Affordable source for Kodak 3200??

[tonal1]

I'm having a very hard time justifying $7 a roll for TMZ these days. It's a mainstay film for me, but I really can't afford to shoot it as often I would like. Neopan 1600 is gone now, which I liked at EI800, and was cheap.

Now it looks like Freestyle re-branded Tri-x is about the only sanely priced medium speed film, but it's a couple stops slower, and sometimes just not fast enough.

I remember, not that long ago, when TMZ P3200 was $2.99 a roll "import" at B&H, and Tri-x $2.19... The current pricing is almost enough to make a person go digital.

Am I missing any cheaper deals on Kodak 3200 out there?

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

hi. i tried cheap expired tmz p3200 on ebay but found that many of the expired film particularly the early ones, eg. year 2000 had a lot of fog and grains were huge. I ended up shooting at iso 800.

 

[Brian Legge]

I was shooting recently expired film (ie a few months out of date) sold by Kenmore for a while. That stock made me fall in love with Neopan 1600 just before it went away.

I'd shoot much more fast film if the price difference weren't so significant, particularly compared to bulk rolled 400.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Results with pushing 400 B&W film is usually quite good -- especially if you're shooting EI800-1600.

I empathize with price concerns, but let me remind you of the false savings with digital -- ever-more expensive hardware (with bodies that last 4 years tops, before they're either broken or obsolete), ever-more expensive computers and software in order to do anything with the files, more and more money spent on archiving (and re-archiving, either when new storage mediums come onto market, or to prevent discs or drives from errors over time).

And that's not even taking into account how much your time is worth...you didn't think it was over once you clicked the digital shutter, did you?

 

[Tim Gray]

I remember, not that long ago, when TMZ P3200 was $2.99 a roll "import" at B&H, and Tri-x $2.19... The current pricing is almost enough to make a person go digital.

How recently was that? I don't think Tri-X has gone up appreciably in the 4-5 years I've been shooting it. Actually, 3 years ago, it was $0.50/roll more than it is now.

TMZ has gone up a bit, but again, I don't think it was that low in the last 4-5 years. Hell about 4 years ago I bought 20 expired rolls of it for $2/roll off of ebay and thought that was a deal. I wouldn't have done that if it was $3 new. Two and half years ago it was $7.50/roll

 

[tonal1]

How recently was that? I don't think Tri-X has gone up appreciably in the 4-5 years I've been shooting it. Actually, 3 years ago, it was $0.50/roll more than it is now.

TMZ has gone up a bit, but again, I don't think it was that low in the last 4-5 years. Hell about 4 years ago I bought 20 expired rolls of it for $2/roll off of ebay and thought that was a deal. I wouldn't have done that if it was $3 new. Two and half years ago it was $7.50/roll

Probably 2003. Aside from the fact I can't afford the new prices. Why should a film that was developed two decades ago, that costs pennies per roll to manufacture, go up in price more than the value of the dollar falls, if at all? I feel robbed at $7, and I think others do too.

I know for a fact that two and a half years ago that a small retail store could get TMZ wholesale for $5 a roll. If B&H was selling it for $7.50 a roll, at that time, than that's a pretty fat mark up on film. Over pricing film is like over pricing bread, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tonal1]

hi. i tried cheap expired tmz p3200 on ebay but found that many of the expired film particularly the early ones, eg. year 2000 had a lot of fog and grains were huge. I ended up shooting at iso 800.

I had a bad experience with that too. In 2009, I bought 250 rolls of TMZ that was "only" expired two years out. I was planning to shoot it all at 800, so I didn't think the age would be that critical. Big mistake. It was all usable, but that film is so sensitive that base fog was high, and I think it had lost a bit of speed. I shot half of it, and regretted buying it, even though it cost me around $2.25 a roll.

 

[tonal1]

And that's not even taking into account how much your time is worth...you didn't think it was over once you clicked the digital shutter, did you?

I completely agree. I'm not seriously considering switching. I'll shoot B&W film as long as it's still made, which will be a long time. I have been considering going digital for color, now that Kodachrome is finished, but I think I'm going to just shoot B&W for a while until I feel otherwise.

Shooting digital makes me feel like a ghost.

 

[Tim Gray]

I know for a fact that two and a half years ago that a small retail store could get TMZ wholesale for $5 a roll. If B&H was selling it for $7.50 a roll, at that time, than that's a pretty fat mark up on film. Over pricing film is like over pricing bread, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know, I'm just looking at my receipts that I have. B&H, Adorama, or Freestyle always have the cheapest prices on film in my experience. And it's been near $7 for a couple years. I don't know exactly when the price jumped to the level it did, but it was probably before 2006-ish.

Silver has gone up, the film market has collapsed, digital is the de facto standard now, and the economy is in the crapper.

2003 was a long time ago. Not trying to be a dick, but gas hit neared the then all time high of $1.72 in 2003. Man wouldn't that be great 😀 Hell, Leica lenses have doubled in price too.

 

[tonal1]

I don't know, I'm just looking at my receipts that I have. B&H, Adorama, or Freestyle always have the cheapest prices on film in my experience. And it's been near $7 for a couple years. I don't know exactly when the price jumped to the level it did, but it was probably before 2006-ish.

Silver has gone up, the film market has collapsed, digital is the de facto standard now, and the economy is in the crapper.

2003 was a long time ago. Not trying to be a dick, but gas hit neared the then all time high of $1.72 in 2003. Man wouldn't that be great 😀 Hell, Leica lenses have doubled in price too.

