Just a thought. I sometimes wonder if Kodak's long term plan isn't
something of a self fullfilling prophecy, for lack of better words.
Example, here in South-western Ontario, a 25 sheet box, 4x5, of
Ilford HP5+ varies form $24 Cdn to $26 Cdn per box. Ergo, 50 sheets will
cost you $48 to $52 Cdn (before local sales taxes)
Conversely, a 50 sheet box of Kodak Tri-X, 4x5, varies in price
from $58 Cdn to $67 Cdn (before taxes)
So on average, 50 sheets of Kodak's B&W, 400 ASA, 4x5 film is
going to cost me $10 more than 50 sheets of Ilford's 400 ASA, B&W film. I
likeTri-X a lot, but I like HP5+ a lot too - it's one of my favourite's,
always has been. For the extra cost of Tri-X, I'll be shooting a lot more
HP5+ anymore. For that matter, Forte Pan 400 is avaialblely locally, $21
Cdn a box - $42 Cdn for 50 sheets, and i have shot a fair bit of it too.
So my comment/question/observation is, with Kodak film noticably
more money for than the competition, is this some sort of a long term plan
to find a reaosn to phase out B&W products, or maybe just poor planning? I
can understand T-Grain films being more money, at least from a marketing
perspective, but Tri-X is an older formulation, no reason it should be more
money than a film that is made overseas and has the added cost of shipping
across the Atlantic ocean.
joe
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
