What happened to the price of 35mm bulk TMAX?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Phil Glaser, Dec 5, 2004.

  1. Phil Glaser

    Phil Glaser Guest

    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
     
    Phil Glaser, Dec 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Probably just greed. But 22.50 sounds really low.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Phil Glaser

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : In article <>,
    : (Phil Glaser) wrote:

    : > 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

    : Probably just greed. But 22.50 sounds really low.

    I thought that I paid ~$40 a couple of years ago.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Dec 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Phil Glaser

    Hemi4268 Guest

    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
     
    Hemi4268, Dec 6, 2004
    #4
  5. 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
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Dec 6, 2004
    #5
  6. Phil Glaser

    glaserp Guest

    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
     
    glaserp, Dec 6, 2004
    #6
  7. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    I'm not aware of such. Ask Kodak, as I haven't been active lately.
    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
     
    Robert Vervoordt, Dec 6, 2004
    #7
  8. Phil Glaser

    glaserp Guest

    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
     
    glaserp, Dec 6, 2004
    #8
  9. Phil Glaser

    John Guest

    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
     
    John, Dec 8, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.