Shocked at how much bulk TMY-2 costs

Kodak bulk film has been much more expensive than any other manufacturer's bulk film in the UK for some years now. I remember posting a thread in the old APUG forum asking if there was a reason why and pretty much being treated as a troll. What I would have appreciated is an answer such as that provided by @MattKing above. Succinct, and no doubt truthful.

Sadly it appears that for Kodak, 100 foot bulk rolls just aren't efficient or easy to manufacture. Though I have to say, I'd be happy to forego the frame numbers if that permitted a more automated process and cheaper film.

Ilford has hiked the prices of 100 foot rolls in the last couple of years such that I'm now looking for alternatives....but Foma and Kentmere don't really work for me as I shoot the majority of my HP5+ at 1600 or faster and push process. I have tried this with Fomapan 400 and Kentmere....and while it's technically possible I am not as happy with the results. As for Kodak, I've not bought a 100 foot roll of Tri-X since about 2003...and that was from an eBay auction. Turned out well though.

And in answer to Don's post above.....I can foresee a time when Kodak does indeed stop selling 100 foot rolls. And what then?

Duceman said:

I can't speak to any thread from a few years ago, but I can say that a decade (and more) ago, bulk savings over individual cassettes for TMY was around 50%. Less so a few years ago, and now... <10%?

Click to expand...

Well at least that seems to be better than it was. It had changed so that bulk rolls were actually cheaper

Mind you that seems to be only available via this Film Club or can you order bulk rolls as or more cheaply more than cassettes via the usual U.S. retailers?

In terms pf price it may be bad in the U.S. but in the words of the song and in terms of Kodak prices in the U.K. " you ain't seen nothing yet" It is truly horrendous.A few years ago it probably still favoured the U.S. in terms of prices but at least in the U.K. a block of 5 TMax 400 was within reason. This is no longer

Mind you, as has been pointed out to me in the past, there is really nothing Kodak can do about its prices nor about the change in the 50% to now only 10" advantage in bulk roll v cassette price

So its put up or shut up as the saying goes in terms of Kodak prices

pentaxuser

Agulliver said:

And in answer to Don's post above.....I can foresee a time when Kodak does indeed stop selling 100 foot rolls. And what then?

Click to expand...

Um, nothing. It won't make much of a difference. The important thing for people that shoot film is that film is available. If making bulk rolls is actually an economic drain on Kodak, as Matt's well-rehearsed soliloquy suggests, it would be a good idea for them to stop making them.

Somehow, though, I doubt it's that much trouble to do.In terms of "they don't sell as many bulk rolls as they used to", they also don't sell as many individual rolls as they used to. Everything they've done has needed to be scaled down.

If they don't loose money on bulk rolls, I would say that they can sell a shitloat of Gold 200 or color plus as bulk. Given that they can find enough / the right people to do this labour intensive process.

Ernst-Jan said:

Remind that Foma 400 is also almost half of the sensitivity...

Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind, thanks! I rather have less sensitive film than no film

Ernst-Jan said:

It's the same as Agfaphoto APX

Click to expand...

Ha! Well, I'll see which one is cheaper then.

koraks said:

Yeah, that sounds about right in terms of the economics, @Daniela.

As to the lost frames, here's what I do, using the Watson-style bulk loaders, recycled Fujifilm Superia 35mm cassettes (but other brands will work too) and a proper darkroom:
* Only let a few cm of film stick out of the light trap/gate. No more than ca. 5cm.
* Tape this end to the spindle. You don't have much length to work with, but it can just be done.
* Fit the spindle into the cassette and fit the lid onto the cassette. Ensure the lid fits tightly around the entire perimeter.
* Now turn off the lights.
* Without fitting the cover on the film loader, flip the lever as if the cover has been fitted. Rotate the round cover to open the gate.
* Pull the film roll towards the end of the loader where it mounts onto the axis with the handle you can rotate to load the film.
* Personally, I proceed in the dark from here, simply loading the film in the dark by rotating the handle and counting the turns. 30 turns gives a length of >36 exp. (it's a little longer than a commercial roll, in fact). Alternatively, you could close the gate, pull back the lever, fit the lid, and open the gate again and then turn on the lights to do the rest of the process in room light.

