Kodak price increase

[eli griggs]

Everything I've read here indicates there is no death grip. Photographers are going to other manufacturers here and from other countries. Plus they are competing with digital. THey have to price their film wisely.

What are the other American film producing companies, actually producing films here in compatition to, Kodak, in the U.S.?

Kodak has, IMO, a virtual monopoly on still film production taking place here, as far as I am aware and it's marketing arraignment/scheme in the U.S. keeps their prices much higher to it's American customers (properly with no regard for overseas marketing) whom are left no choice in domestically produced product, and it has such a grip on B&W still films, there I'll a no real competition benefiting Americans wants American films.

IMO

 

[BrianShaw]

I’m almost sorry that I expressed distain for The Soapbox now. LOL

 

[MattKing]

What are the other American film producing companies, actually producing films here in compatition to, Kodak, in the U.S.?

There aren't any, because:
a) the market is so small; and
b) no one else can make or sell colour film at any price as low as Kodak can.
And Kodak can only make and sell it at the low price they do sell it at, because of their legacy equipment and the huge amount of financial obligation that they were released from as a result of the bankruptcy.
To a certain extent, the same applies to Harman, who arose out of the financial collapse of Ilford (the black and white part).
And the same for Adox, whose major equipment came from the financial collapse of the other part of Ilford (the colour part).
And all the other named sellers of film, who are generally buying bits and pieces from the various remaining successors to Agfa, who left the still and movie film for photographic purposes market a while ago.
The only other film manufacturing being done, outside of Fuji, is being done on machinery that is old and saved from the scrap heap. Fuji's production may also be done on similar equipment, but no one can really say for sure.
There is no business case for anyone devoting capital toward creating a viable high volume competitor using new equipment.
The existing equipment - both Kodak's and others, in most cases has lots of unused capacity, but until the very recent price increases, it was uneconomic to take advantage of that capacity -Adox has made that very clear in posts here..

 

[Mike Lopez]

Wanted: free Kodak film for personal use. 70mm only. Thanks.

 

[Craig]

Harman does its own distribution in the UK. And in many cases, it is more expensive to buy Ilford products there than it is in the US.

Do you mean on a pre or post tax basis? The shelf price in the UK usually includes 20% VAT, and Canada/US retail prices generally don't include GST/sales tax.

Picking a random example, a roll of HP5 120 in the shop I used in London is £5.42 ex VAT, which works out to $9.02 CAD. Shelf price at The Camera Store in Calgary is $10.75 +5% GST.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But what is their net profit? Gross profit means almost nothing.

22.99% net profit margin Sept reported quarter. Not too shabby.

apple net profit - Google Search

 

[MattKing]

Do you mean on a pre or post tax basis? The shelf price in the UK usually includes 20% VAT, and Canada/US retail prices generally don't include GST/sales tax.

Picking a random example, a roll of HP5 120 in the shop I used in London is £5.42 ex VAT, which works out to $9.02 CAD. Shelf price at The Camera Store in Calgary is $10.75 +5% GST.

The last time I checked, Calgary isn't in the US .
The US has a different exclusive distributor - a division of Roberts Camera.
In Canada we have our own exclusive distributor - Amplis.
The Camera Store is required to buy from Amplis.
US retailers are required to buy from the distribution division of Roberts Camera.
When did you make your London purchase?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I’m almost sorry that I expressed distain for The Soapbox now. LOL

Told you so.

 

[Craig]

When did you make your London purchase?

I visited last May and bought my film for the trip there. It saved the film one pass through the X Ray machine and was the same price as buying in Calgary and taking it over.

If you're ever in London, The Photographers Gallery is worth a visit - that's where I bought the film, plus they have a very well stocked bookshop.

 

[cmacd123]

The last time I checked, Calgary isn't in the US .
The US has a different exclusive distributor - a division of Roberts Camera.
In Canada we have our own exclusive distributor - Amplis.
The Camera Store is required to buy from Amplis.

of course with the domination of US retailers due to the HUGE US market, I sometimes get my film purchases from a very well known large US retailer. thereby cutting out Amplis.

and the add to the fun, Canadians can click on https://store.amplis.com/collections/ilford-photo and order from Amplis. (and for any americans looking those prices are in CDN dollars so Multiply by about .75 to see the US equivalent.) the same webstore also allows one to order many other products sold by Amplis.

