Costs

[rrusso]

Since I'm just getting back into film, maybe I'm off-base. Please educate me if that's the case.

At B & H, a 36 exp. roll of T-Max 400 is 4.95. A 100 ft. bulk roll is 119.95 . Assuming approx. 18.5 36 exp. rolls per bulk roll, this comes to about 6.48 per.

Shouldn't one see a savings by buying bulk? To see an actual increase in cost seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You also have to include shipping charges. Say you order 6 rolls at a time. Your shipping is going to be approximately 3 times what a 100 foot roll would be.

 

[pentaxuser]

Since I'm just getting back into film, maybe I'm off-base. Please educate me if that's the case.

At B & H, a 36 exp. roll of T-Max 400 is 4.95. A 100 ft. bulk roll is 119.95 . Assuming approx. 18.5 36 exp. rolls per bulk roll, this comes to about 6.48 per.

Shouldn't one see a savings by buying bulk? To see an actual increase in cost seems ridiculous to me.

Well if bulk rolls do not generate savings,it is difficult to work out why the bulk film equivalent is $1.50 more per roll and even more difficult when in the case of Ilford there are savings

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Bulk film requires different edge markings, different cutting, different rolling and different packaging and labeling. For each of these stages, there are set-up and take-down costs, and packaging and labeling costs that are peculiar to bulk rolls.

I think we who don't actually manufacture film tend to underestimate what each of those steps actually costs.

Simon Galley of Ilford has stated that it actually costs them more to buy the backing paper for a roll of 120 film than it does to make the film.

It would not surprise me to learn that the set-up and other related costs for bulk film production greatly exceed the cost of producing the film itself.

When sales of bulk films were high, things like set-up costs were spread over many more rolls than they would be now.

 

[MattKing]

Well if bulk rolls do not generate savings,it is difficult to work out why the bulk film equivalent is $1.50 more per roll and even more difficult when in the case of Ilford there are savings

pentaxuser

Ilford uses a much smaller and more flexible coating machine, and doesn't do colour.

I expect that Ilford's film costs are higher than Kodak's, but their associated edge marking, cutting, packaging and labeling costs are lower - at least on low volume items.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I bulk loaded slide film for years but then with film processors not returning the cassettes it became cheaper to buy the roll film.

 

[EdSawyer]

That does make no sense. bulk rolls should be cheaper.

 

[Vaughn]

I suppose cost-effectiveness will change with the type of use. If one needs 10-exposure rolls for tests or whatever, there will be no wasting of film having to use 24 exp rolls.

There is the cost of the large film can. Does 18 35mm film cassettes equal the cost of one large can? But it still seems that the price is a bit much for a bulk roll.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That does make no sense. bulk rolls should be cheaper.

It makes sense when the photo processors stopped returning the film cassettes. Buying a set of 18 cassettes for a 100 foot roll of film made buy bulk film more expensive per shot than buy film at discount stores or camera stores that gave me a discount. Simple cost analysis at the time. I stopped shooting slides and now do most of my camera work with MF and LF. Ever try to bulk load 120 film?

 

[pentaxuser]

It would not surprise me to learn that the set-up and other related costs for bulk film production greatly exceed the cost of producing the film itself.

Against that is the cost of the cassettes and cassette machine line. The Ilford one for instance which I have seen is quite a complex one and didn't look a cheap set-up.

We could ask Kodak for the reason. Only it can provide a conclusion to this question but I won't hold my breath .

As a customer I cannot reconcile what I know and believe to be the real cost of bulk roll v cassettes with the price differential so in the case of Kodak I'd vote with my feet and walk away from the bulk roll sales counter but unfortunately for Kodak in so doing I am no longer neutral but still feel somehow "taken advantage of" and that then adversely affects what residual loyalty I feel towards Kodak and overall makes me less supportive

This needn't and I am sure doesn't affect Kodak but it better be sure that I am in the minority. If I represent a substantial part of the market then that is more serious for it.

pentaxuser

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Kodak? I have done with Kodak b/w films once I learned BW film photography to be able to load from the bulk, develop and print at home.
Ilford all the way. Doesn't have this purple crap on it, even after as twice as normal fixing times, doesn't arch like crazy either and priced by normal people.
Yes, I'm bying b/w in bulk and it is economical. But it isn't Kodak branded films. Want it economical from BH, get Kentmere.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I suppose cost-effectiveness will change with the type of use. If one needs 10-exposure rolls for tests or whatever, there will be no wasting of film having to use 24 exp rolls.

