Anybody buying Kodak B&W films nowadays?

[Philippe-Georges]

From 2005 on I was mainly shooting Tri-X/120, which I liked a lot, but when prices begun rising and getting a little out of range, I switched to Hp5+.
Right now in Belgium, per roll: Tri-X/120 = € 11,99 and Hp5+/120 = € 7,60 which is about half the price less (€ 4,39).
Ilford's Hp5+ is certainly not half the quality less than Kodak's Tri-X...

 

[Mr Flibble]

I shoot Double-X rolled from 100' Bulk rolls every now and then. I guess I get about 17-18 rolls of 135/36 out of them, works out at around a fiver per roll.

 

[BMbikerider]

I don't even look at Kodak film when I know I can buy a similar film at a much less cost.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I mean - 14€/14$ for Trix or Tmax iso 400... double to cost of Ilford, and triple the cost of Foma.
As much as I want to buy and support them - I just cannot give 140€ for a box of 10 films.

film manufacturers realized that, for many years, they could have charged more because folks are willing to pay for it. Now, they are trying to make up for it. But, prices have reached a point where even hard-core film users are backing out. The end of film is nearer than ever.

 

[baachitraka]

film manufacturers realized that, for many years, they could have charged more because folks are willing to pay for it. Now, they are trying to make up for it. But, prices have reached a point where even hard-core film users are backing out. The end of film is nearer than ever.

Its no fun anymore to pay such a price. At-least I can't convince my spouse to allocate a justifiable budget.

But somewhere in the corner I am optimistic that things will change soon for better.

 

[guangong]

I haven’t read every contributor to this thread, so possibly missed this point. Has anyone determined what the cost of a 1970 roll of film would cost in 1923, taking inflation into consideration?

 

[Don_ih]

I haven’t read every contributor to this thread, so possibly missed this point. Has anyone determined what the cost of a 1970 roll of film would cost in 1923, taking inflation into consideration?

If a roll of film was $3 in 1970, that would've been $1.32 in 1923. But I assume that was a typo. 2023, it goes up to $23. Wacky.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

film manufacturers realized that, for many years, they could have charged more because folks are willing to pay for it. Now, they are trying to make up for it. But, prices have reached a point where even hard-core film users are backing out. The end of film is nearer than ever.

That's what they said about music records. Meanwhile they charge twice the cost for a vinyl record than a DVD. And people are lining up to purchase them. There are still loads of manufacturers of film. That could get culled down to just a few who will get what they're asking for.

 

[koraks]

loads of manufacturers of film

Ahem. 'Loads' is a single-digit number closer to 0 than to 10?

 

[lamerko]

Ahem. 'Loads' is a single-digit number closer to 0 than to 10?

Kodak
Ilford
Fijifilm
Foma
ORWO
Ferrania
Agfa?
Svema
Tasma

Maybe I missed someone else... so - it's closer to 10

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ahem. 'Loads' is a single-digit number closer to 0 than to 10?

Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Lomography, Shanghai, Formapan, Arista, Rollei Infrared, Adox scala, Kentmere, Ferrania,. Others I missed?

 

[koraks]

Thanks for both lists. I agree that if you stretch "film manufacturing" to a wider definition, the list can approach and probably even exceed 10. The definition would then have to include things like "may or may still not be manufacturing film that's not intended for photographic purposes, but used for it by some", "marketing film they don't actually manufacture", "are a trade name but not a legal entity as such that manufacture photographic film". And perhaps some other variants.

To name a few:
* ORWO: is not really one discernable legal entity; unclear who does the actual manufacturing, although some people in the German industry evidently know
* Lomo: does not manufacture film.
* Rollei: idem; is not a manufacturer
* Arista: same thing
* Kentmere: same

But alright, even if you were to compile a correct list, it would still exceed 5, but end before you'd reach 10. Calling that 'loads' is a bit of a stretch.

 

[lamerko]

Everyone on my list is a manufacturer

 

[koraks]

Everyone on my list is a manufacturer

No, ORWO isn't. That would be Filmotec. But given the dynamic recent history, I'd be hesitant to identify who exactly still produces film in that muddle of entities.

 

[retina_restoration]

I mean - 14€/14$ for Trix or Tmax iso 400... double to cost of Ilford, and triple the cost of Foma.
As much as I want to buy and support them - I just cannot give 140€ for a box of 10 films.

No. I no longer buy any Kodak products - not film, not chemistry. The film has gotten too expensive and has no meaningful advantages over Ilford products, and the chemistry is no longer trustworthy since the Sino Promise mess started.

 

[Roger Cole]

That's what they said about music records. Meanwhile they charge twice the cost for a vinyl record than a DVD. And people are lining up to purchase them. There are still loads of manufacturers of film. That could get culled down to just a few who will get what they're asking for.

Today's vinyl LPs (yes, I buy some) are much thicker/heavier than they used to be. But I doubt very much that adds much to the cost.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks for both lists. I agree that if you stretch "film manufacturing" to a wider definition, the list can approach and probably even exceed 10. The definition would then have to include things like "may or may still not be manufacturing film that's not intended for photographic purposes, but used for it by some", "marketing film they don't actually manufacture", "are a trade name but not a legal entity as such that manufacture photographic film". And perhaps some other variants.

