How much will Kodak film prices increase?

[brainmonster]

Historically, it looks like Kodak raises its film prices by 15% or so once in awhile. But it looks like they plan to increase their film prices "significantly" - 15% sounds less than "significant".

https://onfilmonly.com/price-jump-on-all-kodak-films-on-01-01-20/

I wonder if this will apply only to high-demand films? Supposedly their highest demand film is colorplus, which also happens to be their cheapest film.

Time to start hoarding film a bit before 2020 or not?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Historically, it looks like Kodak raises its film prices by 15% or so once in awhile. But it looks like they plan to increase their film prices "significantly" - 15% sounds less than "significant".

https://onfilmonly.com/price-jump-on-all-kodak-films-on-01-01-20/

I wonder if this will apply only to high-demand films? Supposedly their highest demand film is colorplus, which also happens to be their cheapest film.

Time to start hoarding film a bit before 2020 or not?

Meh. You should expect the price to go up over time. In case you haven’t noticed, Ilford has done a pretty healthy price increase every year for the last 2-3 years right around April. Foma has done the same.

Personally, I’d rather have smaller more frequent price increases than infrequent larger increases. Just imagine if film manufacturers increased the price of all products across the board by 2-3 cents every 30 days until they had healthy enough margins that they could be profitable and afford to invest in growing the market. To me that’s a lot more palatable than only hiking the price up once every 2-3 years, even if the overall price ended up the same in the given time period. Nobody really complains about 2-3 cents, but a 15% jump in one step will get attention.

 

[pentaxuser]

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. I cannot speak for the U.S. or even mainland Europe but with an inflation in the U.K. less than 2% then 15 % is significantly significant. Frankly against an inflation rate of less than 2% anything above 5% is significant

We have pundits rejoicing and encouraging the rest of us to rejoice at "Good News" for Kodak and film and analogue accessories manufacturers in general as if price doesn't matter. Well it matters to me

When we see price increases that seem excessive in relation to our own wage/salary increases and no answers to legitimate questions that we are entitled to ask then a kind of Billy Graham announcement to rejoice might be met legitimately with some searching questions from us.

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I wonder what percentage of Eastman Kodak's film sale revenues relate to still film and what percentage relates to motion picture film, and how this coming increase will affect both.

 

[MattKing]

You won't see anything from Eastman Kodak - other than with respect to their motion picture film.
Anything relating to still film, chemicals or RA-4 paper will only come from Kodak Alaris.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

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. I cannot speak for the U.S. or even mainland Europe but with an inflation in the U.K. less than 2% then 15 % is significantly significant. Frankly against an inflation rate of less than 2% anything above 5% is significant

We have pundits rejoicing and encouraging the rest of us to rejoice at "Good News" for Kodak and film and analogue accessories manufacturers in general as if price doesn't matter. Well it matters to me

When we see price increases that seem excessive in relation to our own wage/salary increases and no answers to legitimate questions that we are entitled to ask then a kind of Billy Graham announcement to rejoice might be met legitimately with some searching questions from us.

pentaxuser

Meh. They are a business doing this to make money, not operate a charity. As such, they should charge what the market will bear. If they can’t do that and make enough money to be a successful business that grows revenue year over year, then it’s not worth it to keep making those products and they should discontinue making and selling them. If you don’t want to pay what they want in order for them to make money, then why should you get anything at all unless they decide to be charitable about it? And if that’s the case, then we should be thanking our lucky stars that they are/have been being charitable about it, not complaining that they have to raise prices.

Prices will never be as low as they were back in the heyday of film, and frankly, I’m amazed at how many film photographers loudly complain at the prices today. Seriously, have you priced what it costs to outfit yourself with a professional digital camera system? You can buy a very nice pro-level film camera and go crazy shooting film for quite a long while and still not have spent as much money as the digital body alone costs, including the cost of processing said film. In terms of monetary dollars over time, Film is by far the least expensive form of photography to get into.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

That's rethoric and nothing more (we are talking about amateur photography here, as I understand).
Digital costs actually less than analog.
There's no films, no chemicals, no darkroom and accessories involved, no lab processing, no scanning fees etc...
Sure, cameras cost more but tell me, how much costs a new Nikon F6 (because we have to compare new to new)?
Computer used for digital editing is not a cost because everyone has a pc at home.
Like it or not, digital rules photography nowadays.

