35mm Tmax 100 bulk rolls are getting pricey

[NB23]

BH photo sells it for 85$.

Yes, Tri-x in bulk is illogically priced, especially in Japan where it was 300$.

Viva Ilford in Bulk! I LOVE them for that.

 

[Cholentpot]

BH photo sells it for 85$.

Yes, Tri-x in bulk is illogically priced, especially in Japan where it was 300$.

Viva Ilford in Bulk! I LOVE them for that.

Scored 400 feet of maybe a bit old HP5+ a little bit back over here on the APUG. I've not yet fully dialed in the speed but I do know now it doesn't push very well.

I've been buying Ultrafine stuff for fresh bulk. It's kinda flat looking but for $40 I'm not complaining. It prints well.

 

[pentaxuser]

Neil, there has been other threads and comments on the price of TMax bulk rolls compared to llford etc. I must admit I hadn't realised the trend had started as long ago as 2011. Several of us expressed views on why the price is so outrageous. There wasn't a consensus - well there seldom is on APUG. Some seem to believe its the Kodak manufacturing economics of bulk rolls that puts it at such a disadvantage compared to the likes of Ilford i.e. it is not deliberate profiteering and Kodak would reduce the price if it possibly could. Personally I was never able to reconcile the "economics" argument with the fact that in cassette form Kodak's apparent disadvantage disappears and it finds itself on a much more level playing field compared to the likes of Ilford.

Others believe that Kodak doesn't want to sell bulk so prices it so it gets the best of both worlds i.e. it sells the bulk at a vast profit to those who cannot do without it i.e. those buyers who occupy the inelastic part of the demand curve and will pay almost anything to get it - a bit like Kodachrome( sorry couldn't resist ). It still then makes a "normal " profit on the cassettes and if it gets to the point that only a handful of customers are buying bulk then it can then genuinely say that as it only sold say, 10 bulk rolls at £1000 per roll then everyone will forgive it for then stopping sales of bulk so it is "win-win" all round for Kodak but perhaps not win-win in the book's "Getting to Yes" sense of the word.

It may work a bit like the quote from an overworked jobbing builder. He doesn't want to be seen to be turning away your business so quotes a price at which either you will not buy his services but it is you who refuses his business or you will buy his services in which case his margin is so vast that he fits you into his schedule.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Years ago I found that ALL 100 foot bulk film rolls were being priced out of the market with first creeping prices and then film processing companies refusing to return the reusable film cartridges. I gave up and went back to buying packaged film.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm about to place an order for 100 feet of Tmax 100 and I noticed that B&H has bumped the price up to $66 versus $55 for Tmax 400. Furthermore, Adorama doesn't even have it. Does anyone know why this is happening? If bulk Tmax 100 is going to be phased out, I will transition to Ilford Delta 100 (only $48). In fact, the price alone makes a case for transitioning.

In any case, I was just wondering if anyone knows why the price is so high and its availability seems to be weakening.

To me, it makes sense to transition to Ilford films just because of their committment to B&W.

 

[MattKing]

At Freestyle it sees to be about $11.00 more for Kodak T-Max 100 than some of the Ilford choices.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/8501546-Kodak-TMAX-100-ISO-35mm-x-100-ft.-TMX

 

[Arklatexian]

Thanks for all the replies.

I was just wondering if someone knew something I didn't know about this jump in pricing, but apparently no one has heard anything that suggests that bulk Tmax 100 is going to disappear in the near future.

Since there are no budget priced t-grain films, I'm obviously going to have to deal with the high prices.

One thing more of interest is that, while bulk Delta 100 is $18 cheaper than Tmax 100 at B&H ($66 vs $48), if you get it in 36 exposure rolls, Tmax 100 ($4.25) is cheaper than Delta 100 ($5.31). And Plus-x is a whopping $6.39.

So, Tmax 100 in bulk doesn't save much over buying in rolls, but Delta 100 in bulk saves a lot over rolls. Plus-X isn't available at B&H or Adorama in bulk.

