Kodak to put film prices up in 2012.

[h.v.]

What big Canadian photography on-line store? As far as I know none exist.
It's hard to beat B+H

In Edmonton, Tri-X is $6.89 for 36 exp 35mm roll. It's one of the few that are cheaper in 35mm than 120 on a per roll basis. That's Don's Photo (Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg).

Henry's (Toronto, Ottawa, ...) has it for $8.99 for 36 exp and $6.99 for 24 exp (ouch!).

Kerrisdale Cameras (Vancouver, Victoria) has 24 exp for $5.99.

The Camera Store (Calgary) has 36 exp roll for $8.18 (ouch again!).

Lozeau (Montreal) has 24 exp for $6.99 and 36 exp roll for $7.99.

Those are some of the main Canadian stores (Henry's and the Camera Store particularly). Don't know about stores in Quebec City or the Maritimes (except Atlantic Photo Supply, which didn't show 400tx). Other stores in Toronto are comparable and other stores in Edmonton are more expensive. It looks like Prairie folk are getting the best deal on Tri-X in Canada. I'm surprised, I always thought that Canadians elsewhere paid similarly to myself. I'd assume larger markets like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver would actually be a bit cheaper.

But I hardly shoot Tri-X anyways. I've long dedicated my B&W photography to Ilford. HP5 is the same price as Tri-X, anyways.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and Vancouver would actually be a bit cheaper

Nope.

 

[henry finley]

I was just at the CVS drug store in town a little while ago and stopped by to see their 2 rolls of TX135-24 were $10.49 a roll. Absurd. Makes me sick to see the film stock in a drugstore. When I was a teenager in the early 70's a drug store had TONS of film of every kind. Sickening to see things come to this.

 

[h.v.]

Nope.

Obviously, but it is strange isn't it? The only major markets that are far from populated U.S. centres has the cheapest film. The 3 largest markets, close to major U.S. markets, have expensive film. Just defies logic to me. For $8.99 a roll, no way I'd be continuing to support the local guys, I'd just buy from B&H like so many others clearly have done.

 

[MattKing]

Beau Photo has HP5+ 35mm 36 exp for $6.60 a roll on their website.

And their Kodak pricelist is still "coming soon" - grrr!

 

[StoneNYC]

Kodak to put film prices up.

When I was a young lad of eighteen I worked at a camera store. The boss called the regional Kodak rep to complain about some Kodak dealings. The rep just scoffed and said, "If you don't like it go buy your Kodak film somewhere else".

Kodak doesn't seem to change their attitude even though the loyalty isn't there anymore, they aren't "the best" like they used to be... Just one of... But they don't realize this...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Kodak to put film prices up.

Obviously, but it is strange isn't it? The only major markets that are far from populated U.S. centres has the cheapest film. The 3 largest markets, close to major U.S. markets, have expensive film. Just defies logic to me. For $8.99 a roll, no way I'd be continuing to support the local guys, I'd just buy from B&H like so many others clearly have done.

Agreed, I buy from B&H and Tmax is actually cheaper than Tri-X and the Tmax is cheaper than Delta 400 so that's the only Kodak film I buy, if that changes, I'll go back to Ilford, I buy 2 other of their films already anyway and they 'get it' so I'll support them but when grain-less-ness is less important I still go for HP5 over Tri-X, it's got such beautiful tones... Yep, Kodak is certainly pricing themselves out of the market... Shame...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[benjiboy]

Ultimately you have two choices,either pay the price or do without the product.

 

[Xmas]

Hi

I don't think it is just Kodak, I bought 400 foot of Kodak cine (5222) in Nov'13 for nearly the same price as 100 foot of Kodak bulk(Tri-x), including delivery to front door after a day or two for cine, over shop counter for bulk.

The retail trade may judge the risks in stock holding high, it has a sell by date, the reseller may be stuck with the bulk...

