Kodak price increase

[Alan Edward Klein]

The same way you do it at your corner market or anyplace else on the planet. One of the very first things you'll see in the airport are kiosks to exchange your money, if you so desire. Cash money still works. (I'm assuming you aren't just trolling with these questions--if you are, you got me.)

Mike the original question was buying stuff overseas. No one buys stuff overseas with cash.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They're not only competing with other film manufacturers but with digital as well. In fact that's their biggest competitor. People can just drop film and move on. So the idea that there isn't enough competition just isn't true.

Better yet drop the digital and move to film. One can buy a lot of film for the price of the top of the line Nikon or Canon and so new lenses. Now how about quit trolling?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm referring to ordering stuff from overseas from the US.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Better yet drop the digital and move to film. One can buy a lot of film for the price of the top of the line Nikon or Canon and so new lenses. Now how about quit trolling?

Stop calling me names.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Mike the original question was buying stuff overseas. No one buys stuff overseas with cash.

You are wrong on this. Couldn't possibly be more wrong. Have you ever even left this country? It sure doesn't seem like it, based on your questions. If I were feeling more charitable, I might send you a few of the pounds I have left over from last summer's trip to London. But apparently nobody uses them for anything...hey! How did they get in my pocket??? Who even made these things?

 

[GregY]

Yes, but that one time 25% raise in beer over the decade plus, goes to show a real need on the brewers needs, vs. the ridiculous, double digit rises in Kodak products in a long, annual habit of Kodaks profit taking, at the cost of those who have used their products loyally for decades, plus new users of film cameras.

What good is Kodak's growing facilities and additional shifts, if they are wholly dependent on large annual raises, that are no resulting in lowered cost to the end users?

Ilford should be supported instead, if they can get down further, with their lower priced but high quality films.

Bulk Ilford films 70mm and 135 should be the point of their spear to recruit their newest users and Kodak refugees, with lower prices.

Ilford HP5 Plus seemingly overnight jumped from about $150 U.S. to about $240 overnight, for 50 feet, a huge leap for an important product I and other 70mm film users can no afford easily.

Ilford needs to lower that price point so those of us using their 70mm film can more often use this special format.

Ilford should also offer FP4 plus or Pan-F and Delta 100 in 70mm bulk rolls to it's loyal users, if for nothing else to promote their choices of films, using 70mm as a lost leader.

If nothing else, Ilford could offer discounted 70mm in individual, black paper/plastic rolls, no backing, of 12 - 15 feet, ready to feed into various cassettes or backs.

70mm film users in most cases, are shooting multiple formats in all their films, especially when they are priced out of Kodak products.

IMO.

The "shoulds" aren't going to happen Eli.
Ilford is pretty cool offering their once a year ultra large format orders. Like all the big sheet film sizes, 70mm is a real niche market. I honestly can't see how you have any leverage at all.
And to top it off, with so few film producers why would Ilford offer loss leaders? What would be the business sense of that? I'll continue to buy Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tri-X and Tmax (100 & 400)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You are wrong on this. Couldn't possibly be more wrong. Have you ever even left this country? It sure doesn't seem like it, based on your questions. If I were feeling more charitable, I might send you a few of the pounds I have left over from last summer's trip to London. But apparently nobody uses them for anything...hey! How did they get in my pocket??? Who even made these things?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to buying things overseas and shipped to another country where you live.

 

[VinceInMT]

Mike the original question was buying stuff overseas. No one buys stuff overseas with cash.

Previously you said “How else besides credit cards do people purchase things overseas?”

Just an FYI, one can use PayPal to buy from overseas and no credit card is required. This can easily be done by transferring money from a bank or brokerage account to the PayPal Wallet. This is not a bad idea with overseas transactions.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Previously you said “How else besides credit cards do people purchase things overseas?”

Just an FYI, one can use PayPal to buy from overseas and no credit card is required. This can easily be done by transferring money from a bank or brokerage account to the PayPal Wallet. This is not a bad idea with overseas transactions.

