... and I'm wondering when "shrinkflation" will hit the film industry. Some day I'm expecting a 36-exposere roll fo film that really only yields 32 exposures.
Due to inflation, very few things go down in price. After all, labor costs, utility costs, chemicals, taxes, everything it takes to run a business is going up. Of course, if demand goes up enough and their costs to make each roll sold goes down, you might see a small decrease. But that could be offset by greater demand which often causes suppliers to raise prices to increase profits. In any case, I wouldn't bet too much on hope.
... and I'm wondering when "shrinkflation" will hit the film industry. Some day I'm expecting a 36-exposere roll fo film that really only yields 32 exposures.
... and I'm wondering when "shrinkflation" will hit the film industry. Some day I'm expecting a 36-exposere roll fo film that really only yields 32 exposures.
The swines making chocolate bars pulled that stunt in the late 50s or early 60s in the U.K when scrawny kids needed the calories I can only remember one fat kid at my school whose fat problem was so slight that a doctor nowadays would kick him and his mother out of the surgery for wasting his time
... and I'm wondering when "shrinkflation" will hit the film industry. Some day I'm expecting a 36-exposere roll fo film that really only yields 32 exposures.
When I got a field camera in my early 20's, 100 sheets 4x5 TRI-X used to be 40 sumthin' bucks.Have you not seen the 10-sheet boxes of sheet film that Kodak makes now? Compared to the 50-sheet boxes that were typical in "the old days?"
Chocolate bars seem to shrink every decade or so, but the packaging does reflect the weight of chocolate inside the wrapper.
If anyone were to state on the box that a film has 36 exposures when they typically have only 32, they'd be in trouble.
Maybe roll length will change, if that is what the market wants. But 24 and 36 seem popular and, in the vast majority of cases, useful roll lengths. Sure, some of us might appreciate 18 or 20....but that's one of the reasons why I bulk roll B&W. I would imagine offering a third size/length would not be economically viable for Kodak or anyone else at this point....hence the 12 exposure rolls being long gone.
I certainly do not expect or much hope that film prices will drop. I'm just repeating what Kodak have said several times, including someone who personally spoke to me from KA last year. Price reductions are unlikely, but the only way they could ever happen is if we all keep buying lots more film.
I always bought 36 shot rolls thinking I'm saving, But then, the film wouldn't be finished and wound up sitting in the cameras for months until I got over my cheapness and just rewound it before finishing and got it processed. Especially when the last roll of ten was from a vacation I shot.
I always bought 36 shot rolls thinking I'm saving, But then, the film wouldn't be finished and wound up sitting in the cameras for months until I got over my cheapness and just rewound it before finishing and got it processed. Especially when the last roll of ten was from a vacation I shot.
Alan, sounds like you may not be one of those on whom we can rely to lower film prices by buying what I assume to be mountains more film
pentaxuser
when I was selling Photo products, only one customer caught on to my standrd pitch. way way back then a roll of 12 or 20 exposures of Kodacolor was something like 1.20 vs 1.85 - deleoping was something like 2.50, and then so much a print. I always sugested the customers would save money of they sprung for the 20 exp roll. lower cost per print.I always bought 36 shot rolls thinking I'm saving, But then, the film wouldn't be finished and wound up sitting in the cameras for months until I got over my cheapness and just rewound it before finishing and got it processed. Especially when the last roll of ten was from a vacation I shot.
when I was selling Photo products, only one customer caught on to my standrd pitch. way way back then a roll of 12 or 20 exposures of Kodacolor was something like 1.20 vs 1.85 - deleoping was something like 2.50, and then so much a print. I always sugested the customers would save money of they sprung for the 20 exp roll. lower cost per print.
of course folks with Kids would be back in a week in either case. I did not feel the slightest guilt - figuring in 20 years they would appreciate the extra shots of the Kids growing up. and even if I only got a 6% commission, every little bit of sales helped. (it was 9% on flash Bulbs and batteries so no one got away without being asked if they needed flash)
As I say, only one customer caught on and asked for a 12 exp roll. I susgested this to the rest of the Staff, and the Buyer wonderedd why OUR store was selling 20 exp rolls and having excess 12s. (the price tickets had a date code and we were supposed to sell stuff like that in 3 months after getting it). He shook his head and adjusted our locations targeted inventory for more 20 exp rolls.
Just so I understand what you're saying. 20 shot rolls with printing were less per shot than 12 or 36. Is that correct?
Yep...
[edit] But as a stockholder, I probably would prefer he said, "as long as their is PROFIT"
But for how long? Is film here to stay permanently? In other words; did we reach an equilibrium? Or is this just temporary?Demand is up, the problem currently facing Kodak and FujiFilm is how to reliably fulfil that demand.
That is probably closer to the mark.
But when and what point does it become unprofitable? The main problem may be a few years away, but the end will inevitably come when the drop of in sales is caused by the number of working cameras. With the sales of new film cameras being virtually nil compared to even 15 years ago. Getting hold of a good'un is getting a little bit harder even now.
these were mostly customers using 126 and later 110 cameras. so 12 or 20 were your choice. the 20 eveolved in 24, and it was hard to explain why a camera that for years only took 20 shots now could take 24. some folks did not believe me.Just so I understand what you're saying. 20 shot rolls with printing were less per shot than 12 or 36. Is that correct?
these were mostly customers using 126 and later 110 cameras. so 12 or 20 were your choice. the 20 eveolved in 24, and it was hard to explain why a camera that for years only took 20 shots now could take 24. some folks did not believe me.
Kodak have repeatedly said that lower prices are unlikely. But that the only way prices will ever stabilise or get lower is if we buy lots more Kodak film and if the demand keeps rising.
Ilford give a similar message.
I've no read all posts so I'll ask the IMPORTAINT question; just WHERE does the threshold of sufficient sales for, either company, lie?
What a cute request.
I'll answer. A million rolls. That's the threshold. For both companies. Open your wallet to the tune of a million rolls and you'll get that discount you're obsessing over. You're welcome.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?