Thanks again for all the responses.

May have missed something. It is my understanding that there is no more Plus-X of any type. Am I wrong? By the way, there was a time when Kodak had more silver in their vaults that the U.S. government. That has been a long time ago and Kodak (and probably everyone else) must pay the going price for silver now. Just like those of us who use aluminum and steel in our businesses. If you are lucky you have a supplier who raises and LOWERS prices according to the market.......Regards!

 

[NB23]

This is such nonsense.

If such was the case, they'd still offer plus-x at 15.25$ the roll, panatomic at 33.45$, and so on.

Their bulk pricing is such just because its a badly managed company with computer systems deciding on the pricing instead of real managers understanding the market. If their system would decide that a bulk roll needs to be priced at 675.02$, this would be their price without giving a second thought.

This is also why kodak has been the most pathetically managed company of the last 40 years.

Neil, there has been other threads and comments on the price of TMax bulk rolls compared to llford etc. I must admit I hadn't realised the trend had started as long ago as 2011. Several of us expressed views on why the price is so outrageous. There wasn't a consensus - well there seldom is on APUG. Some seem to believe its the Kodak manufacturing economics of bulk rolls that puts it at such a disadvantage compared to the likes of Ilford i.e. it is not deliberate profiteering and Kodak would reduce the price if it possibly could. Personally I was never able to reconcile the "economics" argument with the fact that in cassette form Kodak's apparent disadvantage disappears and it finds itself on a much more level playing field compared to the likes of Ilford.

Others believe that Kodak doesn't want to sell bulk so prices it so it gets the best of both worlds i.e. it sells the bulk at a vast profit to those who cannot do without it i.e. those buyers who occupy the inelastic part of the demand curve and will pay almost anything to get it - a bit like Kodachrome( sorry couldn't resist ). It still then makes a "normal " profit on the cassettes and if it gets to the point that only a handful of customers are buying bulk then it can then genuinely say that as it only sold say, 10 bulk rolls at £1000 per roll then everyone will forgive it for then stopping sales of bulk so it is "win-win" all round for Kodak but perhaps not win-win in the book's "Getting to Yes" sense of the word.

It may work a bit like the quote from an overworked jobbing builder. He doesn't want to be seen to be turning away your business so quotes a price at which either you will not buy his services but it is you who refuses his business or you will buy his services in which case his margin is so vast that he fits you into his schedule.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

It may be badly managed and controlled by computer pricing but isn't there a real live management team who look at the sales figures and its rivals' pricing and then draw appropriate conclusions. If the computer is making bad decisions then doesn't human self interest and the instinct for survival manifest itself at some point?

pentaxuser

 

[darkosaric]

isn't there a real live management team who look at the sales figures and its rivals' pricing and then draw appropriate conclusions.

No, such management does not exist in Kodak.

 

[trendland]

I'm about to place an order for 100 feet of Tmax 100 and I noticed that B&H has bumped the price up to $66 versus $55 for Tmax 400. Furthermore, Adorama doesn't even have it. Does anyone know why this is happening? If bulk Tmax 100 is going to be phased out, I will transition to Ilford Delta 100 (only $48). In fact, the price alone makes a case for transitioning.

In any case, I was just wondering if anyone knows why the price is so high and its availability seems to be weakening.

That is indeed a very good question from you Dave - thank you for this.
As many of us may remember from far behind the price of bulk rolls film was very cheap in the past.
As a rule, the calculation was a half price
compared to 135-36 cans (in bw).
Now - after some trouble to Ilford - manufactors increases their prices more and more.
AND most they did it to bulk rolls.
Why is this the new product policy of Kodak AND Ilford ?
Is it in concern to costs of production?
......
Have you noticed less demand to bulk rolls Dave ? Of cause we all noticed -94% less demand to films in general.
Perhaps it is less -98% to bulk rolls.
But I would see it also as a realistic scenario that we see nowadays only
- 89% to bulk rolls of films.
The production now is so expensive that
manufacturers are forced to increase 10%, 15%, 30%, 25%.......every few
month?
You should not belive these kind of statements from dealers of film.

