How much will Kodak film prices increase?

[Sal Santamaura]

The price increases are caused by both inflation and costs that originate with the large number of suppliers that the film manufacturers depend on - and those costs are outside of the control of the manufacturers...

Very soon after the start of my engineering career, I developed a strong aversion to "outsourcing" and deep appreciation for vertical integration. As usual, I was completely out of step with a direction the world was heading. This continued for decades until I retired. It's ongoing today.

Those interested in purchasing and using Kodak film at low prices are about a century too late. George Eastman was the ultimate "vertical integrator." He even had his own cattle to control the gelatin characteristics. Today, either pay the cost of Eastman Kodak's supplier dependence, or use some other manufacturer's film, or shoot digital.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The price increases are caused by both inflation and costs that originate with the large number of suppliers that the film manufacturers depend on - and those costs are outside of the control of the manufacturers.
If the suppliers that the film manufacturers depend on keep their products available at prices that are stable then, and only then, will the film manufacturers be able to control their wholesale, FOB the factory prices.
And even then there may still be rapid changes in price, because distribution costs are also outside the control of the manufacturers, and they may very well exceed the costs of manufacture.

In other words Kodak get your ass over to Harman and ask how they are doing it because you are just a bunch of inept neverbees.

What Kodak has done is clearly dsiconnected from market mechanism. Is it because they are run by same boneheads who raise taxes to increase spending so they can raise taxes to increase spending? Time will tell, because that approach has only a crushing end.

 

[pentaxuser]

You are right in that almost no-one unless on the literal breadline cannot afford to pay the Kodak prices and still be able to live. Perhaps what I should have said is that "Takes a larger percentage of their income than they are prepared to pay for a product that has already been priced beyond what they think is a fair portion of their income" so they do what I was suggesting which is to buy less or stop buying completely

It is all part of the "value for money" concept tied up with what they regard as a fair price.

pentaxuser

 

[removedacct1]

Perhaps what I should have said is that "Takes a larger percentage of their income than they are prepared to pay for a product that has already been priced beyond what they think is a fair portion of their income" so they do what I was suggesting which is to buy less or stop buying completely.
pentaxuser

And in spite of all this, Kodak is reporting that they have sold far more film product in late 2019 than they have in years and they cannot keep up with the demand for more film. Your concern that people will stop buying doesn't line up with what Kodak is reporting.

 

[radiant]

I'm pretty sure the popularity of film shooting is a bubble. It is heavily biased by young people who think film is hip and cool. Surely some newcomers will stay with film but most of the young film shooters will abandon it when it is not new/cool anymore. Let's face it: new Kodak prices, development + scanning is not cheap.

Also other behavior trending is "shoot less film" - meaning people are starting to reduce amount of frames exposed. How expensive film becomes will relate to how much this will trend.

Hope I'm wrong!

 

[NB23]

Really weird “explanation”.

Ilford is still cheaper. Foma is still cheaper.

The price increases are caused by both inflation and costs that originate with the large number of suppliers that the film manufacturers depend on - and those costs are outside of the control of the manufacturers.
If the suppliers that the film manufacturers depend on keep their products available at prices that are stable then, and only then, will the film manufacturers be able to control their wholesale, FOB the factory prices.
And even then there may still be rapid changes in price, because distribution costs are also outside the control of the manufacturers, and they may very well exceed the costs of manufacture.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Really weird “explanation”...

No need for quotes. It's a real explanation. Nothing weird about it.

...Ilford is still cheaper. Foma is still cheaper.

One pays for what one gets. Foma's not even in the same quality league. Ilford, while playing on the same field, still does not match Kodak's quality. Choices are good.

 

[darkosaric]

Fomapan 100 awesome film, and Ilford is equaly good as Kodak (HP5+ vs TriX, Delta vs Tmax and so on).

 

[NB23]

LoL, please stop spreading pathetic lies. What you’re doing is very dangerous and the culprit of the internet where, sadly, any BS is disguised as the truth.

I am simply going to give 3 quick facts, because I don’t have a minute more to spare on this Bullsheet.

1: foma never had paper backing issues while kodak struggled for years and couldn’t figure it out. Talk about rocket science problems.

2: foma 100’s look is the closest I have ever come to old tri-x. Foma 400 is indeed a direct competitor to sfx200 with its extended red sensitivity. You probably didn’t know that.

3: My 30 years of experience using film, which includes extensively using foma, tells me you’re talking total nonsense.

