Ilford, easy on the price increases...

[Kodachromeguy]

Incidentally I wonder if that disc that Dr Strangelove is using as a calculator albeit with some difficulty due to his hand not always doing what it is told was in fact a Johnson exposure meter device that Peter Sellers borrowed from a cameraman on the set?

He may have been using a circular slide rule.

 

[retina_restoration]

Even the last few months, and Ilford prices jump. Saw bulk Delta 400 around $105-115 earlier this year. Thought to pick one up, now it's $135-140. . Please don't chase Kodak..

At that price, a 36 exposure roll of Delta 400 is approximately $6.50, so it's still a significant savings. The price of a finished roll of Delta 400 is $12.50 - the financial advantage of buying a bulk roll is obvious.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I hope Ilford will not follow Kodak's path in raising prices too much or else it will begin to lose clients and sales will suffer.

Both raise prices when they need to. They do not do studies and investigations to figure out when and how much to raise prices to piss you off. It is business; it is not personal.

 

[MattKing]

Both Kodak and Ilford have been hit hard by a number of material issues. The relative unavailability and high prices for the cellulose triacetate substrate material that they both need to source for most/all of their existing product lines is a major one.

 

[harlequin]

I found an early 1980s pop photo magazine and looked at the full page advert from freestyle, those were the days lots of large format films cheap, sale on PlusX and photo papers galore, very sobering considering the state of analog supplies today.

When I worked at Molsons Brewery in Western Canada, the brewmasters that came over from Germany said we have country and western.
Translation we have Lager and Pilsner.

Enjoy

Harlequin

 

[harlequin]

My industry sources indicate if film/paper prices go up much more, there is a negative correlation to the sales of said analog film cameras in other words, 10 rolls of film cost more than the nikkormat/k1000/ Canon Ftb that cost less than $100/us on the used market. Luckily KEH and Roberts UPP sell more recent (digital) equipment to offset any analog slowdown. Maybe prices will retreat or we will have to get Dylan Mulvaney to do some of his so called influencing, just ask shareholders of AB/Budweiser.

 

[Brad Deputy]

At that price, a 36 exposure roll of Delta 400 is approximately $6.50, so it's still a significant savings. The price of a finished roll of Delta 400 is $12.50 - the financial advantage of buying a bulk roll is obvious.

Wholly agree. And a better per roll vs bulk deal than Kodak.

I haven't heard if Ultrafine Finesse film has been identified (not Foma, not Kentmere) but it sure is tempting at $62.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Buy film when it is on sale and store it in the freezer. Thaw it out and make sure it is warm before opening. When you buy up film you are keeping it from the hoarders!

I don't know, Wouldnt that make you the hoarder?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know, Wouldnt that make you the hoarder?

No, I am keeping the film from the hoarders.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

At that price, a 36 exposure roll of Delta 400 is approximately $6.50, so it's still a significant savings. The price of a finished roll of Delta 400 is $12.50 - the financial advantage of buying a bulk roll is obvious.

Whoa!! Last 400 bulk roll I bought was $105.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Whoa!! Last 400 bulk roll I bought was $105.

When you bought that bulk roll, think about all that film you saved from the hoarders!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Both Kodak and Ilford have been hit hard by a number of material issues. The relative unavailability and high prices for the cellulose triacetate substrate material that they both need to source for most/all of their existing product lines is a major one.

In Kodak's case, that's yet another negative consequence of a bad management decision. Namely, the shutting down of in-house acetate film base manufacturing.

 

[MattKing]

In Kodak's case, that's yet another negative consequence of a bad management decision. Namely, the shutting down of in-house acetate film base manufacturing.

I'd suggest that there are two types of unfortunate decisions that were made in those times. Almost all of which were made in the context of a desperate need to reduce costs.
The decisions made on issues like this were reasonably based on all the indications and trends extant - all indications were that the film market was going to essentially go away. It was reasonable at that time to expect that there would be no need to have in-house production.
A better crystal ball might have been the only way to avoid those decisions.
The other decisions made - selling off businesses that sold product outside of their core business to third parties, and attempting to start new, non-photographic businesses with hoped for similar margins to their old - those were bad decisions.
One thing though - unlike so many others, at least they are still around and producing (growing amounts) of product. Many others aren't. Of course, it took a bankruptcy remedy to make that possible.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Both Kodak and Ilford have been hit hard by a number of material issues. The relative unavailability and high prices for the cellulose triacetate substrate material that they both need to source for most/all of their existing product lines is a major one.

They shoud then coat their emulsion on a PET base then...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

In Kodak's case, that's yet another negative consequence of a bad management decision. Namely, the shutting down of in-house acetate film base manufacturing.

