Kodak's New 4x5 Film Packaging!

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Post #59 in the same thread as the earlier Kodak Alaris email quote:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Email I just received from Kodak Alaris...

Dear Andrew,

Some good news to share. We have decided to maintain availability of the 50 sheet-4 x 5 black and white film items along with the new 10 sheet items for the time being.

Best regards,

Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020
thomas.j.mooney@kodakalaris.com | Office: 585.310.5776 | Mobile: 585.520.2639
www.kodakalaris.com
cid:image001.png@01D0784F.34F11A30


Good news, eh!

Thanks, that is the information I remember reading.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well my humble opinion of Kodak B&W is they are making everything so expensive that they hope sales will drop and enable them to discontinue all their B&W photographic products,,,

Kodak Alaris markets the film, but the film stock is supplied to Kodak Alaris by Eastman Kodak as I understand it. Maybe Kodak Alaris has no choice but to raise the price if Eastman Kodak is milking Kodak Alaris? I don't really know and I don't really care since I have found B&W film that is plenty good enough for me and I'm happy.

 

[Wayne]

Perhaps you would prefer Kodak Alaris' answers to questions posed as part of the Emulsive newsletter question and answer session:

1. We have no intentions of removing any films from our current portfolio. Let us be very clear here: Film is our heritage and our team loves this industry. We will do everything in our power to keep our current portfolio sustainable for the future!

Here is the link to the full session: http://emulsive.org/articles/commun...kodak-alaris-community-interview-results-time

That's nice to know but we're talking about a certain package, namely boxes > 10 sheets. He is talking about types of film there.

 

[Arklatexian]

Kodak, including Thomas Mooney, can be 100% trusted to respond to the market. If 10-sheet boxes sell well and 50-sheet boxes don't, count on the 50-sheet boxes being discontinued. It will all be determined by film purchasers, not Kodak.

Hmmmmm! Seems like Sal has a firm grip on the concept "supply and demand" in a business's decision of what to make and how much to sell it for.......Regards!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, that's what I read also. Unfortunately, I think the folks above are insinuating that there will only be 10 sheet boxes or none at all since the cost is to high. I've switched to Iford for the bulk of my B&W work. I refuse to pay that much difference in cost for the yellow brand. It's a sad day since I think this is a "shot in the foot" type move on Kodak Alaris's part. Of course they might not have a choice in this. It could be their film supplier is gouging them with high price film stock????? Either way, I'm happy with Ilford.

We have a great friend in Alford

 

[John Wiegerink]

We have a great friend in Alford

Yup, me too Ralph!

 

[Wayne]

Hmmmmm! Seems like Sal has a firm grip on the concept "supply and demand" in a business's decision of what to make and how much to sell it for.......Regards!

You might gauge Sal's grip better by conducting a poll. How many sheet film users or potential sheet film users would rather buy in quantities larger than 10, and would be willing to pay less per sheet for that privilege?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

You might gauge Sal's grip better by conducting a poll. How many sheet film users or potential sheet film users would rather buy in quantities larger than 10, and would be willing to pay less per sheet for that privilege?

Such a poll would be just as useless as the ones conducted before last November's U.S. election.

The only 'poll' that matters is the one Kodak is conducting by offering products and observing the market reaction to them. Everything else is just a bunch of people babbling on the Internet.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well my humble opinion of Kodak B&W is they are making everything so expensive that they hope sales will drop and enable them to discontinue all their B&W photographic products,,,

This has reminded me: Did we ever get to the bottom of why Kodak charges so much for its bulk rolls in relation to its cassettes compared to the case with Ilford and the likes of Foma?

Maybe this is one for our friend "Emulsive" who conducts interviews with those "In The Know" in Kodak's seniour management? I am sure a lot of us would like to know

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Maybe this is one for our friend "Emulsive" who conducts interviews with those "In The Know" in Kodak's seniour management? I am sure a lot of us would like to know

One of the questions asked in the Q&A with Kodak Alaris that Emulsive published recently was whether Kodak Alaris was considering offering bulk colour film rolls. Their answer may be relevant: "To be quite honest, in our experience bulk rolls end up being small volume and high cost."
Here is the whole Q&A: http://emulsive.org/articles/commun...kodak-alaris-community-interview-results-time

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the link, Matt. I note that Kodak seemed quite unequivocal about not resurrecting Kodachrome despite what appeared to be a "man for all seasons" answer on it, reported here.

A question was asked about whether Alaris had the mandate to "pivot its strategy, for example to order "smaller quantities of a limited run of P3200". The answer was that Kodak Alaris sets its own strategy based on industry trends and needs.

I found that a bland and meaningless answer which appeared to be designed to allow each of us to draw whatever conclusions suit us, unlike the answers on Kodachrome and producing a C41 home kit which were at least clear.

Finally I noted the answer on colour bulk rolls which may or may not apply to B&W but let's assume it does. There was no attempt to explain why when Kodak produces film in tens of 1000s of feet why simply cutting that into 100 feet rolls and packing it into boxes, as does Ilford, was high cost.