This way, you only waste a few cm's of film at the end of the roll and that doesn't tend to interfere with the last frame(s), so all frames are exposed OK without fogging.

Hope this makes sense. I can see if I can make some photos or a video if it's not clear enough.

The whole trick is simply to only expose a minimal length of film in the process of taping it to the spindle and then ensuring the rest of the film doesn't see any light, apart of course from the leader, but that's a lot less tricky since you have more length to play with there.

Click to expand...

I understand, koraks. Thanks!
I actually have a different type of loader , but I have been using it inside a changing bag because I kept getting random light leaks. That has resolved the light leak issue. What you describe is more or less what I do, I think I'll just try to do the whole thing inside the changing bag, even if the beginning (taping) might be tricky.
I actually found that it's safer to tape the new film to an existing lead, and parallel to the spindle. I had one experience in which the automatic advance system of my camera pulled the whole film off the spindle. Almost lost my vacation pictures.

I'm sure that if Eastman Kodak wanted to divert resources from the highly in demand and still backlogged "35mm colour film in cassettes" line to make more low demand 35mm bulk black and white film they could.
But why would they?
Their costing systems would still result in it being very expensive - and those systems make business sense for them, so they use them for everything.
Bulk loading is an infinitesimally small market, when compared to the overall 35mm market.
Black and white film is also a very small volume product for them.
So when you combine those two realities, you realize that any decision to increase volume and decrease prices would mean that they would be heavily subsidizing a small volume product, at the expense of their high volume main product, which they currently are having trouble meeting demand for.

@Daniela If you can find one in reasonable price, by all means buy an AP Bobinquick film loader. These don't ruin the first frame you load and minimise waste. By far the best loader I have.

Anon Ymous said:

@Daniela If you can find one in reasonable price, by all means buy an AP Bobinquick film loader. These don't ruin the first frame you load and minimise waste. By far the best loader I have.

Click to expand...

Just watched a video of it. Wow! Didn't know it existed. I'll keep an eye out for one.
Thanks!

Daniela said:

Just watched a video of it. Wow! Didn't know it existed. I'll keep an eye out for one.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

BTW, you can also find identical, or similar loaders by Kaiser and Konica.

MattKing said:

I'm sure that if Eastman Kodak wanted to divert resources from the highly in demand and still backlogged "35mm colour film in cassettes" line to make more low demand 35mm bulk black and white film they could.
But why would they?
Their costing systems would still result in it being very expensive - and those systems make business sense for them, so they use them for everything.
Bulk loading is an infinitesimally small market, when compared to the overall 35mm market.
Black and white film is also a very small volume product for them.
So when you combine those two realities, you realize that any decision to increase volume and decrease prices would mean that they would be heavily subsidizing a small volume product, at the expense of their high volume main product, which they currently are having trouble meeting demand for.

Click to expand...

Translation: Eastman Kodak is simply too big.

It boggles the mind how a company in the UK (Ilford) is able to sell a highly comparable product here in the U.S. cheaper than the greatest film company in the U.S. sells theirs.

Anon Ymous said:

@Daniela If you can find one in reasonable price, by all means buy an AP Bobinquick film loader. These don't ruin the first frame you load and minimise waste. By far the best loader I have.

Click to expand...

Daniela said:

Just watched a video of it. Wow! Didn't know it existed. I'll keep an eye out for one.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

The problem with those film loaders is your dragging film through felt. I had something lodge in the felt inside after the first couple of rolls and it scratched the next 15 rolls across the center. The other loaders open up completely with only the felt on the cassettes to worry about so needless to say that that roller is seldomly used.

