with a lot of connections in the photography education field as well as strong links with working pros. They have the ability to buy in very large numbers, and perhaps Kodak saw the benefit in such a large-volume sale to Freestyle. In the past, Freestyle had partnerships with Agfa, Ilford and Forte, and they still sell rebranded Foma films and Kentmere papers.

It is interesting to see Kodak selling in bulk to them, but I don't think that it's the death knell for the big yellow.

That said, I just bought 700' of the Premium 400.

 

[bcostin]

So Kodak is now dumping B&W film through a discounter? I'm not sure that is encouraging.

Nah, they're not "dumping" it, they're just rebranding it. I think Kodak is just about the only B&W film manufacturer that hasn't had a rebranding arrangement with Freestyle at some point. Freestyle's Arista Premium 400 is edge-marked as such, so it's apparently not old or short-dated stock from a warehouse somewhere, it's fresh film manufactured for their private label.

If it is Kodak (and based on my own Diafine experiences it looks like it to me) then there's nothing ominous about this. In fact I'd say the opposite. A rebranding arrangement allows Kodak to manufacture and sell more film and to capture a portion of the market that was formerly occupied by the competition (education, and hobbyists with a limited film budget) without diluting their brand name. It's better to make a little less from a sale than make nothing at all.

 

[JRG]

"A rebranding arrangement allows Kodak to manufacture and sell more film and to capture a portion of the market that was formerly occupied by the competition (education, and hobbyists with a limited film budget) without diluting their brand name. It's better to make a little less from a sale than make nothing at all."

I was thinking along similar lines. It might be that the film production game at Kodak is such that there are efficiency advantages in larger or more frequent production runs. So, making some rebranded Tri-X can help to keep costs down, provided that sales of the rebranded stuff don't eat too much of the Tri-X market.

 

[Ray Nalley]

"provided that sales of the rebranded stuff don't eat too much of the Tri-X market."

Well, that's easy to determine. How many here are going to stop buying Kodak branded Tri-X and start buying the cheap stuff?

 

[PATB]

Different Time for Tri-x in DDX

Different Time for Tri-x in DDX

According to the Freestyle development chart, the recommended developing time for Ilford DDX 1+4, 20C, is 6.5 min. In contrast, Ilford lists Tri-x at 8 min for DDX at the same dilution and temperature. Could this be just a typo or the film is not exactly Tri-x?

 

[35mmdelux]

this is great news and what many had hoped for instead of Kodak dropping BW altogether. Lets hope that Portra and Kodachrome may be saved in a similar manner.

 

[venchka]

Call Freestyle. Ask them if you should "treat this film like Tri-X or Plus-X?" See what they say.

They have another new film coming in January. Ask them if you should "treat the new film like Neopan." See what they say.

 

[mh2000]

Ilford has a history of suggesting longer development times for Kodak films than Kodak... (when in doubt, I start with the massive developer chart times).

According to the Freestyle development chart, the recommended developing time for Ilford DDX 1+4, 20C, is 6.5 min. In contrast, Ilford lists Tri-x at 8 min for DDX at the same dilution and temperature. Could this be just a typo or the film is not exactly Tri-x?

 

[Ray Nalley]

I think it would be tough to rebrand Kodachome and not give away the maker. 😉