Ilford film price increase

[Agulliver]

The price of virtually everything has gone up but so have the incomes. Let us face it, Photography with film can appear to be expensive but compare that with the prices way back in 1962 when I started . I was taking home only £5 a week not enough to pay tax on.. The nearest equivalent job nowadays allowing for promotion over the years I would be on roughly £100K+ a year. So what appears to be a draconian increase, is in perspective just the world where everything increases in price. Compare that to another product fuel for my car. I wasn't old enough to drive in 1962, but fuel was the equivalent of about 25 pence a gallon (US gallons are smaller than UK ones) Now priced per litre it is around £1.30 a litre and there are 4.546 litres to a UK gallon. We really should look at it in perspective.

Indeed, when people say "But in 1985 it was xx dollarpounds" I look around at inflation, price of other items, average wages and so on. Often these products that have been on the shelves for many years, like Ilford HP5, or Kodacolor really aren't much more expensive in real terms than they were back in the day.

I'm on just above average wage. I can afford to shoot over a hundred rolls of film a year, about 70% of which is B&W. I also collect vinyl records and travel a fair bit. My wife is similarly employed on a salary just a smidge below mine. I do not feel constrained in my film use.

And film is very much a niche product these days. The price is going to increase, as it has done every year for as long as I've been taking notice. It's not just the silver price, though that is a big part of Harman's annual expenditure, it's the other raw materials, pay rises for staff, R&D costs, rent/mortgage on their buildings, no doubt they will have to start paying back the loan/investment Lloyds made with them. All on products that might well be world leaders in their class but which represent a niche within a niche....some of them are pretty obscure, unusual products.

 

[BMbikerider]

That's true for many things. When currency inflation is considered and real wage growth is taken into account, prices for many things are not remarkably higher. For example, an average car in 1960 was in $2600 range which would be around $50,000 today. If anything, the real price of cars has gone down (not to mention the multitude of features new cars have that a 1960s vehicle did not).

However, what this doesn't take into account that in nations like the US where there is an income tax, the inflation-driven increases in income have not had full corresponding tax bracket indexing. This represents a growth in cost due to higher incremental income taxation over time. Similarly, the current tariff posture of the US is effectively a form of taxation on the consumer here.

I am taking no particular policy position here, only noting that the math is the math. The current incremental cost of Ilford product in the US maps almost perfectly to the tariff rates on UK goods as I understand it.

So while goods may be about the same or even less expensive today, a full accounting would require taking into effect all tax, tariff, VAT, and so on implications as well.

You can really see this with the cost of film. I started shooting Tri-X 120 around 1970. It was something like $2.50 per roll. Adjusted for currency inflation, that would be about $21 today. So, in real terms, even assuming some error in my estimates, Tri-X 120 has gone down in price quite a bit.

I also remember a 36 exposure Kodachrome (original only 10 ISO) was around in your currency valuation at the time about $4 how much would that be today? A 35mm/36 exp cassette of Ilford FP3 (FP4 was in the future) was about 25 pence, it can be anything up to £10 a roll. so as in most things the prices are about relevant. The only thing I can think of that is more costly in real terms is the price of buying a house.
My parents bought our home in around 1952 for something like a little less than £1000. After my father died in 1970 , mother sold it 2 years later for £4500. 10 years ago after a major restoration (It was built in 1856) it was sold for Close on £600,000.

 

[retina_restoration]

People have been complaining about how expensive film photography is for decades. Our current situation isn't a major shift. Either you pay for the materials you want, or don't.
I'm sorry to say that Ilford films are no longer something I will buy, because years ago I set an upper limit for what I would pay: $10 USD per sheet of FP4+ in 8x10, and we have now exceeded that figure. Delta 400 in 120 format is now between $12 and $13.50, depending on the retailer, whereas TMY in 120 is about $9.00
When I run out of my Ilford films cached in the fridge, I suspect that's going to be it for me. Sorry Ilford. I hope I'm an outlier and that you can continue to make excellent film products without my $$.

 

[Milpool]

"Buy or buy not. There is no afford."

 

[chuckroast]

I also remember a 36 exposure Kodachrome (original only 10 ISO) was around in your currency valuation at the time about $4 how much would that be today?

According to my friendly neighbourhood AI, $4 in 1970 equates to $33 today.

I read a book some years ago which laid to waste the many doomsday complaints we hear all the time. In it, an economist explained how nearly everything - health, wealth, poverty, safety, environment, technology ... - has steadily improved over the past 100 years. No doubt the efficiencies of technology are in large measure responsible for the real cost of film going down so precipitously. (It's Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years", Moore & Simon)