There is the cost of the large film can. Does 18 35mm film cassettes equal the cost of one large can? But it still seems that the price is a bit much for a bulk roll.

I buy a certain brand of bulk film and it comes with no center spool and in a black plastic type box and not a metal can. Of course it's real expensive at $31.95 for a bulk roll of 100 ft. Comes in ISO 100 and 400. 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. We've been all through this before, but it feels good to express ones opinion anyway. I'm sure when those "bean counters" read this they will immediately lower the price. Ha! Ha! Ya, right! John W

 

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

Chiming in.. Kentmere..? I've heard good thing about that film. Does it produce a nice image?

Todd

 

[RobC]

Hey guys,

Chiming in.. Kentmere..? I've heard good thing about that film. Does it produce a nice image?

Todd

Depends on the numpty behind the camera.

 

[rrusso]

@ToddB

Yes, I think it does. Dries quick and flat, no curling.

I'm in my experimental phase with it and so far I prefer a normal dev., as opposed to stand. I used 120 min. (Adox Rodinal, 1+100), with just a few secs of ag every 30 min. Very contrasty, in fact, too much so for the shots I took...but may work well for certain conditions.

I plan to try a 60 min. stand next, with light ag every 20 min.

With normal dev. (1+25, ~8 min., ag the first min., then every 30 sec for 10 sec), the negs are very nice. I'd post them, but I don't have a scanner yet.

And, it's inexpensive.

 

[rrusso]

You also have to include shipping charges. Say you order 6 rolls at a time. Your shipping is going to be approximately 3 times what a 100 foot roll would be.

Or order enough to meet the minimum for free shipping.

 

[rrusso]

Well if bulk rolls do not generate savings,it is difficult to work out why the bulk film equivalent is $1.50 more per roll and even more difficult when in the case of Ilford there are savings

pentaxuser

Yes, which had me even more confused as to why the Kodak stuff was so much more. Granted, the Kentmere 100, as an example, will yield a greater savings than the 400 will, since the bulk rolls for both are the same price.

Now, for TMax 100, you will see a savings of almost $22 buying the bulk roll.

I dunno, just strikes me as bizarre.

 

[MattKing]

It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of the film itself is less than 10% of the cost of a bulk roll from Kodak.

And it wouldn't surprise me if Kodak's set-up and take-down costs for each line of film production they do are the highest in the industry.

And the "bean counters" probably insist that each line they produce recovers all its own costs, and that the profits from the sale of one line not be used to subsidize the other lines they produce.

When volumes were high, Kodak's huge machines made large profits for them, and their prices were relatively low.

Things have changed since then.

 

[mexipike]

I've run into this as well, the bulk is often more or only slightly less expensive. I kind of like it because it makes the choice easy for me: just buy the pre rolled and don't worry about rolling film myself! Of course if you are very concerned about emulsion batch and like to load different frame numbers, you're stuck with bulk. I find the prices expensive but pretty reasonable on BH these days, they seem to match the economy better then they once did recently but I may be wrong.

 

[JW PHOTO]

It wouldn't surprise me if the cost of the film itself is less than 10% of the cost of a bulk roll from Kodak.

And it wouldn't surprise me if Kodak's set-up and take-down costs for each line of film production they do are the highest in the industry.

And the "bean counters" probably insist that each line they produce recovers all its own costs, and that the profits from the sale of one line not be used to subsidize the other lines they produce.

When volumes were high, Kodak's huge machines made large profits for them, and their prices were relatively low.

Things have changed since then.

Matt,
You might be right on all accounts, but I still question bulk costing more than cassettes. Set-up and take-down costs? I've worked on both corrugated and steel slitter and once you have the cutter heads mounted and spaced according to the master roll the rest is easy. longer runs require even less work and time. It seems to me then that bulk 100' spools should be cheaper than shorter 36 and 24 exp lengths. Also, you can run various width all at the same time too.
Ilfords "bean counters" must not be very smart or at least not as smart as Kodak "bean counters" then since their bulk film doesn't reflect a higher cost. Another thing I don't understand is why Kodaks bulk was so much cheaper when it was really kodak and now it's something else and the price is unexplainable, to me at least. I'm sorry, until Kodak comes up with their own answer I'll believe what I want to believe, not defend the undefendable and continue to buy another manufactures film products. Like I said before, it's my choice. I do agree with you 100% that things change 'cause I've changed to something besides Kodak. It's a shame, but it's a fact. John W

 

[Sirius Glass]

It makes sense when the photo processors stopped returning the film cassettes. Buying a set of 18 cassettes for a 100 foot roll of film made buy bulk film more expensive per shot than buy film at discount stores or camera stores that gave me a discount. Simple cost analysis at the time. I stopped shooting slides and now do most of my camera work with MF and LF. Ever try to bulk load 120 film?

