Tri-X

"No One" wrote:
Yes, maybe you are right. Film is more expensive in Canada. $159CDN is
more than the $141USD @ B&H.


Where did you get the price quote for 8x10/50 TRI-X at C$159? Is it current?
Was there a volume purchase discount?

I've heard that Treckhall has good prices (some better than US) and is very
willing to sell to Canadian LF photographers.
http://www.treckhall.com/index.html

I'm assuming that you buy in larger volume than I do, but where do you
purchase supplies?

Before Henry's bought them, the Focus Centre (Ottawa) was very supportive of
local LF photographers providing us with volume discounts, maintaining stock
on hand, etc. Now that they're Henry's they seem to have no interest in LF
users. They've become a retail store for consumer digital. They won't even
order LF film, instead they tell me I can do it for myself on the web. I
guess Ottawa is just a remote outpost for them. As long as I am ordering on
the web - why stop at Henry's - the world is at my doorstep and I can get
better pricing.

"Douglas" wrote in message
...
"No One" wrote:
Yes, maybe you are right. Film is more expensive in Canada. $159CDN is
more than the $141USD @ B&H.


Where did you get the price quote for 8x10/50 TRI-X at C$159? Is it
current? Was there a volume purchase discount?

Vistek - go figure.


I've heard that Treckhall has good prices (some better than US) and is
very willing to sell to Canadian LF photographers.
http://www.treckhall.com/index.html

I calle dthem athey insisted that Tri-X was discontinued.

Nah... whether Bush or Kerry wins - you probably don't want our tax load.
But we need a larger pop base (IMO) so feel free - you're welcome.

While YMMV I have lived and worked on both side of the border. The taxation
on $100k in income is more or less the same in Canada and the US. Although
there is variance form state to state and province to province. The tax load
on the larger film formats is a burden in leg, back and emotional strength.

"Douglas" wrote in message m...

Canadian drugs are not 'cheaper'. We're subsidizing them from the US,
or by Canadian taxpayers, or both.


"Argon3" wrote:
No fooling. Several years back I went to the off-license in Victoria BC
and
bought a six pack and a pack of Marlboros and the bill was something like
$15
Canadian (can't remember the exchange rate back then but it wasn't as
"advantageous" to a US'ers than it has been recently). Took the swag back
to
the hotel and told my wife, "Well, here's your big night out in Canada."
I figured that the health system was supported by the taxes on booze and
smokes...thus giving me an understanding of many of the "Bob and Doug
MacKenzie
jokes" that SCTV laid on us.
We all love and respect Canada around here (my house, anyway) and if we
can
ever help smuggle some 8X10 across the border to help out our Canadian
brethren, I say we go for it...but then I come from Chicago where Al
Capone
benefited immeasurably from the fine Canadian hooch that he managed to
smuggle
across the border.
You Canucks better watch it...if Bush wins again, you may have a sudden
influx
of refugees from "down south".

best,

argon

C$15 for a six pack & smokes! That would be a bargain today.
Yes, we do pay for the health system here and many of the other benefits of
being a Canadian. They tax the delightful sins at a terrific rate. However,
one does make a choice.

The prohibition example is very pertinent. There have been numerous examples
where the US & Canada have 'nicely' offset each others periodic excessive
practices to the benefit of all. The differential in pharmaceutical drugs is
a current example, running through this thread. It won't last - American
prices for pharmaceuticals will have to come down. With an aging population,
the US administration (whoever they are) will get 'canned' if they allow the
US premium pricing practice to continue. The diff in cost, to individuals
who's lives depend upon it, is too large. State gov are already rebelling.
They're really exposed on this one right before an election. The lunacy of
Washington's position is obvious when they're now looking for help with the
flu vaccine supply issues. They are vulnerable on the supply problem but
much more so on the larger issue of defending US pharmaceutical pricing.
It's not credible to decide that Canadian pharmaceuticals are only 'safe'
when there is a supply problem but not when there is a pricing problem.

Canadian photographers benefit because we can shop the largest marketplace
in the world for everything photographic. Even without smuggling film across
the border we benefit the same as you.

Nah... whether Bush or Kerry wins - you probably don't want our tax load.
But we need a larger pop base (IMO) so feel free - you're welcome.

"Douglas" wrote in message m...

Canadian drugs are not 'cheaper'. We're subsidizing them from the US,
or by Canadian taxpayers, or both.