No need for quotes. It's a real explanation. Nothing weird about it.One pays for what one gets. Foma's not even in the same quality league. Ilford, while playing on the same field, still does not match Kodak's quality. Choices are good.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

LoL, please stop spreading pathetic lies. What you’re doing is very dangerous and the culprit of the internet where, sadly, any BS is disguised as the truth...

When stating facts, not "lies," can be considered "very dangerous," characterizing those facts as lies is dangerous behavior.

...I am simply going to give 3 quick facts, because I don’t have a minute more to spare on this Bullsheet...

Dismissing reality with the excuse of being too busy is transparently nonsense.

...foma never had paper backing issues while kodak struggled for years and couldn’t figure it out. Talk about rocket science problems...

Outsourcing creates issues. See post #226. Neither Kodak nor Foma is immune. Backing paper has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself.

...foma 100’s look is the closest I have ever come to old tri-x. Foma 400 is indeed a direct competitor to sfx200 with its extended red sensitivity. You probably didn’t know that...

I'm completely aware and don't care. Those film characteristics are of no interest to me. I greatly prefer other "looks" and panchromatic sensitivity. None of which has anything to do with manufacturing quality.

...My 30 years of experience using film, which includes extensively using foma, tells me you’re talking total nonsense.

My 55 years of experience using film tells me you're attacking messengers out of an emotional attachment to certain films. Reality sucks, but it's real. Kodak film is most expensive and has the highest manufacturing quality in the world. It might not be worth the cost to some users. The "look" might not be what some users seek. Nonetheless, in terms of manufacturing quality, it's as good as film gets.

Choices are good. Mendacity isn't.

 

[MattKing]

Really weird “explanation”.

Ilford is still cheaper. Foma is still cheaper.

Ilford is cheaper in some places, and more expensive in others. Their distribution system is very different than Kodak Alaris', and as such different factors affect it differently.
They are also a much smaller manufacturer, and have no colour products. But like Kodak, they are limited to a single production line. They benefit from certain flexibilities that Kodak doesn't enjoy, but suffer from some lack of efficiencies that Kodak does enjoy.
And their price increase schedule is different - most likely they are up "next".
The price that we see "on the shelf" is so radically greater than the manufacturing cost that it makes little sense to evaluate anything based on that cost alone.

 

[NB23]

55 years of experience and totally forgetting to talk about kodak’s fiascos?
Saying that ilford is second rate?

Very hard to believe.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No need for quotes. It's a real explanation. Nothing weird about it.One pays for what one gets. Foma's not even in the same quality league. Ilford, while playing on the same field, still does not match Kodak's quality. Choices are good.

I don't know what is in your glass, for a very long time Ilford has been at least as good as Kodak, patriotic sentiments don't apply.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Ilford is cheaper in some places, and more expensive in others. Their distribution system is very different than Kodak Alaris', and as such different factors affect it differently.
They are also a much smaller manufacturer, and have no colour products. But like Kodak, they are limited to a single production line. They benefit from certain flexibilities that Kodak doesn't enjoy, but suffer from some lack of efficiencies that Kodak does enjoy.
And their price increase schedule is different - most likely they are up "next".
The price that we see "on the shelf" is so radically greater than the manufacturing cost that it makes little sense to evaluate anything based on that cost alone.

Sounds like that lady from Ohio who with 5 reported virus cases figured it's time to tell people it is 100,000 just don't see it yet. Must have heard Merkel helping the panic with her 70% prediction too.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

When stating facts, not "lies," can be considered "very dangerous," characterizing those facts as lies is dangerous behavior.Dismissing reality with the excuse of being too busy is transparently nonsense.Outsourcing creates issues. See post #226. Neither Kodak nor Foma is immune. Backing paper has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself.I'm completely aware and don't care. Those film characteristics are of no interest to me. I greatly prefer other "looks" and panchromatic sensitivity. None of which has anything to do with manufacturing quality.My 55 years of experience using film tells me you're attacking messengers out of an emotional attachment to certain films. Reality sucks, but it's real. Kodak film is most expensive and has the highest manufacturing quality in the world. It might not be worth the cost to some users. The "look" might not be what some users seek. Nonetheless, in terms of manufacturing quality, it's as good as film gets.

Choices are good. Mendacity isn't.

Sure, I noticed that the other day when I pulled Tmax 100 - 35mm cupped so bad, without glass on top of it virtually unscannable. Unless Andy Warhol scanned it that is. So yeah, in the amount it can get out of flatness it is a prime product.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Fomapan 100 awesome film, and Ilford is equaly good as Kodak (HP5+ vs TriX, Delta vs Tmax and so on).