I totally completely 100% disagree. You can’t really fairly compare new to new because there’s only one manufacturer still making a new 35mm film camera (are they? Can you actually buy it?) compared to the plethora other manufacturers. A used Canon EOS1n with a motor drive goes for a couple hundred dollars. We haven’t even started talking about medium and large format. Price out a full medium format digital camera system. That’s a lot of film and processing. It gets even less expensive for large format. I bought a brand new 4x5 camera that had everything but the lens for $1000. The lens was another couple hundred dollars. Including all the labs costs you’d have to shoot an aweful lot of sheets.

I never said digital did not have advantages, I’m merely pointing out that you can get a decent film camera for next to nothing and shoot a lot of film for a lot less than a decent digital setup costs, even in amateur land. By the way not everyone has a PC at home. In fact that’s not nearly as common nowadays as you would think. I own and operate a film processing lab and I can’t tell you how many people want a link to some online gallery so they can look at/save/share the photos on their phones. They very well may have a computer at home, but they ain’t using it to edit photos.

 

[MattKing]

Did Kodak Alaris make an official statement about the price increase?

Apparently - to their customers (distributors).
I too miss the days when Kodak considered their end users (or at least the retailers who sold to the end users) to be their customers, but that ship has sadly sailed.

 

[Ariston]

Prices aren't dictated by companies. Companies will always charge the most they can. Supply and demand dictate prices, unless the government interferes.

 

[MattKing]

Companies will always charge the most they can

Not really.
Companies will always try to increase profitability.
Sometimes that means charging less per unit, in order to sell more and make more money overall.
And sometimes that means charging less per unit in order to build market share and brand loyalty, particularly with respect to consumables, where there is often more money to be made from repeat purchases than from smaller numbers of purchases at higher margins.
There are still companies out there who are more interested in long term profitability than short term profitability.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Apparently - to their customers (distributors).
I too miss the days when Kodak considered their end users (or at least the retailers who sold to the end users) to be their customers, but that ship has sadly sailed.

Yep, I’ve tried more than once to buy wholesale directly from Kodak and was redirected to a handful of distributors. I’m sure there are instances where there are small account holders, but by and large, that’s not the case.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Historically, it looks like Kodak raises its film prices by 15% or so once in awhile. But it looks like they plan to increase their film prices "significantly" - 15% sounds less than "significant".

https://onfilmonly.com/price-jump-on-all-kodak-films-on-01-01-20/

I wonder if this will apply only to high-demand films? Supposedly their highest demand film is colorplus, which also happens to be their cheapest film.

Time to start hoarding film a bit before 2020 or not?

film and paper are too cheap as it is! the main thing is that it is available not that it is cheap!

 

[MattKing]

I’m sure there are instances where there are small account holders, but by and large, that’s not the case.

Keith Canham comes to mind: http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html
I often wonder whether B&H, Adorama and Freestyle actually have status as distributors.
In Canada, distribution is terrible. My favourite local retailer buys different products from different distributors, because no one distributor has comprehensive availability, reasonable response times and reasonable prices/minimum order requirements.
As I understand it, they actually buy some of the "consumer" film from distributors who sell mostly to drug stores and grocery stores.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Keith Canham comes to mind: http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html
I often wonder whether B&H, Adorama and Freestyle actually have status as distributors.
In Canada, distribution is terrible. My favourite local retailer buys different products from different distributors, because no one distributor has comprehensive availability, reasonable response times and reasonable prices/minimum order requirements.
As I understand it, they actually buy some of the "consumer" film from distributors who sell mostly to drug stores and grocery stores.

I have a wholesale account at freestyle. They’re distributors for a lot of things, and I do get a price break on Kodak color negative film, but I’m not sure that they’re official distributors as the price break I get isn’t dramatically less than what BH sells it for. It’s generally less than a 10% price difference. You can make money on it, as long as don’t waste cash unnecessarily on shipping supplies and stuff. It’s not a lot, but it’s something.

 

[MattKing]

I (and others I know) do achieve superior results with film.
But that is to a significant extent because that is where my/our knowledge and experience is. I also own and use higher quality film equipment than the digital equipment I can afford.
It is also because the quality of current films and papers is superb.
Film and analogue processes in general are an excellent alternative for those who are interested.

 

[removedacct1]

Film is a thing of the past, at least for most of the photographers and photos made today.
It's a niche, as everyone is saying, and as a niche it costs more than digital and it's more prone to speculation.
Superior results can be achieved by digital imho.
Who shoot film today is doing it for sentimental reasons I see, or the causal hipsters that have never seen a film camera in their lives. It's like in fashion.

