Kodak Elite Chrome Discontinued

So is any film actually being discontinued? It would appear not - just the packaging of them.

Storm in a tea cup?
 
Austerby said:
Storm in a tea cup?
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. I mean, of course any discontinuation of a packaging variety means that they're trying to cut costs. But it's not like it's a secret that Kodak isn't doing well. Let's just be glad they didn't actually discontinue emulsions at this point.
 
unixrevolution said:
Not because of the total number of frames, but because of the number of frames they want to be committed to a single speed and emulsion type at a stretch. This is why I sometimes wish I could get 12-exposure rolls of some films. I just don't necessarily want to shoot 36 exposures, because light changes or because the subject matter is ephemeral.
Click to expand...

Well, professional film has not been available in short lengths since I started out in the early eighties, with the one exception of Japan (where it seems to have some special tradition). That is, even though short rolls can be put to other uses, they have in the past obviously mostly appealed to casual users, presumably for economic reasons (whether imagined or real).
 
sevo said:
Well, professional film has not been available in short lengths since I started out in the early eighties, with the one exception of Japan (where it seems to have some special tradition). That is, even though short rolls can be put to other uses, they have in the past obviously mostly appealed to casual users, presumably for economic reasons (whether imagined or real).
Click to expand...

Yes. Totally agree.
 
Our Walmart no longer sells film of any kind, but when they did, they only had four-packs of Kodak film. No single rolls at all. And then they stopped stocking Kodak Film, only Fuji. And then stopped stocking any film.
 
Let's break this down here:
Tmax 400 120 IN SINGLE ROLLS/Tri-x pan 120 400 IN SINGLE ROLLS
--There are a whopping 2 types of people who use 120 film: The occasional pro who found a scanner cheaper than a $40,000 digital back, and advanced amateurs who want the big-a$$ negatives. These two groups have one thing in common: they generally don't buy one roll and shoot two Christmas mornings on one roll. They are far more likely to buy a 5-pack (or a brick of 5-packs). If you still want a single roll, though, places like Freestyle already break open pro packs and sell individual rolls (Fuji Acros 100, for example).

Elite Chrome 100/36
People use a slide film other than Velvia? :D

BW400cn/24 three packs
--This is a specialty film most people don't use a ton of. Why? Because almost everyone who goes out of their way to shoot b&w film will develop their own. C41 is a PITA compared to a packet of D76. A one-roll pack makes sense. Never understood the 3-pack thing. Also, it's mad expensive.

Gold 200/24 four packs/Max 400/24 four packs
--How many people still buy C41 color film for "snapshot" taking? For the cost of "snapshooting" that 4-pack of film at Walgreens (something like $16 a roll including film, a 2nd set of prints and a CD... remember, that's what you're average sorority sister or dad at a ballet recital will be getting), you can buy an entry-level P&S camera. There's a reason the 35mm P&S market was the first to die off with digital (right after APS).

Max 400/12 single roll
If I wanted 12 shots on a roll, I'd grab 120. I remember a box of Portra 160NC at my Rite Aid growing up (a 20-pack of 12x rolls). It sat there for 5 years before they just pitched it. Fun Fact: The 12 exposure roll costs $2.69 at B&H Photo. A 24 exposure roll costs $1.99. You pay $0.70 extra for half the film. No wonder people weren't buying it. Fun Fact 2: Kodak Gold 400/12 is the ONLY 12-exposure film sold at B&H Photo at this time. Obviously it's not that popular of a roll size.
 
dcsang said:
I've put out a tweet to @Kodak and @KodakCB on twitter to determine if there's any truth to this - I'm specifically concerned about Tri-X - but I haven't heard back anything yet - I would like some sort of confirmation before there's a huge run on what stock is out there :)

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Everybody,
stop to panic, re-read the original post thoroughly, and please don't start spreading any silly gossip on the web. Tri-X will not be discontinued. What is discontinued is single roll packages of 120 format Tri-X and Tmax 400.
I wasn't even aware that they still exist, I have seen nothing but five-packs of these for a couple of years here. So please, calm down.
:bang::bang::bang:
 
We may have to bulk load-- back to the beginning, I have the chemistry and equipment t mix D 76, though I prefer Xtol, and R09 for MF.

When the photo shops begin to sell it with a freezer, then I will really be worried. ;-)

Regards, John
 
aperture64 said:
Is the Tri-X mentioned here THE Tri-X. the one that has been around since 1954?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_8667073_TX_135_36_Tri_X_Pan.html

If so, I thought this is the one that would be around forever. What is the alternative?
Click to expand...

Or since the eve of WW2 (it was available in sheet form well before 120 & 35mm). No, it's not the same. Tri-X has been regularly revised and (in the eyes of all but True Believers) improved many times since then.

Cheers,

R.
 
Bobbo said:
Let's break this down here:
Tmax 400 120 IN SINGLE ROLLS/Tri-x pan 120 400 IN SINGLE ROLLS
--There are a whopping 2 types of people who use 120 film: The occasional pro who found a scanner cheaper than a $40,000 digital back, and advanced amateurs who want the big-a$$ negatives. These two groups have one thing in common: they generally don't buy one roll and shoot two Christmas mornings on one roll. They are far more likely to buy a 5-pack (or a brick of 5-packs). If you still want a single roll, though, places like Freestyle already break open pro packs and sell individual rolls (Fuji Acros 100, for example).