Ditto.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Fomapan 100 awesome film, and Ilford is equaly good as Kodak (HP5+ vs TriX, Delta vs Tmax and so on).

55 years of experience and totally forgetting to talk about kodak’s fiascos?
Saying that ilford is second rate?

Very hard to believe.

I don't know what is in your glass, for a very long time Ilford has been at least as good as Kodak, patriotic sentiments don't apply.

Sure, I noticed that the other day when I pulled Tmax 100 - 35mm cupped so bad, without glass on top of it virtually unscannable. Unless Andy Warhol scanned it that is. So yeah, in the amount it can get out of flatness it is a prime product.

Searching the archives here and at the Large Format Forum would reveal numerous posts by me when Kodak was being grossly mismanaged, on the verge of and then in bankruptcy. At the time I emotionally said I'd support only Ilford from that point on. Reality has descended upon me since then. Outsourcing has induced some issues not related to the actual film, but Kodak remains at the top of film manufacturing quality. Fujifilm is equal to Kodak in quality, but offers practically nothing of interest to me. Acros II might change that; we shall see. Bottom line:

...you're attacking messengers out of an emotional attachment to certain films. Reality sucks, but it's real. Kodak film is most expensive and has the highest manufacturing quality in the world...

 

[pentaxuser]

I thin we have to remember that the original Ilford went "bust " only 15 years ago so not seeing what was coming is not confined to Kodak

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

I was not talking about the management. More about the products, like the Tmax line. The backing paper fiasco. Their papers. Xtol sudden death, various manufacturing problems, and so on.

Yes, Kodak was the intergalactic powerhouse but they had their lousy products as well. Tmax 100 was extremely criticized. Even today, it’s such a hardmfilm to master. Tmax 400 was a major failure, it had to be redesigned completely. Maaaajor failure.

And the backing paper problem, what was so hard for them to get right? What a nightmare. They didn’t manufacture tmax 100 for over a year because of that problem. This is not what I call to be in a “league above”.

To be honest, Fuji is the best of the best. They are what kodak should have been. They made all the right moves, all the time. Even their backing paper is so perfect, so thin, and their films: people still mourn their bw 1600 and 400 films. The research they put into everything, the perfectionism. This should have been Kodak.

As for foma and Ilford, they understood that classics should never be touched. We all remember the “New Coke” fiasco, right?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Ilford is cheaper in some places, and more expensive in others. Their distribution system is very different than Kodak Alaris', and as such different factors affect it differently.
They are also a much smaller manufacturer, and have no colour products. But like Kodak, they are limited to a single production line. They benefit from certain flexibilities that Kodak doesn't enjoy, but suffer from some lack of efficiencies that Kodak does enjoy.
And their price increase schedule is different - most likely they are up "next".
The price that we see "on the shelf" is so radically greater than the manufacturing cost that it makes little sense to evaluate anything based on that cost alone.

Matt, thank you for one of the rare intelligent comments concerning film prices. It really is quite simple despite the verbose conspiracy theories and complaints that the film companies specifically targeted certain complainers above:
1. Don't like Kodak prices, buy another brand.
2. Don't like Kodak film performance, buy another brand.
3. Can't afford to take as many pictures as before, use digital, or take fewer pictures, or change hobbies.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak was the intergalactic powerhouse but they had their lousy products as well. Tmax 100 was extremely criticized. Even today, it’s such a hardmfilm to master...

Criticism and being "hard to master" are utterly unrelated to manufacturing quality. TMX is not now and never has been "lousy." Like all films, one must understand its characteristics and use it appropriately. The ability to achieve various curve shapes by using different developers with TMX is a particular strength. Lower acutance than alternative emulsions is a weakness. None of that has anything to do with quality.

...Tmax 400 was a major failure, it had to be redesigned completely. Maaaajor failure...

TMY was not a failure in any way. It didn't "have to be" redesigned, and TMY-2 exhibited small improvements in many areas, but retained the rising curve of TMY that caused users (who didn't possess sufficient printing skill and/or appropriate papers) to complain about the film.

...And the backing paper problem, what was so hard for them to get right? What a nightmare...

We're back to the bane of modern corporate culture, namely, outsourcing. Loss of control and reduction in number of suppliers leads to difficult, sometimes intractable problems. It's not easy and takes time to get things right. Only a top manufacturer like Kodak would forego sales for an extended period while investigating and rectifying a supplier issue.

