How much will Kodak film prices increase?

[pentaxuser]

138S as long as you enjoy the debate then please continue to put forward what seems to me to be good points but please recognise that they will make no difference to most if not all of the U.S/N American Kodak users who decide to contribute posts here. I have yet to see any recognition that there may be even one U.S. Kodak user who begins to appreciate anything you have said.

As I said in another thread on Australian prices I do wonder where the U.S./N American viewpoint would be if it was Europe that was the biggest film market and it was we in Europe who enjoyed the price margin over the U.S. /N America.


pentaxuser

 

[138S]

138S as long as you enjoy the debate then please continue to put forward what seems to me to be good points but please recognise that they will make no difference to most if not all of the U.S/N American Kodak users who decide to contribute posts here. I have yet to see any recognition that there may be even one U.S. Kodak user who begins to appreciate anything you have said.

As I said in another thread on Australian prices I do wonder where the U.S./N American viewpoint would be if it was Europe that was the biggest film market and it was we in Europe who enjoyed the price margin over the U.S. /N America.

Yes, in the USA there is another point of view about that.

To me their point of view is a bit striking, my view is that industrial culture in the USA is about competition, expanding market to produce more and obtaining lower costs from volume scale, but I see them defending monopolistic behaviours and price fixing.

I'm a film lover, absolutely. Now I'm worried, while we all witnessed that amazing film usage expansion I feel it a danger. My view is that an enthusiast is an idealist, and if they feel exploited by monopolistic arbitrary behaviours then may drop, so IMO it would be great to see manufacturers trying to consolidate the film user base and making strong bets for the future.

Many film users make a great effort to use film and also they are enthusiats, but it they feel extorted then for sure many will drop, and this is a risk that may challenge color film survavility.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Many film users make a great effort to use film and also they are enthusiats, but it they feel extorted then for sure many will drop, and this is a risk that may challenge color film survavility.

Film capture makes a huge amount of sense for black & white work. However for colour there are a more nuanced set of considerations - and this is from someone who has been printing RA-4 optically in the darkroom over the last few days.

 

[138S]

However for colour there are a more nuanced set of considerations -

true... also BW has a more consolidated artistic heritage.

But a 8x10" Velvia 50 shot...

Fortunately BW won't never be at risk, I guess, at least we may easily do wet or dry plate.

 

[Kino]

Prices of old were based upon a certain "scale of economies" that don't exist anymore and won't exist again.

There is no need or even good reason for them to overproduce and drive the cost down; why would that be good business?

Make it up in volume? That's an old joke that some people think is a real business principal. Either you make a profit or you go under; pretty simple.

I really doubt that prices will drop, even if Kodak should be able to build some new infrastructure to ease supply shortages.

At best I think (hope) Kodak will allow the prices to stabilize after building a modest increase in production capacity and then be able to largely meet demand.

I am sorry it is so expensive to purchase Kodak film in other parts of the World and I truly wish it wasn't so, but I am afraid there is little to be done about it unless someone can convince AGFA or another European concern to re-start color production. Then the US could pay extra for alternative color negative film stock.

 

[138S]

Prices of old were based upon a certain "scale of economies" that don't exist anymore and won't exist again.

I don't agree, scale is more important than ever.

The highest cost of film is having a plant idle, so economy of scale it's important to overcome fixed costs. You have to pay the technicians that know how to make Ektachrome, if you produce twice that cost is half per roll...

The marginal cost of producing a roll is very low, main cost is having all the plant operative and paying salaries that are not related to manufacturing personel.

It can be attractive for the short term to push prices, in special if urgent cash is needed, but long term customer base reduction makes film more expensive to manufacture because fixed costs are distributed to less rolls, commanding a higher price which shrinks market and again increases fixed cost per roll. If you produce a single roll in one year it will cost millions of dollars.

I don't belive that kodak cannot produce produce more, the installations they have can produce insane amounts of film, that's a tale for kids, IMO.


What we may have is an EK vs KA race to see who charges more on the product.

 

[Kino]

I don't agree, scale is more important than ever.