Vince see my last post's clarification. I was referring to buying from overseas and shipped to your home in another country. Cash in Paypal is no more cash than checks that are drawn from your bank account or Paypal backed by a credit card. Other than the Paypal guarantee which is substantial. I would never use a cash backup with Paypal. though At least with a credit card you can complain to the credit card company. Do they stop payments through Paypal?

 

[eli griggs]

Am I the only one smelling Kodak hating?

At this time, Kodak's gouging of people that use their product is more a matter like the bankers farmers have slaved under for so many this last century and decades before that.

If you see haters hating on Kodak, it actually film users hating on their financial practices.

And as to prices and inflation, just how much has the actual materials, including silver which rises and falls during the last ten plus years actually gone up over the last ten years plus?

Using those excuses in light of, what is possibly the most expensive material in a roll of Tri-x 400, silver, where is the declining silver prices reflected in their pricing schemes?

 

[Sirius Glass]

At this time, Kodak's gouging of people that use their product is more a matter like the bankers farmers have slaved under for so many this last century and decades before that.

If you see haters hating on Kodak, it actually film users hating on their financial practices.

And as to prices and inflation, just how much has the actual materials, including silver which rises and falls during the last ten plus years actually gone up over the last ten years plus?

Using those excuses in light of, what is possibly the most expensive material in a roll of Tri-x 400, silver, where is the declining silver prices reflected in their pricing schemes?

Not at all like the Octapus, Kodak is passing on its costs, nothing more. And by the way so is everyone else.

 

[MattKing]

Using those excuses in light of, what is possibly the most expensive material in a roll of Tri-x 400, silver, where is the declining silver prices reflected in their pricing schemes?

The most expensive material is either:
1) the backing paper, for 120; and after that
2) probably the triacetate substrate that they have to buy from Europe and for which there is a worldwide shortage.
The most expensive component is all the costs relating to finishing/confectioning the film and then distributing it - those costs are a lot higher than the basic film manufacturing costs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The most expensive material is either:
1) the backing paper, for 120; and after that
2) probably the triacetate substrate that they have to buy from Europe and for which there is a worldwide shortage.
The most expensive component is all the costs relating to finishing/confectioning the film and then distributing it - those costs are a lot higher than the basic film manufacturing costs.

What do finishing and confectioning mean and entail?

 

[MattKing]

What do finishing and confectioning mean and entail?

First, in complete darkness and with closely climate controlled and dust free conditions:
Slitting the large master rolls into individual roll width.
Edge numbering and, in the case of 135, cutting the sprocket holes.
With 135, cutting into individual roll lengths, attaching to spools and loading into cassettes.
With 120, cutting into individual roll lengths, attaching to spools and adding backing paper. Then
Now, with the lights on, but still with closely climate controlled and dust free conditions:
With 135, inserting the cassettes into labelled plastic canisters, and then subsequently into the appropriate outside paper box packaging.
With 120, inserting the spooled rolls into labelled foil packages, and then subsequently into the appropriate outside paper box packaging.

 

[eli griggs]

What do finishing and confectioning mean and entail?

And why does confectioning larger numbers, packaging of rolls or bulk films no reflect significant discounts?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I guess with sheet film it means adding the ID cuts along the edge and inserting in light proof sealed papers and boxing them.

I heard many years ago that Kodak hired blind workers to work in the film manufacturing department which had to be without lights. I assume because they were better adapted to working "blind". Is that a true story?

 

[GregY]

And why does confectioning larger numbers, packaging of rolls or bulk films no reflect significant discounts?

.....because those are production & labour costs.

 

[MattKing]

I guess with sheet film it means adding the ID cuts along the edge and inserting in light proof sealed papers and boxing them.

I heard many years ago that Kodak hired blind workers to work in the film manufacturing department which had to be without lights. I assume because they were better adapted to working "blind". Is that a true story?

