How much will Kodak film prices increase?

[NB23]

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.

Well guess who did NOT buy 50 rolls of 120 kodak films and saved himself a lot of grief because of bad QC and potentially ruined photographs which could never be taken back?

Me.

Guess who decided to buy Foma and Ilford films instead, and came back with good photographs without any issues?

Me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fine. Nobody is forcing you to buy Kodak. I've never had a single problem with 120 Kodak rolls, or any other format either. They did briefly receive some questionable backing paper and identified the suspect batch. But I repeatedly had unacceptable cracks and coating blemishes on Foma emulsions, and as far as tight batch to batch consistency? .... Haah! But overall, on this particular topic, you're simply out of your league. I called TMax a high performance product for a reason; not everyone should drive a Ferrari either.

 

[NB23]

I’m often out of my league, so no biggie. I hope Kodak lowers its prices, though.
I’d love to buy 100 rolls of E100, not just 5. But not at these prices.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, if I'm just out quickly snapshooting on a rainy day with a camera tucked under a parka, and either estimating exposure or doing TTL metering with a Nikon, TMax is not a smart choice. And the young employees at the local camera store hate it; but few of them even own a light meter or know how to use one. They're accustomed to histograms and the "latitude" of longer-toed, more forgiving films. But when one needs predictable long-scale tonal separation with considerable development flexibility in terms of contrast level, TMax films are the ticket. It's also a more robust film in terms of process handling than most, especially the sheet films. With color, Kodak's current color neg lineup is the best ever. No, I'm not happy about the high priced either; but it's a fact of life.

 

[NB23]

I’m not sure we are talking the same tmax, here.

TMX and TMY are not a flexible films. Especially not in development. Over cooking TMY and TMX is easily done.

Flexibility is HP5’s real name. Pushes and pulls extremely well, can take a beating in any developer and will always give a printable neg. You can’t do this with tmx nor tmy.

Fomapan 100, too, can take a beating and always come out looking good. Fomapan 400 is a different story.

Well, if I'm just out quickly snapshooting on a rainy day with a camera tucked under a parka, and either estimating exposure or doing TTL metering with a Nikon, TMax is not a smart choice. And the young employees at the local camera store hate it; but few of them even own a light meter or know how to use one. They're accustomed to histograms and the "latitude" of longer-toed, more forgiving films. But when one needs predictable long-scale tonal separation with considerable development flexibility in terms of contrast level, TMax films are the ticket. It's also a more robust film in terms of process handling than most, especially the sheet films. With color, Kodak's current color neg lineup is the best ever. No, I'm not happy about the high priced either; but it's a fact of life.

 

[MattKing]

I’m not sure we are talking the same tmax, here.

TMX and TMY are not a flexible films. Especially not in development. Over cooking TMY and TMX is easily done.

Flexibility is HP5’s real name. Pushes and pulls extremely well, can take a beating in any developer and will always give a printable neg. You can’t do this with tmx nor tmy.

Fomapan 100, too, can take a beating and always come out looking good. Fomapan 400 is a different story.

TMX and TMY are incredibly flexible - they can be made to do a wide variety of very desirable things.
They just aren't particularly forgiving.

 

[NB23]

And how can that be?

Can a forgiving film NOT be flexible? You’re losing me, guys...

I’m on my last rolls of TMX (shot 400, in the past 2 years), and I think that’s enough rolls and hours in the darkroom to give me at least some credibility on this film.

TMX and TMY are incredibly flexible - they can be made to do a wide variety of very desirable things.
They just aren't particularly forgiving.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You probably need some coaching. Matt has phrased it realistically. You need careful exposure, especially with respect to shadow placement, as well as tight development control, but the rewards can be not only entirely predictable but qualitatively exceptional. Otherwise, stick with a good middle of the road film like FP4 or whatever. "Forgiving" applies to moderate exposure and dev errors - TMax is not good for that. "Flexible" in this case pertains to the ability of the same film to do a wide range of tasks or, if appropriately developed, mimic a range of other films, which TMax excels at. For instance, I use TMX100 for all the way from exceptionally low contrast masking applications all the way up to near-lith high contrast, but with pan sensitivity (alas, not Ortho Litho pricing). I can't think of any other current film that can do that, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. HP5 isn't even as remotely as "flexible", though it is a wonderful product for certain things; I once shot a lot of it in 8x10.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well guess who did NOT buy 50 rolls of 120 kodak films and saved himself a lot of grief because of bad QC and potentially ruined photographs which could never be taken back?

Me.

Guess who decided to buy Foma and Ilford films instead, and came back with good photographs without any issues?

Me.

Thank you for leaving the film available for me.

 

[AgX]

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.

There is a misconception on your side on the "size" relation of Foma and Harman.

 

[AgX]

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.

Foma had their backing paper problem too. Though of different kind. Respective artefacts had been reported and discussed at Apug.