The highest cost of film is having a plant idle, so economy of scale it's important to overcome fixed costs. You have to pay the technicians that know how to make Ektachrome, if you produce twice that cost is half per roll...

The marginal cost of producing a roll is very low, main cost is having all the plant operative and paying salaries that are not related to manufacturing personel.

It can be attractive for the short term to push prices, in special if urgent cash is needed, but long term customer base reduction makes film more expensive to manufacture because fixed costs are distributed to less rolls, commanding a higher price which shrinks market and again increases fixed cost per roll. If you produce a single roll in one year it will cost millions of dollars.

I don't belive that kodak cannot produce produce more, the installations they have can produce insane amounts of film, that's a tale for kids, IMO.


What we may have is an EK vs KA race to see who charges more on the product.

Well that would be true if Kodak were idling their production lines, but supposedly they are running the existing lines at full capacity with 3 shifts a day and still are unable to keep up with demand.

You apparently missed the fact that Kodak demolished a significant portion of their production capacity (45 buildings around 5 years ago) and no longer have the capacity they once had.
https://petapixel.com/2015/07/19/kodak-turns-92-year-old-film-manufacturing-building-into-rubble/

The kids will have to be told another story...

 

[MattKing]

Eastman Kodak's coater can produce immense amounts of film.
They don't have the resources to buy the constituent components to do that, nor do they have the confectioning resources to turn huge volumes of the products of that coater into usable film.
They used to have those resources, and consistently increasing sales at decent margins will eventually give them more of those resources, but not immediately.
Anyone who doesn't think that there is a distribution problem obviously hasn't lived in a different country just 47 blocks from the USA.
If I purchase stuff from a volume retailer in the US and have it shipped to a US address, it is remarkably cheap - in many cases much cheaper than my local retailer can buy it from a Canadian wholesale distributor.
In both cases though - the US distributor selling to the US retailer and the Canadian distributor selling to the Canadian retailer, they pay the same price to Kodak Alaris, outside of shipping and import costs.

 

[Kino]

Anyone who doesn't think that there is a distribution problem obviously hasn't lived in a different country just 47 blocks from the USA.
If I purchase stuff from a volume retailer in the US and have it shipped to a US address, it is remarkably cheap - in many cases much cheaper than my local retailer can buy it from a Canadian wholesale distributor.
In both cases though - the US distributor selling to the US retailer and the Canadian distributor selling to the Canadian retailer, they pay the same price to Kodak Alaris, outside of shipping and import costs.

Maybe we can make a treaty to exchange cheap film for cheap prescription drugs?

 

[138S]

Well that would be true if Kodak were idling their production lines, but supposedly they are running the existing lines at full capacity with 3 shifts a day and still are unable to keep up with demand.

You apparently missed the fact that Kodak demolished a significant portion of their production capacity (45 buildings around 5 years ago) and no longer have the capacity they once had.
https://petapixel.com/2015/07/19/kodak-turns-92-year-old-film-manufacturing-building-into-rubble/

The kids will have to be told another story...

Prepare the calculator.

Alaris say more lies than they can speak. That "manufacturing overload" is false, it could happen for a week after a breakdown... but it's a bare pretext to fix a price.

See here 0:12min

This is the relatively "low capacity" manufacturing line that ilford has. Two 120 rolls per second.

Now power on the calculator. 3600x24*2 = 172,000 rolls per day, this is 63,072,000 rolls per year, spare a 20% time for service if you want. 50 Million rolls capacity of the 120 size only in a single line. Problem is that they can't sell that amount. Kodak/Fuji machinery is faster.

Of course, as pointed by Matt, also coating capacity is insane, see the square meters a beast of those eats in one second.


At 2 rolls per second that single line can produce an ex-factory value of $3*3600*24 = $260,000 per day, this is near $100 million per year, if it worked full time.

So it's false, machinery is idle most of the time anyway. They fix a price but they tell the pretext that they cannot produce more.

____________________________

They are free to fix the price they want, but they should tell more refined lies.

 

[Kino]

Prepare the calculator.
(snip)
They are free to fix the price they want, but they should tell more refined lies.

