With all the recent concern about the possible demise of B&W film, this press release offers hope for film's future:

2/24 Kodak Press Release

-- Hil (hegomez@agere.com), February 25, 2002

Answers

Thank god for that! I could not live without Tri-X

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), February 25, 2002.

If you carefully read the press release, you will find out that it is a disaster for Tri-X users, as was pointed out on photo.net. It says that Tri-X will not be available from March to October. This should convince a lot of users to switch to other brands. Also, if you note the comment about development times, it would appear likely that silver content is being reduced.

I don't think this is good news at all. I will probably move to either Ilford or Agfa for black and white film.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 25, 2002.

Whew! What a relief. I did notice many of the prices for Tri-X in 100 foot rolls have nearly doubled! I was used to paying around $24 USD and last month paid $42 USD. The Film Shop still has the 100 foot roll advertised at $23.95 USD.

Film Forever!

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), February 25, 2002.

"Film Forever!"

Maybe. But probably not much of it and certainly not much of a selection.

In, say, five years time, how much are you going to be willing to pay for a roll of Tri-X to go take a picture of the tree stump in the backyard or for a roll of Royal Gold 200 to take pictures of little Caitlin's 7th birthday party?

Can you say, "Niche market"?

-- Robert Schneider (rolopix@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

"In, say, five years time, how much are you going to be willing to pay for a roll of Tri-X"

It will still be a lot less on aggregate than what you are going to be paying converting to digital!

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

Kodak is not a niche market product kind of company. It sounds like they are trying to reduce the cost of Tri-X production to maintain a minimum profitability. If they fail, or if consumption drops, could be bye-bye time for Tri-X. I hear footsteps of the marketing dept MBA's, annual reviews are coming up :(

-- Dan Brown (brptet@swbel.net), February 25, 2002.

"It says that Tri-X will not be available from March to October."

Actually, the release says Kodak will stop *shipping* the current version Tri-X in March, not that it won't be available from March to October. It will take a while for all the film shipped in the next few weeks to make it through the retail pipeline.

-- Chuck Albertson (chucko@siteconnect.com), February 25, 2002.

Get this. Today while buying old fashioned stuff like film, paper and chemistry I was told that Agfa is out of the film business!

No more great Agfa B&W film? Boy this is getting bleak. And now Tri-X is getting changed?

I guess I'd better start testing HP5.

Question, the HP5 is still "old fashioned" film while the Delta films are T-grain films like T-max correct? If anything I'd rather see Tmax dropped than Tri-X. But thats just me.

Neil

-- Neil Swanson (neilsphoto@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Even if the MBA's are stupid, they have to listen to their salespeople since they are the most important people in the company. I don't think they would be happy with anything jeopardizing their livelihood. Since the company probably deals mainly with distributors, they would plan for a few months worth of finished products in the supply chain. That plus extra production before April should provide for enough supply. It would then be up to individual dealers to order enough for their own customers until October. If Kodak and the dealers can accurately forecast demands, it shouldn't be an issue for consumers. By the way, don't think any manufacturer, including Agfa, Fuji, or Ilford, will not make unannounced minor changes to their products if it still falls within their specifications.

-- D. Chan (deezer@juno.com), February 25, 2002.

Don't worry, fellas--the Ilford films are better than the Kodak ones anyway. ; ) (Shot below on HP5+)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), February 25, 2002.

Oh, yes . . .!

I can't see the point in writing your name, Mike. Who else's could it be . . .?

Thanks, anyhow

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 25, 2002.

Kodak lost it awhile back. I always use Ilford and Agfa. More reliable.The europeans know good black and white.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), February 25, 2002.

Now that everyone's vented -

I BELIEVE this Kodak announcement refers specifically to Tri-X PROFESSIONAL film - which is only available in 120 and sheet film, not 35mm. That's why there's all the bushwah about notches and wrappers and such changing.

Therefore it shouldn't be an issue for Leica photographers, nyet?

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 26, 2002.

And the Pro Tri-X is a completely different film than non-pro 35mm and 120........

-- charles mason (c.mason@uaf.edu), February 26, 2002.

They stopped making EKTAR and KODACHROME 25, why not stop TRI-X. Things are a lot easier when you are number 2 (or 3 Or 4) and don't have to try so hard to stay "on top".

-- donald-d (Ileica@m6.com), February 26, 2002.

I must admit that I haven't kept up with this stuff. In the olden days, Tri-X Pro differed in that it had a retouching surface and a more conservative ISO. Of course that could have changed. And I only used it in 120 or larger. Don't remember any other sizes back then.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), February 26, 2002.