Kodak price increase

[Ivo Stunga]

Loyalty counts.

I guess this is what's powering the price increase to some extent, because there WILL be overly loyal people ripe for milking no matter what the price is. Gaming industry calls them Whales.
Because in my experience "loyalty" is a rigged game to the sole benefit of employer/business - a one-way street and it has been demonstrated time and time again.

I'd like to TRY Kodak film, but they have outpriced themselves out of my field of view long time ago. This price increase just puts Kodak on the Moon for me. Meanwile I'm shooting to explore a whole variety of BW films from around the World - well, except the similarly overpriced Fuji BW. So the overpriced Kodak milk can rot to hell for all I care.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

With Kodak the being the only supplier of colour negative film, I am so glad that I read the discontinuation of Pro 400H as soon as it was published. Could get like 15 boxes for €33,95 each.
A box of Kodak Gold might soon be double that price

 

[Agulliver]

I visited my local camera shop yesterday and they are once again having trouble sourcing Kodak film. They've got plenty of Ilford B&W in 135 and 120 but only Fuji Superia Xtra 400 in 135 for colour, at £15 a pop. And they're only making £2 per roll at that price.

Customers are thrilled to see colour film, then hesitating at the price and going elsewhere....only to return saying "Well, it's £22 down the street and no cheaper online after postage costs".

This is the new reality, sadly. Though that same Superia is under £8 a roll at Wal-Mart in the US of A. Buying power I guess.

 

[Anon Ymous]

With Kodak the being the only supplier of colour negative film, I am so glad that I read the discontinuation of Pro 400H as soon as it was published. Could get like 15 boxes for €33,95 each.
A box of Kodak Gold might soon be double that price

A couple of years ago, a 3 pack of Gold 200 135 was 8,95€ at DM, or Rossman. It will exceed 30€ when the price increase takes effect. Quite frankly, at the prices that C41 films fetch these days, I 'd rather shoot Provia (or digital of course). I have a stash of C41, but likely won't shoot any more once I finish it.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

A couple of years ago, a 3 pack of Gold 200 135 was 8,95€ at DM, or Rossman

Last november €15,95.
It was limited to I think 5 packages and only store pickup.
Now it's online only, maximum one package and you can't check anymore how much your local store has in stock

 

[Agulliver]

8.95 for a three pack of Gold? Wow. I haven't seen it at less than £6 per film, in any pack size, for some years. Certainly not since 2015, and likely earlier.

Kodak are also not the only supplier of colour negative film. But I do realise that it's fashionable in some parts to bas Fuji and accuse them of exiting the film market, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

 

[koraks]

Kodak are also not the only supplier of colour negative film.

Well. There's very, very little else indeed. Very little...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is an aerial photo of the Camera Heights site inn 1996 - basically at its maximum.
It comes courtesy of a source who chooses to remain anonymous :
View attachment 330210

Looks like a Google satellite map. Wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I watched a YouTube video yesterday from some German lady showing how her natural gas and electric bills went up 40% and 70% with the new year. Film should be our only problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The old employee services building was the one remaining building - the one where the fully stocked colour and black and white darkrooms were, that employees could use for minimal or no charge.
IIRC my Dad's stories, there were also a lot of other employee amenities there - e.g. a bowling alley ???
I'm not sure the building was moved. I think it was actually reconstructed as the new transit station.
Up until about 2000? that was the site where most Kodak production occurred respecting microfilm, but that was all brought back to Rochester when everything was consolidated to Building 38.


And in later years, Kodak Canada.

Free darkroom facilities after hours for employees.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I watched a YouTube video yesterday from some German lady showing how her natural gas and electric bills went up 40% and 70% with the new year. Film should be our only problem.

Opps, sometning else we agree on.

 

[Roger Cole]

There's a film and darkroom class at a local school. A friend is taking it, the instructor "strongly recommends' HP5+ as it works well and he knows it well. We bulk rolled a bunch last week to get him going.

I think I felt like it was "flat" when I first used it, too, especially as my first roll was scanned by the lab and I'm guessing they don't mess with it much. Definitely less contrasty than the kodak. I dev and scan myself now, so it's not just the lab. I ended up with an extra minute over the published xtol times. Someone here told me to try it, so I know I'm not alone. And I like the negatives with the extra time in the developer. Even if my process is hybrid, I am a lot closer to my idea of "good" straight from the scan.

I just assumed that's what most people did. And/or the analog crowd compensated at the printing stage. Isn't that why analog printing gurus often preach that you should learn a film really well and stick to it? So you know what to expect and can make the best of it?

It depends - I, and many others who have been doing it a long time, tune development time to give negatives, at least those shot of scenes with a more or less normal contrast range, to print well on whatever paper grade (almost always filter on VC these days) we prefer. I aim for about a 2.5; some aim for grade 2, more probably these days for grade 3.

You ended up doing just what I mean. There is absolutely nothing special about the manufacturer's suggested developing times. They're just starting points. If the negatives are not contrasty enough for your taste and work flow, add about 20% (give or take depending on how much increase you want) and try that, repeat as and if needed until you get it dialed in. This is much of the reason for picking one film and sticking to it (though I don't really follow that.) It's so you don't spend half your time and materials budget doing testing and can get on with making images.

 

[Roger Cole]

I guess this is what's powering the price increase to some extent, because there WILL be overly loyal people ripe for milking no matter what the price is. Gaming industry calls them Whales.
Because in my experience "loyalty" is a rigged game to the sole benefit of employer/business - a one-way street and it has been demonstrated time and time again.

I'd like to TRY Kodak film, but they have outpriced themselves out of my field of view long time ago. This price increase just puts Kodak on the Moon for me. Meanwile I'm shooting to explore a whole variety of BW films from around the World - well, except the similarly overpriced Fuji BW. So the overpriced Kodak milk can rot to hell for all I care.