You would have thought that the panel would have said to itself that it needed to explain why when it cuts film anyway for cassettes and then has the added expense of the sophisticated equipment needed to place it into cassettes, the bulk roll cuts should be high cost when this high and presumably unprofitable cost does not place Ilford in the same boat?

I can't be alone in not being able to see why this is the case and never will be able unless KA gives a better explanation.

Finally can I ask those users of Kodak bulk rolls: Has Kodak bulk rolls always been more expensive than cassettes or is this a very recent phenomenon despite Kodak suggesting that film sales in recent times have a sunnier outlook?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

There was no attempt to explain why when Kodak produces film in tens of 1000s of feet why simply cutting that into 100 feet rolls and packing it into boxes, as does Ilford, was high cost.

You are forgetting the set-up and take-down costs, different edge printing, the different core, the different can, the different box, the different insert, the different sku (for distribution).
With 35mm, all of that is highly, highly mechanized, and the volumes are high as well.
Harman is set up to do small volumes, whereas Eastman Kodak is set up to do high volumes.

 

[MattKing]

Finally can I ask those users of Kodak bulk rolls: Has Kodak bulk rolls always been more expensive than cassettes or is this a very recent phenomenon despite Kodak suggesting that film sales in recent times have a sunnier outlook?

When volumes were high, bulk rolls were more economical.
The film cost itself is probably a small fraction of the expense.
I'd be willing to bet that Eastman Kodak's fixed setup charge alone (for switching the production run from the mechanized individual cassettes to bulk rolls and then back again) is in the order of several thousands of dollars.

 

[Wayne]

Such a poll would be just as useless as the ones conducted before last November's U.S. election.

The only 'poll' that matters is the one Kodak is conducting by offering products and observing the market reaction to them. Everything else is just a bunch of people babbling on the Internet.

yeah but that won't tell us anything about your grip.

 

[Anon Ymous]

You are forgetting the set-up and take-down costs, different edge printing, the different core, the different can, the different box, the different insert, the different sku (for distribution).
With 35mm, all of that is highly, highly mechanized, and the volumes are high as well.
Harman is set up to do small volumes, whereas Eastman Kodak is set up to do high volumes.

Oh well, in that case they can outsource bulk roll finishing - packaging to someone else who can do it at a lower cost.

(ducks for cover)

 

[MattKing]

Oh well, in that case they can outsource bulk roll finishing - packaging to someone else who can do it at a lower cost.

(ducks for cover)

Assuming by "they" you mean Kodak Alaris, that might be a good idea, but I don't know whether the deal between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris would make that possible.
And it wouldn't seem to make sense if they would have to ship the film to another continent to make it happen. Is there anyone else in North America besides Eastman Kodak who have the equipment?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Assuming by "they" you mean Kodak Alaris, that might be a good idea, but I don't know whether the deal between Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris would make that possible.
And it wouldn't seem to make sense if they would have to ship the film to another continent to make it happen. Is there anyone else in North America besides Eastman Kodak who have the equipment?

Heh, that was meant to be a joke, but still it makes you wonder how other companies manage to offer a reasonably priced product, while Kodak Alaris fails spectacularly. And IMHO, it's not just the bulk rolls. You'd expect that 135 bw film by Kodak would be priced competitively and cheaper than their competitors, given their huge production capacity. Instead of that, we're seeing their film prices rising steadily and lately even becoming more expensive than their direct competitors (Ilford) in some cases. Of course, they are free to charge whatever they want in order to stay afloat, but at some point loyal customers may consider other products. I personally find it much more likely to buy a bulk roll of HP5+ than continue using 400TX.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Hmmmmm! Seems like Sal has a firm grip on the concept "supply and demand" in a business's decision of what to make and how much to sell it for...

You might gauge Sal's grip better by conducting a poll. How many sheet film users or potential sheet film users would rather buy in quantities larger than 10, and would be willing to pay less per sheet for that privilege?

...The only 'poll' that matters is the one Kodak is conducting by offering products and observing the market reaction to them. Everything else is just a bunch of people babbling on the Internet.

yeah but that won't tell us anything about your grip...

Quite the contrary; it's the only thing that will.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...it makes you wonder how other companies manage to offer a reasonably priced product, while Kodak Alaris fails spectacularly...

So far, Kodak Alaris hasn't failed at all. The market defines what's reasonable. Since Alaris claims its film sales have increased, its customers have by definition declared its prices to be reasonable.

...You'd expect that 135 bw film by Kodak would be priced competitively and cheaper than their competitors, given their huge production capacity...

Given the volume of still film sold today, I'd expect higher prices from Kodak than its competitors, specifically because of Eastman Kodak Bldg. 38's huge production capacity.

...Instead of that, we're seeing their film prices rising steadily and lately even becoming more expensive than their direct competitors (Ilford) in some cases...

Again, given HARMAN's smaller and more agile coating line in Mobberley, that's exactly what I'd expect. Also, as noted previously, Kodak prices have risen steadily for decades.

...Of course, they are free to charge whatever they want in order to stay afloat, but at some point loyal customers may consider other products. I personally find it much more likely to buy a bulk roll of HP5+ than continue using 400TX.