I see that others have had the same experience that I did with bulk film.

 

[MattKing]

I don't think Ilford's bean counters are any different then Kodak's.

I think Kodak's costs are higher for everything except the film manufacture itself.

And the film (and the associated costs) is still Eastman Kodak's product.

The 35mm individual rolls share all the economies of scale amongst them.

The bulk still film is a line all its own.

 

[rrusso]

Well I suppose what I would consider basic logic concerning this stuff, isn't.

The cost of the canister and its manufacturing process, along with the convenience it brings...makes sense that it would cost more.

Bulk rolls...they require manual labor on the consumer's part and packaging which isn't as complicated. You buy more of something, you pay less.

Oh well, I prefer Ilford's b+w anyway

 

[McFortner]

It could be because of when they bought the bulk rolls vs. the single rolls. If a price increase happened between the two, then there would be a price increase passed on to the consumer.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Instead of bitching about the way Kodak has a weird way of pricing it's film I decided to research all that has happened to their personal film division since filling Chapter 11. I found some interesting things out. Here's some interesting comments from Mr. Perez.

In his statement, Perez reaffirms his goal to transform Kodak into a printing company, claiming that it has the “broadest portfolio solutions – and enterprise services.” He adds: “These businesses have substantial long-term growth prospects worldwide and are core to the future of Kodak. We are confident that our competitive advantages in materials science and deposition technologies, as well as our know-how in digital imaging, will enable us to capitalize on those opportunities and extend our leadership in key growth markets.”

The printing business is currently dominated by companies such as HP, Epson and Canon. Before joining Kodak, Perez worked for HP, where he served as president and CEO of HP’s inkjet imaging division before taking on the post of president of HP’s consumer business.

Kodak also plans to retain its Consumer Inkjet, Entertainment Imaging, Commercial Film and Specialty Chemicals businesses.

BJP‘s technology contributor Jonathan Eastland says the announcement could push more photographers towards digital photography. “In the short term, this latest snippet in Kodak’s sorry on going saga to regroup and rebuild will push many more photographers still dabbling with film but teetering on the edge of the digital divide, over the cliff. They’ll simply give in to the inevitable, faced as they surely will be with ever increasing costs-per-silver-frame and further contracting lab infrastructure.”

In recent months, both Kodak and Fujifilm have increased the prices of their professional and consumer films.

Eastland adds: “On a more positive note, the news ought to present Ilford with a golden opportunity to net significant gains from the fall-out of Kodak film enthusiasts pondering a switch in allegiance. Fuji has colour but Ilford’s HP5+ black-and-white emulsion is up there with Tri-X; they just need to do a lot more to raise their image profile.

Now what about the new owners KPP (U.K. Kodak Pension Plan)?
"Our excitement around the acquisition of these businesses comes not just from their market strength but from what we see as long-term, highly successful growth opportunities," said Steven Ross, independent chairman of KPP. "Today starts the new chapter of a storied brand and we're thrilled with the potential the new company holds for our plan members, our customers, and our employees."

Dennis Olbrich, president of Kodak Alaris' Personalised Imaging business, and Dolores Kruchten, president of Kodak Alaris' Document Imaging business, will provide leadership for Kodak Alaris.

Maybe the pensioners want their money and want it now and maybe it isn't those folks causing the problem? Maybe it's Kodak Alaris dictating the pricing structure? Either way, I see it as lining up all the nails for the coffin and they're getting close to finding the hammer. They had better have a far superior product to market and price the way they are and I just don't see that way. Tri-X as being far superior to HP5+? Different, yes! Superior, NO!

If I were more concerned or worried that I could never get another roll of Kodak film again I'd contact one of the folks above to find out what's going on and to let them know this is not going to be good for the competitive nature of the film business. Of course they know much more than we know, but we'll see how this plays out. I think I've already read the last chapter of this book first and it's not a happy ending for anybody. I have a roll of Ultrafine Extreme 400 in my Pentax 6x7 right now. I guess you get my drift. John W