FILM PRICE: COULD A RESURGENCE FORCE A MAJOR DROP?

[abruzzi]

The only way increased demand is likely to lower the prices is if it is significant enough to create manufacturing efficiencies that allow manufacturers to charge less and still make a profit. I don’t see the “film resurgence” dying that. More likely it is leveling out the decline and the die-off. If, 10 years from now, all the currently available film are still available, and prices have kept pace with inflation, I’ll be happy. If we have new films to play with, I’ll be overjoyed.

 

[trendland]

The only way increased demand is likely to lower the prices is if it is significant enough to create manufacturing efficiencies that allow manufacturers to charge less and still make a profit. I don’t see the “film resurgence” dying that. More likely it is leveling out the decline and the die-off. If, 10 years from now, all the currently available film are still available, and prices have kept pace with inflation, I’ll be happy. If we have new films to play with, I’ll be overjoyed.

Notice the situation from Super 8 that was a precedence of later situation with Film photography!
There are still Super8 films avaible but Super8 is real dead beside some crazy enthusiasts spending min. 30,- bucks/min. (minimum per minute) !
Regarding APS : At last there was only ONE Film avaible!

Friends Film photography will live forever but you just get 2 - 3 bw films at the end and I swear
THE LAST REMAINING FILM IS A C41 35mm (KODAK) !

with regards

PS : possible in 6 years, it could come true also within the next decade - perhaps we can be happy to see this day after 2035.....but it will come!
And if you can use "just" 3 - 4 films (perhaps a last bw film for120) can we then say film is alive?

To me film is dead if just10 differerent films are avaible! We may count here!

with regards

PS : Saving alone 7 different Agfa emulsions in my freezer!

 

[trendland]

Forgetting to state : For that slow dead you have to pay - remember me!
What we see now is a type of interim interruption! So manufacturers feel fine - but from each optimism for film photography I am A pessimist!

with regards

PS : Lent you money, spent it soon, freeze your films and shot film till 2060 but be aware of burglars then!
PPS : An study chemistry because you'll need it at last!

 

[David Lyga]

Well, there certainly is LESS of a monopoly than there was 30 years ago. So many more players seem to be at least peripherally involved. ADOX is very informative and I think that my thread piqued his interest (by necessity). I am not a master economist, only an astute observer. I guess that I cannot fully appreciate how difficult it is to cut costs for a roll of (all R&D bugs long ago ironed out) film. Thus said, I seem to have opened a Pandora's Box of influential opinion and objective analysis. Thank you all.

Trendland: You are a master of the emoji. I have never used one in my life, but sometimes images create added impetus to one's thoughts.

However, one more thing to note: C-41 film is cheaper than traditional B&W, although the C-41 is far more complex to manufacture. Why? Because it sells far more rolls than traditional B&W does. That was my point: If B&W takes on a mini 'resurgence' there might be available options to lower the price. Again, I am not being definitive here, just projecting an opinion. My wishful thinking has not gotten me into trouble just yet. - David Lyga

 

[canuhead]

there's already competition between manufacturers yet prices continue to rise. so no, we will never see prices falling. as we see now, they continue to rise, and probably to the point that some here will probably reconsider shooting silver.

 

[trendland]

[QUOTE="David Lyga, post: 2163735, member: 23162"

Trendland: You are a master of the emoji. David Lyga[/QUOTE]

David that seams to be right ....

PS : Perhaps T H E master?

 

[trendland]

Well, there certainly is LESS of a monopoly than there was 30 years ago. So many more players seem to be at least peripherally involved. ADOX is very informative and I think that my thread piqued his interest (by necessity). I am not a master economist, only an astute observer. I guess that I cannot fully appreciate how difficult it is to cut costs for a roll of (all R&D bugs long ago ironed out) film. Thus said, I seem to have opened a Pandora's Box of influential opinion and objective analysis. Thank you all.

Trendland: You are a master of the emoji. I have never used one in my life, but sometimes images create added impetus to one's thoughts.