That's how the market sets prices. If enough customers continue to purchase Kodak-branded still film, the asking prices are just right. If you and a sufficient number of others stop and patronize HARMAN instead, given Eastman Kodak's cost structure, 400TX will be discontinued.

Simple supply and demand.

 

[Tim Stapp]

We have a great friend in Alford

Not to forget FOMA. I love Ilford films, specifically FP4+. But when I can buy FOMA rebadged as Arista EDU Ultra for $38.00 for a 50 sheet box (only two part box - ...), it's a no brainer. I like what I get from this film, so..... I do like Kodak branded developers; specifically Xtol, but considering that my budget is not unlimited, I have to go with what I can afford. I have a 16x20 print made on 135mm FOMA 100 film that sells well (developed in Kodak branded Xtol). So.....

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm kind of in the same boat Tim is and if I want to enjoy my hobby I have to watch my pennies. It's either that or shoot much, much less. I prefer watching pennies over shooting less.

 

[MattKing]

Heh, that was meant to be a joke, but still it makes you wonder how other companies manage to offer a reasonably priced product, while Kodak Alaris fails spectacularly. And IMHO, it's not just the bulk rolls. You'd expect that 135 bw film by Kodak would be priced competitively and cheaper than their competitors, given their huge production capacity. Instead of that, we're seeing their film prices rising steadily and lately even becoming more expensive than their direct competitors (Ilford) in some cases. Of course, they are free to charge whatever they want in order to stay afloat, but at some point loyal customers may consider other products. I personally find it much more likely to buy a bulk roll of HP5+ than continue using 400TX.

As Sal has indicated, huge production capacity is only a cost saver if there is huge demand.
But to reiterate my earlier point, production costs are far from the only issue.
It wouldn't surprise me if distribution costs exceed production costs, when it comes to 35mm film. And Kodak Alaris and Harman Technologies are to some extent at the mercy of their distribution network.
As evidence for that, I point you to the numerous posts from our UK friends here on APUG. It is often cheaper for them to buy their Ilford film (manufactured in the UK) from the USA and pay the costs involved in shipping it back to the UK, including the costs of importation.
That isn't because there is some mysterious effect on the production cost of film destined for the USA. It is because the distribution deal that the USA importer and distributor worked out is so markedly favourable.
If someone wants lower bulk film and other film prices from Kodak Alaris, just get 10,000 or so of your closest photographer friends together and try to work a deal on a distribution agreement and a huge bulk order buy.

 

[Wayne]

If someone wants lower bulk film and other film prices from Kodak Alaris, just get 10,000 or so of your closest photographer friends together and try to work a deal on a distribution agreement and a huge bulk order buy.

Or just buy something else.

 

[Anon Ymous]

So far, Kodak Alaris hasn't failed at all. The market defines what's reasonable. Since Alaris claims its film sales have increased, its customers have by definition declared its prices to be reasonable.

When I said they failed spectacularly, I meant they failed to deliver reasonably priced bulk rolls. Everyone else sells bulk rolls at a lower price compared to what they'd charge for equal lengths of film in cassettes, except them. Sorry, I just find it unreasonable and given their pricing policy they obviously become "small volume" items. I'm more willing to bet that they see bulk rolls as a threat to prepacked film sales and a loss of profit than anything else.

On the other hand, their prepacked film prices are reasonable, especially if they see an increase in sales as you said. I may not like the fact that the price gap between Kodak and Ilford has vanished, but that's just supply - demand rules as you said.

Given the volume of still film sold today, I'd expect higher prices from Kodak than its competitors, specifically because of Eastman Kodak Bldg. 38's huge production capacity.Again, given HARMAN's smaller and more agile coating line in Mobberley, that's exactly what I'd expect. Also, as noted previously, Kodak prices have risen steadily for decades.That's how the market sets prices. If enough customers continue to purchase Kodak-branded still film, the asking prices are just right. If you and a sufficient number of others stop and patronize HARMAN instead, given Eastman Kodak's cost structure, 400TX will be discontinued.

Simple supply and demand.

I'm not sure that's the case, after all they see an increase in sales. Higher production volume per run means that some fixed costs are a smaller part of the final price and lower production cost because of the economy of scale. On the other hand, if a lot of the film produced doesn't sell within its useful life, then high production capacity becomes a liability and price increase is inevitable. Or product discontinuation if things go too far... Anyway, it's getting pure speculation so I'll leave it here.

... And Kodak Alaris and Harman Technologies are to some extent at the mercy of their distribution network...

Yes, they do and it's certainly not an insignificant factor.

 

[pentaxuser]

What you have said, Matt, about the economics of Kodak bulk rolls v cassettes may be right but my point was my post and your reply involves both of us and others speculating on the subject without insider knowledge. I just think that we deserve better and clearer answers than we are getting from Kodak with what appears to me to be bland and meaningless phrases when asked about limited production runs for P3200 and bulk rolls.

Like Anon Ymous, I'll leave it at that

pentaxuser