 

[BMbikerider]

It may well be that a 15% increase is needed to keep Kodak afloat but may well not be the same to keep other manufacturers afloat. If this is the case then I fear for Kodak's ability to continue with such increases "unscathed" by consumer reaction. pentaxuser

I have not checked recently, but the price of Kodak TriX in the 30m Roll was so expensive from most dealers, it worked out to be more expensive than the equivalent number of 36Exp cassettes. If it had only been one dealer then I would say they were being stupid and pricing themselves out of the market, but it was the same all round. At least 2 dealers are now not stocking TriX in bulk anymore it is so expensive.

 

[darkosaric]

Kodak TriX in the 30m Roll

Right now in Fotoimpex the price is 189,00 EUR (210USD).

 

[Anon Ymous]

Right now in Fotoimpex the price is 189,00 EUR (210USD).

And this was the price before the hike, it's old stock. Meanwhile, buying 20 135-36 films (more than what a 100 ft bulk roll would give) costs 150€ at the same shop.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

With current corporate culture, speed changing of top managements, none of it to form a long lasting and forward looking enterprise and focusing instead on the short term quick buck approach, it is entirely feasible to think of Kodak pricing being exactly the result of same careless approach.

We could argue about quality of the product (and I think placing Ilford on a lower shelf is simply preposterous, even going back in time as one would want to), but what is being noticed is abnormal and not explained by market conditions.

 

[BMbikerider]

Right now in Fotoimpex the price is 189,00 EUR (210USD).

I can only find 2 UK companies selling Bulk Tri X. The first one is around the same price as Photoimpex, give or take. The 2nd one trading under the name of Firstcall is asking for £208 for 30m. which when converted gives a price of 229 Euros or 256 US Dollars. The price of a 36 exp is £7.69 and out of a 30 m roll with no wastage you can get 19.5 cassettes which work out at £149. Converted, that is 229 Euro's or $164

Either they are profiteering or plain stupid! Incidentally they do not appear to have any stock, it is available only to order. It has been priced at this level for several months, so I do not think it is in anticipation of a price increase.

 

[ITD]

Either they are profiteering or plain stupid!

or maybe they're accurately reflecting their costs and risks involved in keeping and supplying a less popular product? Why ascribe greed or incompetence all the time? They’re just making a living.

 

[Anon Ymous]

or maybe they're accurately reflecting their costs and risks involved in keeping and supplying a less popular product? Why ascribe greed or incompetence all the time? They’re just making a living.

The price in the US is $100. Someone is clearly making a silly joke for asking that much.

 

[ITD]

The price in the US is $100. Someone is clearly making a silly joke for asking that much

And maybe the market outside the US is too small to make selling it at that price elsewhere untenable. Ok, we don’t like the price but that's the free market for ya. Buy individual rolls - maybe that's what Kodak wants you to do. In the end, as well as greed or incompetence there’s a third possibility - that Kodak and its distributors know exactly what they're doing to keep being able to supply film in the long term without going bust again.

 

[destroya]

its funny how whenever the price of film goes up, people either blame the manufacture, kodak in this case, or the retailer. but my retail experience is that the is the distributor, the one usually hidden from the end user, who takes/makes a huge mark up and drives the price up. they always seem to be the one behind the curtain pulling the strings and makes the world frustrated, and do so anonymously.

so while the price is too high for some people, please don't jump to concussions about WHO is to blame. if the price is to high for you, then just dont buy it. I drove a nice car for a long time, then got a divorce and now cant afford the car I used to drive. I dont blame the car manufacturer or the car sellers.

john

 

[destroya]

The price in the US is $100. Someone is clearly making a silly joke for asking that much.

we have the same thing in the US with films like Foma and rollei films. they are very cheap in Europe, but over here they can be twice the cost of buying from Maco or Fotoimpex. I dont blame the film producers. So when I need to buy quantity, I usually buy from overseas and wait the long shipping time.

john

 

[Anon Ymous]

For the record, I don't blame the retailers for the ridiculous Kodak bulk film prices in Europe.

 

[MattKing]

It costs more to create and distribute a roll of Kodak bulk film than it does to create and distribute 18 36 exposure rolls of the same film.
The cost of the unconverted and unpackaged film itself is a very, very, very small part of that - its all the rest of the costs that make the differences.
In Kodak's case, the unconverted and unpackaged film is much cheaper than in Ilford's case. It is also cheaper for Kodak to convert that film into individual cassettes, because of the machinery they have. The distribution costs are higher for Kodak, as are the costs relating to shutting down the high volume 35mm cassette runs and replacing them with the almost hand-made bulk roll runs.
Bulk film from a high volume manufacturer like Kodak is only cheap when volumes are high.
Low volume bulk film from a low volume manufacturer like Harman is likely to be similar in cost to individual rolls.

 

[Agulliver]

I made a comment two years ago about the cost of Kodak bulk rolls in the UK being ridiculous at around £180 for 30m of Tri-X. I was poo-pooed. Since then Kodak bulk roll prices have actually gone down. I suspect Firstcall has "new old stock" dating back a couple of years.

 

[Agulliver]

Silverprint now have 30m Tri-X at £119.

Process SUpplies have it at £111