To name a few:
* ORWO: is not really one discernable legal entity; unclear who does the actual manufacturing, although some people in the German industry evidently know
* Lomo: does not manufacture film.
* Rollei: idem; is not a manufacturer
* Arista: same thing
* Kentmere: same

But alright, even if you were to compile a correct list, it would still exceed 5, but end before you'd reach 10. Calling that 'loads' is a bit of a stretch.

Five manufacturers are more than enough. The problem is that many emulsions have been discontinued. Such as Velvia 50 in 4x5 my favorite color film.

 

[lamerko]

No, ORWO isn't. That would be Filmotec. But given the dynamic recent history, I'd be hesitant to identify who exactly still produces film in that muddle of entities.

By the same logic, there is no Ilford, but Pemberstone Ventures (Harman Technology). Just a play on words. The important thing is that films under the ORWO name are created by those who hold the trademark. They don't repackage anything. Only for their color film they use help to make the emulsion, but their black and white films are their own. If we dig deeper historically - in fact, this is Agfa - the original factory. Some of the machines may also be from Agfa's time, 70-80 years old

 

[koraks]

Five manufacturers are more than enough. The problem is that many emulsions have been discontinued. Such as Velvia 50 in 4x5 my favorite color film.

It's a tiny industry, so five certainly can be enough, depending on what you want from them. Heck, even one might be enough if they can supply the quality and quantity that's needed.

By the same logic, there is no Ilford

Yeah yeah.
We can compile a list of 10 or so alright. If you then do an estimate of the HHI analysis on them (or just approximate it; doesn't have to be exact), you still end up with at best a handful that dominate the industry and some scraps. The latter are made up of one-hit-wonders, ventures with doubtful continuity, firms that have poor access to the market (i.e. their products are difficult to obtain) and a host of supply, manufacturing and QC issues. Why's that relevant, you might ask? Well, Alan's remark is made in the context of competition to Kodak's B&W film offering. A fair share of the manufacturers mentioned in those list don't play much of a role in that sense. It's nice that they're here, and I really wish them well, but let's not make more of it than it is.

Look, I used a hyperbole to illustrate that Alan's remark was just that, too - a hyperbole.

 

[BMbikerider]

I haven’t read every contributor to this thread, so possibly missed this point. Has anyone determined what the cost of a 1970 roll of film would cost in 1923, taking inflation into consideration?

I recall buying a 36 exp of Ilford FP3 (forerunner of FP4) and I could buy almost 5 cassettes for around £1. THis was pre 1970 (about 1964) - around 36 exp 1964 A roll of original Kodachrome (10 iso) with processing paid for £1.50 Or about 1.5$

I was earning about £28 per month in 1970 but film prices would be stable then so not much more than in 1964 I also remember using a lot of Kodak XX which I bought in 50 feet rolls from an ex-military surplus store (out of date) for about £5. Pretty awful and very grainy, but it was film!

 

[Radost]

Now do how many make color film.

 

[Don_ih]

Kodak
Ilford
Fijifilm
Foma
ORWO
Ferrania
Agfa?
Svema
Tasma

Maybe I missed someone else... so - it's closer to 10

You missed Shanghai. And there is quite possibly still a colour film manufacturer in China.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Well, I still shell out for 320Tri-X and TMY-2 from Kodak in 4x5 just because there aren't films with exactly the same qualities from other manufacturers. And, because I don't want to spend the time learning how to deal with the obvious replacements, Delta 400 and HP5+ from Ilford. Maybe I'll be forced to someday, but as it stands, 100 sheets of 4x5 film last me a good long while, so I can justify the cost.

Doremus

 

[MCB18]

You missed Shanghai. And there is quite possibly still a colour film manufacturer in China.

This is a list of companies which are known to be manufacturing film currently:

• Kodak
• Ilfird
• Foma
• Agfa
• Tasma
• Filmotec/IRWO
• Ferrania

These companies do not coat film, but either repackage finished film, order master rolls and have another company finish and package the film, or have some finishing and packaging capabilities in house:

• CineStill
• Shanghai
• Rollei
• CatLabs
• Lomography
• Silberra
• Reflex Labs
• Santa Film/Kamerastore
• FPP
• Arista/Arista.EDU/Freestyle
• Many other “lab brands”/smaller film companies such as Flick Films

These companies are not able to be placed in either of the list above, as they may make some of their own film, but outsource some as well, or the status of their manufacturing capabilities is unknown/questionable.

• ADDOX (has a film factory, but the company is disorganized, and may not actually own the factory.)
• Fujifilm (confirmed using Kodak for some color negative film, unknown wether C-41/E-6 master rolls are still being manufactured at all. Instax does seem to be manufactured by Fujifilm.)
• Lucky (very little known about them, however they seem to possibly still exist in some fashion.)
• Astrum/Svema (has very flexible finishing capabilities, but status of film coating lines are unknown. Possibly using Tasma master rolls.)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wait a minute... I was under the impression that Ferrania is now able to do everything in-house.