Kodak 8x10 prices increased

[Mahler_one]

I will soon need some additional sheets of the new Tmax 400 in 8x10. To my dismay, I note that on all of the sites from which I look to purchase film, Kodak has increased its price by about 10%. Thus, a sheet of the new Tmax is now over $5.00 without including the cost of tax and shipping. I appreciate the new film that Kodak has developed, and understand their need to make a profit. I don't like to "bash" Kodak, and simply note that it is likely that for an indeterminate number of film users, Kodak 8x10 Tmax will become a luxury that will be harder to justify when the high quality films from Ilford are available at so much less money. I have already switched from Tmax 100 to Delta 100, and the switch to HP5 is likely. My opinion only of course.

 

[CBG]

I just looked at B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, and Badger Graphics. I was sure I would be declaring this to be one more unfounded price/availability rumor, but it appears to have a real basis in fact.

. . . . . . . . . .Tmax100 . . . Tmax400 . . . .TriX
B&H . . . . . . .$46.99 . . . . . $51.99 . . . . $46.99
Badger. . . . . $45.95. . . . . $48.95. . . . . $44.95
Adorama. . . .$46.95. . . . . .$52.95. . . . . $49.95
Freestyle. . . .$49.99. . . . . $54.99. . . . . $55.99

Badger is lowest at the moment on Tmax 400. The rest are over $5 a sheet.

 

[wildbill]

Either they continue to make film or die, there ain't a damn thing we can do about it. Commercial photography isn't analog anymore so sales are only going to get worse, especially for LF film.
As I've said before, when they stop making motion picture film, we're in trouble. Go see movies shot on film. Avatar ain't one of 'em.

 

[Mahler_one]

Afraid you might be correct.....I guess the next step is to buy a giant freezer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Profit margin is essential for a business to survive and be healthy. Kodak will get whatever margin the market will bear.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

It's news like this that makes collodion in the larger sizes even more attractive! I do have a kodak 2D coming in the mail for use with wet plate, but would like to try some 8x10 film with aswell. At this point, I am hoping to try TXP320 in that size. Once I get some holders. Like Thomas said, Kodak charges what the market will bear for film... It's a luxury and a niche market that will command higher prices as the masses continue to give up film and go digital.. Long term viability is anyones guess during these times.

 

[Mahler_one]

Andrew....can you give us some idea about the cost of making a collodion print, 8x10? I have absolutely no experience in the process, and I am curious if the cost of the "negative" is any less then a sheet of Tmax 8x10, i.e., about $5.25. One would imagine that all things being equal, the time needed to make a collodion print might be greater than that needed for an 8x10 made from TMax, but I have no idea if my supposition is correct. Thanks.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I would much rather see an increase in price than see the films get discontinued!!

 

[F80p]

Price increase is a precursor to discontinuity!

 

[doughowk]

The T-Max 400 is a great film; but, if you are just contact printing with it & the two-stop increase is not critical, why pay almost double the current prices of Efke & Adox? For ULF, the safest choice based on quality & price is I believe still Ilford.

 

[Ektagraphic]

By the looks of this thread, although short, I feel like these Kodak films are being abandoned and they will be discontinued from lack of sales.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I have just started using TMax films again. TMax 400 seems to have the same sized grain as FP4+, but with two stops faster speed. And I am getting really nice results with it. That quality is worth the price for me. I still like Acros better than Tmax 100, but that is probably just familiarity. So recently I have been coming back to Kodak.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...if you are just contact printing with it & the two-stop increase is not critical, why pay almost double the current prices of Efke & Adox?...

Many people "know the price of all things and the value of none." This is a classic example. Searching the Internet for stories of images ruined by defective film from lower-tier suppliers will make the answer to your question apparent.

...For ULF, the safest choice based on quality & price is I believe still Ilford.

Ilford, Kodak and Fuji are film suppliers with first-tier quality. Unfortunately, Ilford is the only one of those three that offers ULF film. Therefore, I agree. However, I wonder why, if quality is the determining criterion in ULF, it doesn't drive a similar decision in 8x10.

