Costs

[MattKing]

Much of that info is quite dated.

Perez is essentially gone, and Kodak is almost entirely out of the consumer inkjet business.

Kodak Alaris owns the manufacturing facilities for Kodak colour photographic paper, and that is their main business.

They are ghe marketing entity for Kodak still films and photographic chemistry. The film is manufactured by Eastman Kodak, who effectively determines pricing. Most still film and chemicals is distributed through 3rd parties.

Eastman Kodak is trying to develop additional uses for their large capacity coating facilities (just as Harman has for their much smaller machine). And the continued existence of film manufactured by Kodak probably depends on that re-purposing effort.

Less than 300 people remain involved in the manufacture and packaging of Kodak film. As the sale of commercial motion picture films (which make up the vast majority of the film produced) continues to decrease, the continued employment of those 300 people becomes more tenuous.

The remaining Kodak machinery has far too much capacity for the film market. For that reason, Kodak film is much more expensive to make than the market would otherwise dictate.

And Kodak Alaris' marketing efforts reflect those hard facts. They are concentrating on the majority of their business - colour photographic paper - which also happens to be the business that they control supply and pricing for.

If Eastman Kodak is successful in developing large, profitable additional uses for their coating machinery, then there may be improvement.

If that should happen, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kodak contracting with third parties like Harman for finishing services like cutting and packaging.

 

[mgb74]

You sometimes see very odd quirks in pricing. TMax 400 (100ft) is $120, but Tmax 100 is $70. Yet, looking at 36 exposure rolls, there's no differential in price between the 2.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Much of that info is quite dated.

Perez is essentially gone, and Kodak is almost entirely out of the consumer inkjet business.

Kodak Alaris owns the manufacturing facilities for Kodak colour photographic paper, and that is their main business.

They are ghe marketing entity for Kodak still films and photographic chemistry. The film is manufactured by Eastman Kodak, who effectively determines pricing. Most still film and chemicals is distributed through 3rd parties.

Eastman Kodak is trying to develop additional uses for their large capacity coating facilities (just as Harman has for their much smaller machine). And the continued existence of film manufactured by Kodak probably depends on that re-purposing effort.

Less than 300 people remain involved in the manufacture and packaging of Kodak film. As the sale of commercial motion picture films (which make up the vast majority of the film produced) continues to decrease, the continued employment of those 300 people becomes more tenuous.

The remaining Kodak machinery has far too much capacity for the film market. For that reason, Kodak film is much more expensive to make than the market would otherwise dictate.

And Kodak Alaris' marketing efforts reflect those hard facts. They are concentrating on the majority of their business - colour photographic paper - which also happens to be the business that they control supply and pricing for.

If Eastman Kodak is successful in developing large, profitable additional uses for their coating machinery, then there may be improvement.

If that should happen, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kodak contracting with third parties like Harman for finishing services like cutting and packaging.

Matt,
I knew much of that information was outdated, but I wasn't able to find any "fresh" information in the subject either. I wish Kodak would do what Harman did/does and maybe then they won't slide under. Good luck to them and their mighty 300. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

You sometimes see very odd quirks in pricing. TMax 400 (100ft) is $120, but Tmax 100 is $70. Yet, looking at 36 exposure rolls, there's no differential in price between the 2.

Well, that's the question that remains unanswered for me. With no explanation it also makes me think something isn't to kosher here. Maybe we'll never get a straight answer to the quirky pricing question? All I know is that I'm not going to miss any sleep over it. John W

 

[MattKing]

This recent New York Times feature has some interesting info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzQ1gx71EI

I'll try to excerpt some other info that came to me because my Dad is a Kodak Canada retiree:

EASTMAN KODAK

A global presence • 2014 revenue: $2.1B
•6,897 employees
•25,000 customers
•Products in 150+ countries
•Global manufacturing, technology development sites

 

[dynachrome]

When I see a steep price increase like this for bulk rolls I consider the possibilities. It could be that the product is already discontinued (no longer being manufactured) and what's left is selling at a higher price. There may be some users who want or need film in bulk rolls and who are willing to pay more to get it. When the Kodak b&w films stop being available, will Ilford prices go up like Fujichrome prices went up after Ektachrome went off the market? I can see more b&w film being made by Agfa-Gevaert and sold under other names but I don't think any additional emulsion research will be done. The last 100 and 400 speed Agfa b&w films made before the collapse of AgfaPhoto were not nearly as good as compararble films (in speed) from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji. I looked at the website and it looks like the Ferrania project is still going forward. Will there be any b&w films? For now it looks like Ilford is trying to stay in for the long term and I hope that works out.

