Highest safe temperature for B&W film?

[Вormental_old]

I do not understand the economics at play here. Usually the store brands are cheaper because the cost of branding is amortized across many products and the distribution is streamlined. But in this niche market what are their marketing expenses? Freestyle sells both brands that they buy from the same source, I haven't seen a single Arista or Fomapan ad anywhere.

 

[MattKing]

The only "ads" you will see anywhere for most photographic products are internet based ads.
The reason that store brand films and related products can sell for less is that a huge portion of retail selling prices comes from distribution costs. Store brands have simpler (= less expensive) distribution chains.

 

[removed account4]

Freestyle almost certainly gets a big discount from Foma for buying in container lot (or larger) quantities -- which allows them to take a markup and make a profit selling the film a few cents a roll cheaper than Foma's retail (or in other words, Freestyle paid less for the film they relabel than they do for actual Foma-packaged film).

I hope foma knows what they are doing, things like that. back in the 00's that forced Ilford into financial difficulties,

 

[Donald Qualls]

I see Fomapan ads all the time -- on photo supply sites (mainly Freestyle). Presumably, Freestyle has a higher margin on the Foma branded film than on the .EDU Ultra, or else part of their contract with Foma is to promote the Foma branded films. FWIW, Freestyle has had the Arista store brand for decades, with products coming and going under that label -- used to be Forte before they had Foma. Before Forte, I hear they repackaged Ilford for a while.

I don't see Fomapan advertised anywhere else, really, but then where else can you buy it? I still see 135-24 C-41 film, Kodak and Fuji brands, 100, 200, and 400 speed consumer stocks (generally not all at once, though), at drug stores, supermarkets, and places that have a counter or kiosk where you can order prints from your phone or a thumb drive -- but I don't see them advertised, either.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I hope foma knows what they are doing, things like that. back in the 00's that forced Ilford into financial difficulties,

As long as they're still making a profit on the film they edge mark and sell to Freestyle, I don't see offhand how it can bite them -- especially with their new packaging designed to draw in those who don't know what's actually in the box. There's less than fifty cents a roll difference in 120 between Foma and .EDU Ultra the same speed, so they're not really undermining their own market...

 

[Вormental_old]

The only "ads" you will see anywhere for most photographic products are internet based ads.
The reason that store brand films and related products can sell for less is that a huge portion of retail selling prices comes from distribution costs. Store brands have simpler (= less expensive) distribution chains.

You just repeated what I said, and it continues to make zero sense, as Freestyle buys both Foma and Arista from the same source, there are no online ads for either Foma or Arista. B&H too sells both brands (Arista isn't even exclusive to Freestyle) and often at the same price. None of the usual store brand benefits apply: distribution chain is not shortened, and marketing expense is non-existent.

[edit] I should note that my question applies only to Foma/Arista, as other rebranders are more creative. Ultrafine brand gives you Kentmere rendering in 120, Rollei repackages emulsions not sold directly by Agfa-Gevaert, others sell old stock, etc.

 

[MattKing]

You need to remember that Freestyle is a distributor as well - they may even be the US distributor for Foma.
So they need to protect the retailers who buy from them, by selling product at the going retail rate for Foma, which means a higher margin than Arista branded versions.
To draw a parallel, in Canada Amplis is the distributor for all Ilford products. They also have a web retail store. The retailers who buy from them get quite upset if Amplis undercuts their prices on the Amplis retail web store..

 

[koraks]

The rationale is likely in the access this arrangement gives foma to the American market. Likewise for freestyle it's a convenient way to serve the budget end of their market with a supplier they likely have some control over. Doesn't sound too complicated to me.

 

[Вormental_old]

This would have worked if Arista was exclusive to Freestyle, but others sell Arista film too, at a similar discount to Foma, usually for around $0.2 less. This kind of makes sense for Foma, as they're getting to play at the very bottom of the market without de-valuing their brand, but:

• There's no competition at the bottom anyway: kill Arista and 100% of Arista shooters will just buy Foma.
  
