• 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 shooting itself in the foot

We really are in no position to be telling the film/paper companies how to price their product, so I'll consider the debate over how much the silver price actually affects film price to a business/academic debate.

If I were running a film business or any business seriously affected by raw material costs, I'd suspect their price changes are stepwise functions compared to the less even increases of raw materials. Perhaps if costs jumped 30c over several months, their increase of $1 could be a step up to cover past increases, current (30c) increases, and some future elbow room for raw material increases.

Shipping methods to avoid needless xraying may also be increasing costs. With increased security and synthesized paranoia, there are more hoops to jump through for efficient shipping and fewer options.

Ilford and Kodak are top tier film companies, and Ilford is probably the top tier paper company, so it's more of a quality choice rather than an ultra price sensitive commodity.
 
Like most I don't mind paying more for film, and yes film is still cheap. I will support Ilford until the end as they are supporting us. For me though it's not film I'm worried about, it's a price increase to paper that would hurt me more. I love MGWT, but it's already pushing the edge of my budget and most would agree it's already pricey, and an increase in cost would really hurt and may force me to look to other options, though I'd rather not.
 
I dont know about your format, but Kodak isn't cheaper if you shoot B&W sheet film. Its not even close
Click to expand...

It is, actually. I used to shoot HP5 in 4x5 because it was <$1 a sheet compared to Kodak which was $1.20 or so a sheet. After the last round of Ilford price increases, the price of HP5 went up to about $30 per box of 25 or $1.20, making it close enough in price that I switched to TMAX400, which I prefer. With this price increase, I'm more likely to stay with TMAX 400, although there's nothing to say that Kodak won't increase their prices too.
 
jp498 said:
We really are in no position to be telling the film/paper companies how to price their product, so I'll consider the debate over how much the silver price actually affects film price to a business/academic debate. ...
Click to expand...

Yes we are. We tell them how to price it by buying it, in what quantity and frequency or not buying it at all. They control the supply and attempt to control the demand through marketing and advertising but we control the demand really. If it gets priced too high we'll look for alternatives or use less but then it may go away entirely.
 
chriscrawfordphoto said:
I've always preferred Kodak film anyway, and have a hard time understanding why people here are so hostile to Kodak.
Click to expand...

Not hostility, Chris. Informed pragmatic opinion.

Ilford says that they are committed to the long-term manufacture of film and paper and a full line of analog B&W darkroom supplies. They have said publicly they want to be in the film business for as long as possible.

Kodak says that they want to transition away from film manufacture and into other non-film replacement lines of business that they feel show higher growth potential. They have said publicly they want to be out of the film business as soon as possible.

Given that the vast majority of those here are present because they wish to continue using film, what's a logical person supposed to conclude?

Ken
 
I can shoto TMAX 400 in everything from my Pen F to my 4x5. Ilford does not make a TMAX 400 in 4x5, or anything like it. Given that, what's a logical person supposed to conclude?

If Ilford sold Delta 400 in sheets I might consider switching, but as long as I can standardize on TMAX I'll be yellow. Maybe if I shot 8x10 I'd already be switching to Ilford.
 
I have a pretty good stock of 120 film in my freezer right now, enough to last a couple of years at the rate I use it. By then, the silver prices will have returned to more reasonable levels and all the film manufacturers will drop their prices to reflect theirs savings.

Peter Gomena
 

Rant understood.

By the way, thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that what I posted was not really what I meant to say .

When I posted: "It would be very interesting to see data relating the exchange rates for UK currency (vs US$, CDN$ and AUS$, for instance) and the prices for Ilford product in those three countries."

I ought to have posted: "It would be very interesting to see data relating the exchange rates for UK currency (vs US$, CDN$ and AUS$, for instance) and the prices for Ilford product in those three countries, as they have varied over time."

My intent was to reference the role that currency exchange issues were playing in the situation.

Oh well.
 

Perhaps you're right in that case. Tri-X and Hp5 aren't close in 8x10 format, and that's all I compared.
 

Point taken. You are correct that the two company's product lines are not a perfect match.

However, my argument had more to do with the long-term stability of the major players than with any single, specific product.

As anyone who has worked hard to standardize on any particular film knows, it takes a great deal of time and effort to arrive at consistent, predictable results. Knowing that the supplier of my film intends to be around for the long haul thus becomes a major part of the selection criteria for me.

For example, it wasn't that long ago I seem to remember purchasing several rolls of Kodachrome and running exposure sequences to standardize my equipment use to Dwayne's processing. That was not an inexpensive effort. But it was obviously a wasted one.