 

[cmacd123]

there has been another recent thread on AUPG concerning the same price anaonomly with regard to Tri-X .

Yes, Bulk USED to cost less than individual rolls. Most brands it still does. at B&H 18 rolls of Ilford HP5+ costs (18* 4.75) = 85.50 while a 100 ft roll is only 54.90. as another example: at APUG advertiser Freestyle, 18 rolls of Ultra 400 is (18*3.70) = 66.60 while 100 feet is 41.89. (note that the Ultra does not come with any edge numbers or other markings in the bulk version.)

 

[RobC]

camera stores use some films, papers and other products as "loss leaders" to get punters into store. So anyone can pontificate about pricing but until you have ascertained whether a product price is being used as a loss leader, then its all hot air.

Besides, if its cheaper to buy it by the roll then buy it by the roll. Is that so difficult to comprehend? You're obviously worried about price but are whinning about it being cheaper to buy it by the roll which will save you time and money, whats that about?

 

[JW PHOTO]

This recent New York Times feature has some interesting info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzQ1gx71EI

I'll try to excerpt some other info that came to me because my Dad is a Kodak Canada retiree:

EASTMAN KODAK

A global presence • 2014 revenue: $2.1B
•6,897 employees
•25,000 customers
•Products in 150+ countries
•Global manufacturing, technology development sites

Matt,
That was very interesting and also very sad. It does help me understand things a little better, but the bulk price difference still remains the unanswered question for me. A few years back I bought one of those fancy Kodak printers for a very good price. I loved it for about two weeks. Then it was a love hate relationship with much more hate than love. I have only one good thing to say about that printer and that good thing is that it's gone. Now I have first hand experience as to why they (Kodak) got out of the consumer printer business. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

RobC,
I'm not whining and could really care less since I use mainly 120 film(non-Kodak), but of all the ideas as to why there is such a wide price difference none make since to me. When other film manufactures don't seem to price their film that way and Kodak does, it makes me think Kodak has a problem somewhere. At any rate this can't be good for their business. There must be folks out there that look at this difference and say, "Whoa, I don't like this practice and refuse to buy anything from a company that does this" Just saying it can't be good for both parties until there is a legit reason/answer for it. I will say no more(whining) about this and I'm outta here. John W

 

[RobC]

on amazon it's $6.84 a roll of 36 exposures. The OP said price was at B&H and not direct from kodak. They are selling it discounted and maybe as a loss leader. That is why its cheaper than another product. These shops don't bother to match up bulk pricing products with loss leaders.

OP is looking a gift horse in the mouth and whinning about it.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/dont-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth.html

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I think the bean pushers for Kodak have figured that it's more profitable to sell film at a higher retail price and sell less of it equals much more profit. Yup, of course there will be nobody left to buy it if we're all using Ilford or other brands. Is Kodak film good? Y es, I love TMY-2 in 120, but I'm neither stupid or rich and refuse to be the former. It's there choice to sell at that inflated retail price and my choice not to buy it.

I was surprised when I read this. B&H sells Kodak TMY-2 in 120 for $22.50 a 5 pack with free shipping on orders over $50. That's $4.50 per roll and cheaper than almost everything from Ilford, Fuji and Adox.

 

[02Pilot]

I contacted a Kodak Alaris exec (who is specifically involved with the film capture product line) directly last year when the price of Tri-X bulk rolls jumped. He responded promptly and explained that unit costs were driven by market demand, and that demand for bulk rolls was very low compared to cassettes. It does seem a little counter-productive to me, unless Kodak Alaris is not interested in promoting bulk roll sales, which it may not be.

 

[pentaxuser]

I contacted a Kodak Alaris exec (who is specifically involved with the film capture product line) directly last year when the price of Tri-X bulk rolls jumped. He responded promptly and explained that unit costs were driven by market demand, and that demand for bulk rolls was very low compared to cassettes. It does seem a little counter-productive to me, unless Kodak Alaris is not interested in promoting bulk roll sales, which it may not be.