• Foma brand is a budget brand already.

I suspect someone is just going through the motions here: "everyone's rebranding so we should too" without much thought going into it.

 

[koraks]

Sure there is thought to it. At the very least it's feigning choice for consumers. However limited, foma does have some brand equity. Some people likely are willing to pay a marginal uplift for it. Is that a rational choice? Well, are humans rational beings?

 

[Вormental_old]

Ok, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, as I do not know everything that's going on under the hood.

 

[MattKing]

This would have worked if Arista was exclusive to Freestyle, but others sell Arista film too, at a similar discount to Foma, usually for around $0.2 less.

Arista is Freestyle.
The others who sell it are buying it from Freestyle - they are the distributors.

 

[Вormental_old]

Exactly why this makes zero sense. I will assume there are variables not visible from the outside, perhaps Foma gets Freestyle to commit to purchase a certain amount every year (similar to how wafer agreements are done in the chip fabrication industry) but Freestyle gets a discount and in exchange they agree not to compete with the Foma brand.

Without a "hidden variable" similar to above, this arrangement makes zero sense as it doesn't seemingly affect unit economics.

 

[MattKing]

If Freestyle is the US distributor for Foma - and I think they may be - the other retailers are also buying the Foma badged products from Freestyle.
Of course, that includes more than just film - Foma makes a lot more products.
And a fair number of Freestyle's Arista products aren't Foma or film.
Sometimes people will buy more if they think they are getting a deal on the house brand.

 

[Вormental_old]

Matt, you're repeating "sky is blue" statement. May as well say that Freestyle is based in California. None of that even begins to answer the question, as you must show how the unit economics is different between two brands. Someone must willingly take the $0.2 hit on every Arista roll. This is not just curiosity, I run a company comparable in size to Foma Bohemia and I wouldn't eat $0.2 per roll unless I'm given a good reason to.

In my proposed answer Foma is willing to take the hit in exchange for yearly bulk purchase commitment, which makes their supply chain easier to manage. And Freestyle gets the same margin on both brands, but increased sales volume -> more revenue.

 

[Вormental_old]

@Henning Serger you must know!

 

[MattKing]

I used to work in retail, and we sold house brand film.
We also sold the same film with the manufacturer's name (GAF/3M) on the box, for more money.
Some people wanted the 3M film. Others wanted the less expensive store brand film.
We were part of a big retail department store chain, and at our level had no insight on head office pricing information, but IIRC, at the retail level, we made more money on the cheaper film, because the price we paid was less.
We also sold Kodak film. The retail price on it was higher than on the other two, and we made less profit on each roll.
And we sold a lot more of the more expensive Kodak film than the store brand or GAF/3M film.
I don't recall selling any Fuji film. We did sell a fair bit of Polaroid film.
Only a certain segment of the film buying public makes their film buying decisions solely on price.

 

[BradS]

The price difference *might be due to the Arista being cut from an area of the master roll that on average, has more defects per unit area.

*not saying this is the case but it is plausible.

 

[albireo]

One possibility that you haven't so far considered in the many threads you are dedicating to this topic, is that Foma film - current Foma film marketed and sold under the Foma brand - and Arista Edu are not in fact exactly the same product.

Evidence in this direction has been given in another thread by another member of this forum, who claimed that the AHL in the Arista rolls they develop stains the chemicals in blue. Current Foma film stains the chemicals a very bright shade of green. However, years ago, Foma film did feature blue AHL coating.

Therefore one theory could be that Arista is in fact old stock or perhaps B-stock foma. Unsold rolls, showing defects current Foma batches have solved, and therefore, whilst essentially 'Foma' it's somewhat behind in terms of QC.

Matt, you're repeating "sky is blue" statement. May as well say that Freestyle is based in California. None of that even begins to answer the question, as you must show how the unit economics is different between two brands. Someone must willingly take the $0.2 hit on every Arista roll. This is not just curiosity, I run a company comparable in size to Foma Bohemia and I wouldn't eat $0.2 per roll unless I'm given a good reason to.