It is a well known one.
But individual workers doing this stuff by hand is massively more expensive than using the relatively modern, highly mechanized high volume equipment that is used for most film finishing.
At their peak, Eastman Kodak was using multiples of their current equipment, and were finishing over 3 million rolls of film each day!
One of the big reasons LF film is as expensive as it is is that the finishing is a low volume, fairly manual procedure.
And the reason that still film bulk rolls are so expensive from Kodak, is that the volumes are equally low and that the equipment used for that is really old, and really manual/labour intensive.

 

[MattKing]

And why does confectioning larger numbers, packaging of rolls or bulk films no reflect significant discounts?

It does - if the equipment was less mechanized, the costs would be much higher. You can see that in the relatively high costs for sheet film and still film bulk rolls, where the confectioning process is almost manual in comparison.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It does - if the equipment was less mechanized, the costs would be much higher. You can see that in the relatively high costs for sheet film and still film bulk rolls, where the confectioning process is almost manual in comparison.

There's an awful lot of work for us sheet film LF photographers too. First I have to set up the change tent. Then inside it, in the blind, unpack the film and load the film holders. Then put away the tent. Then after I shoot the film, I have to set up the tent again, unload each sheet in the tent from its holder, blindly, pack it in the film box, and put the tent away after loading up the empty holders with new film.

I'm getting so efficient at it that I might apply for a job in Kodak's sheet film confectioning department.

 

[eli griggs]

The "shoulds" aren't going to happen Eli.
Ilford is pretty cool offering their once a year ultra large format orders. Like all the big sheet film sizes, 70mm is a real niche market. I honestly can't see how you have any leverage at all.
And to top it off, with so few film producers why would Ilford offer loss leaders? What would be the business sense of that? I'll continue to buy Ilford FP4+ and Kodak Tri-X and Tmax (100 & 400)

The only "leverage" I or you have is the use of our voices, online, to each other and to Ilford, and the foresight to see a more robust product line bringing in people whom still see Kodak as "The film maker", without peers.

Ilford B&W films are every bit as good as Kodak and that together with a lowered price should be the stimulus for bringing in and up Ilford's increased fortunes, IMO.

 

[MattKing]

Harman/Ilford's colour film products are really not up to snuff though .
Harman/Ilford make and sells more black and white film then Kodak does.
The market for black and white film is also much smaller and narrow and more focused than for colour films.
As a result, there are some cost and efficiency advantages for black and white film that are enjoyed by Ilford, but not Kodak.

 

[GregY]

The only "leverage" I or you have is the use of our voices, online, to each other and to Ilford, and the foresight to see a more robust product line bringing in people whom still see Kodak as "The film maker", without peers.

Ilford B&W films are every bit as good as Kodak and that together with a lowered price should be the stimulus for bringing in and up Ilford's increased fortunes, IMO.

It will be a sad day if we're reduced to one major producer Eli

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What legal requirement left over from the bankruptcy settlement is there that forces Kodak in the US to keep producing films for Kodak Alaris in Great Britain?

 

[MattKing]

What legal requirement left over from the bankruptcy settlement is there that forces Kodak in the US to keep producing films for Kodak Alaris in Great Britain?

The contractual agreement between the parties. It actually is a revised version of the previous agreement, but Kodak Alaris continues to own many important legal rights which were paid for with, among many other things, the $600,000,000.00 USD paid to the Trustee as part of the settlement.
Eastman Kodak of course has no infrastructure to do what Kodak Alaris does - they sold all that, and were released as well from the huge financial obligations associated with that infrastructure as part of the contractual agreement that that $600,000,000.00 was related to. Among other things, to take on those obligations they would have to hire large numbers of employees throughout the world and greatly increase their staffing costs. Eastman Kodak is short of capital - there is no way they could afford to take on the distribution burden - a burden which was a major factor in what brought them into bankruptcy in the first place.
The photographic part of Eastman Kodak is mostly not interested in anything but making stuff and selling it to someone else to do all the complex and expensive stuff necessary to get it into the hands of end users. They are a B-to-B manufacturer for everything but some of their motion picture film.