However, one more thing to note: C-41 film is cheaper than traditional B&W, although the C-41 is far more complex to manufacture. Why? Because it sells far more rolls than traditional B&W does. That was my point: If B&W takes on a mini 'resurgence' there might be available options to lower the price. Again, I am not being definitive here, just projecting an opinion. My wishful thinking has not gotten me into trouble just yet. - David Lyga

The monopolic structure is from my point today more as you remember from the past.
But there is a difference between Color (without Kodak we could have noticed a complete 100%
monopol (a legal monopol BTW) and it was very short before this situation!).
.....there is a difference between color and bw!
with regards

PS: what can we hold from costs of R&D - manufacturers stated in concern of pricing?
The only R&D costs I remember a manufacturer may have to add to pricing (to calculate) is in
concern of Ektachrome!
And many of you may have the idea :" That costs were not as great as manufacturers have to calculate for a film years before "
And if you think on costs of R&D incluiding following tests of product characteristcs (quality control) it may be the same? The relation to the past can be enourmious from difference?
P E R H A P S... - (this emoji is real necessary - think about)
What other R&D was from minimalest volume to other "new" films?

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

I think it is necessary to clarify once more what my keynote was about because I can see arguments here which point into the opposite direction.
My intention is to put the costs back into the film prices which are currently not in. The idea behind this is to restructure the industry back into the state of a "proper" industry where costs are covered. This would allow for a stable setup for the future because then we have funds to:

- R&D new products (or adopt current ones to impact on the usability side of certain substances)
- Eventually build new buildings and/or moove
- Eventually design and build new machines (precipitation, coating, confectioning)
- Train young people and move on

Trendland seems to favour that the industry stays in exactly the shape it is in, which allows products to be put out at a minimum price with a minimum profit. He accepts that it slowly falls further apart with the people overageing. His solution to the dilemma is to freeze cheap film (as long as it is available).
In my opinion this solution is not appealing to a 20 year old analog enthusiast but I might be wrong.

Mirko

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Trendland...accepts that it slowly falls further apart...but I might be wrong...

Not wrong about anything you just posted. Spot on.

 

[BrianShaw]

I disagree. At present there is no manufacturer making any considerable money in producing film and this is with written off machinery, buildings, R&D and training. Competition is as high as it always was. Everyone is afraid of raising prices even though this is long overdue. Every single manufacturer -except us- could easily take on the entire market share of all the others. This would actually lower their costs per piece and enable them to lower prices (which they would not do in a monopoly though unless they are certain about the price elasticity curve). Even more (dreadfull) competition however means that the remaining, much to small, market is spread out onto even more players actually LOWERING economies of scale for every one and calling for immediate PRICE INCREASES (because there is no profit to cut this from).
I am repeating myself but really it´s not a lack of competition. It is a lack of quantity.

Thanks for an authoritative response!

Is there any realistic possibility of reducing the depth of the supply or distribution chains for an overall economic benefit?

 

[NB23]

The logic, I believe, would be as follows:

If there is an increase in demand for a product proced at X, then the price will stay and/or rise.

If there is a drop in demand, then the price shall drop in order to stimulate demand, and then rise in order to meet the mechanics of production/demand.

All in all, if an item is popular at current prices and witht a higher demand, prices shall go up.

 

[BrianShaw]

But Mirko’s point about profitability needs to be seriously considered. if there is no profit then there is no point of being in business. It’s as simple as that.

 

[trendland]

I think it is necessary to clarify once more what my keynote was about because I can see arguments here which point into the opposite direction.
My intention is to put the costs back into the film prices which are currently not in. The idea behind this is to restructure the industry back into the state of a "proper" industry where costs are covered. This would allow for a stable setup for the future because then we have funds to:

- R&D new products (or adopt current ones to impact on the usability side of certain substances)
- Eventually build new buildings and/or moove
- Eventually design and build new machines (precipitation, coating, confectioning)
- Train young people and move on

Trendland seems to favour that the industry stays in exactly the shape it is in, which allows products to be put out at a minimum price with a minimum profit. He accepts that it slowly falls further apart with the people overageing. His solution to the dilemma is to freeze cheap film (as long as it is available).
In my opinion this solution is not appealing to a 20 year old analog enthusiast but I might be wrong.