Yeah... right

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yeah... right

Agreed - there are very noisy low-usage
bottom-feeding hobbyists who seem to make a great song and dance about using sheet formats and then have the gall to complain about the price correction in what was a severely distorted market!

I might moan slightly about the costs of 8x10 enlargers having bounced back rather severely, but a 6-12k sum is rather different from a box of 8x10 film! And I'd rather see companies digging in for the long haul.

 

[Henning Serger]

Dear '138S',
with all respect, but as someone who has been working in this industry for quite a long time in several areas, and as someone who has been inside of so far five different film manufacturing factories in several countries, I have to tell you that you
- have no knowledge at all how film manufacturing is really working, neither technologically nor economically, nor from the distribution side
- that almost all you have presented as arguments here is completely wrong.

Latest example ist that:

See here 0:12min....

This is the relatively "low capacity" manufacturing line that ilford has. Two 120 rolls per second.

Now power on the calculator. 3600x24*2 = 172,000 rolls per day, this is 63,072,000 rolls per year, spare a 20% time for service if you want. 50 Million rolls capacity of the 120 size only in a single line. Problem is that they can't sell that amount. Kodak/Fuji machinery is faster.

I've been in the Ilford factory. I've seen the film converting running there, both 135 and 120.
Your numbers here are totally wrong!!
Because: You are only pointing at the 'boxing speed' of 120 film (putting the converted film into the card box). But that is completely irrelevant for the total possible capacity of 120 film converting!
The decisive factor for 120 film converting is the machine in which the film is assembled to the spool and the backing paper. And that process is very complex and needs time! It is very slow compared to the speed needed for putting the film into the card box.
About 6-8 seconds for one 120 film is needed in the 120 film converting machine! Therefore Ilford's real max. 120 film converting capacity is only a tiny fraction of what you have said in your posting.
That are the facts.

Eastman Kodak's problem is that definitely their 35mm film converting (and probably also their 120 film converting) is already running in 3 shifts per day at max. capacity. But that is not enough to satisfy demand. Demand is much higher. Therefore complete new converting lines have to be installed. I have seen such lines: That is absolutely high tech and a very complex technology. It needs much time and capital to build up such lines. And new staff has to be hired and educated to run these lines.
It is not possible to raise this capital from the so far (before the price increase) low margin film products. All film manufacturers have had so far this low margin problem. Therefore Fujifilm has increased prices in spring 2019 significantly (they have similar converting capacity problems), Ilford have had increases lately, too.
You should definitely have a look at the presentation of the ADOX CEO concerning the low margin problem in the industry here:


Best regards,
Henning

 

[138S]

Dear '138S',
with all respect, but as someone who has been working in this industry for quite a long time in several areas, and as someone who has been inside of so far five different film manufacturing factories in several countries, I have to tell you that you
- have no knowledge at all how film manufacturing is really working, neits arguments here is completely wrong.

Latest example ist that:



I've been in the Ilford factory. I've seen the film converting running there, both 135 and 120.
Your numbers here are totally wrong!!
Because: You are only pointing at the 'boxing speed' of 120 film (putting the converted film into the card box). But that is completely irrelevant for the total possible capacity of 120 film converting!
The decisive factor for 120 film converting is the machine in which the film is assembled to the spool and the backing paper. And that process is very complex and needs time! It is very slow compared to the speed needed for putting the film into the card box.
About 6-8 seconds for one 120 film is needed in the 120 film converting machine! Therefore Ilford's real max. 120 film converting capacity is only a tiny fraction of what you have said in your posting.
That are the facts.

Eastman Kodak's problem is that definitely their 35mm film converting (and probably also their 120 film converting) is already running in 3 shifts per day at max. capacity. But that is not enough to satisfy demand. Demand is much higher. Therefore complete new converting lines have to be installed. I have seen such lines: That is absolutely high tech and a very complex technology. It needs much time and capital to build up such lines. And new staff has to be hired and educated to run these lines.
It is not possible to raise this capital from the so far (before the price increase) low margin film products. All film manufacturers have had so far this low margin problem. Therefore Fujifilm has increased prices in spring 2019 significantly (they have similar converting capacity problems), Ilford have had increases lately, too.
You should definitely have a look at the presentation of the ADOX CEO concerning the low margin problem in the industry here:


Best regards,
Henning

Henning, if you have been inside a factory... Haven't you noticed that they have spoolers working in parallel?

