Kodak out of stock in Tokyo

[MattKing]

For a while, Beau Photo had no Kodak in 120, but lots of Ilford.

A couple of weeks ago, they had no Ilford, but they were re-stocked in Kodak.

The distributors in the middle have a lot to do with this.

 

[kb3lms]

KA is a UK based company whereas EK is a US based company. There are doubtless many credit and commercial agreements to be worked out through the distribution chain with a new business. Also note that films are out of stock, which means someone has bought them and therefore there IS demand. The KA people aren't going to be anymore forthcoming with information than EK/KA ever has. At this point indications are that Kodak film is still being manufactured, which is still the only commitment that actually matters.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Kodak's legal relations with distributors would have been assigned to Alaris in the restructuring deal.

As someone pointed out, this chain cosists of the same people doing the same thing as before the bankruptcy.

Or should be doing.

 

[madgardener]

I am not a distribution expert, and it doesn't really matter to me since the films I like appear to be discontinued anyway. My black and white film looks like it will be something from ADOX and Rollei, the slide film will be from Whittner/Agfa and Fuji, and my color negative film will be Agfa and Fuji. Kodak has long since killed any good will I may have had.

 

[RattyMouse]

At this point indications are that Kodak film is still being manufactured, which is still the only commitment that actually matters.

That's short term thinking....which has destroyed numerous American businesses. Commitment to the long term matters too, which is why I give all my business over to Ilford. They clearly think about more than the next batch.

 

[PKM-25]

There is reality and then there is emotional reaction to reality which often distorts it...

I just put 200 rolls of Tri-X in a cart at B&H and to ship to a suburb of Tokyo, it was about ¢.56 a roll for shipping before any form of duties or tariffs, that is $5.55 US a roll shipped. So if I lived in Japan and I wanted to order my Tmax-400 from B&H and it cost double the figure above when all said and done, you bet your behind I would do it, because I use the products I deem necessary to get the results I want, no matter who makes them.

Actual photographers problem solve and get on with making stellar images....Conversely, some enthusiasts like to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot piece of plywood and toss it in the air above them. Thankfully those who feed on relentlessly sharing their self induced headaches with everyone on APUG are very, VERY few.

 

[Michael W]

Actual photographers problem solve and get on with making stellar images....Conversely, some enthusiasts like to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot piece of plywood and toss it in the air above them. Thankfully those who feed on relentlessly sharing their self induced headaches with everyone on APUG are very, VERY few.

And easily put on ignore.

 

[StoneNYC]

There is reality and then there is emotional reaction to reality which often distorts it...

I just put 200 rolls of Tri-X in a cart at B&H and to ship to a suburb of Tokyo, it was about ¢.56 a roll for shipping before any form of duties or tariffs, that is $5.55 US a roll shipped. So if I lived in Japan and I wanted to order my Tmax-400 from B&H and it cost double the figure above when all said and done, you bet your behind I would do it, because I use the products I deem necessary to get the results I want, no matter who makes them.

Actual photographers problem solve and get on with making stellar images....Conversely, some enthusiasts like to paint the words "The Sky" on a 4x8 foot piece of plywood and toss it in the air above them. Thankfully those who feed on relentlessly sharing their self induced headaches with everyone on APUG are very, VERY few.

Just remember Dan, most people (even here) only shoot 20 rolls a year... Not 200, your always quoting "it's not so bad because X" but your examples often far outweigh those if normal mortals... Try your price at 5 rolls (which is more akin to the normal shooters purchase habit) and you'll see the difference.

I'm not complaining, I just dropped $80 on a 100 sheet box of 8x10 kodak x-ray film, and I'm glad it exists because it's super cheap (less than $1/sheet) but if they can produce that for x-ray, they sure as heck can produce something similar for normal film, but instead are jacking the price up. I think that's where the issue lies, if ilford can sell 25 sheets for $100 and kodak can make 100 sheets for $80 on one emulsion, they shouldn't need 10 times that amount ($85 for TMX 8x10) to make a profit on another emulsion of the same speed, TEN TIMES... in fact, x-ray being more specialized should cost more... And the double sided stuff should cost even more... But it costs even less... $30/100 sheets... For double the emulsion... That's 200 emulsion layers or whatever... That's 15 CENTS per enulsion or 30 cents per sheet... So where is all the money going for the single sided stuff that costs an arm and a leg??

People aren't blind, they see through the BS and that's what brings the emotion, they are being ripped off, and it pisses them off... And rightly so...

 

[PKM-25]

Just remember Dan, most people (even here) only shoot 20 rolls a year...

People aren't blind, they see through the BS and that's what brings the emotion, they are being ripped off, and it pisses them off... And rightly so...

Your opinion of what "People" think and do is kind of baseless unless you happen to know all "People". And "Most People" shooting 20 rolls a year...? That is 1.66 rolls per month, that kind of figure will sink everyone, Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, etc. I threw the 200 roll figure out there because it is a reasonable one for an enthusiast to fund given the break on shipping and how long it will keep even in the fridge. 200 rolls is *not* a lot of film sir...unless you are nearly broke all the time in which case, pick another hobby.

