Film prices

[NB23]

I’m talking about bulk.

About 5 years ago, panf was 44$, fp4 48$, hp5 49$

Then, a year later they went 49$, 55$, 55$

Then 59, 60, 62. Then, 69, then 79...

Today, surprise, ilford films jumped. Only HP5 is sensibly priced at 79$. The rest are 100$.

Even Tmax100 jumped a few days ago, from 89 to 109$.

I’m glad to have hoarded a lot of rolls... but I’m tempted to add more HP5 before it jumps to 100-110$

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My days of using couple, three rolls of films spooled from bulks per day and often are over for no more making sense reason.
I started around 2013 with Kentmere been 29 USD per bulk. Now it is twice more expensive.
Kodak Color film prices are out of any common sense now. Just a ripoff.
I give no crap if it is due to shareholders pleasing or staying alive on going away product. Just one roll for two week or more now.
I still like my film cameras and film but it is not my main media for real photography anymore.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Four years ago, FP4 was $98Cdn. Now it's about $116.

 

[pentaxuser]

Today, surprise, ilford films jumped. Only HP5 is sensibly priced at 79$. The rest are 100$.

Even Tmax100 jumped a few days ago, from 89 to 109$.

Who made this announcement on the U.S? Is this one stockist since presumably the prices Ilford charges what we in the U.K. call its wholesellers are unknown to we consumers. Is it all Ilford films or only all Ilford bulk versions of all its films? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Color film prices are out of any common sense now. Just a ripoff.

Kodak always priced bulk film to make it barely practical. Bulk film required special handling that deviated from their mass production and they did not want to deal with it. So they priced it accordingly. The message had always been, bulk film will be made available, but we want you to have a really go reason not to used our packaged film.

 

[NB23]

People, jump on the foma (arista) 100’ rolls or HP5, while they’re cheap...

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodak always priced bulk film to make it barely practical. Bulk film required special handling that deviated from their mass production and they did not want to deal with it. So they priced it accordingly. The message had always been, bulk film will be made available, but we want you to have a really go reason not to used our packaged film.

Kodak better hope that this policy which looks to be deliberate but with little good economic reasons does not come back to bite it in the face of other manufacturers being able to do it more cheaply vis a vis their cassette films. It may be that you know enough of such costs to demonstrate in specific terms that Kodak has a business case for charging what it does for bulk rolls. If please share it as so far I have not seen such a case.

It seems to me that giving a reason like "special handling that deviated from their mass production in not something they want to deal" may have an economic basis but just saying it does not constitute that basis

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak better hope that this policy which looks to be deliberate but with little good economic reasons does not come back to bite it in the face of other manufacturers being able to do it more cheaply vis a vis their cassette films. It may be that you know enough of such costs to demonstrate in specific terms that Kodak has a business case for charging what it does for bulk rolls. If please share it as so far I have not seen such a case.

It seems to me that giving a reason like "special handling that deviated from their mass production in not something they want to deal" may have an economic basis but just saying it does not constitute that basis

Thanks

pentaxuser

The number of people who bulk load film is such a small percentage that is does not even show up at the financial noise level.

 

[pentaxuser]

The number of people who bulk load film is such a small percentage that is does not even show up at the financial noise level.

Thanks I will take that as Kodak's economic case as far as you are concerned.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks I will take that as Kodak's economic case as far as you are concerned.

pentaxuser

The percentage is probably about the same for Ilford.

 

[BGriffin23]

What is a "bulk" of film that costs $49? Last time I bought film, it certainly wasn't $49/roll.

 

[NB23]

What is a "bulk" of film that costs $49? Last time I bought film, it certainly wasn't $49/roll.

It is a 100 foot roll. You can load your own 36 exposure cassettes. One bulk roll gives you about 19 rolls of film.

 

[BGriffin23]

It is a 100 foot roll. You can load your own 36 exposure cassettes. One bulk roll gives you about 19 rolls of film.

Ah, thanks. I have been thinking about experimenting with this so I don't have to expose a full 36-frame roll before seeing my results.

 

[NB23]

Ah, thanks. I have been thinking about experimenting with this so I don't have to expose a full 36-frame roll before seeing my results.

Not only that, you can also roll 35 exposures and always fill your printfiles without leftovers that are suuuuper annoying. In the end, that makes one free extra roll of film (on a psychological level).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not only that, you can also roll 35 exposures and always fill your printfiles without leftovers that are suuuuper annoying. In the end, that makes one free extra roll of film (on a psychological level).

Or use the PrintFile pages that have six rows that hold six negatives each. That is what I do.
Printfile 35-6HB Archival Negative Preservers 35mm - 6 Strips of 6 Negatives - 100 Pack
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3561...chival-Negative-Preservers-35mm-6-Strips-of-6

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Kodak better hope that this policy which looks to be deliberate but with little good economic reasons does not come back to bite it in the face

How will it come back to bite them? Kodak has done this for decades. I remember using bulk rolls in the 1970s for laboratory microscopes. Users of cameras with bulk film backs had to buy these long rolls, but that market mostly disappeared with the use of digital cameras.

 

[ic-racer]

I’m talking about bulk.

About 5 years ago, panf was 44$, fp4 48$, hp5 49$

Then, a year later they went 49$, 55$, 55$

Then 59, 60, 62. Then, 69, then 79...