With all respect, there are enough spoolers to feed the boxing machine !!!

If not the line would not be balanced. In series production machinery capabilities are balanced to not generate stocks in the middle.

With all respect, go back to visit a factory and take a look.

Anyway an spooler is paid with the film it processes in two days, so if lacking spoolers...

Kodak probably has dozens of idle spoolers salvaged from demolished plants, in the spares warehouse, so they may not have to pay for them.

Also see in the video at what speed ilford makes 135 cassetes... to feed the spoolers in parallel.

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, if you have been inside a factory... Haven't you noticed that they have spoolers working in parallel?

We have talked about Ilford here: And no, there are no spoolers for the same format working in parallel at Ilford!!
Ilford has one 135 converting line in operation.
And they have also one 120 line in operation.
That are the facts.

Due to reliable sources who have visited the EK factory in Rochester about two years ago - before the recent huge demand increase for 135 colour film started - at that time two 135 lines had been in operation.
And as I know from my market analysis of the global film market and Kodak's market share running two lines at full capacity 3 shifts per day is now not enough at all to satisfy the strongly increasing demand. New converting machinery is needed.

With all respect, there are enough spoolers to feed the boxing machine !!!

With all respect, that is complete nonsense. I've been there at Ilford, and you have never been in any film factory at all.

If not the line would not be balanced. In series production machinery capabilities are balanced to not generate stocks in the middle.

Again wrong: Film production is not series production, it is batch production. Very different! Concerning our Ilford example here: The boxing/packaging machine for 120 film is started when the 120 assembly machine has produced enough film.

With all respect, go back to visit a factory and take a look.

Says the guy who has has never ever been in a film factory to the guy who has visited five different film factories in four different countries.

Anyway an spooler is paid with the film it processes in two days, so if lacking spoolers...

That is again complete BS. You really don't know how complex and sophisticated all the converting machinery is. To get a ROI needs a long time.

So, you are convinced to know all about film production much better than the experts who are working in this industry for so long. O.k.. We have got your message.
If film production is so easy and profitable as you think, then you should find investors and start film production as soon as possible.
Good luck!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

Henning when Kodak or indeed any other film maker makes a mistake or does something that you cannot quite explain or casts its actions in a poor light you will tell us won't you?

I haven't noticed any hint of a question or criticism of any film maker's actions and it may be that such criticism or questions damages your standing with these companies which I understand but others here are just pure consumers.

Unless there is incontrovertible evidence that everything film companies do that adversely affects some area's consumers is outside its control and is inevitable in the sense of the sun rising every morning then you will understand, I hope, their concerns

pentaxuser

 

[destroya]

wow, 138S, what up? are you ratty mouse re-invented? why so much hate? time to move on from this discussion and let those who know what they are talking about contribute, so other like me can learn from then. please stop spreading your hate.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

We have talked about Ilford here: And no, there are no spoolers for the same format working in parallel at Ilford!!
Ilford has one 135 converting line in operation.
And they have also one 120 line in operation.
That are the facts.

When I toured the factory in 2007 they had a single 135 and a single 120 line. The talk then from our group was whether '220' film could be produced again but I think this was considered uneconomical due to the need to commission a new machine and forecast sales. I have no idea how sales are now compared to 12 or 13 years ago.

 

[Henning Serger]

@pentaxuser:
Please read my postings attentively: My intention was only to correct some completely wrong statements about film production.
My topic was not about possible mistakes companies may have made in the past. This discussion also would not be very helpful and a waste of time, because if all manufacturers would have made no mistakes at all in the past, the situation today would not be fundamentally different.
It wouldn't have changed the huge and fast recent demand increase in colour film. And it wouldn't have changed the fact that all manufacturers need sustainable prices to invest in new, updated / modernised and / or additional machinery, to invest in new products and to invest in new, young highly qualified employees, especially engineers and chemists.
And that is the reason why not only Eastman Kodak, but also Fujifilm, Ilford + Co have increased prices or will increase prices in the short and mid term. No matter to whom I have talked to in the industry, all have confirmed that about 15 - 30% (dependent on the product) higher prices compared to the 2018 price level are needed for the absolutely necessary mid- and long term investments. To keep film alive and well / flourishing for the next decades. And all current manufacturers - with no exceptions - want to continue with film production for the next decades (and therefore need the investments).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[MattKing]