I'm not blind either and really, I want to save as much money as I can so I can buy a home for my wife and I one day. Like I said before, thankfully there are very few who like to rack up post counts all over the internet pissing and moaning, easy to ignore which is what I suspect most people do....

 

[StoneNYC]

Your opinion of what "People" think and do is kind of baseless unless you happen to know all "People". And "Most People" shooting 20 rolls a year...? That is 1.66 rolls per month, that kind of figure will sink everyone, Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, etc. I threw the 200 roll figure out there because it is a reasonable one for an enthusiast to fund given the break on shipping and how long it will keep even in the fridge. 200 rolls is *not* a lot of film sir...unless you are nearly broke all the time in which case, pick another hobby.

I'm not blind either and really, I want to save as much money as I can so I can buy a home for my wife and I one day. Like I said before, thankfully there are very few who like to rack up post counts all over the internet pissing and moaning, easy to ignore which is what I suspect most people do....

If you want to save money and DOUBLE your profit... Buy ilford which is HALF the cost of kodak.(in LF)

Dude I shoot a lot of film, mostly sheet film these days, but even I probably just barely break 200 rolls of 120 a year and maybe 30-50 rolls of 35mm.

And maybe 100-200 sheets per year.

And I'm a much bigger consumer than most on this site.

I would make a poll with multiple options for small format (35mm/126/110 etc) MF(which should include 120/620/616/116/127 etc) and LF (4x5, 8x10, etc) and ULF (11x14 and up)

Allow for multiple choices selected, and give 1-10rolls/sheets, 10-20, 20-50, 50-100, 100-300, 300-500, 500-1,000, 1,000+

And see where the chips lie for usage... I doubt many would be in the 100 range at all...

Sadly the poll won't allow that many options I don't think... It would have to have subcategories...

SF-
-1-10rolls/sheets,
-10-20
-20-50
-50-100
-100-300
-300-500
-500-1,000
-1,000+

MF-
-1-10rolls/sheets,
-10-20
-20-50
-50-100
-100-300
-300-500
-500-1,000
-1,000+

LF-
-1-10rolls/sheets,
-10-20
-20-50
-50-100
-100-300
-300-500
-500-1,000
-1,000+

ULF-
-1-10rolls/sheets,
-10-20
-20-50
-50-100
-100-300
-300-500
-500-1,000
-1,000+

Like that, in order to give any true and useful info...

 

[Nuff]

As someone who imports all of the film from overseas, it pretty much costs the same to import hp5 or trix. Now, I don't like the way hp5 looked and I liked trix.
Just this morning I had box of 13 x 35mm and 15 x 120 rolls of trix arrive from freestyle (for bigger order B&H is cheaper, for smaller freestyle or ebay).
It cost me US$5.20 per roll. I also ordered 20x Neopan 400 from ebay at $5.68 per roll.

I guess if all I have left is Ilford, that's what I will use, like Delta 3200.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

The question of how much film each individual is shooting is a bit irrelevant. If you add all the small and big users, it's still a lot of film that should be going around.

When supply shortages happen on several continents at the same time, it's obviously not a matter of a distributor not doing his job, it's a source problem.

Normally, if a business is having problems supplying their product to end-users, they get right on it. If it takes a while to fix, they tell their customers about it.

But I guess that only applies to businesses that are interested in selling their products.

(If people who talk about Alaris are boring and should be put on ignore, what about those who keep repeating "Buy HP5 instead"? I don't like it and I mainly use slow colour film.)

 

[MattKing]

Just remember Dan, most people (even here) only shoot 20 rolls a year... Not 200, your always quoting "it's not so bad because X" but your examples often far outweigh those if normal mortals... Try your price at 5 rolls (which is more akin to the normal shooters purchase habit) and you'll see the difference.

I'm not complaining, I just dropped $80 on a 100 sheet box of 8x10 kodak x-ray film, and I'm glad it exists because it's super cheap (less than $1/sheet) but if they can produce that for x-ray, they sure as heck can produce something similar for normal film, but instead are jacking the price up. I think that's where the issue lies, if ilford can sell 25 sheets for $100 and kodak can make 100 sheets for $80 on one emulsion, they shouldn't need 10 times that amount ($85 for TMX 8x10) to make a profit on another emulsion of the same speed, TEN TIMES... in fact, x-ray being more specialized should cost more... And the double sided stuff should cost even more... But it costs even less... $30/100 sheets... For double the emulsion... That's 200 emulsion layers or whatever... That's 15 CENTS per enulsion or 30 cents per sheet... So where is all the money going for the single sided stuff that costs an arm and a leg??

People aren't blind, they see through the BS and that's what brings the emotion, they are being ripped off, and it pisses them off... And rightly so...

To the best of my knowledge, Kodak hasn't manufactured X-Ray film since that part of their business was sold in 2007 to a business that is now known as Carestream.

