Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '[Partner] ADOX' started by ADOX Fotoimpex, Oct 1, 2015.
11x14 or 8x10 aren't "tiny." They're "just right."
Well we just have to disagree here.
Though I am making smaller tri colour over palladium and really liking the smaller size.
It'd certainly be interesting to carry out a large scale international survey of culturally significant photographs to see what size they were originally printed at - I'd suspect that until pretty recently, relatively few ever made it over 11x14, & even then only after the popularisation of 35mm - many probably never even made it above 8x10...
I also note that as a proportion of income, in the late 1930s, 1 doz. sheets of Brovira 20x24 double weight cost about the equivalent of 400USD or so...
I'm a big fan of 4x5/ 9x12 contact prints personally
Why? My first box of phtographic paper (Agfa), bought 1985 in a local store cost me 29 Deutschmarks for 100 sheets of 5x7.
Today the same paper (ADOX) costs 28,49 EUR´s plus there are cheaper choices now which back then did not exist.
Back then sales tax was 16%, now it is 19%. Apply inflation and average household income increase and you will see that photographic paper today is actually cheaper than in the 1980ies. I am sure it´s the same in the US. The price level which existed in the early 2000 years and effectively put 4/5th of the industry into the ground were not real prices and can´t be compared to. Inkjet is more expensive and if you do alternative printing via a digital internegativ you could do the same for silver paper and only use 1 sheet instead of 7.
Obviously we´d like you to keep "burning" 7 sheets..... ;-)
Today paper cannot be stored for much longer than 5 years anymore. All good stabilizers have been banned.
It´s different for film though because a slight base fogg does not matter and you can print right through.
Some of their films are meanwhile even marketed under a Kodak tradename...
(Today paper cannot be stored for much longer than 5 years anymore. All good stabilizers have been banned.
It´s different for film though because a slight base fogg does not matter and you can print right through.}
Good information, I was thinking maybe 3-6 years
I am happy about the film being able to store longer. For my purposes I am thinking Large Contact Prints.. then yes paper price will be in line with pt pd.
Unfortunately for me I am a lousy enlarger printer so it does take me 8 sheets to make one good one. Not sure I agree with your
Not the case (at all) here in the states.
When I started in the late 90's, an 8x10 box of ilford fiber was 1/2 of the current price.
This is still an excellent value. 17 years of inflation plus a decrease in production volumes to 1/1000th of the original volumes and the price in absolute figures has only doubled!
Compare how much the model of the car you are currently driving cost back then in absolute figures and how much it costs today.
Also in the end of the 90ies the price spiral down had already started. It tipped about 1998.
I don´t want anyone to be confused so I would like to add the EUR/Deutschmark conversion rate which was 1,96 DM to a EUR. So the nominal numbers have doubled in my example as well. But still this does not make the paper more expensive due to inflation and rise of wealth.
But still this does not make the paper more expensive due to inflation and rise of wealth.
I guess a lot depends on what side of the scale you are in regards to the rise in wealth.. Seems that 5% really have done well over the last 20 years, the other 95% not so well.
It can easily cost $5-$6 USD and more for a quality watercolor paper for a 20x24 alt process print. Many alt processes require a huge investment in time to produce which needs to be captured in pricing comparisons. And I haven't done the math yet, but making a full size proof in platinum/palladium, or even using one-shot gold or platinum toners for salt, kallitype, or albumen is a very expensive proposition. Multiple proofs are a reality when I print, too, so multiply the cost. It seems to me that gelatin silver is still a relative bargain.
Example: it will be less expensive for me to make a carbon transfer using fixed out 20x24 fiber photo paper than to use watercolor paper that I have to cut, size, and harden.
It's true that any hand-made print made to the highest quality can be pricey. That's just one reason why I prefer smaller prints -- less expensive to produce, and more affordable for collectors.
I agree and there are many problems in the world today but still the average household income has increased to a certain extend (you say not so well) and I just want to be acurate.
