Kodak price increase

[Roger Cole]

I didn't know until reading above that 400H had been discontinued. Sigh. That means the only remaining 400 CN film is Portra 400.

 

[cmacd123]

I didn't know until reading above that 400H had been discontinued. Sigh. That means the only remaining 400 CN film is Portra 400.

and the consumer grade films...

Kodak GC/UltraMax 400 Color Negative Film (35mm Roll Film, 36 Exposures)

Buy Kodak GC/UltraMax 400 Color Negative Film (35mm Roll Film, 36 Exposures) featuring Daylight-Balanced Color Negative Film, ISO 400/27° in C-41 Process, Rich Saturation, Optimized Skin Tones, Fine Grain, Wide Exposure Latitude, Ideal for Scanning and Enlarging. Review Kodak UltraMax 400

www.bhphotovideo.com

and the New Fuji - US made (may be very similar to Kodak Gold)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1759047-REG/fujifilm_600022184_400_color_negative_film.html

 

[abruzzi]

I didn't know until reading above that 400H had been discontinued. Sigh. That means the only remaining 400 CN film is Portra 400.

yeah, when I heard a while back, I stocked up on 400H in 120. I like the Fuji colors more than the Portra colors.

 

[Agulliver]

Will people please stop spreading the long debunked rumour that Fuji are working off long frozen master rolls.

Henning adequately addressed that one years ago when it first appeared.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Will people please stop spreading the long debunked rumour that Fuji are working off long frozen master rolls...

No, they won't.

 

[Roger Cole]

and the consumer grade films...

Kodak GC/UltraMax 400 Color Negative Film (35mm Roll Film, 36 Exposures)

Buy Kodak GC/UltraMax 400 Color Negative Film (35mm Roll Film, 36 Exposures) featuring Daylight-Balanced Color Negative Film, ISO 400/27° in C-41 Process, Rich Saturation, Optimized Skin Tones, Fine Grain, Wide Exposure Latitude, Ideal for Scanning and Enlarging. Review Kodak UltraMax 400

www.bhphotovideo.com

and the New Fuji - US made (may be very similar to Kodak Gold)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1759047-REG/fujifilm_600022184_400_color_negative_film.html

Well I pretty much only shoot color neg in 120, so that was all I looked at. No consumer grade in 120.

 

[Arcadia4]

Will people please stop spreading the long debunked rumour that Fuji are working off long frozen master rolls.

Henning adequately addressed that one years ago when it first appeared.

I dont think anyone really believes that rumour, but as I said you can see how the normal processes might make people think that

Cool storage of master rolls, upto a few months depending on product and manufacturer is clearly part of BAU, maybe a bit longer for lower volume product if it makes financial sense - cost of capital to store vs cost to coat small volumes, longer >year is clearly possible (but is a probable waste of capital and risks deterioration) but may occur if there is a decline in demand - for example Aviphot films. There been a few rolls, from the end of the volume film era, that have come to market, via the secondary market, lomo or rollei who clearly bought them as outdated stock that had been sitting in a warehouse. As in any business these things happen when demand changes for a product, but is not planned for or desired.

Most businesses hold a stock buffer, the usual aim is to be in stock in all items without holding too much stock, for film, part of this will be held in master rolls, as its cheaper to hold it a step removed from the final product, which is further capital tied up and as rolls can make more than one SKU - e.g. single or 3 packs. Its a bit like timber processing or indeed butchery, you avoid cutting it up til you need to, as it can't be put back together later.

Presently I am sure Fuji wish they had more master rolls to actually convert, rather than a global stockout of key products including in their home market.

 

[koraks]

Cool storage of master rolls, upto a few months depending on product and manufacturer is clearly part of BAU, maybe a bit longer for lower volume product if it makes financial sense

Fuji stores paper for up to a few months, but AFAIK only confectioned rolls, not master rolls. And certainly not as long as a year. Stock may (and almost certainly does) linger for much longer in the distribution and retail channels. I don't think they even have to ability to store coated but uncut and onboxed master rolls of paper due to their physical dimensions.
To what extent this applies to film, I don't know. It's a different plant, different people, different materials. But I'd be surprised if they would store film for longer than a couple of months, based on how they handle paper. They're kind of finicky in terms of deterioration.

 

[Steve York]

Been bulk loading for the past almost decade, mostly inexpensive films like Foma and Orwo, both of which I like, but recently looked at commercial loads and shocked at how expensive everything has gotten, especially color film. If I a color shooter, I definitely consider those Kodak movie stocks, even with the quirky developing issues.