There is one observation made by 138S that definitely does bear more investigation - his comment about Kodak Alaris RA-4 paper production, distribution and sales.
I would really like to know more about what has happened and is happening about that.
Possibly Henning could chime in on that.

 

[Henning Serger]

When I toured the factory in 2007 they had a single 135 and a single 120 line. The talk then from our group was whether '220' film could be produced again but I think this was considered uneconomical due to the need to commission a new machine and forecast sales.

Exactly Tom.
And that situation hasn't changed some years later when I made the factory tour with Simon Galley. It also hasn't changed when I talked to Simon short before he retired. And it hasn't changed when I talked to Ilford last Photokina. Still one line for 135, one line for 120, and 220 remains completely uneconomical. It will not come back.
What has changed is demand and the capacity level (to which extent the converting capacity is used). When you were there, the demand for all film types was still in decline.
When I was there, demand for 120 (and partly sheets) was already increasing, but 35mm was still decreasing. Short before he retired Simon told me that 35mm has turned and is increasing again at Ilford. And last Photokina they explained that they are seeing generally increasing demand for their films in all formats.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Possibly Henning could chime in on that.

Matt, we already had discussed that topic in a different thread. I have given all information I am allowed to give. But I cannot give more details because of a NDA.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[MattKing]

Matt, we already had discussed that topic in a different thread. I have given all information I am allowed to give. But I cannot give more details because of a NDA.

Best regards,
Henning

Can you point me to the thread Henning, and update it with shareable information if appropriate?

 

[Henning Serger]

Can you point me to the thread Henning, and update it with shareable information if appropriate?

Matt, it was this one:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...rong-increasing-demand-new-investment.171280/
And you even joined that discussion at that time .
If I get new information I am allowed to share then I will of course let you know.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[138S]

We have talked about Ilford here: And no, there are no spoolers for the same format working in parallel at Ilford!!
Ilford has one 135 converting line in operation.
And they have also one 120 line in operation.
That are the facts.

OK, ilford has always been a modest production (and good) manufacturer, they have enough with one. Kodak/Fuji/Agfa had allways parrallel lines to feed packaging. This is also a fact.

Due to reliable sources who have visited the EK factory in Rochester about two years ago - before the recent huge demand increase for 135 colour film started - at that time two 135 lines had been in operation.
And as I know from my market analysis of the global film market and Kodak's market share running two lines at full capacity 3 shifts per day is now not enough at all to satisfy the strongly increasing demand. New converting machinery is needed.

Nor Coating or Packaging can limit production, the single bottleneck they may have is spoolers, but it would be a shame if they cannot spool some film, I don't belive their spooling incapability claims, it they have it should be a forged situation.

you have never been in any film factory at all.

You don't know that

Again wrong: Film production is not series production, it is batch production.

What kind of engineer are you?

Emulsion and coats and made in batch processing.

Coating and splitting is made in contiuous processing

Spooling and packaging is made in series processing (a series of 45,000 TX rolls, then a series of 27,000 TX rolls), in series !

Big Tank = batch, Big Roll = continuous, Items = series

Easy...

To get a ROI needs a long time.

If they trashed all those they had idle then they are pretty silly.

So, you are convinced to know all about film production much better than the experts who are working in this industry for so long.

I'm only good detecting lies. If they had said that KPP2 is in technical bankruptcy and they only serve products if payment is guanranteed then I would not suspect, that they can't spool is harder to belive

If film production is so easy and profitable as you think, then you should find investors and start film production as soon as possible.

They said it was quite profitable not long ago, with a 40% price increase it has to be really profitable.

Problem they have isn't profits, it's financial burden. Exclusive distributor KPP2 is technically bankrupted, and customers pays for that situation.