bulk loading Ilford saves half?

[davidnewtonguitars]

I was researching bulk loading today, and was surprised to see 100' of 35mm FP4+ (my current film) @ $59.95. Figures to about $3 per roll compared to 5.99 for pre-rolled.
I know cassettes and the bulk loader will eat the savings of the first load, but over a couple of years, there seem to be a good savings.

As I previously compared TriX bulk costing more than pre-rolled, I figured bulk loading was a thing of the past.

Am I missing something?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

TriX is something related to Kodak and their pricing policy. It has nothing to do with FP4+, HP5 and Delta films from Ilford and their pricing. Or pricing of Kentmere films from Ilford.
Bulks, I mean. I switched from single rolls to bulks as soon as I started to use bw film in 2012. Back then Kodak was still Kodak, with old pricing for bulk, just like the rest of remaining manufactures still have.

The thing which you are missing might be called as "competition vs monopoly".

 

[bayernfan]

you can save some good money with Ilford 100' rolls. you can also save some serious money with Kodak 5222 (Double-X) by purchasing a 400' roll direct from Kodak, or 100' rolls from FPP.

try to find a super cheap bulk loader and cassettes via APUG, CL or ebay.

 

[mooge]

Not really? I get something like 17 rolls out of 100'; so that's like $3.5 per for your FP4. Bulk loaders you should be able to find cheap used, you can use old regular cassettes if you have an inch or so of film left in them - just tape the bulk stuff to the bit of film poking out.

if you want to go real cheap Kentmere is even cheaper, and it's not even bad.


where can you get Double-X less than Ilford????? I'm seeing $89 USD /100ft at FPP and $317 CAD/400ft from MELS-studios in Montreal (~79 CAD / 63 USD /100ft). HP5 is 61 USD / 100ft and I'm even too cheap for that...

 

[bayernfan]

where can you get Double-X less than Ilford????? I'm seeing $89 USD /100ft at FPP and $317 CAD/400ft from MELS-studios in Montreal (~79 CAD / 63 USD /100ft). HP5 is 61 USD / 100ft and I'm even too cheap for that...

super cheap compared to the price Cinestill is charging for Double-X.

 

[Nokton48]

Call Kodak Entertainment Imaging in NYC at 1-800-621-FILM.
They sell directly to the public, are friendly, and take VISA.
Not sure the current price for Eastman 5222 but they are the direct source.
-Dan

 

[Nokton48]

XX from Cinestill is $8.99/roll.

So Yeah buying 400' from Kodak would save you at least 50% off that price. If I remember correctly you can get about 70 36 exposure rolls from 400' of XX.

https://cinestillfilm.com/collectio...-black-and-white-motion-picture-negative-film

 

[michaelwj]

You're not missing anything. Except you missed when Tri-X was even cheaper only 5 or so years ago 🙁

 

[Nokton48]

I bought a bulk roll of real Tri-X, for about Ninety US Bucks from B&H.

It's not the same as the old Tri-X I remember. So I prefer XX, but that's not for everybody. I loaded up on XX when it was less expensive. It has gone up quite a bit.

 

[michaelwj]

Last time I looked, Tri-X was over A$250/roll. HP5+ is about A$80. Last time I bought Txi-X it was A$70/roll and HP5+ was still A$80.

 

[Fraser]

Save more money don't use a loader! no wasted frames.

 

[ptpdprinter]

100' TX400 is currently on sale at B&H for $109.75 (regularly 128.77). 100' HP5 is half that at $61.99.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Last time I looked, Tri-X was over A$250/roll. HP5+ is about A$80. Last time I bought Txi-X it was A$70/roll and HP5+ was still A$80.

Obviously everything is more expensive in Australia. 100' TX400 is currently on sale at B&H for $109.75 (regularly $128.77). 100' HP5 is half that at $61.99.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'm baffled by the price of bulk Tri-X. Started bulk loading almost 30 years ago, strictly as a way to save money on B&W film as bulk Tri-X was much cheaper than factory cassettes.

But now? Makes no sense that a bulk roll of 100ft in a tin can can cost more than the same amount of film, in individual pre-packaged rolls, in metal cassettes, in plastic containers, in cardboard boxes. Not clear what Kodak's reasoning is on this.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ronald M]

When I started, bulk was advertised as "penny a frame" and I used a lot at that price.

I do not buy Kodak anymore as to pricy.

 

[steveyork]

18 rolls for the price of 10 or so, generally, for films not named "Tri-X." Another benefit is allowing rolls with something different then 36 exposures. I routinely roll up a half dozen 15 exp. rolls per 100' which I used to test camera/lenses. Definitely worth it and not at all difficult. Just have some pre-roll stuff if you plan to travel (by plane).

 

[brennanphotoguy]

I love Tri-X but the cost and ease of bulk loading any of Ilford's b/w stocks has always been in the back of my mind. I'd really like to bulk roll some FP4+. That's my favorite slower speed b/w.

 

[zuiko85]

For those of us who still use half frame bulk loading offers the chance to choose how many frames we want to load. Normally I like to shoot about 40 frames on a roll in my half frame cameras. With my negative sleeves that gives me 4-10 exposure strips.

Fraser noted a good point about just loading without a loader. When I first started out in the early 70's I did that all the time. When I bought 100 ft. of TX I'd just load the whole roll at once. Back then a box of 10 Kodak Snap cap cartridges was $1 and you could reuse them many times.

 

[Nokton48]

I don't use a loader, either. I use what I call "The TomA Method". In total darkness, stretch your arms out as far as they will go, and there you have 36-37 exposures. Just cut and roll it up. LOL. It works for me. just keep the scissors in your back pocket so you don't lose them. And I bulk load 70mm cartridges the same way. And no scratched film!

 

[Timmyjoe]

Back then a box of 10 Kodak Snap cap cartridges was $1 and you could reuse them many times.

Still my cartridges of choice. Have probably a couple dozen that still work well, when these run out, not sure what I'm gonna do.

Best,
-Tim