 

[destroya]

Been bulk loading for the past almost decade, mostly inexpensive films like Foma and Orwo, both of which I like, but recently looked at commercial loads and shocked at how expensive everything has gotten, especially color film. If I a color shooter, I definitely consider those Kodak movie stocks, even with the quirky developing issues.

thats why I have been shooting the ektachrome E100 movie stock. no special processing required, just plane old E-6. the price per roll of the movie stock, sold by Eastman, makes me wonder how much markup kodak alaris is adding per roll.

john

 

[Steve York]

thats why I have been shooting the ektachrome E100 movie stock. no special processing required, just plane old E-6. the price per roll of the movie stock, sold by Eastman, makes me wonder how much markup kodak alaris is adding per roll.

john

Whow! That's a significant savings; $7/roll versus $22. How do you handle the 400' bulk rolls? I opened a 400' bulk roll once and just ended spooling up canisters over 3-4 sittings. I put the unused film back inits' bag, then in the tin, and then all that into a changing bag. It worked. Mostly though I've used 100' bulk rolls. Is E6 home developing difficult? The one time I tried home C41 developing it was a disaster, the chemicals must of been bad. Still, sounds like you are processing quite a bit of savings. Hmm, maybe I need some ektachrome; haven't shot slide film in a long time.

 

[cmacd123]

How do you handle the 400' bulk rolls? I opened a 400' bulk roll once and just ended spooling up canisters over 3-4 sittings. I put the unused film back inits' bag, then in the tin, and then all that into a changing bag. It worked.

Serious users of Movie loads have rewinds and a split reel, (or two) as well as some 35mm 100ft spools.

I also have a comparatively rare "Alden 200" loader that as it says takes a 200ft load. My normal procedure with a Movie roll is to put the roll into the split reel, and use the rewinds to put 200ft on a spool. to do that I put a 200ft 16mm spool on each side of a 100ft 35mm spool, and my long shaft rewind. It is easy to run off enough film that it is near the top of the 200ft spools. the remainder of the roll is put back in the bag and can, and then the 200 ft of film still on the 100ft spool s placed in the loader. when it is time to use the rest of the roll, it is arround 200ft and so fits directly into the loader.


I have also seen a 400ft bulk loader advertised lately. which is proably a less expensive way to set up if you don't have a split reel and rewinds. I already had a 16mm split reel to break down 400ft 16mm rolls to fit on 100ft spools for my 16mm Filmo.

 

[MattKing]

thats why I have been shooting the ektachrome E100 movie stock. no special processing required, just plane old E-6. the price per roll of the movie stock, sold by Eastman, makes me wonder how much markup kodak alaris is adding per roll.

john

It costs a lot to confection the film - cassettes et al!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

thats why I have been shooting the ektachrome E100 movie stock. no special processing required, just plane old E-6. the price per roll of the movie stock, sold by Eastman, makes me wonder how much markup kodak alaris is adding per roll.

john

The stores add a markup too, maybe the largest.

 

[MattKing]

The stores add a markup too, maybe the largest.

I think you would be very disappointed how little markup they add - that is why so many have closed.

 

[foc]

regarding the markup of film production, here is a comment from @Henning Serger in a previous thread (See Here)

"In late summer of 2019 I had a long and very interesting talk to a former employee of the Agfa Germany (Leverkusen) film R&D department. He worked there just short before they stopped production. He told me that at that time Agfa made only 1 Cent net profit per 1m² color film. 1 tiny Cent! 1m² is about 17 135-36 films.
Go figure......"

"a film manufacturer won this auction with the offer of a fully packed CN film 135-36 for 45 Cents. Yes, only ridiculously low 45 Cent!! Today you will have problems to get just the 135 film cassettes for such a low price."

As you can see, no huge markup there.

Retail markup on film is very low. If a shop can make 20%( including taxes) on a sale they are doing very well. If a roll of film retailed at €10, the shop gets €2 before taxes are deducted. Try making a living at those figures.
Example:
Retail price of €10.
Ex vat Price €8 (Vat @ 20 % as an example)
Shop's 20% of €8 is €1.60
No such a big profit.

 

[Don_ih]

It costs a lot to confection the film - cassettes

So, in this thread, 400 foot rolls are so much cheaper because it costs a lot to put film in cassettes and packaging, but in another thread, 100 foot bulk rolls offer no savings over individual rolls because it costs so much to put the film on bulk rolls (it's labour intensive and putting film in cassettes and packaging is streamlined)? Interesting.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So, in this thread, 400 foot rolls are so much cheaper because it costs a lot to put film in cassettes and packaging, but in another thread, 100 foot bulk rolls offer no savings over individual rolls because it costs so much to put the film on bulk rolls (it's labour intensive and putting film in cassettes and packaging is streamlined)? Interesting.

