Canada.Where on earth is Kodak B&W film twice as much as Ilford?
It's more expensive, and in most cases for my tastes offers no compelling reason buy Kodak B&W film....but it's not twice the price of Ilford.
Where on earth is Kodak B&W film twice as much as Ilford?
It's more expensive, and in most cases for my tastes offers no compelling reason buy Kodak B&W film....but it's not twice the price of Ilford.
Sorry if this has already been asked. But why is Ilford HP5 $7.50/roll, while Kodak Tri-X is $12? I use these films as equivalents. Even though I like Kentmere 400 @ $5.
Ilford is apparently making a profit selling HP5, but Kodak cannot with Tri-X at 60% higher price point?
It's about comparing like for like - why is Kodak twice the price of Ilford? If milk is $2/litre at one store and $4/litre at another I'd say you'd be crazy to say "support the more expensive store, or you'll cry when they close" No I won't, I'll continue shopping at the cheaper store.
You're not buying milk.
I decided to move entirely to Ilford products last year, after their most recent price increase. I saw the writing on the wall and realized Kodak's films would soon exceed my budget. In March - if the price forecast is accurate, there will be no more Kodak film in my future. $10 a roll of 120 film is the most I will pay.
I can still buy FP4 for under $8 a roll, so you can see why I've opted to buy Ilford, not Kodak. No, FP4 ain't the same as T-Max, but I'm totally happy with FP4, so...
True, but the analogy makes sense. Insert any commercially acquired product. All things being equal, why spend more? Often, though, all things are not equal. Comparing Kodak to Ilford probably is not in the realm of equality. Comparing two retailers might be closer to equal.
I decided to move entirely to Ilford products last year, after their most recent price increase. I saw the writing on the wall and realized Kodak's films would soon exceed my budget. In March - if the price forecast is accurate, there will be no more Kodak film in my future. $10 a roll of 120 film is the most I will pay.
I can still buy FP4 for under $8 a roll, so you can see why I've opted to buy Ilford, not Kodak. No, FP4 ain't the same as T-Max, but I'm totally happy with FP4, so...
In Canada, I wouldn't use milk as a comparison example. The market price is distorted by supply management, and milk has a much different customer base than film.
The high Canadian price of black and white Kodak film is the result of a small market and the effects of B&H et al. There isn't much profit there for the distributors who do business in Canada, so wholesale volumes are low, and prices are high.
If Kodak Alaris used a single, exclusive Canadian distributor for black and white film, instead of the same distributor for colour and black and white, there might be less difference between Ilford and Kodak prices. Ilford's black and white sales are higher though, so no guarantees.
What happens when Ilford raises their price to $9.25?
Are Canadians more apt to buy British film than American due to your relationship with the King.
What happens when Ilford raises their price to $9.25?
Only the really old ones ).
...... & Huss.....if price were really an issue, i'd sell a few cameras.... ;-) . .
Price is an issue because I need to see value. I like HP5 just as much as TriX. So there is no value in paying more for TriX to me.
(Dad joke snipped).Well, as you say things aren't equal. Why would some pay twice as much buying a Audi SUV rather than a Ford? They'll both get you to the supermarket.
Which reminds me of the joke:
The Audi brand isn't percived the same as Ford. If we want to use automotive analogies, would you pay twice as much for a Chev Silverado as a Ford 150, when similarly equipped (or vice versa)? Objectively if we relate it back to film, there isn't much difference in terms of technology between HP5 and Tri-X or Delta and TMax.Well, as you say things aren't equal. Why would some pay twice as much buying a Audi SUV rather than a Ford? They'll both get you to the supermarket.
And I live in Québec, so no emotional ties to Kings & Queens here... I guess people just pick what fits for them, brand, film, price...
Well, they will blame Kodak for that, of course. And rightly so.
Kodak is the market leader and price setter since they still have unrivalled product portfolio. Unfortunatelly, they also have limited converting capabilities. For Kodak it would financially make sense to only sell C-41 and E-6 film since they haven't faced much competition in this segment for a while now. They are still selling BW film to maintain presence in BW and because they would face a HUGE backlash if they stopped selling BW film. But since they can only convert a limited number of rolls of film, it would be utterly stupid to sell 10m rolls of Tri-X at $6 and 20m rolls of Portra at $15 when they can sell 28m of Portra at $15 and 2m rolls of Tri-X at $12.
Only the really old ones ).
There are many, many more Canadians who had a long term relationship with Canadian Kodak/Kodak Canada over the years, than the very few who had a relationship with Ilford. The Canadian subsidiary of Eastman Kodak was one of the largest.
And the black and white film part of Kodak was always tiny in comparison to colour and photofinishing.
Isn't that contradictory. Why shouldn't their prices be higher if they have an unrivalled product portfolio?
And I live in Québec, so no emotional ties to Kings & Queens here... I guess people just pick what fits for them, brand, film, price...
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?