I'd suggest that there are two types of unfortunate decisions that were made in those times. Almost all of which were made in the context of a desperate need to reduce costs.
The decisions made on issues like this were reasonably based on all the indications and trends extant - all indications were that the film market was going to essentially go away. It was reasonable at that time to expect that there would be no need to have in-house production.
A better crystal ball might have been the only way to avoid those decisions.
The other decisions made - selling off businesses that sold product outside of their core business to third parties, and attempting to start new, non-photographic businesses with hoped for similar margins to their old - those were bad decisions.
One thing though - unlike so many others, at least they are still around and producing (growing amounts) of product. Many others aren't. Of course, it took a bankruptcy remedy to make that possible.

Distinguishing between "unfortunate" and "bad" decisions seems to put motivation above reality. Bad is bad, for whatever reason. I'm about as far from a Kodak basher as one can run into here, but gutting one's capabilities rather than mothballing them was and remains a bad decision.

 

[Brad Deputy]

They shoud then coat their emulsion on a PET base then...

Aye; I wish all photographic film for stills were produced in polyester.

 

[MattKing]

Anything new or re-introduced will likely be designed with PET base as part of the design criteria.
The re-engineering necessary to move a product from one substrate to another is somewhat difficult, time consuming and expensive.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

Anything new or re-introduced will likely be designed with PET base as part of the design criteria.

Then why Ilford Ortho or the recent Foma Ortho or Ferrania Orto are all still coated on triacetate base?

 

[hartacus]

Here's a thought. I wonder if the idea of using a salt mine formed after some exec or indeed engineer from Kodak saw Dr Strangelove. If the deepest mine-shafts were the potential saviour of mankind and the 1963 U.S. GDP could be re-established in about 100 years following the triggering of the Doomsday machine and the Earth's devastation then is there any reason to doubt the power of deep mines?

From now on I'm going to wonder whether the gels in Portal 2 were initially experimental film emulsions developed deep in those salt mines. Puts a different twist on the name Aperture Science.

 

[MattKing]

Then why Ilford Ortho or the recent Foma Ortho or Ferrania Orto are all still coated on triacetate base?

It was probably too expensive to do the engineering for PET.
The light piping issues might be more problematic as well for an ortho film - I don't know.

 

[pentaxuser]

It was probably too expensive to do the engineering for PET.
The light piping issues might be more problematic as well for an ortho film - I don't know.

Matt, does that indicate that EK has the money to invest in PET but neither Ilford nor Foma have? If they don't have the funds, does that not augur badly for both due to the problems that you mention in #54 with triacetate both in terms of availability and cost

It would appear that at best from the Ilford/Foma position that Kodak steals a march on Ilford and Foma on cost and at worst Ilford and Foma may have supply problems that may damage their ability to supply the market with enough film

Are those fair conclusions to be drawn from your earlier post and if not what other conclusions have you drawn based on #54?


Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

It is way more complex than that.
Harman/Ilford may have the money to do the work for a big seller like HP5+ - because of the estimated time it will take to achieve a return on that investment - while not having the money to do that for a niche within a niche product like Ortho film.
In Kodak's case, their volumes for something like Gold 200 or Portra 400 are much higher than the likely volumes for HP5+, so those return on investment calculations are different in that way. And Kodak's volumes for Tri-X are lower than the likely volumes for HP5+, so those return on investment calculations are different in that way.
One additional benefit that Kodak enjoys, but I believe Harman/Ilford lacks, is that Kodak already manufactures PET substrate themselves, in relatively high volumes.
All of these sorts of decisions are based on return of investment calculations. If they weren't we would still have 220 film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Matt So is Kodak only in the process of transferring all its Gold and Portra 400 film's base to PET because of its volumes but not doing so with Tri-X because the volume sold does not meet the return on investment calculations

Have I got that right now? So which Kodak films will be transferred to PET other than Portra and Gold 200?

Ilford on the other hand may have only the right volumes of sale for HP5+ to make a transfer to PET viable so runs the risk of supply and cost problems that you mention. As presumably does Kodak if it isn't transferring its lower volume films to PET as well


Yes you are right it does all sound way more complex than I had thought. Mind you so much of Kodak does sound complex and just when I think I have understood the Kodak position it seems that I do not

That's why I need to ask questions and then be sure I have understood your answers completely. I have just realised another reason why I post so much. I feel sure my brain is saying to me it needs the exercise to stop it atrophying. Kodak matters do seem to serve this purpose rather well as a brain-stretcher

pentaxuser

 

[Steve Roberts]

A head of cauliflower is $6 now. All the base inputs that ilford needs have increased substantially.

I never knew that cauliflower was a constituent of photographic materials!!

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt So is Kodak only in the process of transferring all its Gold and Portra 400 film's base to PET because of its volumes but not doing so with Tri-X because the volume sold does not meet the return on investment calculations

Who knows? I don't know that they currently are "in the process".
We don't have the numbers.
And we don't know if the financial question is different for 120 and 135 - the engineering is different for both, as are the volumes.
And if they don't have the capital available to do it all at once, it may be that circumstances will change in the meantime with respect to availability and price for cellulose triacetate.
It may be that they will never have the capital available to do more of this - money is a lot more expensive now than it was just a short time ago.