...They didn’t manufacture tmax 100 for over a year because of that problem...

That is incorrect. Both 35mm and 4x5 TMX have been in continuous production and readily available at retail since 1986. Only 120 TMX was off the market while Kodak dealt with its backing paper issue.

...To be honest, Fuji is the best of the best. They are what kodak should have been. They made all the right moves, all the time. Even their backing paper is so perfect, so thin...

If one is a user of transparency films, perhaps Fujifilm manufactures something of interest. My taste runs to the colors (gamut and saturation) of Astia, not Velveeta. Discontinuing Astia wasn't a "right move" for me. In black and white, the base of 120 Acros was so thin and soft as to be almost impossible when loading on reels. Inversion processing of Acros always resulted in airbells, irrespective of prewash / no prewash, agitation regime or any other processing variation attempted. Only 4x5 Acros in a Jobo Expert drum was viable / free of white airbell circles on the negatives. Perhaps Acros II will be different. I'll reserve judgement until it's available in 4x5 and I try some.

...Fuji is the best of the best. They are what kodak should have been. They made all the right moves, all the time...and their films: people still mourn their bw 1600 and 400 films...

Yeah, great moves, eh, discontinuing Neopan 400 and 1600.

...As for foma and Ilford, they understood that classics should never be touched...

In Foma's case, it's so small it probably can't afford to perform the R&D to create modern products. HARMAN might have more resources, but its bean counters are smart enough to pencil out the ROI on new product development. That's where its "understanding" lies.

 

[NB23]

So this makes Kodak the best. I can’t disagree. But I can’t agree that foma is second rate, nor Ilford. Kodak just does’t offer anything close to pan-f, nothing close to Foma 100 and 400, nothing close to foma papers. Nothing close to Ilford papers.

Sure, you’re unhappy about Fuji having discontinued astia. But let’s talk about how unhappy I am about not having kodachrome anymore. And plus-x. And where is my old beloved tri-x? And where is panatomic? What’s up with hc110? Where are the Kodak papers?

I guess we could go on for ever. But all I said, at the beginning, is that foma and Ilford were just as good as kodak. When I need the foma 100 look, there’s just nothing that I kodak can offer me.

 

[NB23]

HARMAN might have more resources, but its bean counters are smart enough to pencil out the ROI on new product development. That's where its "understanding" lies.

And then there is the management 101 common knowledge that one shouldn’t develop any further a perfect product from a mature market.

Budweiser, coca-cola, converse sneakers, harley-davidson, jack Daniels, are just a few examples.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

So this makes Kodak the best. I can’t disagree. But I can’t agree that foma is second rate, nor Ilford...But all I said, at the beginning, is that foma and Ilford were just as good as kodak...

In terms of films' manufacturing quality, those statements are contradictory. It's got to be one way or the other. If you have preferences for a certain "look" that's only available from a product of lower physical quality, fine. But one cannot have it both ways.

Ron Mowery, we so miss you.

And then there is the management 101 common knowledge that one shouldn’t develop any further a perfect product from a mature market.

Budweiser, coca-cola, converse sneakers, harley-davidson, jack Daniels, are just a few examples.

"Perfection" is in the eye of the beholder. Your "perfection" is my "too grainy," "too [insert whatever image characteristic you desire here]." I neither drink beer or soda, wear sneakers, ride motorcycles nor drink whiskey, so cannot even apply the term "perfection" to any of the products you apparently admire.

 

[DREW WILEY]

From the standpoint of quality control, placing Foma films in the same category as Kodak, especially TMax products, is utterly ludicrous. But I have a very high opinion of ACROS too, and solved any airbell issues in tray dev of sheet film long ago. Now there's just roll film anyway. Ilford is a reliable supplier. But if one needs color neg film or a high-performance black and white film like TMax, Kodak is well worth the extra price. I'm sure there will be some shoot-from-the-hip arguments; but go set up a process line accurate inside 1/10th deg F, and then do a few hundred densitometer plots, like I've done, and we'll see who has evidence and who doesn't . Sal and I frequently lock horns, but in this case we're mostly on the same wavelength about quality. Once a personal budget gets centered on 8x10 film, wild guesses just aren't practical. No; TMax isn't for everyone; but it is very predictable if your own metering skills are also, and was also engineered right out of the gate to outright replace several other films, which it did, due to its exceptional development versatility. All of this transpired when Kodak was still at its prime, with only certain improvement tweaks afterwards, esp in the grain clustering of the 400 product.