They just licence their name now.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Normally, if a business is having problems supplying their product to end-users, they get right on it. If it takes a while to fix, they tell their customers about it.

It's a little like debating the subject of gravity with disbelievers, while comfortably reclining in lounge chairs out on the back deck...



Ken

 

[StoneNYC]

To the best of my knowledge, Kodak hasn't manufactured X-Ray film since that part of their business was sold in 2007 to a business that is now known as Carestream.

They just licence their name now.

Well that's good, then no wonder it's cheap, they are able to sustain their business and sell it, and still make a profit... Hmmmm

Well it's the same kodak emulsion just made by someone else ektascan... So.. I'll use it! Now I know when kodak goes out of business I can still buy the x-ray film

 

[PKM-25]

If Ilford in current form did not exist, I would be purrrretty uncomfortable about my choice to use black and white film and make darkroom prints as a future for my career. But they do exist and I love their products, so I buy them. And if the time comes that for whatever reason, I no longer buy Kodak products, I will use even more Ilford products.

But what I won't be doing is distracting my self from the sheer joy of shooting and printing nice black and white photos because I have to hold a grudge against Kodak and make it a near-daily process of vomiting my disdain all over the internet....

I don't take *any* photo company's business tactics personally, I figure it best to take the images I make on the film personally.

 

[RattyMouse]

But what I won't be doing is distracting my self from the sheer joy of shooting and printing nice black and white photos because I have to hold a grudge against Kodak and make it a near-daily process of vomiting my disdain all over the internet....

You'll just vomit on the internet daily about different topics, right? :eek:

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I think it's fairly natural for a film photographer to be concerned about the future of film.

Anton Corbijn bought 2000 rolls of Tri-X in sheer panic, when Kodak went bankrupt. Did he overreact? Not at all, he was concerned for the future of his craft.

Ilford is NOT the answer for me as they don't make the films I use.

And I find the constant sucking up to Ilford offensive, as they sponsor this site. It really does not give an impression of fair and unbiased discourse.

It should be renamed IFUG, Ilford Film Users Group

 

[RattyMouse]

I think it's fairly natural for a film photographer to be concerned about the future of film.

Anton Corbijn bought 2000 rolls of Tri-X in sheer panic, when Kodak went bankrupt. Did he overreact? Not at all, he was concerned for the future of his craft.

Ilford is NOT the answer for me as they don't make the films I use.

And I find the constant sucking up to Ilford offensive, as they sponsor this site. It really does not give an impression of fair and unbiased discourse.

It should be renamed IFUG, Ilford Film Users Group

Who says that a forum needs to be free from bias? Such a proposition is ridiculous. No one here functions as a journalist. Anyone posting in this forum is under no mandate whatsoever to be free from bias. The moderators need to be unbiased. If the mod were to delete any posts praising Ilford that would be bad.

And you are somehow "offended" by people praising the company that is single handily doing more to keep film photography alive now and into the future?

Good god, I am glad that I am not as soft as you are. Do kittens and soft puppies offend you too?


Ilford *EARNED* the praise that they receive.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Who says that a forum needs to be free from bias? Such a proposition is ridiculous. No one here functions as a journalist. Anyone posting in this forum is under no mandate whatsoever to be free from bias. The moderators need to be unbiased. If the mod were to delete any posts praising Ilford that would be bad.

And you are somehow "offended" by people praising the company that is single handily doing more to keep film photography alive now and into the future?

Good god, I am glad that I am not as soft as you are. Do kittens and soft puppies offend you too?


Ilford *EARNED* the praise that they receive.

Ratty, what is this? You attack my personal character, although my post contains no personal attack?

I find that offensive.



Anyway, I conduct all my affairs on the basis of truth and fairness. You'd be surprised how many people find that offensive. But the most surprised were the ones who thought I was "soft".

Enough of personal arguments, let's talk photography.

 

[RattyMouse]

Ratty, what is this? You attack my personal character, although my post contains no personal attack?

I find that offensive.



Anyway, I conduct all my affairs on the basis of truth and fairness. You'd be surprised how many people find that offensive. But the most surprised were the ones who thought I was "soft".

Enough of personal arguments, let's talk photography.

I apologize for going over the top. Your idea that somehow we all should remain neutral struck a strong chord with me. As you can see, I reject that idea pretty strongly.

Still, I should not have stated my opposition as strongly as I did.

Again, my apologies.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

No harm, let's move on.

 

[RattyMouse]

No harm, let's move on.

WHAT?? Where's the 10 page flame fest....the verbal brawling, insult after insult?

You sure this is the internet?

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Sorry to disappoint

 

[Xmas]

And I find the constant sucking up to Ilford offensive, as they sponsor this site. It really does not give an impression of fair and unbiased discourse.

Is fair and unbiased a site rule or merely your personal whim?

Forma are sponsors too?
Lots of people use Forma in 35mm, larger sizes and chems.
My brick shop frequently runs out and posts restock ETA.