Duceman said:

Translation: Eastman Kodak is simply too big.

It boggles the mind how a company in the UK (Ilford) is able to sell a highly comparable product here in the U.S. cheaper than the greatest film company in the U.S. sells theirs.

Click to expand...

It is true - Eastman Kodak is set up to do business with higher volumes than Harman/Ilford is. This reflects the desperate efforts that both entities used to try to stay in existence when the film market imploded.
Eastman Kodak approached the problem by hiving off all of their lower volume, lower overall profit products. In that process, they dismantled/destroyed a whole bunch of equipment. They reduced their staffing, got ride of production sites, cut out a whole bunch of product lines. Their approach was to concentrate on only those relatively high volume product lines that they had a real market advantage with. It is actually surprising that black and white film production survived - their volumes have been low for a long time. Frankly, it is almost a miracle that they didn't get rid of the more than half century old equipment that is currently used to make bulk rolls of still film.
Ilford approached the issue in a different way. They got rid of much of their high volume equipment. Instead, they re-purposed a relatively new coating line that was designed for very small volumes.
Both also got rid of a lot of 35mm and roll film confectioning equipment. As it turns out, they both got rid of too much of that.
Neither approach was sufficiently successful.
Ilford went bankrupt first. The assets were bought up by a group of management through a vehicle - Harman Technology. Harman Technology was subsequently sold to an investment group. That entity doesn't have nearly as much debt as Ilford did before the bankruptcy, and has far lower overhead. But it doesn't have a lot of capital, and it has both lenders and shareholders to answer to.
Eastman Kodak had attempted to diversify outside the photographic world. That wasn't successful. It went bankrupt as well. As a result of the bankruptcy, it remained in existence with less debt, a vastly reduced overhead, new shareholders and a business that is only partly photographic. It too lacks capital, and is answerable to both lenders and shareholders.
There is absolutely no possibility that Ilford/Harman could produce anything close to the volumes of film that Eastman Kodak can. Within its much smaller volume, limited (black and white) product line it has much more flexibility than Eastman Kodak, but it doesn't have nearly the ability to increase film manufacturing or confectioning volumes.
Eastman Kodak lacks flexibility - they just don't have the capital and other resources from the high volume, high demand and relatively profitable product lines in order to make products that are low volume and low or no profit. Neither their lenders nor their shareholders will support that.
Eastman Kodak could increase film manufacturing - at least the manufacture of master rolls. What they lack is the finishing resources that turn those master rolls into end user forms - like 35mm cassettes. As it turns out, they got rid of too much of that capacity. They are also challenged (as I'm sure Harman are) with respect to the constituent components that all film manufacturers have to buy from third parties. There continues to be shortages, delays and in some cases huge price increases for those components, and those issues create important related cash flow issues.
Neither entity has the ability to go out and greatly expand their capabilities. The film industry doesn't easily attract capital.
It isn't the least bit surprising that the different players in what remains of the industry end up with different prices for their products.

The biggest losses for Kodak was when movie production went digital. Consumers products were important but it was the sales to the film industry that brought in the profits.

We’re lucky there are major manufacturers still making films for us to use.

madNbad said:

The biggest losses for Kodak was when movie production went digital. Consumers products were important but it was the sales to the film industry that brought in the profits.

We’re lucky there are major manufacturers still making films for us to use.

Click to expand...

A surprisingly short time ago Eastman Kodak was making and selling 70 master rolls each day of Kodacolor film - enough to make nearly 3.4 million spools each day. That produced a fair amount of profit

In the end, some people just want to moan about prices even when the real world justification is given. We are indeed quite lucky that Kodak and Ilford survived at all. Count me as one of the people who does bulk rolling for B&W and who might well for colour if the option existed. I'd love to have the Kodak B&W films as a reasonable option to bulk roll, but I'm realistic enough to understand that's not likely. Kodak, Harman, Foma, et al....they all need to be careful and take few risks....concentrate on what will sell and make some profit.

