Have You Been shooting With Ektachrome - Because You Can't Get Ahold Of Any Velvia?

[armadsen]

The Roberts price for a 120 5-pack of Velvia is $99.98. Yikes!

Still much cheaper in 120 than in 35mm!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Still much cheaper in 120 than in 35mm!

But you only get 10 (6x7) or 12 (6x6) shots with 120 compared to 36 with 35mm. Of course 120s are bigger for blowups and scan better.

 

[armadsen]

But you only get 10 (6x7) or 12 (6x6) shots with 120 compared to 36 with 35mm. Of course 120s are bigger for blowups and scan better.

Or 16 with 6x4.5. But the area of film you're paying for is roughly the same. And many films are close to the same price in 120 and 35mm. e.g. Ektachrome* in 120 is also $99.99 for a 5 pack, so $20 / roll, while a 35mm roll is $22, just slightly more expensive. Fuji Acros II is exactly the same price for a 120 roll vs. a 35mm roll ($12.99).

*From Alaris, Eastman is slightly cheaper

 

[DREW WILEY]

6x9 yields 8 shots; 6X8, 9 shots; 6x7,10 shots; 645, 16 shots. But 6x9 has twice the surface area as 6x6 cropped down to rectangular 645, so enlarges significantly better. 35mm is not even in the same league when it comes to enlarging, but has its own logistical advantages.

 

[braxus]

The Roberts price for a 120 5-pack of Velvia is $99.98. Yikes!

I saw that, but weighed my options. Either wait till the one moment when money is in the bank and B&H magically has some in stock. Which for both is almost never. I have been trying to get a box of 5 120 rolls for years now. So I paid the extra 25 a box, and paid their extremely high shipping cost to Canada. It came a couple days ago. I only got 1 box, as it was just too expensive to get more. Now that I have the 1 box to tie me over, I'll again wait for B&H to get some in stock to top up my rolls with extras. B&H's shipping to Canada is WAY more reasonable and comes just as fast.

 

[adamlugi]

The tendency of Ektachrome to overemphasize blue is very well known. It's not an issue with the developer. It's because shade is naturally blue and Ektrachrome is technically color accurate. But really it's just annoying, and a film that naturally biases a little warmer is nicer to shoot. I rarely shoot Ektachrome because I don't like it's propensity to go blue, but when I do, I use a Tiffen 812 filter and like the results much better. I would love it if Kodak came out with a warm version of Ektachrome. I have exactly zero interest in precise, technical color accuracy when shooting film. I just want end results that look nice to my eye.

For what it's worth, I have my E-6 developed by a lab running well controlled chemistry in dip and dunk machines.

I did about 200 rolls plus sheet 4x5 and never I have problem with blue. Once I try Bellini chemicals and color was ugly with blue dominant.
How your lab controlled chemistry? Control Strips do not exist anymore Wrong time have impact of density per color layer inside film.

 

[adamlugi]

I don't think there is much, if any, duty when you import Japanese manufactured film into Canada.
GST and PST yes, but duty?

In Europe too, I bought 100 rolls Velvia and Provia and one Velvia 100

 

[DF]

I did about 200 rolls plus sheet 4x5 and never I have problem with blue. Once I try Bellini chemicals and color was ugly with blue dominant.
How your lab controlled chemistry? Control Strips do not exist anymore Wrong time have impact of density per color layer inside film.

Have you ever tried a "warm-tone" polarizer filter to allay your issue?
I myself would like to see a "warm" version of the current Ektachrome the same way back in the 90's there was Ektachrome 'G', alongside Ektachrome 'GX' which was the warmer of the two.

 

[LtDave]

i havent shot slide film since 1993 when i was in the Air Force. back THEN, Ektachrome did have a more blue-ish look to it compared to the Kodachrome. pretty much as 'indicated' with the Blue and Yellow box v Red and Yellow box.

Fujichrome (its been even LONGER since i shot any of it, so i dont know if they had names like Velvia or Provia (probably not) seemed to have a more blue and green bias but if i recall (id have to dig out some slides) they seemed very saturated and vibrant. they definitely had a place at the table in photography.

i never shot any people with it so i dont know how it did with skin tones. i liked the Kodachrome for that.

 

[Mulder]

For me it's the lack of Provia.
Comparing the two - Ektachrome does tend to give stronger blue cast. I prefer Provia's more 'neutral' colour.
I suppose it is workable replacement should Fuji just stop coating transparencies.

Fuji is deliberately constraining the supply of Provia and Velvia by increasing their wholesale prices, which then causes the retailers to increase their prices to ridiculous levels, which is designed to cause people to abandon buying the film so that Fuji can claim no demand and stop all production.