I read into this KA explanation that when volumes are low the price rises to offset the low volume so revenue stays the same or nearly so. KA would seem to believe that the volume has got so low as to become an inelastic demand which isn't responsive to price so a substantial increase in price does not adversely affect volume and equally a reduction or same price as before does not result in an increase in volume.

If KA were the only film company or if its products were sufficiently unique fro all the other film producers products to be the equivalent of a monopoly then maybe this holds good but at the differentials quoted I'd doubt if this is the case and anyway this ignores the adverse "knock-on" effect it has on KA's standing with its customers due their perceptions of how they are being treated.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

camera stores use some films, papers and other products as "loss leaders" to get punters into store. So anyone can pontificate about pricing but until you have ascertained whether a product price is being used as a loss leader, then its all hot air.

Besides, if its cheaper to buy it by the roll then buy it by the roll. Is that so difficult to comprehend? You're obviously worried about price but are whinning about it being cheaper to buy it by the roll which will save you time and money, whats that about?

That is why I stopped bulk loading. Now if I have time the price is the lead driver, next is location if I can get it locally. If I do not have the time to wait, then speed is important and cost is not so important. Generally time is worth more for film than money.

 

[rrusso]

on amazon it's $6.84 a roll of 36 exposures.

Amazon, in this case, is quite a pathetic example. Amazon's available products - and prices, dependent upon a number of factors - pretty much run the gamut.

The OP said price was at B&H and not direct from kodak.

Is it possible for consumers to buy direct from Kodak?

They are selling it discounted and maybe as a loss leader. That is why its cheaper than another product. These shops don't bother to match up bulk pricing products with loss leaders.

Are you sure about this, or is it conjecture?

OP is looking a gift horse in the mouth and whinning about it.

Well, no. Not at all...not even a little bit. I simply noticed something while shopping online which struck me as odd, and thought to reach out here for a possible explanation and/or education (see my first post). The comments I made after were simply my opinion, based upon what I've always felt to be a fairly consistent universal "given", that being when you buy something in bulk, it's cheaper.

Although I've long known the meaning of the above phrase, I appreciate you taking the time to find and post the link, even if it was out of context and didn't apply.

I also appreciate your posts - they almost contributed to the discussion.

Almost.

 

[RobC]

you're welcome

 

[Paul Howell]

Other then a lack of demand for 100 foot rolls I no idea why Kodak bulk rolls are so high. I have a 100 foot back for my Minolta 9000 Maximum, (a new replacement for my Sigma SA 9 and 7s that now dark, very dark yellow finders.) I don't even know who can process a 100 foot roll. I do have a 100 foot bulk roll of Ultrafine 400 Extreme that I load when I want a very short roll, like 8 to 12 frames. Not Tmax, but has good grain and can produce some images. I think it runs $32.00 + shipping, I usually add a box of paper to the order. I have seem a lot of negative comments on Ultrafine 120 I not seen many posted issues with 35mm. I shoot Foma 200 in all formats as my standard film, but having 400 I can load to meet my needs is handy. I have on my wish list a 100 roll of Ultrafine 100 as well.

 

[MattKing]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record ...

The price reflects Eastman Kodak's costs. Some of those costs are relatively fixed, and are incurred each time they set up to produce bulk rolls. When demand is low, the per unit share of those fixed costs is really high. If demand were to go up, the per unit share of those fixed costs would go down.

Most people choose to buy bulk rolls instead of single rolls because of a desire to save money. If Kodak's costs are higher even when the volumes are high, then they are caught in a Catch 22 - they cannot get their volumes up because their price is too high, and they cannot get their price down because even if their volumes were higher, and their costs were correspondingly lower, they would still be too expensive.

A bunch of the comments here seem to ignore the fact that Kodak prices are based entirely on costs, not on opinions about the market.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most of the film Kodak sells is sold as sheets or rolls. A bulk roll has to be handled separately from the normal operations which could add to the cost.

 

[RobC]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record ...

The price reflects Eastman Kodak's costs. Some of those costs are relatively fixed, and are incurred each time they set up to produce bulk rolls. When demand is low, the per unit share of those fixed costs is really high. If demand were to go up, the per unit share of those fixed costs would go down.

Most people choose to buy bulk rolls instead of single rolls because of a desire to save money. If Kodak's costs are higher even when the volumes are high, then they are caught in a Catch 22 - they cannot get their volumes up because their price is too high, and they cannot get their price down because even if their volumes were higher, and their costs were correspondingly lower, they would still be too expensive.