 

[Mahler_one]

The T-Max 400 is a great film; but, if you are just contact printing with it & the two-stop increase is not critical, why pay almost double the current prices of Efke & Adox? For ULF, the safest choice based on quality & price is I believe still Ilford.

I agree Doug....good advice, well given. However, Ilford is certainly the quality film manufacturer amongst the ones you listed, and I will definitely stay with Ilford rather than switch to one of the other brands....too many problems with Efke to be comfortable day in and day out. I know others here have raved about Efke, and I am pleased that their results have been consistently on the mark.

 

[Mahler_one]

By the looks of this thread, although short, I feel like these Kodak films are being abandoned and they will be discontinued from lack of sales.

Yes. It would be reassuring to have Kodak make a similar statement as Ilford recently released as to the availability of Tmax and their other films.

 

[doughowk]

I wonder why, if quality is the determining criterion in ULF, it doesn't drive a similar decision in 8x10

Sal, most of my 8X10s are repeatable; but the 7X17 is such an effort that I won't trust Efke - bad experiences. If the subject is not repeatable, then I agree use best film possible; and that's one of the big three.

 

[removed account4]

Price increase is a precursor to discontinuity!

huh?
don't think so ...

kodak has been increasing their prices on films since i can remember
( i began paying attention in the early 1980s). ... it used to be twice a year they would raise their prices.

photography has always been expensive ... in the 1800s, 1900s and now, this is nothing new.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...If the subject is not repeatable, then I agree use best film possible; and that's one of the big three.

The time, effort and resources required to repeat something would be more than enough to deter me from that approach. Seems like false economy, no matter how inexpensive the film might be. Even in 8x10.

 

[doughowk]

When I go in the field with an 8X10, I carry three films (Kodak T-Max 400, Ilford FP-4 and Adox Pan 25). It gives me flexibility to try different things. If I need to play it safe, FP-4 is my 1st choice.

 

[Mahler_one]

Those 8x10 holders can add up Doug...I agree about the multiple films though the weight can become unacceptable unless one works very close to the car or truck!

 

[wogster]

Price increase is a precursor to discontinuity!

Not always, the costs of raw materials and the costs of staying up on environmental concerns, especially in the Western world, are steadily increasing. The costs of labour and transportation are also increasing, so the price of the final product goes up. A big question of course is when the last round of price increases took place for these products?

 

[CBG]

I'm not sure the cheapest films are a real world bargain. Uncertain quality control can leave too many defects for dependable results. The higher prices annoy me, but losing lots of work due to film defects would leave me seething. I would rather be annoyed than seething. My inclination is to stick to Kodak, Ilford and Fuji whenever I care about results. That said, I hope the rest of the manufacturers get their quality levels up. I would love to have a larger range of materials to choose from.

 

[bill schwab]

....can you give us some idea about the cost of making a collodion print, 8x10?

The print would be from the collodion negative and could be made via several processes. However, the cost of making the 8x10 collodion negative or plate would be similar to that of a sheet of film if you were to break down all the materials, specialized equipment and chemicals involved in creating and processing the plate.

 

[Maris]

I would be glad to pay Kodak $5 a sheet for 8x10 film provided they actually got the money.

Of course I don't know what a sheet of 8x10 costs to make, maybe $1, but the problem is that Kodak and other manufacturers only receive a fraction of what people pay. By selling direct to end users via an efficient packing and shipping department Kodak might double or triple their film returns in one stroke. Modern e-commerce transactions that eliminate export agents, importers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers (all of whom need their cut) could be the salvation of film companies.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I would be glad to pay Kodak $5 a sheet for 8x10 film provided they actually got the money.

Of course I don't know what a sheet of 8x10 costs to make, maybe $1, but the problem is that Kodak and other manufacturers only receive a fraction of what people pay. By selling direct to end users via an efficient packing and shipping department Kodak might double or triple their film returns in one stroke. Modern e-commerce transactions that eliminate export agents, importers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers (all of whom need their cut) could be the salvation of film companies.

Kodak should sell film directly to us...I would love to see the money from film sales show right up to them.