The cine is probably from stock at Kodak distribution the reseller sends truck to pick it up, and has debit card cash in hand, pays Kodak a month later. I get 300 foot of film for free.

Of course it is not really for free the bulk reseller will order less next time, he needs turnover. And my fridges have no food in them, must have 3000 foot of film in chill. Kodak make less film.

I buy lots of film retail from the same reseller, when I pass his shop, Forma and expired when he has either (or both), frequently he sells out of Forma 400, or has no expired, but I always carry lots of film anyway.

I may be his best customer, I use a lotta film, I shoot like it was digital.

Noel

 

[frobozz]

Kodak just released their latest Motion Picture Products catalog:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_February7_2014.pdf

5222 is up to $234.43 for a 400' roll.

Duncan

 

[StoneNYC]

Kodak just released their latest Motion Picture Products catalog:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/QA_MotionPictureCatalog_February7_2014.pdf

5222 is up to $234.43 for a 400' roll.

Duncan

Eek!

 

[frobozz]

And as before, no discount for getting the 1000' roll: $568.08 which is the same cost per foot. (Which is why I buy the 400' rolls; why suffer the extra hassle of the big roll if you're just cutting it down anyway?)

Duncan

 

[StoneNYC]

Kodak to put film prices up.

And as before, no discount for getting the 1000' roll: $568.08 which is the same cost per foot. (Which is why I buy the 400' rolls; why suffer the extra hassle of the big roll if you're just cutting it down anyway?)

Duncan

Because this is meant for Cine folks, and cinematographers use 400 and 1,000 foot rolls interchangeably, they don't buy anymore because it's at a discount, they buy more because they can shoot for a longer period of time without having to reload, in addition the only reason the 400 really exists is in order to get into tight spaces when the cameraman can't fit the larger reels at the back of the camera, so it doesn't give any kind of reason for giving a discount for the thousand foot rolls it doesn't make sense in that world.

 

[frobozz]

Because this is meant for Cine folks, and cinematographers use 400 and 1,000 foot rolls interchangeably, they don't buy anymore because it's at a discount, they buy more because they can shoot for a longer period of time without having to reload, in addition the only reason the 400 really exists is in order to get into tight spaces when the cameraman can't fit the larger reels at the back of the camera, so it doesn't give any kind of reason for giving a discount for the thousand foot rolls it doesn't make sense in that world.

Well sure, just saying no need for us still photographers to bother with the 1000' roll. A while back I sent them a suggestion at their email address for such things: make 100' camera spools available too! It would help student filmmakers, Eyemo users, etc... AND they'd sell a whole pile of them to still photographers who don't currently know how to cope with the hassles of a 400' roll. I even pointed out that Orwo NA was doing this. Apparently that fell on deaf ears.

Duncan

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Eiher lose your film or higher prices, take your pick.

Jeff

 

[MDR]

Kodak's Motion Picture Division has the advantage of being the only game in town, unfortunately. They should be careful though and try not to price themselves completly out of the market. If you have to buy a 100 or more 1000ft reels a price increase even of only one or 10 or 20 $ can be painful especially for those few indie production that haven't moved to digital yet.

Some cameras only accept 400ft loads and smaller the Aaton Penelope and 35-III come to mind

Frobozz. Kodak serves the pro market Orwo the amateur market it would probably be more expensive or more hassle for them to produce 100ft spools than it's worth. AFAIK 100ft Spools can be ordered as special order but there is a minimum order. Regarding the Still photographers using MP-Films the amount they use is probably less than a single movie production uses.

That being said I'd rather they moderately increase their prices than that the end their production of film.

 

[Xmas]

Hi

The Bollywood movies I've seen have all been in colour. The Bollywood shoot I've watched did not seem to be on a tight budget, hybrid Arri, case full of prime optics, 3x camera people, equity extras.

All stone says is true but in addition if you have a long take or several long takes e.g. 3x 400 foot reels may leave you with multiple (3x) short ends, whereas a 1000 you might only have one short end.

