• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford film price increase


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.
 

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.
 
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 $$.
 
BMbikerider said:
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?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Check out the beef prices. All time high, still hasn't dampened the enthusiasm for a good piece of the stuff. I couldn't have a pet steer, I would be too tempted ....
 
Bulk load and home development, Arista branded Foma and sometimes Orwo -- > these are the way to keep costs down. Fortunately I like the look of Fomapan 100, 200. Not sure what I'd do if I were a color film shooter.
 
You can buy 36 exposure 35mm color negative only slightly expired for $7/roll on B&H right now, if you like rebranded Kodak Gold.
 
We need to keep in mind that every central financial institution in the world has a stated purpose of inflating the currency in an effort to stimulate the economy
 

The '70 Kodachrome price probably included developing too. Film has always been expensive, but I think the prices from 15-20 years ago were a bit artificially deflated due to the digital revolution.
 
Last edited:
I've had a habit over the last 15 years of whenever buying chemicals, to just buy a couple hundred feet of B&W film too, to make the shipping costs worthwhile, whether I needed it or not. Cold stored it'll last many years past the expiration date. Still have a couple bricks of EFKE, but should have purchased more commercial loads, because that's what you need for plane travel.
 
Steve York said:
the prices from 15-20 years were a bit artificially deflated due to the digital revolution
Click to expand...

They absolutely were. So you just need the big shiny next new thing to distract people again and film will be cheap.
 
loccdor said:
They absolutely were. So you just need the big shiny next new thing to distract people again and film will be cheap.
Click to expand...

Well, the last time it happened, most film manufacturers went bankrupt or into receivership - including Ilford - and the continuing existence of manufacturing capacity was seriously in doubt.
So I don't think that is necessarily what we "need".
 
Yes, I am mostly kidding.
 
I thought you might have been.
 
Pray the trend mongers/influencers continue to captivate the masses. Without the newbies film is done. Thus Fujifilm's push of Instax. Gotta keep drawing in new users, of any demographic.
 
  • Arghgee
  • Deleted
  • Reason: politics and controversy
A worthwhile consideration....i think..... back when i bought by first Leica M2, I was fed & housed by my parents...took the bus to university. My net worth was my Leica and my Gibson acoustic guitar. These days we're much much older.....have a $1000 cell phone, a laptop or home computer.... paid for house & car....retirement savings....& we're going to gripe about the cost of a roll of film?
 
Is this the old fogey section?
Good.
Back around 1976 I was heavily using my first decent SLR - a Nikkormat FT2 - out shooting rolls of Ektachrome every weekend at motorsports events.
Looking back I wonder how I afforded it, as I was also running a car, paying digs, and smoking plus drinking socially. I wasn't earning big bucks at the time, just a normal trade wage.
I do recall being a bit miffed at the processing costs, but meh, it comes with the territory.
Now, on a pension, I have a fridge full of colour and b&w film, a cabinet full of cameras and I gripe at the cost of film.
 
  • chuckroast
  • Deleted
  • Reason: response to deleted post
I like buying film. I know that I'm supporting something that I love. No ones getting rich (except maybe those Cinestill boys )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register