Regardless of the current vs past prices of paper, I feel the cost of silver prints, 8x10 anyway since I rarely print larger, is cheaper than inkjet. I'm talking about inkjet done at home. A box of 100 sheets 8x10 inch plus chemistry, seems cheaper than buying 100 sheets of equivalent quality inkjet paper and a round of ink for the printer. And, that ink won't make it through 100 sheets anyway.
And making silver prints doesn't involve using the computer! (Except maybe to order the stuff)
Color paper is dirt cheap if you buy it on the roll.
The argument on paper prices is interesting. 4 years ago when I took a photo class and was introduced to darkrooms, I spent (for me) huge sums of lots of paper. I went through nearly 1000 sheets of 8x10 in 15 weeks and spending hours and hours in the dark room with the radio going. It was like a time capsule, I would go in and when I went to leave it was 36 hours later in the most extreme example.
Personally I'm glad we are getting an inkjet paper from ADOX, as I no longer have darkroom access and no place to set one up right now, I've adopted the hybrid approach and am printing via inkjet. Paper is one of the cheaper aspects, its the ink that costs a fortune.
Hi, I purchased some of this paper and I really like it, but the prints are really fragile, you can't even touch them without leaving signs or marks; it seems that the inks aren't absorbed completely by the paper. I'm printing it with a Canon Prograf 1000 Inkjet Printer, I would like to know if somebody else has experienced this kind of problem or it's just me. Until now I used the "Heavyweight Fine Art Paper" setting, maybe it's not the one it should be used?
The late 90-ies is twenty years... Consumer prices have tripled in that time frame.
It's not the case anymore. According to B&H ads in the Popular Photography magazine from January 1981 Ilford Pan F, FP4 and HP5 in 135-36 format all were sold at 1,85USD, which equals to 5,07USD in today's money. B&H currently sells Pan F+ at 6,95USD(+37%), FP4+ at 5,99USD(+18%), HP5+ at 5,29USD(+4%). The least popular of these three got the biggest price increase.
Tri-X 135-36 was 2,05USD back in 1981, equals to 5,62USD, now is at 5,69USD(+1%). Tri-X 120 5 pack was 6,99USD, equals to 19,15USD, now is at 28,95USD(+51%).
If we compare prices in this mag from mid 90s the difference will be even more dramatic. Besides in 2015, when Mirko wrote this, real median income per US household in inflation-adjusted terms was stagnating since the end of 90s (thanks to dot-com bubble and real estate bubble), so the comparison doesn't seem to make much sense.
All in all I would say that the prices for silver halide products have fully recovered after the market collapse and now are full steam ahead.
Mirko did not say which market/income he had in mind.
I was comparing prices in Germany where a roll of FP4 cost 7 Deutschmarks in the mid 80ies. If a roll really cost just 1,85 USD in the US (currency xchnage rate at this snapshot? fully branded product? 36 exp?) things were different over there. But in any event we are talking today about 1-2% of the market of the 90ies and thus an estimated max. 5% of the market of the 80ies. Real prices should be 5-10x higher. Neither Foma, nor Ilford nor Impossible or us make any money. We live of achievements from the past and the consumers have all the benefits today. The prices of today are still not sustainable. In the best case we can cover variable costs. We could never do R&D for a new product and pay for it from the revenue of the sales.
If you were spending 36 hours printing in a darkroom at one stretch then it sounds as if your health is benefiting from no darkroom access. Not that I am advocating 36 hours in front of a computer and printer either
Not a direct answer to your question, but with Canon Pro-10 and OEM pigments I rely on several Canon inkjet papers, some of which are made by Hahnemeule (all excellent, none are sensitive to handling).
Actually they were not different at all. According to this site http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exchange-rates.php 7DEM equalled 2,39USD in 1985. After we remove Germany's 14% VAT of that period (because B&H prices were without sales tax) we arrive at 2,10USD for a roll of FP4. I say this is pretty damn close to the B&H price of 1,85USD, considering there's always price difference between the two continents.