Kodak price increase

[VinceInMT]

+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.

Yes, just like many other products, accounting for inflation, their cost is relatively the same. The advantage many of us have is that we make lots more money, even accounting for inflation, than we did in 1975. Back then, I was in the Army and my take home was $505/month. In 2022 dollars that $33K/year. I'm certainly better off now.

 

[mshchem]

I suspect some vary serious discussions occurred when Kodak Alaris tried to sell the still films, chemical and paper business.

For KA to retain the film business it had to generate more profit. At the same time Eastman Kodak, wanted freedom to sell to people like Cinestill. AND THEN COVID HIT. The mess created by Covid 19, and new US tariffs, Brexit, just to name a few things really roiled up everything everywhere. The enormous impact of monetary, fiscal and trade changes, it's crazy times.

Bottom line, costs are up, materials and raw ingredients are expensive and in short supply, and people are hoarding, no doubt.

I am so happy that I can still get the film I want, at least most of the time. It's always been an expensive hobby.

 

[Helios 1984]

Kodak films didn’t increase for years but, on the other hand, many film stock disappeared, thousands lost their jobs and many plant closed. Now, Kodak is hiring & they´re making an actual profit. I say rejoice for film is alive.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

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.

Interesting, because when comparing those films I compared there's hardly any difference between them, - see Naked Photographer on YouTube where he compares curves and prints made under controlled lighting.
If there's hardly a difference to be had, what are you paying for? Where's that 2x otherworldly improvement, I don't see it. Maybe it exists only in color? I truly don't know

Could agree on 1/3 of an improvement just for the kick of it, but putting the religion called Kodak aside...
And it's worth mentioning that I'm working with BW material only, so I speak solely about my observations in this field.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Interesting, because when comparing those films I compared there's hardly any difference between them, - see Naked Photographer on YouTube where he compares curves and prints made under controlled lighting.
If there's hardly a difference to be had, what are you paying for? Where's that 2x otherworldly improvement, I don't see it. Maybe it exists only in color? I truly don't know

Could agree on 1/3 of an improvement just for the kick of it, but putting the religion called Kodak aside...
And it's worth mentioning that I'm working with BW material only, so I speak solely about my observations in this field.

Part of the cost difference is quality control, without a product is not worth using.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...One gets what they pay for.

Not necessarily. But one almost never gets what one doesn't pay for.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Part of the cost difference is quality control, without a product is not worth using.

I feel like we've made a complete circle here.

Kodak aren't the only ones making quality films and I feel like there's nothing to add to this topic - see the comparison videos and judge the zoomed-in performance yourselves.
I let these examples speak for themselves, no religion and feelings attached, and I remain unconvinced about the otherworldly differences, because I haven't experienced such phenomenon by seeing pictures daily for years.

All looks competent and on the same playing field - what shines are those magical pairings when great stock compliments the subject nicely. And there are many combinations out there to explore.

 

[albireo]

It's always been an expensive hobby.

I'm very happy to be an exception, as it's a relatively cheap hobby for me. Way cheaper than my digital days. And I like my output much more!

Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Adox, Fuji. We are spoilt for choice. It's a great time to enjoy film photography.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Taste also affects what you like. More so with color. Also, the type of shooting. If you shoot portraits, then Kodak Portra films make sense because they're formatting to reproduce flesh tones accurately. I happen to like the palette pop of Fujicolors Velvia 50 for my landscapes. Kodak Portra would be too drab for my use, even Kodak Ektachrome. Meanwhile, I like Kodaks Tmax films for BW because of the way they scan easily and give me nice tones. I've heard Delta might be comparable. But I'm conservative. Once I settle in on stuff I like, I usually don't bounce around. Some people are more daring trying new things all the time. I think my wife of thirty years likes that I'm conservative.

 

[VinceInMT]

Taste also affects what you like. More so with color. Also, the type of shooting….

^^^This^^^

Subject matter and the the type of output desired plays heavily into what film/papers work for me. Back when I started, in the very early ‘70s, I was all about sharpness, wide tonal range, and fine grain. My subject matter was, well, derivative. Now, 50 years later, I’ve abandoned that quest and don’t feel as restricted as I used to be. The subject itself isn’t as important to me as the composition and, to some degree, the feeling conveyed, and those fine technical details, while still observed, don’t drive what I do. Inexpensive materials are sometimes just what is needed.