Ha, yeah, I hear you. Now, don't get me started on Leica lens prices. I never will get over not picking up a Noctilux for $1500! 🙂


But seriously, I feel like a lot of photographers are "fighting the good fight," but at the end of the day suppliers like Kodak are just out to make a buck. It would be nice to think Kodak was "on our side" vs just fine tuning their product lines to maximize profits... but I digress. ha

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah tell me about it.

I think TMZ is a low volume product. Even many of us film nuts don't like it because its too grainy (I love it). It also keeps poorly, which I'm sure causes problems for keeping a large inventory. So I guess I can convince myself that stuff like this (and Portra 800) is going to get more expensive faster than commonly used slower films like Tri-X.

I'm still fighting the fight with TMZ. I love it. It's $7/roll. I would love it if it were $4, but oh well... What can you do?

 

[Colin Corneau]

I think we have tremendous choice in film, these days...even more so when you consider digital is the standard choice for most consumers and most work/industry applications.

We still have a lot of classic emulsions, like HP5, FP4, Tri-X/Plus-X plus some absolute stunners like TMY-II or Rollei Retro 100.
For high speed, pushing film is easier (and better) with developers like TMax or DD-X. And we have some technologically advanced options like D3200.

I'm grateful to Kodak for their work in keeping film vital (less thrilled that they can't keep Kodachrome on as a flagship vanity product, though). I'm ecstatic at Ilford's firm commitment to film...and everyone else, too. I'm not a real optimist by nature, but I do think we have a lot to be grateful for.

 

[Pablito]

Have shot perhaps 500 rolls of TMZ between 2000 and 2008, don't remember paying any less than $6 at B&H though it could have been in the $5.50 range closer to 2000. If quality is important to you, this is a film you must shoot before expiration date or risk fog. I have had poor results using this film only a few months past expiration date. Refrigeration will not extend its life. I will use non-USA Tri-X but not TMZ.

By the way, I should say I really like TMZ for low light....
(far prefer it at 1600 or 3200 over pushed TriX)

 

[tonal1]

Yeah tell me about it.

I think TMZ is a low volume product. Even many of us film nuts don't like it because its too grainy (I love it). It also keeps poorly, which I'm sure causes problems for keeping a large inventory. So I guess I can convince myself that stuff like this (and Portra 800) is going to get more expensive faster than commonly used slower films like Tri-X.

I'm still fighting the fight with TMZ. I love it. It's $7/roll. I would love it if it were $4, but oh well... What can you do?

Well, I should add (just don't tell Kodak) that the cost is worth it that genuinely keeping the film from getting the axe. After Kodachrome 200, TMZ is the one film that I simply don't know how I would live without...

...let me fine tune that. I wouldn't mind paying more if I knew that I was securing the films existence. But with Kodak, I can see them raising the price AND giving it the axe.

Call me paranoid, but when Kodak released the new Ektar 25, the sales pitch was SLIDE FILM QUALITY! I really felt that was a strong effort to get the amateur market to drop slide film, to give them an excuse to cull their slide film lines entirely.

 

[tonal1]

Have shot perhaps 500 rolls of TMZ between 2000 and 2008, don't remember paying any less than $6 at B&H though it could have been in the $5.50 range closer to 2000. If quality is important to you, this is a film you must shoot before expiration date or risk fog. I have had poor results using this film only a few months past expiration date. Refrigeration will not extend its life. I will use non-USA Tri-X but not TMZ.

By the way, I should say I really like TMZ for low light....
(far prefer it at 1600 or 3200 over pushed TriX)

Yeah, if you were buying US film, than you were paying more for sure. I was speaking to the "import" option... I never had a problem with the import film, though I certainly agree that the film is very age sensitive, and esp heat sensitive as well.

btw, I was told at the time that the "import" Tri-x and TMZ that B&H used to sell was actually the exact same stuff... it was made for foreign markets, in the US, but was actually identical. B&H sold it as if it were imported and you just saved some money...

 

[Tim Gray]

...let me fine tune that. I wouldn't mind paying more if I knew that I was securing the films existence. But with Kodak, I can see them raising the price AND giving it the axe.

If it makes you feel any better, there was a shortage of TMZ earlier this year when it completely ran out. They coated a new batch in late April-ish (I think) and it was back for sale again in May. So at least they are still selling enough to warrant a coating this year.

 

[tonal1]

If it makes you feel any better, there was a shortage of TMZ earlier this year when it completely ran out. They coated a new batch in late April-ish (I think) and it was back for sale again in May. So at least they are still selling enough to warrant a coating this year.

Oh wow, I hadn't heard about that.

Hopefully the demand stabilizes at a certain point that will allow them to manage supply.

You know, the current batch of high end DSLR's are now so sensitive that they must be impacting TMZ sales somewhat.

At this point, I assume p3200 is sold almost entirely to 'amateur' photographers. What do you think?

 

[filmfan]

I really like TMZ as well. I shot it at ISO 1000 with great results and would like to purchase some more.

 

[Fotohuis]

If you want cheaper film try the new Rollei RPX 400 film. It seems to be pushing very well.
The pre-sales in Germany for a twin pack was Eur. 3,57 .

Here is the (German) data sheet:
http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Rollei_RPX_400_dt.pdf

Looking at developers like:
DD-X, HC-110, Microphen, Xtol, Tmax it should be no problem for E.I. 1600.

 

[Tim Gray]

You know, the current batch of high end DSLR's are now so sensitive that they must be impacting TMZ sales somewhat.

At this point, I assume p3200 is sold almost entirely to 'amateur' photographers. What do you think?

I think that's been true for several years.

The only people who are shooting TMZ now just plain love TMZ. I seriously doubt there are many using it because they 'have' to. There might be some pros out there, but most of us are probably amateur.