Comming to extraordinary increases of
bulk rolls Dave - we noticed here with tmax 100 from Kodak.

In general it is an indicator to discontinued films. As you may like to
see so : A kind of early warning system
or let's say : A rapid alert system.

Four Flagged Red Dave !

We noticed DEFCON 2 to Tmax100 .

Beware off to get the bulk rolls you will need in the future Dave AND don't care
to prices - you wiĺl see much higher prices to tmax100 wenn Kodak is off with this emulsion.

with regards

 

[cramej]

At first I questioned the reasoning for resurrecting a 6 year old thread, but hey, now I know that the current price for Tmax400 is more than double HP5 right now.

 

[Lachlan Young]

To all those above who rather arrogantly assume to be all-knowing about the market and better at the job than Alaris' management, how about considering this: maybe, just maybe, people aren't buying bulk rolls any more.

Stepping outside of your mentalité/ doctrine might be enlightening. Most people have better things to do with their lives than bulk loading film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

To all those above who rather arrogantly assume to be all-knowing about the market and better at the job than Alaris' management, how about considering this: maybe, just maybe, people aren't buying bulk rolls any more.

Stepping outside of your mentalité/ doctrine might be enlightening. Most people have better things to do with their lives than bulk loading film.

All my 35mm B&W is bulk. Except I can't get Acros anymore in bulk anymore. I like to be able to roll off shorter exposure rolls, say like 12 or 15 exp. I love Kodak film, but I certainly have no love for Kodak. Nor can I find any and I mean any justification for this marketing blunder. Yes, it is an outright, middle finger to the customer, blunder.

 

[pentaxuser]

If people are not buying bulk rolls anymore and it is this that makes Kodak's bulk roll price extortionate then I wonder why this isn't having the same effect on bulk v cassette prices for Ilford, Foma etc. I presume that the bulk roll machinery remains much as it was when Kodak bulk rolls did compare reasonably in price with cassettes in the same way that Ilford's bulk roll machinery remains the same so I am still at a loss to understand why Kodak bulk rolls have become extortionate in price.

I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes. In this case it comes back to how much blame attaches to Kodak.

If the answer is "no blame" then I'd prefer Kodak to be honest and say it is stopping bulk roll sales as the price genuinely reflects costs but Kodak recognises that customers cannot be expected to pay such prices.

Better still, it could always produce its range of films, sell the cassettes and contract out its Kodak bulk rolls to Ilford who seem to have the means of doing it much more cheaply. That way it satisfies its customers so retains a bigger customer base and a reputation for customer care and and passes work to Ilford rather than letting a product, namely bulk rolls wither on the vine.

Sounds like a win-win solution to me

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

If people are not buying bulk rolls anymore and it is this that makes Kodak's bulk roll price extortionate then I wonder why this isn't having the same effect on bulk v cassette prices for Ilford, Foma etc. I presume that the bulk roll machinery remains much as it was when Kodak bulk rolls did compare reasonably in price with cassettes in the same way that Ilford's bulk roll machinery remains the same so I am still at a loss to understand why Kodak bulk rolls have become extortionate in price.

I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes. In this case it comes back to how much blame attaches to Kodak.

If the answer is "no blame" then I'd prefer Kodak to be honest and say it is stopping bulk roll sales as the price genuinely reflects costs but Kodak recognises that customers cannot be expected to pay such prices.

Better still, it could always produce its range of films, sell the cassettes and contract out its Kodak bulk rolls to Ilford who seem to have the means of doing it much more cheaply. That way it satisfies its customers so retains a bigger customer base and a reputation for customer care and and passes work to Ilford rather than letting a product, namely bulk rolls wither on the vine.

Sounds like a win-win solution to me

pentaxuser

I doubt Kodak would contract out to Ilford/Harman, but maybe somebody else.

 

[pentaxuser]

I doubt Kodak would contract out to Ilford/Harman, but maybe somebody else.