 

[mshchem]

I'm very happy to be an exception, as it's a relatively cheap hobby for me. Way cheaper than my digital days. And I like my output much more!

Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Adox, Fuji. We are spoilt for choice. It's a great time to enjoy film photography.

You are like my Dear departed father. He made beautiful photos with very a simple rangefinder camera and a small enlarger. I have hundreds of Kodachrome slides that start in the late 40's and go up to the mid 70's Covering mostly our family. Wonderful body of work. All his equipment was kept in a case no larger than a shoe box. I on the other had are a accumulator of everything photographic.

Yes we are lucky to have so many choices of fine films and papers.

 

[removedacct1]

Yes we are lucky to have so many choices of fine films and papers.

Period.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are like my Dear departed father. He made beautiful photos with very a simple rangefinder camera and a small enlarger. I have hundreds of Kodachrome slides that start in the late 40's and go up to the mid 70's Covering mostly our family. Wonderful body of work. All his equipment was kept in a case no larger than a shoe box. I on the other had are a accumulator of everything photographic.

Yes we are lucky to have so many choices of fine films and papers.

+10,000

 

[logan2z]

I looked and didn't see this posted elsewhere, but I apologize in advance if it's buried in another thread.

Why Are Kodak Film Prices Increasing? What’s Changing & What Isn’t

New estimated prices as of 3/1/2023

 

[Huss]

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?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

Operating costs and in the US we do not pay VAT. In the UK the film prices are closer.

 

[Nikon 2]

It's become traditional for members to complain about the increasing cost of film and paper. While not understanding the value of such posts (buy it, don't buy it, go digital, whatever), I decided to provide a venue where Kodak's detractors can vent.

Today: Kodak Poised to Raise the Price of Film by Up to 40%:

Kodak Poised to Raise the Price of Film by Up to 40%

The hobby is about to become a lot more expensive.

petapixel.com

Have at it!

That’s why I’m paying for for film…!

 

[Peter Schrager]

Make you own film and see what's involved
Stop whining and support kodak because if it goes away you'll cry even more
As an aside been food shopping lately??
Prices are out of control!

 

[Peter Schrager]

Interesting, because when comparing those films I compared there's hardly any difference between them, - see Naked Photographer on YouTube where he compares curves and prints made under controlled lighting.
If there's hardly a difference to be had, what are you paying for? Where's that 2x otherworldly improvement, I don't see it. Maybe it exists only in color? I truly don't know

Could agree on 1/3 of an improvement just for the kick of it, but putting the religion called Kodak aside...
And it's worth mentioning that I'm working with BW material only, so I speak solely about my observations in this field.

There's no film like tmy400 period...
Try you'll see...and Ilford does make nice films

 

[Craig]

Make you own film and see what's involved
Stop whining and support kodak because if it goes away you'll cry even more
As an aside been food shopping lately??
Prices are out of control!

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

Yeah, film that exists (Kodak color) is way better than any film that doesn't actually exist (Ilford color.)

I don't think Kodak black and white film is one bit better than Ilford, though it's different and the differences may be worth more to some people - they aren't to me. Both are better than Foma but Foma is fun in a different way.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Make you own film and see what's involved
Stop whining and support kodak because if it goes away you'll cry even more
As an aside been food shopping lately??
Prices are out of control!

$7Cdn for a asparagus! Crazy! By the way, TMY-2 is a great film, but I would not cry if Kodak went away... I may shed a tear or two if Ilford did, though...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Make you own film and see what's involved
Stop whining and support kodak because if it goes away you'll cry even more
As an aside been food shopping lately??
Prices are out of control!

Absolutely. Keep things in perspective.

 

[GregY]

$7Cdn for a asparagus! Crazy! By the way, TMY-2 is a great film, but I would not cry if Kodak went away... I may shed a tear or two if Ilford did, though...

I'd shed tears too....not for the loss of Ilford film....but Ilford is the major paper supplier. Brilliant, Forte, Foma (short & irregular supply)......Ilford is almost the last man standing.....

 

[Roger Cole]

I would scream and wail and sell my photo gear, most likely, if Ilford completely went away. The best papers and my favorite films.