A bunch of the comments here seem to ignore the fact that Kodak prices are based entirely on costs, not on opinions about the market.

Lets apply a little common sense logic to the situation. Please answer the question: How can it be that different outlets including big and small ones can offer a single roll of any particular film at different prices to the market. Some appearing cheap and some expensive.
For me common sense tells me they are all pricing according to their own rules which have nothing to do with Kodaks production costs except the bigger outlets can probably afford to and quite possibly profit from selling a popular film at a highly discounted rate.

Please also try and get it into your heads that the asumption that bulk roll film is expensive can be completely wrong when in reality it couuld be that it is single roll film is very cheap. Searching the web and finding the chepeast single roll film you can lay your hands on and then using that as the marker for what bulk roll film should cost is naive in the extreme. Taking the negative view you think bulk roll film is expensive. Taking the postive view you think single roll film is very cheap. Depends whether you are a glass is half full kind of person or a glass is half empty kind of person.

Film price topics annoy me greatly. Most people here use very little film and the savings they make by shopping around and spending time posting topics about it are neglible compared to their other costs, particulary their chemicals, paper, time spent photographing, time spent printing and travel costs. If film is too expensive for you then get a digital camera but don't whine about its price. Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[JW PHOTO]

OMG, I've been lured in again! So, Kodak can't make a profit on their 100' bulk rolls so they have to charge a few pennies more for the bulk. Well, many pennies more. Yet, Ilford, Foma and others can sell 100' bulk rolls for less per foot for canister 35mm film. Must be these folks are losing money on every bulk roll or are just stupid for not cashing in on the folks that really want or have a need for bulk.
Get your head around this scenario. You live in a small town and have three gas stations of different brands. Two of those stations sell there gas/petrol for $2.50 a gallon. The third sell it's gas/petrol for the same price per gallon, but you can only buy five gallons for that price. But you say, I want to fill my car up, which they will do. Then they tell you that the price for a fill-up is $2.85 a gallon instead of the lower $2.50 for their five gallon limit. First, my business is done at that station. Second, it makes no sense. Third, there is no reasonable explanation for this. You want to sell volume to make profit when it comes to gas. I would think you want to sell volume when it comes to film also. I do know that to get that five gallons of crude/gas out of the ground cost no more per gallon that it does to take a thousand gallons out. One thing I do know is that I'm done filling up or even buying five gallons from station three. Hmmmm! I sure feel sorry for Foma and Ilford, because they have to be taking a helluva beating on this bulk film thing. Sorry Kodak, until I get a logical explanation from the horses mouth I'll continue to buy elsewhere. Other folks can do as they wish. John W

 

[RobC]

But it ain't Kodak selling this film, it's B&H and you can get the cheapest film from B&H by buying it by the single roll and not in bulk. If you can get it cheaper elsewhere then go there. If you can't get it cheaper elsewhere then you'd need to be a real "know the price of everything and value of nothing" kind of person to whine about their prices and start blaming Kodak for them.

 

[Peltigera]

I don't know why people keep on about costs. Retail prices are determined by what the market will bear, not by production costs.

If Kodak sell their product for $xxx, that will be because that is what people are willing to pay. If Foma sell a similar product for $yyy, that is because that is what people are willing to pay for Foma's product. None of it involves fairness or common sense, just market forces.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I don't know why people keep on about costs. Retail prices are determined by what the market will bear, not by production costs.

If Kodak sell their product for $xxx, that will be because that is what people are willing to pay. If Foma sell a similar product for $yyy, that is because that is what people are willing to pay for Foma's product. None of it involves fairness or common sense, just market forces.

I'm really not complaining about the over-all price of film, but am a little more than puzzled as to why Kodak prices their bulk higher per foot over 35mm canister film. Oh, I also don't think the retailers are responsible for this difference or Kodak would be on them, like stink on you know what. As for $xxx and $yyy? You also have to figure in the competition factor. If you want to be competitive you have to show it in your pricing. If you want to charge a much higher price for bulk film than say Ilford or Foma you had better have a far superior product. Remember the folks that would beat a path to your door for a better mousetrap? Well it had better be better. I just refuse to be a lemming or a sheep to slaughter type person. John W