135 canisters for KS perf, 400/1000ft can for BH perf outweigh all other demand, so those are the ones that have been made efficient - 100ft loads of KS perf require a reel, bag & can that has little use in cinema today & a cross-stream workflow (i.e. perfed on stills stream, packed in cinema stream). Ilford use a slightly different approach (plastic core, bag, box), but they don't generally make BH perf film or 400/ 1000ft loads, so they're not interrupting other workflows as much. Let's just say that there's a particular mentalité that characterises bulk-load proponents, & quality-consciousness isn't it.

 

[Agulliver]

I think you would be very disappointed how little markup they add - that is why so many have closed.

Indeed. My local camera shop is quite open that they make between 5% and 10% on 135 and 120 film.

By far the biggest cost in retail 135 film is the cassette and the processes that lead to the slit film ending up in that cassette. Costs way more than the film itself.

Then there's the bulk load question....as has been explained *many* times...the motion picture film is done differently and in bigger quantities than the bulk 100 foot rolls we can generally buy.

It's certainly cheaper, if you can get hold of a 400 foot or 1000 foot core of Ektachrome of 500T or whatever....and have the ability to load it into cassettes. But how many people can actually reasonably do that at home?

For 120, I understand that the biggest cost is the backing paper. The process of attaching it to the film and spooling the film onto a 120 spool isn't so costly, hence 120 is often cheaper than 135.

Honestly if the shops really were gouging us, there wouldn't be camera shops in peril nor would so many have closed in the past.

Honestly, if Kodak were gouging us....it would show up in their publicly available figures.

 

[Don_ih]

You know, it's actually good enough to say that they charge more for bulk rolls because there's not that much demand for them.

Otherwise, if you're going to manufacture something, you do it in the most efficient way possible - especially if you're a company that's been doing it for 100 years.

 

[koraks]

It's certainly cheaper, if you can get hold of a 400 foot or 1000 foot core of Ektachrome of 500T or whatever....and have the ability to load it into cassettes. But how many people can actually reasonably do that at home?

It's doable, but a darkroom as opposed to a changing bag is convenient. I 3d printed some stuff and used that to split a 400ft roll into 4x 100ft, and then use a regular bulk loader to go to single rolls.

With this color cine film the major hassle IMO is the remjet. That's a really messy part of the process and requires cleaning steps that are an inherent threat in terms of dust, damage and other mishaps. And it still leaves a lot of muck on tanks and reels, even if done "right".

 

[koraks]

if you're going to manufacture something, you do it in the most efficient way possible

Well yeah, you do it in the most efficient way that makes economic sense. It makes no economic sense to set up a more efficient (less labor intensive) spooling line for 100ft rolls given the small volume, even though it's technically feasible. And as a result, it ends up being more costly, especially since labor costs have risen considerably. So in the end, I agree you pay more because there's little demand, and the mechanism that explains it is also quite transparent.

 

[Agulliver]

It's doable, but a darkroom as opposed to a changing bag is convenient. I 3d printed some stuff and used that to split a 400ft roll into 4x 100ft, and then use a regular bulk loader to go to single rolls.

With this color cine film the major hassle IMO is the remjet. That's a really messy part of the process and requires cleaning steps that are an inherent threat in terms of dust, damage and other mishaps. And it still leaves a lot of muck on tanks and reels, even if done "right".

Yeah I can't currently even envisage having space to do that. I've manually loaded cassettes from a 200 foot roll of expired HP5+ motion picture film and that was a bit of a hassle.....this coming from someone who *likes* rolling from 100 foot rolls and who owns no fewer than five bulk loaders.

I tried messing with Remjet about 20 years ago when processing EM26 cine film. Yeah. Not for me, thanks.

But for those who can, and they will be a small minority, it's a way to save...assuming a very clean loading environment and no sticky fingers.

 

[koraks]

Let me put it this way: I think the premium you pay for e.g. Cinefill to use the same material without the spooling and remjet hassles makes sense. From an out-of-pocket perspective, the DIY option is cheaper. But There is the risk of wasted film due to a mishap, the inevitable image defects here and there due to remjet-related issues, and the work involved in spooling + remjet removal. It's not a free lunch. And you still have to commit to the purchase of (at least) a 400ft roll, which is a good chunk of money either way.

 

[cmacd123]

It is important to differentiate the Ektachrome from the rest of the Movie stocks. the Vison stocks are all Negative films with the rem jetbacking. the Ektachrome is an e-6 film mostly identical to the film sold for still use, except fot the BH1866 perfs rather then the Still KS1870. And the edge printing is KeyKode rather than frame numbers. (irelivant if you are using slide mounts.) The movie film MIGHT have a lubricant on the back.