And since I do shoot 8x10 - with all of the increased expenses that go along with that - I want to know my film company is not trying to exit the film business as soon as possible. And if that means paying a little more, I will.

Ken
 
Well if it is any consolation I was talking to someone at our one remaining camera store who shoots and prints exclusively digital and uses a fairly expensive printer/bulk ink set up for both B&W and color. He told me that the distributor for his particular inks let him know ink prices for would be increasing about 30% by the end of this year.

If film photography and wet darkroom printing is something you enjoy then you will have to make sacrifices somewhere else in your budget to keep doing it. About three years ago I sold off most of my ULF gear as I could no longer afford the film. I wanted to make sure if I was exposing a piece of film in 11x14 that it would not have mfg flaws so I used Ilford. At $7 a sheet it was no longer affordable and actually became stressful. I decided it was more feasible to shoot 6x7 MF and then make digital ULF negatives. With MF and 4x5 I can still support Ilford.
 
Back when I worked at the camera store, mark-up on film and paper averaged between 20-25%. However, a number of people had 10% off due to art classes, photo club memberships, etc which is off the retail price. In the end, the average mark-up was 10-15%; remember that that 10-15% has to cover shipping, marketing, labour (the person at the counter), rent of the store, heat/power/water, dead loss, etc. Asking photo stores to reduce their mark-up is unrealistic, especially as any unsold, out-dated product is the stores responsibility and not the manufacturer.
 
The cheapest part of analog photography is chemicals. Next comes paper and then film.

In the past, those three were the least expensive part of photography; cameras were the real, lifetime cost drivers.

Now cameras are cheap and even with the costs of chemicals, paper and film, the overall costs of analog photography have never been cheaper and analog photography is still cheaper than digital.

Count your blessings.

Steve
 
Sirius Glass said:
.... Now cameras are cheap and even with the costs of chemicals, paper and film, the overall costs of analog photography have never been cheaper and analog photography is still cheaper than digital.

Count your blessings.

Steve
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!
 

Very true....I've been lucky enough to pick up several items of high quality equipment, particularly lenses, in "mint" condition, for an almost negligible cost. I could never have afforded or justified these at anything like their original prices, or even at their second-hand prices in pre-digital times.......and certainly couldn't afford the current cost of a new equivalent for a digital camera body.
 
If it was not for the digital revolution, I would not have been able to have more than one 35mm camera. Now I have three plus I have a large Hasselblad kit with two cameras, and many lenses, plus two 4x5 cameras and I was just given a single frame 35mm camera that I could never afford. I have given away several 35mm cameras and Polaroids.


Steve
 
It'll be interesting to see how this affects the ULF film run later in the year, since it may well be that the cutting of the film greatly overshadows other factors. I seem to recall that quarterplate was almost as expensive as wholeplate last year, so it may be that the silver price hike may not hit the run too much. :confused:
 

But what other companies other than Ilford allows special orders of custom cut film?
 
I've used Ilford paper and film for years. I've switched over to Foma products recently due to my budget. Ilford is an excellent company, but I wish I could still buy their products.
 

I think anyone who places any trust in anything any business corporation says regarding their future plans is setting themselves up for disappointment. The reality is that Kodak will keep making film so long as it makes them money, as will Ilford. Ilford may want to stay in film forever, but they may well end up bankrupt if sales drop too low for them (not saying thats happening, but we've seen lots of great companies suddenly die over the years in and out of the photo industry) and kodak may make film for as long as they exist. All you can do is buy the film you like best and support the manufacturer that way. I support Kodak because their film is better suited to my work.

If they got out of it I'd probably try to invest in a Leica M9 or whatever model they make when that happens. Its the only digital camera I've seen I can stand the ergonomics of and the image quality is good. I'd rather just use Kodak film though
 
Wayne said:
I dont know about your format, but Kodak isn't cheaper if you shoot B&W sheet film. Its not even close
Click to expand...

I shoot 120 and 35. Those are cheaper by quite a bit, plus I can buy Kodak film locally and I have to order Ilford and pay shipping on top of their higher prices. The little local camera store here still sells the Kodak BW films I like in 35 and 120: Tri-X and Tmax 100 and 3200.
 
All prices have gone up due to the higher Silver price since 12 months ago. First Efke (mainly because they have hardly a possibility to invest in a Silver stock), then Foma and now the other companies. Looking at Efke and Foma it's about 10-12%. It's inevitable due to the development on the world market of metalls. But also some products become cheaper: Like Rodinal, dropped 10% in price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register