Today, surprise, ilford films jumped. Only HP5 is sensibly priced at 79$. The rest are 100$.

Even Tmax100 jumped a few days ago, from 89 to 109$.

I’m glad to have hoarded a lot of rolls... but I’m tempted to add more HP5 before it jumps to 100-110$

I have noticed those prices too and switched to Hp5 100ft about 3 or 4 years ago. HP5 120 is priced better than Kodak so I use that too. Also, the 8x10 HP5 is one of the most reasonably priced 'quality' B&W films. I even have a 100ft of HP5 16mm single perf, so at this time I have Hp5 in every camera.

 

[NB23]

Or use the PrintFile pages that have six rows that hold six negatives each. That is what I do.
Printfile 35-6HB Archival Negative Preservers 35mm - 6 Strips of 6 Negatives - 100 Pack
https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3561...chival-Negative-Preservers-35mm-6-Strips-of-6

I’m always at 37-38 exposures, probably because of my Leicas. My F6 and its automatic advance to frame 1 wastes too many first exposures..

 

[Agulliver]

From what I have read, Kodak's manufacturing process just doesn't lend itself well to bulk rolls. Aren't they finished by hand or something? Whereas Ilford's is a bit more automated. I guess Foma too.

Though a few years ago as a newbie I asked on what was then APUG why Kodak bulk rolls were so expensive and was flat out insulted and nearly driven off the forum...possibly a tricky subject with some (ex) members.

Bottom line is that for Foma and Ilford it's still potentially cheaper to bulk roll, and you have the convenience of having 19/20 cassettes in one roll. You also have the convenience of being able to roll whatever length you want.....need 12? Roll 12. Want 6 just to test something? Roll 6. Want an unusual number like 29? Roll 29.

And yes, those of us who use bulk rolls are a drop in the ocean. I doubt we figure much in the sales figures for Kodak, Harman or Foma...many online film retailers don't even bother to sell bulk film. But thankfully it's still there. However it *is* the prime example of where film is more expensive today, even taking inflation and wages into account.

 

[pentaxuser]

The percentage is probably about the same for Ilford.

Fine but doesn't this make my case that there is no good business for Kodak to do what they do if Ilford does not charge this premium for bulk rolls vis a vis its cassettes. You haven't mentioned Foma but if its percentage is much the same it manages not to charge this premium for bulk rolls either.

What that leaves is that both Ilford and Foma do not find it worthwhile either but do it anyway. So we may be talking about a difference in attitude between Kodak and the other towards what are in effect troublesome customers for all three companies.

If so this still allows Ilford and Foma to offer a competitive edge over Kodak whose attitude towards consumer of bulk rolls is thrown into sharp and unpleasant relief by comparison

I suppose it remains to be seen whether this attitude towards these customers which is that they are unimportant does it harm. Maybe customer goodwill is unimportant unless that goodwill translates into immediate serious profit. Money talks as they say

I am glad as no doubt you are glad that when it comes to matters such as the distribution of a vaccine for Covid or indeed in other matters that loosely come under the definition of a" caring attiude" that this philosophy does not prevail

Maybe just maybe there is a benefit even in the "red in tooth and claw" area of private enterprise to adopting this approach but now we are into philosophy

pentaxuser

 

[Anon Ymous]

I used to shoot mostly Kodak BW films. They were priced competitively, while being top quality. Nowadays, the quality remains the same, but the prices are no longer competitive, at least in Europe. Meanwhile, I've been bulk rolling for years. I like loading whatever length I need and will sometimes make test with developer X, or Y with short loads. Kodak may do as they please and see fit, but so do I. So, I switched to Ilford, it's as simple as that. No more 400TX for me, HP5+ does just as well and I can't spot any difference. Likewise, I bought a bulk roll of Delta 100, which is beautiful.

 

[pentaxuser]

How will it come back to bite them? Kodak has done this for decades. I remember using bulk rolls in the 1970s for laboratory microscopes. Users of cameras with bulk film backs had to buy these long rolls, but that market mostly disappeared with the use of digital cameras.

Fine so there is no problem for Kodak then. As long as its only a few U.S. and non U.S. customers that declare themselves on Photrio to have left the Kodak fold then yes that doesn't amount to a hill of beans as Rick said to Louis in N Africa in 1942 but it may on the other hand be another nail in Kodak still films coffin.

pentaxuser

 

[Kodachromeguy]

another nail in Kodak still films coffin

What nail in Kodak's coffin? Where do you manufacture this stuff? Is Kodak, just as with Fujifilm in that previous thread about Acros, specifically targeting their prices to ruin your budget? They want to ruin your photograph experience? Take photographs of your world, enjoy life instead of speculating based on no data.

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodachromeguy, some of us don't see any problem with Kodak. Some of us do in specific cases. We'll call it a draw if you like. Can you have a draw in any U.S. sports? Just in case you can't, a draw is where both sides come out equal and both sides can claim that neither side got the better of the other

So a draw is never a bad result, is it

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I’m always at 37-38 exposures, probably because of my Leicas. My F6 and its automatic advance to frame 1 wastes too many first exposures..

Well that shows that Leicas are trash and you should only use Nikons. No one needs more than 36 exposures on a roll of film!