I bought a 100' roll of TMX, about a year ago from B&H, it was cheaper, seems like it was $100 per 100'. I dug it out of the freezer. I like shorter rolls, so I'll be winding 18 exposure rolls.

Dennis S said:

The problem with those film loaders is your dragging film through felt. I had something lodge in the felt inside after the first couple of rolls and it scratched the next 15 rolls across the center. The other loaders open up completely with only the felt on the cassettes to worry about so needless to say that that roller is seldomly used.

Click to expand...

Oh, my! The Lloyd's that I have now has felt too, but thank goodness I haven't encountered that problem. Certainly something to keep in mind!

I have been using a Lloyds film loader for 50 years and have not experienced scratching from something getting lodged in the felt slot. It is possible though, so you might want to inspect the film each time you load a roll and clean the felt slot periodically.

There are many articles on the net exposing the gouging that has gone on in the name of Covid!
Perhaps Kodak is one of them.
As for Ilford film and paper we have to remember that Ilford survived the transition to digital in part because it put it's effort into black and white products whilst a rudderless Kodak waffled farted and burped itself to oblivion unable to decide which direction to take !

Ilford went bankrupt, and now is a brand name only. There were people around who were able to pick up a few pieces of what was left of the black and white portions of Ilford. They have been able to make a go of it from those pieces.
Kodak went bankrupt trying to replace the profits that film had once provided. But there was enough value remaining in its various parts - both photographic and non-photographic - that Kodak survived the bankruptcy, and is able to continue to offer wonderful films, at greatly reduced volumes.
The colour parts of Ilford were bought up by others after the bankruptcy, but arre now gone.
And the challenges that Eastman Kodak have experienced because of Covid and the worldwide disruption of availability of all sorts of things are very real, and very difficult. For one, it is very difficult to source the acetate film base that they get from Europe.

"Price gouging is the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock. This commonly applies to price increases of basic necessities after natural disasters." from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging

If Kodak is inefficient at spooling 100 foot rolls of film, and thus increases retail price, that's a darn shame, but it is not price gouging. Gouging is for example: when you go to an outdoor festival and it's hot and their concession booth is selling $10 bottles of water. Because you know that doesn't reflect the cost of the water and getting it to the festival site (unless the festival is on the Skeleton Coast of Namibia or something), merely the temporary-monopoly power.

Being able to buy 100 foot rolls and spool your own film for less than the per-roll retail is a convenience, not a necessity. And Kodak has competition. So if we don't like it, fortunately we can buy from Ilford. Although, if no one buys Kodak 100' rolls, they may stop making them, and then I predict people will complain about that.

Daniela said:

Don't see as a bulk option at my usual seller, but will keep your suggestion in mind for next time. Thank you, Huss!

Click to expand...

Ilford says that it is available in bulk lengths. In Canada I see a 30.5M roll is $119 CAD for either the 100 or 400 speed. That's about €82.

For comparison, HP5 is $149.

They are listed as special order, so your retailer may have to order them in for you.

Anon Ymous said:

BTW, you can also find identical, or similar loaders by Kaiser and Konica.

Click to expand...

1 company makes them in i believe south korea and re brands them. RIght now the only ones on the market are coming form South Korea via ebay.. but at prices ranging from 150$ to 250$ USD...

Dennis S said:

Where do you find that price.? Ilford Canada has Delta 100 at $165 per 30.5M

Click to expand...

That's about right for Delta. I was looking at Amplis, the Canadian distributor for Ilford products.

HP5: https://store.amplis.com/products/ilford-photo-hp5-35mm-100-feet?_pos=2&_sid=a22196f49&_ss=r
Kentmere: https://store.amplis.com/products/kentmere-400-35mm-x-100-bulk-film?_pos=4&_sid=25851753e&_ss=r

This is why I roll hp5plus.
Kodak are being ridiculous