 

[mshchem]

Film is magnificent. It's always been expensive. Look how much money an old Kodak 3A postcard camera cost 100 years ago. Where do you think Steve Jobs got the idea for a stylus for phones hmmn...Maybe an old Kodak autograph model.

 

[Craig]

Film is magnificent. It's always been expensive. Look how much money an old Kodak 3A postcard camera cost 100 years ago.

I was gifted a 4x5 Graflex from 1923. I looked up what it cost, and the owner could have bought a Model T Ford for what the camera cost.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Meanwhile, Velvia 50, a Fuji film, is higher in cost than all the other E6 films.

Might be true for you, here it is €13,50 for Velvia and €15,80 for Ektachrome (in 120)
Provia and Gold in 120 are about the same price (€10,65 vs €10,60)

 

[eli griggs]

Wanted: free Kodak film for personal use. 70mm only. Thanks.

Mike, there is a world of difference from a reasonable, competitive price, no blown up by middlemen schemes and yearly double digit inflated prices, and free 70mm or any films for that matter.

That I commented on Ilford's huge leap for 70mm, 50" bulk rolls, jumping from about $150 U.S. to $238 should clue you into the fact I'm willing to question other companies than Kodak on huge price increases on their products, and hope for a brighter, more affordable film future.

Now, unless I'm in error and you actually wanted to send me some free 70mm bulk film, I feel fine about my posts to this thread.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

If that was true, by now Kodak films should've easily been 3x the price of other films. Guess what? They are not.

Why 3 times exactly? If my local market is anything to go by - isn't 1/3 - 2x the price of competition enough? Are Kodak films 0,3 to 2x better than Ilford's, made or rare-Mars materials, or am I missing something here? This price gap simply is the reason I haven't touched almost any Kodak film - why indulge the extra expense when competition is as good/better?

Kodak 400 TMAX, 135 - 12,90EUR | Ilford Delta 400, 135 - 9.90EUR
Kodak 400TX, 120 - 12.90 | Ilford HP5 Plus 400, 120 - 6,90

 

[Don_ih]

I was responding to what seems to be a relatively common belief - that the generators of price increases are at the manufacturing of master rolls end of the production and distribution chain.

I doubt many people think to distinguish making the master roll from cutting it up and putting it in packages. When people say "film manufacturing", they are referring to the process which turns various raw materials into finished film in ready-to-buy packages - just like no one means a freshly slaughtered side of beef when they talk about a hamburger.

 

[brbo]

Why 3 times exactly? If my local market is anything to go by - isn't 1/3 - 2x the price of competition enough? Are Kodak films 0,3 to 2x better than Ilford's, made or rare-Mars materials, or am I missing something here?

I responded to your comment about how Kodak's price increases are much more frequent and that other manufacturers are merely adjusting for inflation here and there. If that was true, Kodak film would now be 2, 3, 4 or 10 times (pick your number) as expensive as Foma or Ilford films.

And sadly, at least for me, Kodak colour film is not just 2x better but infinitely better than Ilford or Foma and indeed seems like it comes from another planet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak color film is way better than Ilford color film. Kodak color film will still be work the price. As I learned as a teenager, choose you subjects carefully and do not waste film. Am I surprized at the price change? No. Am I happy about it? No, but I will learn to deal with it.

 

[GregY]

Kodak color film is way better than Ilford color film. Kodak color film will still be work the price. As I learned as a teenager, choose you subjects carefully and do not waste film. Am I surprized at the price change? No. Am I happy about it? No, but I will learn to deal with it.

Ditto with BW film.

 

[VinceInMT]

An earlier reference to Apple in the discussion about Kodak got me thinking about the two of them. Yes, both are of the pricier end of the spectrum but, IMO, both have set pretty high standards of quality in their respective marketplaces. I’ve used both since back into the 1970s and, while I also using stuff from competitors, Apple and Kodak are simply high quality, dependable, and predictable.

Back in those 70s I worked for some years in a medium volume, 3,000 rolls/day, color photofinishing lab and we were all Kodak in chemicals, paper, and equipment. They even came in a did an audit of our production and showed us how we could reduce paper waste by $1 million/year by making some production changes. To accomplish that I was also sent to their facility in Whittier for training and it was top-notch, and, as a result, we did reduce paper waste by that amount, which cost them sales to us.

I was an early adopter of Apple stuff, buying an Apple ][ in ‘78 while my friends were buying other brands. Our experiences were totally different in that the ][ just worked and had a nice range of high quality add-ones as the technology evolved. Later I switched to the PC world due to my need to run AutoCAD but went back to Apple years later and now run both, including Linux, and when it comes to Apple, the stuff just works and, most importantly, it all works together without messing around with jumper settings, config files, etc.