 

[albireo]

The price difference *might be due to the Arista being cut from an area of the master roll that on average, has more defects per unit area.

*not saying this is the case but it is plausible.

I agree it makes sense, and apologies for adding very little to your post - I must have missed updates to the page whilst typing.

 

[Вormental_old]

@BradS yep, that's another quite plausible theory. @albireo Henning here confirmed that it's the same film, and the AHU color is actually quite interesting, it's extremely intense and is somewhere between green and blue (closer to green, to my eye) but if you dilute it with water (or pour back into a larger developer bottle) it's more blue. My fixer, for example, gets pretty much pure light-blue after 15 Foma rolls in it.

 

[grat]

One possibility that you haven't so far considered in the many threads you are dedicating to this topic, is that Foma film - current Foma film marketed and sold under the Foma brand - and Arista Edu are not in fact exactly the same product.

Evidence in this direction has been given in another thread by another member of this forum, who claimed that the AHL in the Arista rolls they develop stains the chemicals in blue. Current Foma film stains the chemicals a very bright shade of green. However, years ago, Foma film did feature blue AHL coating.

The Arista EDU Ultra 400 (clunky, but specific) 4x5 sheets I'm shooting has the characteristic emerald green AHL.

I suspect most of you are over-complicating things. My understanding is that Foma is a Czech company that's been making film in roughly the same factory since before WWII. They produce the film, and may even box it, for Freestyle, who sells it in the USA for cost plus a small percentage. The film is deliberately priced low, because as the EDU in the name implies, it's for students who are cheap. The marketing is essentially "In Stock" and "cheaper than Kodak or Ilford".

Foma is the real brand, with marketing expenses, but sold primarily in Europe, can claim a 99+ year history, and is effectively an import film in the USA.

That's my understanding. It may be completely bonkers.

 

[BradS]

Thinking more about this economics question...and considering that film is coated in batches, that is to say that the nature of the production is quantized and the quanta are very large. A master roll represents a large number of rolls of film and a master roll is the smallest unit of production.

Consider a concrete example, lets say that the entire world wide demand for the Foma branded product can be satisfied by two and a half master rolls...(I'm just pulling these number out of the blue). Then Foma can...

1. produce two master rolls and let supply fall short of demand
2. produce three master rolls and have waste

Well, you get the picture. If they can sell that last half a master roll at some reduced margin, then....well they may enjoy greater total revenue.


EDIT: It is actually worse than this. If I remember correctly, the smallest unit of production for running a coater is very large..and involves not-inconsiderable waste at startup and stop.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am starting to be pissed at Fomapan in this thread, as they keep selling film that needs insane amount of pre-soaking (20 minutes) to dissolve its AHU fully.

I am thinking to speed this up by pre-soaking in the hottest water possible. But the question is: how hot can the pre-soak water be? I have two ideas:

• Find the hottest temperature recommended for any developer+film combination by any manufacturer. Turns out, the highest I found was actually from Foma, they have times for 30C.
  
• Use the C41 time, i.e. 38C

Thoughts? Mind you, this is pre-soak water we're talking about. I plan on cooling the film after pre-soaking and then developing at my regular 21C.

I've never processed film above 27C.an added washing aid bath and extended washing will also remove more of the anti-halation layer.consider this as a safe alternative to hot processing.

 

[koraks]

Someone must willingly take the $0.2 hit on every Arista roll.

Like I said, it's likely foma itself in exchange for a sales channel in the US. They could set up their own sales channel of course, with one or more different distributors, but they'd face the costs of having to do so. They're not incidental costs either, but permanent costs in the form of account management, product management and the costs of collecting and analyzing market intelligence. I still don't see anything particularly enigmatic going on here. A modest sacrifice in profitability per roll in exchange for sales volume.