"Argon3" wrote:
No fooling. Several years back I went to the off-license in Victoria BC
and
bought a six pack and a pack of Marlboros and the bill was something like
$15
Canadian (can't remember the exchange rate back then but it wasn't as
"advantageous" to a US'ers than it has been recently). Took the swag back
to
the hotel and told my wife, "Well, here's your big night out in Canada."
I figured that the health system was supported by the taxes on booze and
smokes...thus giving me an understanding of many of the "Bob and Doug
MacKenzie
jokes" that SCTV laid on us.
We all love and respect Canada around here (my house, anyway) and if we
can
ever help smuggle some 8X10 across the border to help out our Canadian
brethren, I say we go for it...but then I come from Chicago where Al
Capone
benefited immeasurably from the fine Canadian hooch that he managed to
smuggle
across the border.
You Canucks better watch it...if Bush wins again, you may have a sudden
influx
of refugees from "down south".

best,

argon

C$15 for a six pack & smokes! That would be a bargain today.
Yes, we do pay for the health system here and many of the other benefits of
being a Canadian. They tax the delightful sins at a terrific rate. However,
one does make a choice.

The prohibition example is very pertinent. There have been numerous examples
where the US & Canada have 'nicely' offset each others periodic excessive
practices to the benefit of all. The differential in pharmaceutical drugs is
a current example, running through this thread. It won't last - American
prices for pharmaceuticals will have to come down. With an aging population,
the US administration (whoever they are) will get 'canned' if they allow the
US premium pricing practice to continue. The diff in cost, to individuals
who's lives depend upon it, is too large. State gov are already rebelling.
They're really exposed on this one right before an election. The lunacy of
Washington's position is obvious when they're now looking for help with the
flu vaccine supply issues. They are vulnerable on the supply problem but
much more so on the larger issue of defending US pharmaceutical pricing.
It's not credible to decide that Canadian pharmaceuticals are only 'safe'
when there is a supply problem but not when there is a pricing problem.

Canadian photographers benefit because we can shop the largest marketplace
in the world for everything photographic. Even without smuggling film across
the border we benefit the same as you.

Nah... whether Bush or Kerry wins - you probably don't want our tax load.
But we need a larger pop base (IMO) so feel free - you're welcome.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...

No, what you are not paying in Canada is liability inusrance. The concept
of a gazillion dollar out of court settlement due to someone having
an adverse reaction to a drug does not exist.

Legislation has been proposed in the USA to limit liability claims - over
and over. Who's killing that legislation? I'll bet it's the liberals who
whine about the cost of meds.

jjs wrote:
: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
: ...

: No, what you are not paying in Canada is liability inusrance. The concept
: of a gazillion dollar out of court settlement due to someone having
: an adverse reaction to a drug does not exist.

: Legislation has been proposed in the USA to limit liability claims - over
: and over. Who's killing that legislation? I'll bet it's the liberals who
: whine about the cost of meds.


It's the ambulance chasing lawyers like edwards.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"Uranium Committee" wrote: in message

Canadian drugs are not 'cheaper'. We're subsidizing them from the US,
or by Canadian taxpayers, or both.


This is seriously off-topic now, but I am by no means innocent so last
comment...

Arguing to change US legislation to allow US residents to buy prescription
drugs, at lower prices, from Canada, is an interesting solution, don't you
think? Many of the drugs originate in the US! Why should changing the
address of the retail outlet impact the price? Why would the pharmaceutical
co allow Canadians to buy at lower prices - are they really willing to
forego profits in all markets other than the US?

Most of the western world (by which I mean UK, continental Europe, Canada,
Mexico) controls the prices of drugs in their jurisdictions. Better (lower)
prices, than in Canada, can be found in the UK. On the other hand the US
allows the pharmaceutical co to charge whatever the market will bear. In the
US large groups (e.g. your Gov & large HMO's) benefit by negotiated prices,
small groups, that have no bargaining power, (like the uninsured) pay more.
You can argue that this is the way it should be and I'll accept that - it's
your choice. However, the price difference is not accounted for by
subsidization and not by liability insurance either. You can argue that the
US is paying for the costly and risky R&D but there is no evidence of that
either.

There is alot of discussion and commentary on this you can google for them.
One of the most incisive is the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/angell.html

Let's get back to LF photography...

"Frank Pittel" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
: ...

: No, what you are not paying in Canada is liability inusrance. The
concept
: of a gazillion dollar out of court settlement due to someone having
: an adverse reaction to a drug does not exist.

: Legislation has been proposed in the USA to limit liability claims -
over
: and over. Who's killing that legislation? I'll bet it's the liberals who
: whine about the cost of meds.


It's the ambulance chasing lawyers like edwards.

I sure would like an election in which I'm not simply voting AGAINST
someone. Both these candidates just suck, but one is a chronic, hopeless
sociopath with a mental age of 12. Four more years of Bush and we can kiss
this country Goodbye.

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

Four more years of Bush and we can kiss this country Goodbye.

Quite possibly or worse.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918