You may well be right, John. It is the idea of contracting out rather than to whom the business goes that's important although in today's hard times for analogue not contracting out to a rival on principle might be very short-sighted and result in losses for both parties

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes.

Freestyle's price for T-Max 100 in 100 foot rolls is 16 x its price for a single 36 exposure roll: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=63&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=2-5

 

[Lachlan Young]

If people are not buying bulk rolls anymore and it is this that makes Kodak's bulk roll price extortionate then I wonder why this isn't having the same effect on bulk v cassette prices for Ilford, Foma etc. I presume that the bulk roll machinery remains much as it was when Kodak bulk rolls did compare reasonably in price with cassettes in the same way that Ilford's bulk roll machinery remains the same so I am still at a loss to understand why Kodak bulk rolls have become extortionate in price.

I take it that none of us, including those of us who are defending Kodak, seek to deny that Kodak bulk rolls are extortionately priced vis a vis its cassettes. In this case it comes back to how much blame attaches to Kodak.

If the answer is "no blame" then I'd prefer Kodak to be honest and say it is stopping bulk roll sales as the price genuinely reflects costs but Kodak recognises that customers cannot be expected to pay such prices.

Better still, it could always produce its range of films, sell the cassettes and contract out its Kodak bulk rolls to Ilford who seem to have the means of doing it much more cheaply. That way it satisfies its customers so retains a bigger customer base and a reputation for customer care and and passes work to Ilford rather than letting a product, namely bulk rolls wither on the vine.

Sounds like a win-win solution to me

pentaxuser

It may be as simple as Kodak being unwilling to accept a lower per item profit on bulk rolls than Harman. Remember that not only is there a difference in the packaging, but in the edge numbering & a number of other aspects. I understand that compared to regular 135, there are significantly more manual operations involved in assembling bulk rolls.

I also recall Alaris saying that their market research stated that consumers would rather pay higher prices than see products withdrawn. So for those complaining, you might want to look for your petard.

 

[trendland]

Freestyle's price for T-Max 100 in 100 foot rolls is 16 x its price for a single 36 exposure roll: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=63&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=2-5

Matt - exact this type of arogance from Kodak I noticed many years before in a proffessional store.
The first time (and last time) I informed me about bulk rolls of C-41 AND E6 !
First I wondered about, because I never know before that this is also avaible.
But the dealer had it in his scedule.
100ft in Kodak Ektachrome 64 EPR.
And the price was much much over
20 single 135-36 due to less demand.
What the hell is so expensive to manufacturers to cut some ft of original master rolls and put it in a plastic container instead of confection in 20 single metal cans 135 ?
But the bulk rolls were avaible to that time.I tought to less demand on highest prices. BUT THERE SHOULD BE A DEMAND. Otherwise it should discontinued. (In case of 100% No Demand)
Now my question : Who bought bulk rolls
EPR much higher priced in (2002 ? ) ....
I can only imagine proffessionals......
For what reason ? 250 long Film magazines?
Perhaps some had multiple shots with
5 different emulsions paralel?
Let's better say a time before (1997) and
they realized not to waste an entire 135-36 roll to 15 shots.
Because you are also able with self confection to produce 60 x 135-12 cans.
EPR was never avaible in this size.
But proffessionals most used 120 film
to that time (1990 - 1998).

with regards

PS : To have an oasis in a desert and the only licence to sell water - that should be the most reason to higher prices with bulk rolls - or as I stated before - they are in a process to get short with films.

 

[trendland]

It may be as simple as Kodak being unwilling to accept a lower per item profit on bulk rolls than Harman. Remember that not only is there a difference in the packaging, but in the edge numbering & a number of other aspects. I understand that compared to regular 135, there are significantly more manual operations involved in assembling bulk rolls.

I also recall Alaris saying that their market research stated that consumers would rather pay higher prices than see products withdrawn. So for those complaining, you might want to look for your petard.