Mirko

OK Mirko - then lets talk about " internalization " of cost of manufacturers!
Before that we should speak about "externalization" from costs and to whom it has been externalized! Well I have no idea who it could be?
The todays candidate No. 1 from externalisation of costs (not intern calculated in the price of products)is the environment !
Guess that sort of discussion is better to make from others (it would much higher ALL prices)
So who paid for (the externalized costs) you want to have within the pricing?
Seams to be you did not make a lost from each film wich you are selling today?
I guess you are also a real good buisinessman - you know it is "forbidden" to make losses from selling - do you???

with regards

 

[trendland]

Mirko I am just on your side but the costs you have actualy are currently calculated within your
prices - hmm - it is true !
Be aware of to have sharholders with such sentence!

with regards

 

[Ces1um]

I've never seen prices drop due to increased demand. The price just fails to rise as quickly as everything else you buy. I doubt you'll ever see a rollback in price.

 

[wahiba]

The value of any product is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller. However due to the need to procure materials and make a product there are always up front, investment costs. Then there there on ongoing production costs. For the seller the price they are willing to sell at is the price that covers their costs, investments and returns a reasonable profit. A company with mulitple products may balance some loss making products with others that make a good profit. In practise this probaly happens less than people imagine.

Manufactured products usually have an economic batch quantity that needs to be achieved before manufacutre and sale is profitable. Improvements in manufacturing and control techniques has reduced the quantity of many products that need to made before all cost are covered. For film the major production cost is coating the film base followed by the cutting and packaging. Computers and modrn sensors no doubt make it easier to control the coating process, one it is up and running. The width of the rolls to be coated and the associated machinery are the major manufacturing mechanical investments.

I suspect the Economic Batch Quantity requirements for film manufacture as smaller than they once were, but even so it still requires large quantitis of the product to be sold to make it a profitable process.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Mirko I am just on your side but the costs you have actualy are currently calculated within your
prices - hmm - it is true !
Be aware of to have sharholders with such sentence!

with regards

Did you go over my Keynotes? The point I try to make (it seems difficult to get the message across) is that variable costs are more or less covered but the entire capital stock, R&D, product implementation and training of people has been invested/done more than 20 years ago. This cannot go on like this forever.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

The value of any product is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller. However due to the need to procure materials and make a product there are always up front, investment costs. Then there there on ongoing production costs. For the seller the price they are willing to sell at is the price that covers their costs, investments and returns a reasonable profit. A company with mulitple products may balance some loss making products with others that make a good profit. In practise this probaly happens less than people imagine.

Manufactured products usually have an economic batch quantity that needs to be achieved before manufacutre and sale is profitable. Improvements in manufacturing and control techniques has reduced the quantity of many products that need to made before all cost are covered. For film the major production cost is coating the film base followed by the cutting and packaging. Computers and modrn sensors no doubt make it easier to control the coating process, one it is up and running. The width of the rolls to be coated and the associated machinery are the major manufacturing mechanical investments.

I suspect the Economic Batch Quantity requirements for film manufacture as smaller than they once were, but even so it still requires large quantitis of the product to be sold to make it a profitable process.

Well said, please allow a few differentations. The numbers of all players in the industry are public. No one makes a dime. We break even in daily business. In none of these balance sheets we find real investments. What is published under this terminus are maintenance and replacements. So no, in the selling prices of film the upfront investments are not included because they were undertaken more than 20 years ago and every single manufacturer except Fuji arose out of a bankruptcy.
This is why anyone entering the market as a new player (Innoviscoat, Impossible Project, ADOX, FilmFerrania etc.) are deeply in the red numbers. We all lost millions sofar. Not per item but these are our upfront investments which are not regainable.

In the next paragraph you refer to improvements in technology. I absolutely agree with you but none of the above has ever been implemented in any film-factory. If you go into one you will see that all inventory has little stickers starting with a 19XX or 200X. There was nothing invested in the past 20 years. If at all lines were closed and some technical inventory was mooved around.
So we do not enjoy these savings because we lack the funds to invest and adopt new technology.

This is basically the point I wanted to make. We need to start investing again sooner or later and this will have costs associated currently not factored in.

ADOX is already doing this but the money comes from external sources and adds up as debt. So we are only willing to do this on a certain scale.

Mirko

 

[trendland]

The value of any product is what a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller.

That's one of the finest theories I ever heard since Ford [cars are unable to buy cars]!

Exactly ! Perhaps we may forget ALL other theories now beside yours - this sentence is enough
to understand the issue of film manufacturers! Ford would mean in todays situation : Films can't buy film's [btw you need a photographer]!