Congratulations! We have a new record I think, for how long it takes for a conversation to devolve to calling new film enthusiasts "hipsters"!
Alessandro, if you believe digital tools give better results than film, why are you bothering to weigh in on this subject, since it apparently doesn't affect you?

As for the price increase - if a roll of Tmax 400 goes up by a dollar, that's well within the limits of what I can easily accept. Today, where I buy film, a roll of 35mm TMY is $5.79 and if it goes up a full 20%, that's still just under $7.00 which I find bearable. But this is all just speculation, isn't it.

 

[removedacct1]

Because I use digital for color works, and film for b&w work.

Are you shooting B&W film for sentimental reasons, then? Or maybe you're a hipster?!

 

[Ariston]

Not really.
Companies will always try to increase profitability.
Sometimes that means charging less per unit, in order to sell more and make more money overall.
And sometimes that means charging less per unit in order to build market share and brand loyalty, particularly with respect to consumables, where there is often more money to be made from repeat purchases than from smaller numbers of purchases at higher margins.
There are still companies out there who are more interested in long term profitability than short term profitability.

That's what I mean by charging the most they can. They are not going to charge less in order to be nice, and they are not going to charge so much they aren't viable. They are going to charge as much as they can.

 

[brainmonster]

Superior results can be achieved by digital imho.
Who shoot film today is doing it for sentimental reasons I see, or the causal hipsters that have never seen a film camera in their lives. It's like in fashion.

Film has a different "character" than digital, it's mostly a matter of taste IMHO. I use both. It's true that film has a "sentimental quality" to it, I'm not sure if you're referring to the look of the images or the process, and certainly you can achieve better "sharpness and resolution" with digital, but the grain, imperfections, and "character" that come with film add a great quality.

I've also seen some amazing film photos that are done with DSLR "scanning", and taken with really high end equipment like Zeiss lenses, Leica cameras, etc. and of course you can shoot in medium format, which for most people, is not possible with digital.

On the other side, I've seen some people recreating the film "look" using digital, and it's pretty hard to tell the difference to be honest, but probably takes a bit of time.

Anyway, back to the topic, it is said that prices for film components are increasing which forced the price increase by Kodak, not market value, whether that's true or not, who knows. Fuji prices are still high, supposedly they raised the prices by a whopping 30% in June (supposedly also due to manufacturing costs). I hope that Kodak does not raise their prices by 30%, like Fuji has done:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3468855795/fujifilm-japan-to-increase-color-film-prices-by-30

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Film has a different "character" than digital, it's mostly a matter of taste IMHO. I use both. It's true that film has a "sentimental quality" to it, I'm not sure if you're referring to the look of the images or the process, and certainly you can achieve better "sharpness and resolution" with digital, but the grain, imperfections, and "character" that come with film add a great quality.

I've also seen some amazing film photos that are done with DSLR "scanning", and taken with really high end equipment like Zeiss lenses, Leica cameras, etc. and of course you can shoot in medium format, which for most people, is not possible with digital.

On the other side, I've seen some people recreating the film "look" using digital, and it's pretty hard to tell the difference to be honest, but probably takes a bit of time.

Anyway, back to the topic, it is said that prices for film components are increasing which forced the price increase by Kodak, not market value, whether that's true or not, who knows. Fuji prices are still high, supposedly they raised the prices by a whopping 30% in June (supposedly also due to manufacturing costs). I hope that Kodak does not raise their prices by 30%, like Fuji has done:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/3468855795/fujifilm-japan-to-increase-color-film-prices-by-30

It usually takes a while for the price increase to make it to the market as the various middle-men don't generally raise prices until they themselves have to pay the higher price, once they buy the next batch, meaning while they have stock and the older price, they'll keep it low to sell it out. I'm one of the few sellers (on Amazon at least) that raises prices on stuff I currently have in stock when the manufacturer raises prices even though I have still have stock at the older price. The way I see it, might as well set the price now as it'll be there sooner or later anyway.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Film is a thing of the past, at least for most of the photographers and photos made today.
It's a niche, as everyone is saying, and as a niche it costs more than digital and it's more prone to speculation.
Superior results can be achieved by digital imho.
Who shoot film today is doing it for sentimental reasons I see, or the causal hipsters that have never seen a film camera in their lives. It's like in fashion.