I haven't tried the new Acros II but I have used a bit of the previous Acros. There is nothing else quite like that on the market that I'm aware of. Assuming the new stuff gives pretty much the same results, I can't say whether it's worth the cost to you or any other individual of course, but the "not quite panchromatic" response and grain look is just unlike anything else. No, maybe not THAT dramatically, but it's an easy film to like and decide is worth the money.

 

[retina_restoration]

There's nothing wrong with HP5. I don't find it "flat", but my complaint about it is its lack of tonal separation in the high values. Compared to the Delta films, I find HP5 lacks "sparkle" and clearly defined detail in the high values. This makes it great for portraits, but less than ideal for many other applications. I suspect what many describe as "flatness" is actually how they perceive the lack of tonal separation in the highlights.

About Acros II: I think its a shame that not that long ago, Acros used to be one of the least expensive films on the market, but now, its one of the most expensive. At $13 a roll, there's no way I will buy it again. Its minor advantages/properties are not worth the added cost, IMO.

 

[Roger Cole]

Hm. I don't notice any problem at all with HP5+ highlights. Shrug.

 

[Craig]

About Acros II: I think its a shame that not that long ago, Acros used to be one of the least expensive films on the market, but now, its one of the most expensive. At $13 a roll, there's no way I will buy it again. Its minor advantages/properties are not worth the added cost, IMO.

Depends on where you are. In Canada it's mid priced. Acros II in either 35mm or 120 is $15.99/roll TMax 100 in 120 is $21.36, in 35mm is $16.42 so the Fuji is still significantly cheaper than Kodak.

 

[retina_restoration]

Hm. I don't notice any problem at all with HP5+ highlights. Shrug.

Roger, you're only going to see the difference when comparing the same image made on a different film for comparison.

Two versions of the same image, one made on HP5 and one on Delta 100.
The separation of the high values is clearly more pronounced in the Delta negative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Roger, you're only going to see the difference when comparing the same image made on a different film for comparison.

Two versions of the same image, one made on HP5 and one on Delta 100.
The separation of the high values is clearly more pronounced in the Delta negative.

If I were to use tabular grain film, then I would prefer Delta 100 over HP5+, but I still prefer Tri-X 400 over both.

 

[GregY]

There's nothing wrong with HP5. I don't find it "flat", but my complaint about it is its lack of tonal separation in the high values. Compared to the Delta films, I find HP5 lacks "sparkle" and clearly defined detail in the high values. This makes it great for portraits, but less than ideal for many other applications. I suspect what many describe as "flatness" is actually how they perceive the lack of tonal separation in the highlights.

About Acros II: I think its a shame that not that long ago, Acros used to be one of the least expensive films on the market, but now, its one of the most expensive. At $13 a roll, there's no way I will buy it again. Its minor advantages/properties are not worth the added cost, IMO.

RR, That is a very good description in what i found missing in the performance of HP5.
As for Acros, i've always had more favourable results from TMax 100 and especially my old favourite Agfapan 25.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, you're only going to see the difference when comparing the same image made on a different film for comparison.

Two versions of the same image, one made on HP5 and one on Delta 100.
The separation of the high values is clearly more pronounced in the Delta negative.

Your Delta image is clearly, though slightly, more contrasty overall too, at least to my eye on my iPad I’m currently viewing them on. I‘d say that’s the source of the difference.

But in any case, use what you like of course, I’ve tried Delta and liked it, and if I could get Delta 400 in 4x5 I might standardize on it for 400 but I can’t. So I use HP5 so I don’t end up working with different 400 films in 120 and 4x5.

 

[Huss]

The above though is not because you scan, but because of how you choose to post-process/finalise your results, surely.

If anything, scanning is potentially able to give you the most faithful rendition of an inverted negative possible, because you can choose to scan fully linear and add no arbitrary non linearisations (unlike what you'd do with enlarger + paper, where you have a host of lens- and paper- related non-linearities to add to the mix).

I scan my film, apply exact the same workflow to all film I scan, and therefore (relative to my process) I can see the differences between film stocks immediately.

I agree. With similar films - TriX, HP5 and for me Kentmere 400 - I post process the same way for the same result.

 

[MattKing]

Although the developing times don't differ by much. The HP5 tech sheet suggests 8 min in Xtol and the Kodak sheet for Xtol says 8½ min. The difference in final contrast shouldn't be that much for 30 seconds difference.

I was referring to the difference between the target contrast that the two companies use(d) when determining their recommendations for development.
I don't know whether Kodak uses the same target contrast for Kodak and non-Kodak film.

 

[Craig]

I don't know whether Kodak uses the same target contrast for Kodak and non-Kodak film.

From the Xtol sheet they list most Kodak films target Contrast Index as 0.56 (TMZ being the exception) and the Ilford range as 0.58.

Ilford uses a Ḡ of 0.62, and I gather that the bar and Contrast Index systems are not measuring the same thing, such that a conversion between the systems isn't possible.

 

[retina_restoration]

Your Delta image is clearly, though slightly, more contrasty overall too, at least to my eye on my iPad I’m currently viewing them on. I‘d say that’s the source of the difference.

It's not that simple. This is about local area contrast, not global contrast.
But we each see what we think we see, so....

 

[Agulliver]

Well. There's very, very little else indeed. Very little...

There's Fuji superia Xtra 400, and quite a lot of it in both the UK and USA if my recent findings are to be believed.

For a time, sure, Fuji stopped coating colour film. They restarted a year or so ago.

I know it's fashionable among some to assume Fuji want to exit the film market. But it doesn't appear to be so.