Wow - what an argumentation? I would not care to any edge numbering when
Kodak make a flash sale -50% in bulk
rolls. (but people BE AWARE OFF you have no edge numbers on this special offer)........

with regards

PS : I even would have no problem with short expired tmax 100 in bulk rolls.
But it seams so Kodak mangement would
more like to eat their films themselfes than to make more realistic prices and special offers ?
It hasn't to do with a smal market it is
more in a szenario of a water selling licence due to a traditional monopoly position.

 

[MattKing]

What the hell is so expensive to manufacturers to cut some ft of original master rolls and put it in a plastic container instead of confection in 20 single metal cans 135 ?

Manual labour vs. automation.
Different edge printing.
Different core.
Different can.
Different label.
Different box.
Different SKU, and all the distribution costs associated with that.
Most likely setup and take-down charges levied by Eastman Kodak to any of its contract coating and confectioning customers, including Kodak Alaris. These might very well be several thousands of dollars each time.
If volumes were higher, the per roll cost of bulk film would be lower. It is a Catch 22 situation.
There probably needs to be something like a special promotion - once a year, special for the education market, organized by the big retailers.
Something like the educational packaging that Ilford offers for 100 sheet boxes of 8x10 RC paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

Freestyle's price for T-Max 100 in 100 foot rolls is 16 x its price for a single 36 exposure roll: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/2-Film/Black-and-White-Film?mfg[]=63&attr[]=1-3&attr[]=2-5

Thanks for that Matt. This made me do a quick check on U.K. stockists. Most no longer seem to stock bulk TMax now. Maybe those retailers have decided that the price of bulk Kodak rolls means that they will not sell so in effect have made the decision for Kodak. I found one retailer who does still sell both cassettes and bulk. In the first case it was TMax 400. The 36 frame cassette is £6.19 and the equivalent bulk roll is £8.40 based on 18 x 36 frame from a 100ft roll

The other retailer seems to only stock Tri-X bulk roll and there the 36 frame cassette is £7.29 and the 100ft bulk roll £208 ( Yes that is not a misprint/typo) which on an 18 cassette equivalent is £11.55
All the U.K. retailers seem to stock the full range of Ilford bulk rolls. If we take the Ilford equivalent of TMax 400 as D400 then in one U.K. retailer a 36 frame cassette is £5.99 and the equivalent cassette price based on 18 36 frame films per 100ft is £3.88 so based on the above in the Ilford range you save £2.11 per film and in the Kodak range it costs you £2.21 extra per equivalent film length to buy bulk

I am glad I participated in this thread. I knew things were bad in the Kodak bulk scene but this has brought it home to me just how bad.

Kodak has just lost another U.K. supporter. Looks like it's only you left Lachlan

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

pentaxuser:
The Canadian pricing situation is similar.
I'm afraid that this is a result of two important realities:
1) the market is so much smaller than it once was; and
2) distribution is very inefficient - small operations, with high per product costs, not to mention in some cases multiple levels of distribution.
My favourite local retailer buys their Kodak product from more than one Canadian distributor - some from a distributor that specializes in supplying grocery and drug stores, some from a distributor that specializes in supplying photo-finishers and some from a distributor that specializes in supplying photo stores. They have to do that because of prices and minimum order quantities. In many cases, those two factors combine to mean that the retail store only orders to fill specific customer orders. In some cases, they even end up buying from US retail sources, commercially importing those retail items, and then re-selling to the end customer. They do that, because even with all the extra costs involved in the importation it is cheaper for them than buying from their "wholesale" Canadian distributors.
I remember fondly when Kodak did their own distribution, and just about any Kodak dealer could obtain the best possible price, provided they purchased a very reasonable minimum amount of product. Those days are sadly long gone.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that Matt. Almost an obituary for Kodak, I'd say. It may be a victim of circumstances over which it may have no control so the die is cast but even if I eventually become persuaded that none of it is Kodak's fault I cannot bring myself to translate this into a massive subsidy from my bank account to the detriment of another company Ilford which does appear to have risen from the ashes of bankruptcy and somehow did make the changes required to stay alive

pentaxuser