Elite Chrome 100/36
People use a slide film other than Velvia? :D

BW400cn/24 three packs
--This is a specialty film most people don't use a ton of. Why? Because almost everyone who goes out of their way to shoot b&w film will develop their own. C41 is a PITA compared to a packet of D76. A one-roll pack makes sense. Never understood the 3-pack thing. Also, it's mad expensive.

Gold 200/24 four packs/Max 400/24 four packs
--How many people still buy C41 color film for "snapshot" taking? For the cost of "snapshooting" that 4-pack of film at Walgreens (something like $16 a roll including film, a 2nd set of prints and a CD... remember, that's what you're average sorority sister or dad at a ballet recital will be getting), you can buy an entry-level P&S camera. There's a reason the 35mm P&S market was the first to die off with digital (right after APS).

Max 400/12 single roll
If I wanted 12 shots on a roll, I'd grab 120. I remember a box of Portra 160NC at my Rite Aid growing up (a 20-pack of 12x rolls). It sat there for 5 years before they just pitched it. Fun Fact: The 12 exposure roll costs $2.69 at B&H Photo. A 24 exposure roll costs $1.99. You pay $0.70 extra for half the film. No wonder people weren't buying it. Fun Fact 2: Kodak Gold 400/12 is the ONLY 12-exposure film sold at B&H Photo at this time. Obviously it's not that popular of a roll size.
Click to expand...
Whenever possible, yes.

Cheers,

R.
 
JohnTF said:
We may have to bulk load-- back to the beginning, I have the chemistry and equipment t mix D 76, though I prefer Xtol, and R09 for MF.

When the photo shops begin to sell it with a freezer, then I will really be worried. ;-)

Regards, John
Click to expand...

you bulk load your 120?
 
I wouldn't disagree if Kodak and others would only sell films by large bricks of 20 each or more, in the view of better controlling the production flow and garantee the delivery is up with the demand.
For god's sake I would even prefer the end of car fuel to the end of film :eek:
 
kzphoto said:
I think they're just trimming down sizes that aren't as commercially viable. IE single rolls of Tri-X and T-Max.

Pro Packs of 120 and 35mm rolls are still in the catalogue.
Click to expand...

Hmmh, yeah, hopefully. But after they had to "trim" off their profitable CCD business, things look pretty bad for Kodak as a whole. Think of a B-movie zombie taking heavy gunfire, losing a limb here and there, mindlessly forging on, to be blown to disgusting bits of lifeless flesh.

I got back into shooting film just recently and I'm still trying to decide on a favourite/standard material. It sure isn't going to be Kodak, because I simply don't have any trust for them continuing film production. Plus-X looked good, though :( .

For Harman/Ilford, Foma and Efke, film is their core business, so you can reasonably expect that while demand lasts, they will churn out film. Kodak, on the other hand, seems to have no idea what their core business is these days. By looking at their website, it's not film. It's commercial printers now, I think. Two years ago, it was consumer digicams and digital picture frames. It is entirely possible that profits from selling Tri-X are continually diverted from film R&D to saving the crappy digicam branch...

I hope I am wrong, though.
 
Jamie123 said:
Relax. The OP didn't say anything about Tri-X in 35mm. It's the 120 that's now only available in pro-packs.
Click to expand...

Ya.. thanks for that - however, before you and everyone else in this thread that seems to want to jump on my bones for "spreading panic" *smirk* please note that the OP did not clarify in his original post whether it was 120 or 35mm that was being discontinued.

Note this little subscript on the original post that seems to be missed by so many thereby causing them to believe *I* was jumping to a conclusion that was plain as day after the post had been edited:
Last edited by kzphoto : 1 Hour Ago at 12:49.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
FYI - Official statement from Kodak via their Chief Blogger & Social Media Manager:
@David_ChangSang changing PACKAGING Tri-X 400 120 so replacing single rolls Tri-X 400 120 w/ 5 roll packaging (propack) Tri-X 400 i-120

Seen here: http://twitter.com/#!/kodakCB/status/137253573913346048

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...
That explains a lot. I was wondering how they could discontinue single rolls in favor of pro packs when pro packs aren't even made right now.
Not that I care since I shoot HP5+ instead. :)
 
It's just packaging, no actual film being discontinued. I think Tri-X and Portra will stick around for a while, everything else on the Kodak side is in danger. Everyone is hoping/believing that film will stay around as long as movies keep using it, unfortunately we're at a time where movies simply don't use film for primary photography anymore, and all the reasons to continue using film for 2nd unit just aren't there anymore.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of c41 film to stock up. I primarily shoot b&w but realize there are times I'm going to need some color and $8/roll for portra is too pricey for vacation shots
 
Hmmmmmm Kodak regular Tri-X (ISO 400) has -only- been available in single rolls, as far as I know. I've never seen a propack of regular Tri-X.

Tri-X Professional, (ISO 320) has only been available in Propacks, as far as I know. But most dealers split up the propacks, and will sell single rolls from it. So you get foil-wrapped rolls, with no outer packaging.

Not good news (if it's true) for users of 120 regular Tri-X. Looks like just propacks of TMax400 from here on out.

I prefer HP5+ myself, although I stocked up on 220 Tri-X Professional when Kodak was discontinuing that. And I still have a bit of HP5+ in 220.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom