Kodak Price Increase and Hiring Spree 2023: What Do You Want Kodak to Focus on Moving Forward?

[brbo]

I'd love for them to offer Max 800 film in 135 and 120. That's what's in their single use cameras and is believed to be what's in the Lomography 800 C41 films. So presumably that one is possible, even if it would be a low priority it's achievable. It's a niche within a niche, but high speed colour negative film is either hugely expensive (Portra, Cinestill 800T) or unobtanium (Lomography 800). It just happens to be a niche that I enjoy using.

Lomography CN 800 has been constantly in stock at Lomography for months now. Price is roughly the same as Portra 800 at other bigger online EU retailers, though.

 

[Scott J.]

Also, as stated above I think it would help Kodak in the long run to support their customers with a solid advance in digitizing negatives. Not some little yellow digitizer that makes 8 MGPXL images. Something like a consumer version of the flex tight. Now that would be nice. I would like that instead of some janky camera stand light table goofiness or dealing with soft flatbed scans that don't do the neg justice or even those gritty/pebbly lab scans from a frontier (hate those).

^This is a great point. I recall last year (or maybe 2021) that Ilford had asked film photographers to participate in a survey seeking input regarding what developments they would like to see happen in analog photography, including what voids (if any) needed filling. The first thing on my list was for a company (or companies) to get serious about designing an affordable, dedicated film scanner for home use. The dedicated film scanners on the market now are all either 15+ years old or based on similar technology (e.g., employing flimsy plastic film holders that don't hold the film flat, etc.). With the resurgence in film photography by younger photographers and increased cultural interest in trying to do things for one's self, I'm surprised this hasn't been pursued by one of the big companies. It's a market waiting to be catered to.

DSLR scanning is interesting because it seems to lie somewhere in the middle (quality-wise) of an Epson flatbed (on the low end) and a Nikon Coolscan or Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight (on the high end), but are considerably easier to use. That said, I'm surprised at the cost of some of the setups -- the Negative Supply kits are in the range of 1,000-2,000 USD, and that doesn't even including the cost of the camera and a macro lens. It might be that companies like Kodak are hesitant to pursue developing an at-home film scanner because they feel like that market has been cornered by DSLR scanning.

Scanning -- especially color negative film -- remains one of the major stumbling blocks to people getting (and staying) into analog photography. It probably has the single biggest impact on an image's quality post capture, more so than what film you used, how you developed it (within reason, of course), or what post-processing you did. It's taken me several years of scanning my own film, first with an Epson, then a Nikon, then a drum scanner, then a Flextight, to get to a place where I feel like I know what I'm doing. Most people don't want to spend that much time and money figuring it out. It would be great to see a company like Kodak tackle the dual problem of designing reliable hardware coupled with good color inversion software.

 

[removedacct1]

I do not drink coffee, but I see that every time the price of coffee increases due to frost, ... , the ones that gripe the most still buy and drink the same amount of coffee every day at work.

I believe that with 90% of the people moaning about price increases, they will still buy as much product as they always did. This is a "lather, rinse, repeat" scenario that persists year after year.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

^This is a great point. I recall last year (or maybe 2021) that Ilford had asked film photographers to participate in a survey seeking input regarding what developments they would like to see happen in analog photography, including what voids (if any) needed filling. The first thing on my list was for a company (or companies) to get serious about designing an affordable, dedicated film scanner for home use. The dedicated film scanners on the market now are all either 15+ years old or based on similar technology (e.g., employing flimsy plastic film holders that don't hold the film flat, etc.). With the resurgence in film photography by younger photographers and increased cultural interest in trying to do things for one's self, I'm surprised this hasn't been pursued by one of the big companies. It's a market waiting to be catered to.

DSLR scanning is interesting because it seems to lie somewhere in the middle (quality-wise) of an Epson flatbed (on the low end) and a Nikon Coolscan or Imacon/Hasselblad Flextight (on the high end), but are considerably easier to use. That said, I'm surprised at the cost of some of the setups -- the Negative Supply kits are in the range of 1,000-2,000 USD, and that doesn't even including the cost of the camera and a macro lens. It might be that companies like Kodak are hesitant to pursue developing an at-home film scanner because they feel like that market has been cornered by DSLR scanning.

Scanning -- especially color negative film -- remains one of the major stumbling blocks to people getting (and staying) into analog photography. It probably has the single biggest impact on an image's quality post capture, more so than what film you used, how you developed it (within reason, of course), or what post-processing you did. It's taken me several years of scanning my own film, first with an Epson, then a Nikon, then a drum scanner, then a Flextight, to get to a place where I feel like I know what I'm doing. Most people don't want to spend that much time and money figuring it out. It would be great to see a company like Kodak tackle the dual problem of designing reliable hardware coupled with good color inversion software.

When I bought my Epson V850 scanner three years ago, I receive a letter asking me to complete a scanner survey. They asked all kinds of questions I figured they were surveying for a possible new scanner. I gave them some of the problems I had with their existing ones that could use improvement.

They ought to be in a good place to improve scanners since they are already in the business. Meanwhile, nothing. Maybe they're working on it. Let's hope so.

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't expect to see anything revolutionary from Epson or any of the other manufacturers who have (sort of) adapted document scanners for the purpose of film scanning.
I've always wondered why the remaining manufacturers of microfilm scanning equipment haven't jumped in.

 

[Huss]

I do not drink coffee, but I see that every time the price of coffee increases due to frost, ... , the ones that gripe the most still buy and drink the same amount of coffee every day at work.

Everyone needs to poop. Not everyone needs colour film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I believe that with 90% of the people moaning about price increases, they will still buy as much product as they always did. This is a "lather, rinse, repeat" scenario that persists year after year.

We agree.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Everyone needs to poop. Not everyone needs colour film.

Try as I might, I cannot poop color or colour film.

 

[Huss]

Try as I might, I cannot poop color or colour film.

Drink more coffee

 

[Agulliver]

Lomography CN 800 has been constantly in stock at Lomography for months now. Price is roughly the same as Portra 800 at other bigger online EU retailers, though.

Upon reading your message I checked and it is indeed in stock at Lomography, though it wasn't the last few times I checked. The price isn't too bad so I might just pop for another 3 pack when I next get paid. The price at Amazon is about double what Lomography are asking, and nowhere in the UK has it in stock. I do tend to assume that there's some sort of deal whereby what we believe to be older Kodacolor films are only sold as Lomography 100 and 400, and Max 800 as Lomography 800....are not available under the Kodak banner or any other name. I'd just appreciate stable stocks so I can get those films when I want them. I like them all, especially the standard 100 and 400 in 120.

Regarding scanners, my ancient Epson does a decent enough job if I'm not looking to make high quality prints. Better than those plastic devices whcih are effectively a little digital camera with a back light. Those are good value for money in terms of getting one started cheap....but aren't going to satisfy on quality grounds for long. They have one big advantage over a flatbed though, and that is speed. What I feel we need is something either more automated, or faster, than the typical flatbed setup but with the same or better quality. I don't know if Kodak is the right company to do this, as they aren't exactly involved in manufacturing any domestic scanning equipment. But it would be a fantastic move forward. As another poster pointed out, the current models are based on 15+ year old tech.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

As most have probably heard by now, Kodak intends to raise film prices beginning in March of this year. The average price increase expected in the U.S. is reportedly 17%, while other regions (e.g., Japan) are expected to see higher price hikes. It seems likely that these newest price increases are intended to address at least two ongoing issues: 1) to offset elevated, inflation-driven costs in the manufacture of film and chemistry; and 2) to expand the company's manufacturing capacity (i.e., equipment and manpower) in an effort to keep pace with current film demand, which has reportedly surged in the last few years.

Point #1 above is almost certainly true just based on general economic trends occurring around the world. And point #2 seems likely true based on recent statements made by Kodak regarding the company's push to hire more people for its film manufacturing division. However, I've seen some people in forums optimistically speculating that this newest round of price increases might also be driven by an interest within the company to expand its current product lineup (i.e., film, chemistry, etc.). It's that last speculative point that interests me the most, for if true, I think it might help to soften the blow that many are feeling about these newest price increases. If Kodak is looking to offer more products but needs additional revenue to do so, I think a lot of film shooters would be cautiously willing to accept the increases (especially if only temporary).

I don't know to what extent Kodak reps read these or other forums in an effort to understand what customers want (it would certainly be in their best interest to do so, of course), but I'm curious to know what one or two "projects" film shooters would like to see the company pursuing in the near term (say, the next 2-5 years), whether it was changing a current product, bringing one back from the dead, or offering up something completely new. There are no right or wrong answers, so feel free to dream. I'll go first:

1) Bring back Kodak E-6 chemistry -- In February of 2019, Kodak announced it was exploring the possibility of offering its own E-6 chemistry, which was likely spurred on by having brought back Ektachrome E100. No firm plans were announced, and I now notice that the original announcement on the official Kodak Instagram account no longer exists (which might be a bad sign). With Fuji-Hunt having eliminated their 5-liter E-6 kits in October 2021, now would be a good time for Kodak to begin offering its own 6-bath home kit in comparable sizes (e.g., 1-5 liters).

2) Add another color slide film option -- I'm glad E100 was brought back a few years ago, but I'd like to see another offering from the company. I imagine it'd be easier to revitalize an older film than to develop one from scratch, though it's conceivably possible that EPA rules have changed sufficiently in the last 5-10 years that any "old" film might need to be tweaked to meet current regulations (this is reportedly what killed off Velvia 100). Personally, I'd love to see Kodak bring back E100VS. With Fuji Velvia 100 being completely gone in the U.S and Velvia 50 no longer available in sheet sizes, E100VS seems like a no-brainer, as it would fill a void for shooters looking for a punchy, saturated color positive film. Opinions obviously vary, but this was one of my favorite films in the early 2000s.

3) Bring back Aerochrome - There's virtually zero chance of them actually doing this, but as an Aerochrome user, I'd love to see it, even if it was only made available as an infrequent special order every few years. The (re-)startup cost would probably be astronomical, but given what new-old-stock rolls and sheets go for online (~$250 per 120 roll!), I'd be curious to know what the company's break-even price would be. Maybe it's less than $250 per roll?

Have fun.

whatever they do; just keep Tri-X and T-max alive.

 

[Don_ih]

You don't raise prices to hire more people. You hire more people to make more product, since the product you are making will pay more people if more is sold.

If they release a new product, it won't be anything much different from what they already sell. You'll never see Ektalure return, for example - or any b&w paper. That'd be an entirely new enterprise.

They have been stupid about Super 8. They should have, as soon as there was enough interest, set up a facility for economical processing and scanning of Super 8. They would have sold a container-ship load of it by now.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You don't raise prices to hire more people. You hire more people to make more product, since the product you are making will pay more people if more is sold.

If they release a new product, it won't be anything much different from what they already sell. You'll never see Ektalure return, for example - or any b&w paper. That'd be an entirely new enterprise.

They have been stupid about Super 8. They should have, as soon as there was enough interest, set up a facility for economical processing and scanning of Super 8. They would have sold a container-ship load of it by now.

Maybe they're gunshy. Once burned, twice foolish. They chased the film market when everyone was switching to digital. Now we're asking them to chase the film market again. In a way, they have. They've re-marketed Ektachrome. Now they're hiring 300 people. Let's give them a chance. They can't do everything overnight.

 

[Don_ih]

Maybe they're gunshy.

No. It never occurred to them that it would be possible to convince people to start using film. They have only been set up to supply existing users - that's who they thought was buying their film. They have done almost nothing to facilitate the use of their products - unloading their film chemistry is a good example of that. It is difficult for people to find places to get still film developed, let alone Super 8.

They announced this camera years ago. Still nowhere to be found. At the time, they claimed they would offer a processing service for it that would return high resolution scans. Can't blame the pandemic for this one - they announced it before then.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No. It never occurred to them that it would be possible to convince people to start using film. They have only been set up to supply existing users - that's who they thought was buying their film. They have done almost nothing to facilitate the use of their products - unloading their film chemistry is a good example of that. It is difficult for people to find places to get still film developed, let alone Super 8.

They announced this camera years ago. Still nowhere to be found. At the time, they claimed they would offer a processing service for it that would return high resolution scans. Can't blame the pandemic for this one - they announced it before then.

Did you write them about Super 8? Why not see what they say?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

PS. Ask them about regular 8mm too. I still have my three-lens turret 8mm camera from 65 years ago.

 

[Kino]

You don't raise prices to hire more people. You hire more people to make more product, since the product you are making will pay more people if more is sold.

If they release a new product, it won't be anything much different from what they already sell. You'll never see Ektalure return, for example - or any b&w paper. That'd be an entirely new enterprise.

They have been stupid about Super 8. They should have, as soon as there was enough interest, set up a facility for economical processing and scanning of Super 8. They would have sold a container-ship load of it by now.

When places like The Film Photography Project can offer develop and scan for $55 per roll, I doubt Kodak could set up a facility that would compete and not lose money.

FPP Scanning Services

The Film Photography Project is proud to offer 2k and 4k scanning services for 8mm, Super 8, 16mm and LomoKino 35mm! If you don't see a service you need, please contact Michael raso - Michael@FilmPhotographyProject.com

filmphotographystore.com

Lasergraphics has been selling their Scanstation multi-format motion picture scanners like hotcakes and the market is already saturated with independents who bought these scanners and are now actively undercutting each other for business.

PS. Ask them about regular 8mm too. I still have my three-lens turret 8mm camera from 65 years ago.

See the link above and visit their store. They offer a lot of Regular 8mm film stocks that are custom slit and perforated from bulk film purchases that are not typically available elsewhere.

 

[Don_ih]

When places like The Film Photography Project can offer develop and scan for $55 per roll, I doubt Kodak could set up a facility that would compete and not lose money.

If Kodak offered develop and scan for Super 8, there's no reason that it would be anywhere as high as $55 a roll. That's exorbitant if volume is even slightly above minimum.

 

[Kino]

I believe that with 90% of the people moaning about price increases, they will still buy as much product as they always did. This is a "lather, rinse, repeat" scenario that persists year after year.

I am in the process of going back through my negatives from the mid-1970s, trying to cull them down so when I make the great leap, others won't have to deal with it.

What I am finding is that the volume isn't as great as I remembered for the simple fact that in a relative way, FILM WAS EXPENSIVE BACK THEN TOO.

If you can't stomach Kodak's prices, go get Kentmere or Foma.

 

[Kino]

If Kodak offered develop and scan for Super 8, there's no reason that it would be anywhere as high as $55 a roll. That's exorbitant if volume is even slightly above minimum.

No, it's not; its the market price. Actually, the PPP price is probably LESS than Kodak could offer, because they are a shoestring operation.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Kodak used to make some really nice B/W papers...

 

[Don_ih]

No, it's not; its the market price. Actually, the PPP price is probably LESS than Kodak could offer, because they are a shoestring operation.

I meant the volume Kodak could expect, which would be 100 times or more what FPP could expect.

Kodak used to make some really nice B/W papers...

That ship has sailed and sunk, unfortunately. To start making b&w papers again would likely be an entire new enterprise from scratch for them - unless they got someone else to do it.

 

[MattKing]

You don't raise prices to hire more people. You hire more people to make more product, since the product you are making will pay more people if more is sold.

The reality is that their capital is limited. You raise prices to attract more capital - borrowed money - which permits you to hire more people, which permits you to make and sell more product which allows you to pay back borrowed money.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

My short wish list:

1. Azo
2. 120 Verichrome Pan
3. 120 Plus X

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I meant the volume Kodak could expect, which would be 100 times or more what FPP could expect.



That ship has sailed and sunk, unfortunately. To start making b&w papers again would likely be an entire new enterprise from scratch for them - unless they got someone else to do it.

Along with HIE...