So they could sell the 1000 foots at a premium.

Orwo will sell you 400 and 1000 foot with cine cam sprockets in 100 or 400 ISO so 5222 is not the only game in town. If you need depth of field the 400 is an advantage you can always close the sector shutter if you want blur.

Their film prices in UK are similar to Kodaks...

The hybrid Arri allows confirmation of a good take by the director of the real time digital output, so a rush is not as essential, and the director can rehearse takes, from the cameras perspective. The above team got the 1st run through with film in the can every time. Their lighting was horribly difficult contrasty, I was in trouble with HP5+.

Noel

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Well, shooting movies on film is something of a luxury today. But I guess that careless price hikes could push more peope over to digital, which could lose more money they they gain for Kodak.

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, shooting movies on film is something of a luxury today. But I guess that careless price hikes could push more peope over to digital, which could lose more money they they gain for Kodak.

Half of big budget films are still shot on film... Fyi

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Half of big budget films are still shot on film... Fyi

Hence the luxury (big budget ... get it?)

FYI I love movies shot on film so I usually check up on new releases. Three of my favourites from the last few years are The Master, Killing them Softly and Seven Psychopaths. They are celebrations of film craft (though neither had a massive budget).

But for less monied up productions, digital has big time and cost-saving advantages.

(I also love films shot with digital Red cameras, so I look for that too.)

 

[Xmas]

Half of big budget films are still shot on film... Fyi

Hi Stone

That would be in colour normally?
Only low budget or niche movies are on mono film?
If you shoot in digital and convert to mono post your post costs might be lower, post costs hurt in digital?
So who is using mono, must be the impoverished, micro budget movie?
Camera man hanging around a previous production looking for a free recan?

Noel

 

[PKM-25]

Ultimately you have two choices,either pay the price or do without the product.

Just curious Ben, why the "Captain Obvious" post after over one year?
It makes it look like Kodak has raised prices again and they have not.

 

[MDR]

Xmas some Big Budget movies still use 5222 for effect but that's it most others convert to mono in post one of the reasons is that some market will not accept B/W movies India for instance.

The Orwos are more more modern films than Kodak B/W but they had or still have problems with the perforations . I hope they have solved the problems.

A recent example for digital mono is Nebraska not my cup of tea to be honest clipped highlights etc.

Post is not that cheap in digital the shooting ratio of digital is usually much higher than on film shots the resulting time one needs to sift trough all the footage offsets a lot of the cost advantages of digital in post.

Mono is the domain of the film student, amateur, short filmmaker, commercials, and micro budget movie and sometimes the big budget guys who use it for effect. A lot of the aforementioned use 16mm and not 35mm.

Frankly that Kodak still produces 35mm B/W MP Filmstock is a wonder and shows that Kodak is commited to Filmmaking even at their loss. For that let me say thank you Kodak the last man standing

 

[StoneNYC]

Hi Stone

That would be in colour normally?
Only low budget or niche movies are on mono film?
If you shoot in digital and convert to mono post your post costs might be lower, post costs hurt in digital?
So who is using mono, must be the impoverished, micro budget movie?
Camera man hanging around a previous production looking for a free recan?

Noel

We are talking movie stock... It's all the same... And by that I mean they aren't going to change their B&W spooling system unless they have a reason to change ALL their movie stock systems... It would cost to much to alter the workflow, ESPECIALLY for the B&W division which as many say it doesn't use as much.

 

[MDR]

Xmas Kodak only offered 35mm 100ft on S83 spools meaning Daylight spools those are a bit more expensive than the simple cores. Most of Kodak's Vision 3 emulsions are available on 200ft cores. Again it's a question of costs and 100ft 35mm simple is not cost effective. All their 16mm stocks are available in 100ft reels for the simple reasons that those are being sold and used by people. Nobody uses 100ft 35mm reels except for a few antique camera enthusiasts that is.