They do this because they’ve invested a lot of money into producing more of their instant film, which generates more profit for them. They seem to think that everyone has a digital camera, so there’s no reason to make film.

If you look at the retail cost of film in the U.S., it’s $35 to $45 per 135 roll of Provia and Velvia 50, respectively, and $19 to $25 per 120 roll, respectively.

But the actual wholesale cost to those retailers is $28.20 and $28.85 for 135 rolls, respectively, and $9.40 for 120 rolls for both. That’s quite a markup!

 

[ChrisGalway]

Fuji is deliberately constraining the supply of Provia and Velvia by increasing their wholesale prices, which then causes the retailers to increase their prices to ridiculous levels, which is designed to cause people to abandon buying the film so that Fuji can claim no demand and stop all production.

They do this because they’ve invested a lot of money into producing more of their instant film, which generates more profit for them. They seem to think that everyone has a digital camera, so there’s no reason to make film.

If you look at the retail cost of film in the U.S., it’s $35 to $45 per 135 roll of Provia and Velvia 50, respectively, and $19 to $25 per 120 roll, respectively.

But the actual wholesale cost to those retailers is $28.20 and $28.85 for 135 rolls, respectively, and $9.40 for 120 rolls for both. That’s quite a markup!

Hmm, not sure about that argument, as both Velvia and Provia are cheaper (when available) than Ektachrome (when available) in the EU, both in 35mm and 120. I suspect it's a more complex issue.

The problem in the EU is that both Fuji and Kodak slide films are no so easy to find. Ektachrome is there if you look but the Fuji ones are very hard to get hold of, you sit on an Alert list for months hoping to grab some in the few minutes before they sell out again. And then wait a few more months, rinse and repeat ...

 

[MattKing]

If you look at the retail cost of film in the U.S., it’s $35 to $45 per 135 roll of Provia and Velvia 50, respectively, and $19 to $25 per 120 roll, respectively.

But the actual wholesale cost to those retailers is $28.20 and $28.85 for 135 rolls, respectively, and $9.40 for 120 rolls for both. That’s quite a markup!

For the 35mm film and retail sales, that isn't a lot of markup for a low volume, niche product.
For the 120 film and retail sales, that markup for an even lower volume, niche product is probably on the edge of viability.

 

[BrianShaw]

Oy... conspiracy theory and absolutely no idea about the cost of running a retail business, especially a brick-and-mortar.

Welcome to (posting at) Photrio, @Mulder . Joined 2012; first post today... how could you keep quiet for so long.

 

[Mulder]

Hmm, not sure about that argument, as both Velvia and Provia are cheaper (when available) than Ektachrome (when available) in the EU, both in 35mm and 120. I suspect it's a more complex issue.

The problem in the EU is that both Fuji and Kodak slide films are no so easy to find. Ektachrome is there if you look but the Fuji ones are very hard to get hold of, you sit on an Alert list for months hoping to grab some in the few minutes before they sell out again. And then wait a few more months, rinse and repeat ...

They’re not easy to find in the U.S., either. All the professional photo retailers stock them when available, but as soon as their new supply comes in, it’s literally sold out within hours, especially in New York City. So although it might be listed on their web site, it almost always says ‘Out of Stock’. The same is true for Ekatachrome, both the new packaging and the ‘Retro’ packaging.

 

[Mulder]

For the 35mm film and retail sales, that isn't a lot of markup for a low volume, niche product.
For the 120 film and retail sales, that markup for an even lower volume, niche product is probably on the edge of viability.

It’s not a low volume product; Fuji produces millions of rolls several times a year, but they could easily sell much more if they chose to do it. Instead, they’re investing many millions in their instant film products. Constantly increasing the price even though their actual costs have not gone up nearly that much is a choice they made, along with constraining the supply to drive up the cost to consumers.

Marking up 35mm film from 24% to 60% and 120 film over 100% is outrageous when you consider the historical prices of those same films.

 

[Mulder]

Oy... conspiracy theory and absolutely no idea about the cost of running a retail business, especially a brick-and-mortar.

Welcome to (posting at) Photrio, @Mulder . Joined 2012; first post today... how could you keep quiet for so long.

Claiming something is a conspiracy without evidence shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

 

[MattKing]

Marking up 35mm film from 24% to 60% and 120 film over 100% is outrageous when you consider the historical prices of those same films.