I guess Mirko from ADOX FOTOIMPEX's point (and I got this point years ago) is :
What he need - what he wanted to see is the aceptance of higher market prices!
I am on his side - that is what he for sure has a need of - I don't say all manufacturers have a confortable live!

But my point is how ever he have this need - he can't get it! Not why I've filled up my freezer -
the simple reason is : The market will not pay!
Thats it - no more is to be said!
To come in details : It isn't true some will pay - like here stated - but that is not a solution of the
delemma situation - because the mass will not pay - and a handfull of some who are willing isn't
enough! The end of that sheme are less earnings.....!

This circle I described is what I call : U N B R E A K A B L E

So (just from my point) - welcome to all optimists and a bigest : "H O O R A Y".....
but the ship is still sinking (Titanic crashed ICE MOUNTAIN named Digital in 2003)!
But we and the caiptain say : Party is going on - and it goes no fear !


with regards

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

That's one of the finest theories I ever heard since Ford [cars are unable to buy cars]!


the simple reason is : The market will not pay!

I do not see the future as black. The young generation is willing to pay. Look at the price of some rebranded new films. We are already seeing a good acceptance with the young enthusiasts and our size is so small that we can live just of them.
But we want all the others to understand as well.

Mirko

 

[faberryman]

The young generation is willing to pay. Look at the price of some rebranded new films.

The stuff Lomography palms off as color film for "artists" at $9.00-$10.00 a roll is more expensive than normal film, and they seem to be doing a good business.

 

[trendland]

I do not see the future as black. The young generation is willing to pay. Look at the price of some rebranded new films. We are already seeing a good acceptance with the young enthusiasts and our size is so small that we can live just of them.
But we want all the others to understand as well.

Mirko

Well I've been waiting for that point - and I was knowing the answer before!
You have to seperate your "target groups" - your special photograper. Of course there is allway
the "old daddy" shooting sheed film AND there is the 20years old photograper shooting sheed film also - because of what ? Because he has to shot (he learned at film school).
What you mentioned is a target group what is most "variable" (Lomo shooters for example are not always the same - there is a max. fluctuation (turn over)!
What you would need is just 5 % of all digital shooters (to build up a future market from substance) - but that is imposible to get.
Make sure that Kodak made massive market reserches - but what they find out were poor data!
The ship is sinking Mirko - you want a new radio compass reciver ? Travelers have to pay for?

with regards

 

[Paul Verizzo]

John51 you forget your car what was responcible for you couldn't afford a brick of film in the 70th:

View attachment 219929
A 68 Dodge Charger R/T ?

with regards

PS : There must be something wrong from your remind /calculation!

Just saw a beautiful 60's Camaro SS today, rump, rump, rump said the cam.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Film pricing is sort of like cigar pricing. The latter, once cheap. Then came the early 1990's Cigar Boom. When it collapsed, there were bargains to be had. It was like the collapse of East Germany and film.

But prices never came back down even close to pre-boom, despite decreased demand. I was buying my go-to for under $25 for a bundle of 25 maybe 12 years ago, now more than double that.

Life in the Big Capitalist City. There is now a (thank you, Luz, goddess of light!) increasing demand for film expect only higher prices, not lower.

Four years ago I wrote this thread, asking what happened with Kodak prices? https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/whats-with-kodak-film-pricing.124549/

Sudden through the roof increases back then. Four years later, some sanity seems to have prevailed. Yet a 100' roll of TMX or TMY is $85 dollars at Freestyle, something like $120 at the two NY big boys. Go figger.

What more disturbs me more than the overall prices are that every online retailer has the exact same price on every film I've looked at.

While, in B&W TMY is my film of choice, I have to say I was astounded by my recent investigation into the Ultrafine Extreme 100. Lots of evidence that it is Kentmere 100, worst case possibly Ilford Pan 100. Anyway, at $39 a 100' foot roll, there is not excuse to not get out there and shoot film. 400 speed, same price. I found that for a given development regimen, astounding exposure latitude.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A huge part of the prices we pay here in Canada arise because of the inefficiencies of a dysfunctional distribution system. A significant increase in volume could make the prices paid in stores here a lot lower.
But we will never be able to enjoy here prices as low as the big New York retailers.
Film and paper and chemicals are always going to be expensive to distribute and sell.

I'm not sure about BC, but I could get overnight to NY on economy bus and if I return same day it is free ticket.
Over 100$ is free shipping from BH to GTA.