Quality is expensive.

 

[Sirius Glass]

An earlier reference to Apple in the discussion about Kodak got me thinking about the two of them. Yes, both are of the pricier end of the spectrum but, IMO, both have set pretty high standards of quality in their respective marketplaces. I’ve used both since back into the 1970s and, while I also using stuff from competitors, Apple and Kodak are simply high quality, dependable, and predictable.

Back in those 70s I worked for some years in a medium volume, 3,000 rolls/day, color photofinishing lab and we were all Kodak in chemicals, paper, and equipment. They even came in a did an audit of our production and showed us how we could reduce paper waste by $1 million/year by making some production changes. To accomplish that I was also sent to their facility in Whittier for training and it was top-notch, and, as a result, we did reduce paper waste by that amount, which cost them sales to us.

I was an early adopter of Apple stuff, buying an Apple ][ in ‘78 while my friends were buying other brands. Our experiences were totally different in that the ][ just worked and had a nice range of high quality add-ones as the technology evolved. Later I switched to the PC world due to my need to run AutoCAD but went back to Apple years later and now run both, including Linux, and when it comes to Apple, the stuff just works and, most importantly, it all works together without messing around with jumper settings, config files, etc.

Quality is expensive.

I have owned Mac computers since 1984 with my Big Mac [512]. I have only owned a few Macs because they last so long. I added a daughter board to the 512 Mac with a 68030 and a math coprocessor and it was really fast for the time. I used that as a data server for my other computers until around 2005. Color caused problem on the screen and it was relatively slow, but it moved the data. Typically I upgraded my Macs ever twelve to fifteen years, with the shortest life being 12 years, but that machine never failed.

One gets what they pay for.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

An earlier reference to Apple in the discussion about Kodak got me thinking about the two of them. Yes, both are of the pricier end of the spectrum but, IMO, both have set pretty high standards of quality in their respective marketplaces. I’ve used both since back into the 1970s and, while I also using stuff from competitors, Apple and Kodak are simply high quality, dependable, and predictable.

Back in those 70s I worked for some years in a medium volume, 3,000 rolls/day, color photofinishing lab and we were all Kodak in chemicals, paper, and equipment. They even came in a did an audit of our production and showed us how we could reduce paper waste by $1 million/year by making some production changes. To accomplish that I was also sent to their facility in Whittier for training and it was top-notch, and, as a result, we did reduce paper waste by that amount, which cost them sales to us.

I was an early adopter of Apple stuff, buying an Apple ][ in ‘78 while my friends were buying other brands. Our experiences were totally different in that the ][ just worked and had a nice range of high quality add-ones as the technology evolved. Later I switched to the PC world due to my need to run AutoCAD but went back to Apple years later and now run both, including Linux, and when it comes to Apple, the stuff just works and, most importantly, it all works together without messing around with jumper settings, config files, etc.

Quality is expensive.

Because I was in business back when all computers got a start, I was an early adopter of Windows because most of the business apps were done in Windows. So I stayed with it. My wife has an Apple computer and phone. Unfortunately, I really don't know the Apple operating system so it's a pain in the neck when she asks for help on her machines.

 

[GregY]

I have to shake my head when the guy who asks for someone to send him a Leica for $10 is complaining about the cost of film. Back in my university days, those of us who photographed had one camera, and some, only one lens, and some pretty fine photography was turned out. These days it's common to see forum subscribers with shelves full of cameras. Everything costs more today than it did even two years ago.... food, gas, cars....& film. If you have unlimited resources, it doesn't matter, if you don't.... you figure out how to make compromises....& which compromises to make.

 

[Finn lyle]

+1
Penny for penny of purchasing power, at least in USD, the price of film today seems to more accurately reflect what it was in the 70's and 80's... accounting for inflation film was only getting cheaper and cheaper for most of the early 2000's and 2010's since companies couldnt afford to increase prices much, if at all. Film couldn't cost pennies forever folks, $2.00 in 1975 is roughly $12 today. Honestly good for Kodak and others for being able to fully capitalize off the new interest in film. I for one will continue to purchase and firmly believe that this will result in better products.

 

[koraks]

Let's not make this into a computer thread, please. If you guys feel like discussing this topic, feel free to open a thread in the Lounge.