Not if you are running a retail business where you need that markup to pay the rent, heat, light and your staff and, at the retail level, your volumes are miniscule.
The historical prices are totally irrelevant - they reflect an entirely different reality, when film sales were huge and ultra-competitive, and retailers used film as a loss leader that drew people in to spend money on film and therefore buy other things which did have decent markup on them.
Back in the day I worked for retailers whose volumes were high and who depended on the "2%/10" terms of their arrangement with their suppliers to squeeze out a tiny bit of profit - get film in and sell it before the 10 day deadline for paying for it.
Those retailers made more money selling cut rate photo-finishing services with respect to the C41 films than they did on the films themselves. And if people bought an album to put the prints in, my employers were ecstatic!

 

[MattKing]

Claiming something is a conspiracy without evidence shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

No comment about this post and your screen name......

 

[Mulder]

Not if you are running a retail business where you need that markup to pay the rent, heat, light and your staff and, at the retail level, your volumes are miniscule.
The historical prices are totally irrelevant - they reflect an entirely different reality, when film sales were huge and ultra-competitive, and retailers used film as a loss leader that drew people in to spend money on film and therefore buy other things which did have decent markup on them.
Back in the day I worked for retailers whose volumes were high and who depended on the "2%/10" terms of their arrangement with their suppliers to squeeze out a tiny bit of profit - get film in and sell it before the 10 day deadline for paying for it.
Those retailers made more money selling cut rate photo-finishing services with respect to the C41 films than they did on the films themselves. And if people bought an album to put the prints in, my employers were ecstatic!

I’m not suggesting that retailers not make a profit, but instead of just looking at a percentage, think of it in dollars. What you’re suggesting is that retailers should get anywhere from $7 to $17 dollars of profit on one roll of 35mm film, and between $11 to $17 on a roll of 120 film.

No, they shouldn’t; and they won’t lose money or go out of business if they don’t.

By your logic, that would mean that every time a business increases the pay of their workers or their CEO, they must raise their prices to pay for that. But that isn’t what happens at all. Just as when they eliminate jobs they don’t reduce prices.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, that ship has sailed for film.
And putting my moderator hat on for a moment, further discussion about the non-photographic topic of retail pricing realities in the modern world will result in moderation activity.
In fact, one of the other moderators may swoop in and delete what has been posted so far, including my post.
Hat off now.

 

[BrianShaw]

Claiming something is a conspiracy without evidence shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Are you claiming that the wholesale to retail markup is your evidence for the claim of Fuji's business/marketing intent? If so, perhaps a mirror should be consulted.

 

[benderscameracorner]

This thread just reminded me the Provia order I put in late February is still waiting for stock. It was supposed to come in mid-March. Hmmm.

The price was good so I'm happy to ride it out - as I have before in order to get hold of Velvia.

Patience seems to be the necessary part to attaining Fuji stock for a non-stupid price these days.

 

[ChrisGalway]

This thread just reminded me the Provia order I put in late February is still waiting for stock. It was supposed to come in mid-March. Hmmm.

The price was good so I'm happy to ride it out - as I have before in order to get hold of Velvia.

Patience seems to be the necessary part to attaining Fuji stock for a non-stupid price these days.

I assume you meant mid-March 2027, and if so, clearly an optimist !!!

Yes, I have the same philosophy ... wait and wait and wait ... and over the past five years I've managed to get the 5-6 boxes/year of 120 Provia 100f that I need at an acceptable price. "Patience seems to be the necessary part to attaining Fuji stock for a non-stupid price these days."

 

[Emily Cook]

This thread just reminded me the Provia order I put in late February is still waiting for stock. It was supposed to come in mid-March. Hmmm

Freestyle? I ordered some Provia in 4x5 from them around that time too and mine is still back ordered as well. They are accepting preorders for it again now, due June 30. Hopefully they get enough in this batch to fulfill the February orders at least

I’m just glad they let me back order it at all. Last time I wanted Velvia (in 120) I had to refresh inventories 2-3x per day on 8 sites for weeks. Waiting is much easier.

Ironically given the title of this thread, I also have some 4x5 E100 back ordered for the last couple months too!

 

[benderscameracorner]

Freestyle? I ordered some Provia in 4x5 from them around that time too and mine is still back ordered as well. [snip]

No, Digidirect in Australia.

Ironically enough I got an email from them three hours after posting the above, saying that the film is still on backorder and their distributor now can't give an ETA (despite previous efforts). LOL.

So yeah, March 2027 is probably realistic at this stage. Silly rabbit for me thinking otherwise!

It's expensive &$%#, but kudos to Kodak for actually making Ektachrome and shipping it to retailers. Such a novel concept...