I agree that film is a thing of the past for most photographers, but not because it's more expensive, but rather because it's less convenient and slower. For a time early on in the digital transition, digital was quite a bit less expensive, however, a huge chunk of digital photography equipment has been getting eaten alive by cell phone cameras, and so now, if you want to buy a flagship digital camera and full complement of lenses, it's going to cost you a lot more than getting into film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I hope that the increased prices enable them to stay healthy and in business.

 

[brainmonster]

For a time early on in the digital transition, digital was quite a bit less expensive, however, a huge chunk of digital photography equipment has been getting eaten alive by cell phone cameras, and so now, if you want to buy a flagship digital camera and full complement of lenses, it's going to cost you a lot more than getting into film.

I don't quite follow, are you saying things along the lines of demand being higher that drives down prices?

Were top of the line digital cameras cheaper in the past?

I agree that cell phone cameras are eating up a lot of the lower-end photography equipment, but I guess I don't understand.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I don't quite follow, are you saying things along the lines of demand being higher that drives down prices?

Were top of the line digital cameras cheaper in the past?

I agree that cell phone cameras are eating up a lot of the lower-end photography equipment, but I guess I don't understand.

Yes, flagship digital cameras were cheaper in the past. The prices of new equipment has been going up because they aren't selling as many of them. When the Canon 5D Mark iV first came out, it was a $4000 body. Today, at holiday pricing levels, it's still a $2500 body and it's been out for *years*. When the original 5D came out, it was a $2500-3000 body if memory serves. When the Canon 1DX first came out, it was a $7000 body. The 1DX Mark II was $7500-$8000 when it first came out if memory serves correctly. Today, it's *still* $6000 (not including holiday pricing) for the body only and it's been out for *years*. Canon is about to replace it with the Mark III which will most certainly be more than $8000 for the body only. The newer bodies cost more because they aren't selling as many of them. In terms of performance, they might have better auto focus and be able to shoot video, but my old EOS-1n with it's motor drive shoots 12 frames a second. A whole whopping 2 frames a second less than Canon's fastest, most expensive modern camera. The autofocus in the EOS-1n might not be as good as the newer autofocus system, but it's no slouch. Lots and lots of award winning photos were taken with the EOS-1n. It's not a piece of junk for a camera.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend even $500 for a used EOS-1n (or similar) and then spend the remaining $5000+ dollars on film and processing. You'll be at it for a quite while before you've matched the cost of the digital body, which you'll be prompted to replace every 2-3 years. You can spend even less and get a film rebel body (or buy multiple bodies), buy the new 40mm pancake, and 50mm STM lens, and maybe a 35mm lens, and for less than $1000 you're set for general use film photography. If you do a lot of portraiture, then get the 50mm STM and the 85 1.4, or 100mm f2. Still less than $1000. Medium format has an even bigger price difference. To even get into a used digital medium format system you're looking at $10,000-15,000. I'd rather spend a lot less and shoot 120 or 4x5 sheet film, which I can get into for less than $2000 (with new equipment to boot!). That leaves $10,000 plus dollars to spend on film and processing, which by the way, you should be passing that cost onto your customers, so it's actually not really costing you anything. You're going to be at it for a while before you spend that much on film and processing, and 4x5 still provides a superior image over even medium format digital.

Is it as convenient as digital? No. Is it as fast? No. Is it a bad fit for environments that need a fast turnaround? yes. Does it provide extremely cost effective picture quality for time insensitive photographic uses? I think so. Buy hey, 5-10 years from now once you've spent an enormous amount of cash replacing that really expensive digital body a couple of times, I'll still probably be shooting that EOS-1n,120 film camera, and 4x5 film camera, and still will probably have spent less on film and processing than the cost of those bodies. So is digital less expensive today? I really don't think so. Like I said before, early on, it was because manufacturers did the standard forward price march where they kept adding new features at ever lower costs, just like what the computer industry did for the longest time until they couldn't sustain it any more. For digital cameras, that pretty much bottomed out for the big guys several years ago when the market hit saturation and they couldn't sustain lowering the price. Since then, each new camera body has generally not been a huge jump forward in performance or features, and the price absolutely has not gone down, it's gone up. A lot.

 

[Peter Schrager]

the writings on the wall for the camera makers. I'm seriously wondering which one of them has the inclination to re-introduce a film camera?
surely they can't have their heads buried in the sand for eternity. as the market decreases for digital due to phone cameras I'm curious as to why they can't start making new film cameras. I know there are a zillion older film cameras out there but they are getting old!