Just got 100’ hp5plus for $89 last month.
Shocked at how much bulk TMY-2 costs
-
A
- Thread starter Duceman
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale PENTAX SPOTMATIC SPII
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Trade For Trade, Nikon D750 DSLR for Leica lllf
- Started by dankapsner
Forum statistics
But bulk is not only about money. It’s about flexibility. Combined with replenished developer it gives you flexibility. You can do 1 frame or even 40 “ I rolled 40 frames by mistake”.
I did too. Gave one of my rolls to a friend and replaced it at that price.
Now I think I should have bought more as it's out of stock everywhere at that price and far more expensive at B&H. I'm betting it was my last under $90 roll.
A young friend is taking a photography class and I taught him how to bulk roll, so he can do short rolls if he wants to try just one thing before class. So I'm glad it's getting used for a good cause, not sitting in my freezer. I have 150' of HP5 waiting to roll, so I'm set on that into the summer. It sure does feel nice to shoot a favorite film for under $5 a roll, so if mpex doesn't bump the price to $120 when they get more in stock I'm throwing another 100' in the freezer.
Exactly. As I mentioned above, I taught my friend so he can roll whatever length. He has to have something ready every week for class and if he wants to try just ONE more thing... well, do a short roll and save yourself a dozen shots (or whatever) that would be wasted on a full roll.
Let’s hope for a film photography economic crash and cheaper prices.
Are there people who genuinely think that Kodak are deliberately selling 100 foot bulk rolls for significantly more than they could?
The worldwide shortage of chemicals is very real. I run 15 high school laboratories and even some of the simple stuff like concentrated acids, which used to be available on 24 hour delivery, now have a wait time of months. Try buying gamma ferric oxide, there's a supply problem and what can be bought is super expensive. For companies that are producing photographic film, supply chain problems and price increases for raw chemicals and proiducts such as thin acetate base must be a total nightmare.
And then they just get accused of gouging. And we wonder why most of these companies don't come here and interact with us.
The worldwide shortage of chemicals is very real. I run 15 high school laboratories and even some of the simple stuff like concentrated acids, which used to be available on 24 hour delivery, now have a wait time of months. Try buying gamma ferric oxide, there's a supply problem and what can be bought is super expensive. For companies that are producing photographic film, supply chain problems and price increases for raw chemicals and proiducts such as thin acetate base must be a total nightmare.
And then they just get accused of gouging. And we wonder why most of these companies don't come here and interact with us.
Yes. If you read all the things Matt says, in various places, you get (1) rolling bulk is priced high to compensate for the fact that it doesn't sell well and (2) the actual film is only a small part of the price of a single roll of film - that the majority of the final cost is in the packaging (from plastic spool, through metal cassette, plastic tub, cardboard box, shrink wrap, cardboard box) and distribution (shipping, shelving, shipping, shelving). Far less packaging for a 100 feet.
I don't consider what they're doing "gouging", though. They're charging what they think people will pay (since they figure it's only being bought by people with money to burn). That's not the same as gouging - which really only applies to necessities. If you decide to suddenly charge five times as much for Bocce ball sets, that's not gouging, because no one needs to buy it. No one needs to buy Kodak film. Eventually, no one will buy Kodak film. Or any other film.
An inconvenient truth, as far as I'm concerned, personally.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
I expeect that Kodak is charging as little as they can afford to charge, and still make a profit. Because they would prefer to keep as many of those niche customers as they can, while still earning enough return to keep the lenders/shareholders/accountants content.
They could probably make more money by diverting resources to higher profit items.
They could probably make more money by diverting resources to higher profit items.
But you forget that KODAK makes a lot of the chemicals.
And price of silver is not 3 times more than before.
In fact it is cheaper than 2014
I agree.
I use to shoot TriX only. Then I got HP5Plus 100’ bulk and learned to love it. If Ilford goes crazy I will go Adox and FOMA.
Or just shoot movie stock bulk.
I wish XX was more like trix. 400’ is pretty cheap.
And this is where you see Kodak price shenanigans.
Bulk movie 35mm Stock is so cheap. Bulk 35mm still stock is more than double. Tell me it is not a business decision based on popularity of still film.
The chemical division of Kodak was spun off years ago, they don't make their own chemicals anymore. The price of silver has very little to do with the cost of film. In 120 for example, the backing paper costs to produce more than the film.
Kodak still makes chems. They even got bunch of money by trump to Make hidroquoroqueen
Paper is cheap You can not rais film by $13 and blame it on paper!
As I mentioned in post #10, the present price is still not cost-prohibitive to me. But the point I was trying to make--which apparently didn't seem to go over quite well--is that we're talking about a 300% price increase from a decade ago. No, I don't think there is any gouging going on--I sure never said that--but if that trend continues, it won't be long before a bulk roll of TMY will be in the $250USD range, with individual rolls exceeding $20USD per.
MattKing
Moderator
Paper is cheap.
Backing paper is quite expensive, because it blocks light, is very accurately cut, is strong and dimensionally stable, is thicker in the middle than at the edges, and is printed with inks that can't be allowed to react with extremely sensitive emulsions which are pressed against it for long periods while exposed to a wide range of temperature and humidity.
Even the acetate substrate itself - which Kodak no longer makes, and has to import from Europe - has shot up in price, and is quite difficult to get in a timely manner.
Kodak is competing against many, better funded employers to retain the staff they have and to hire more.
It is not uncommon for them to have to place orders for the constituent components they buy from around the world and not have those orders filled for six months or more, and when they are filled the cost and difficulty of having them shipped has increased exponentially.
So .... how is that different from how it is for Ilford or Foma?
I take it this is an opinion, Matt unless you have evidence to show us?
From your first sentence Kodak would appear to be almost philanthropic in its actions towards its customers in that it makes no attempt to charge more than it needs to stay solvent, commensurate with satisfying its lenders etc
However does this not assume that its lenders etc are satisfied with what is a minimum profit as well? This seems a fairly bold assumption that generally isn't borne out by companies' behaviour. I don't suppose that the energy companies are taking the same line on prices- well not based on their current profits
So in what way does Kodak differ in its behaviour from other companies selling other products and if it does differ, why is this?
Does what you say about Kodak apply for instance to the other film companies. Are each of them using the same philosophy so we are all paying just the minimum that allows each film company to continue its existence?
Some may say that Kodak makes film and that all the people who work there from the execs to the film engineers and shopfloor workers have "film in their blood". Well maybe there are a lot of people in Kodak, Ilford, Fuji Foma whose raison d'etre is to provide us consumers with film but is it not possible that those top execs answerable to lenders shareholder etc have to ensure that they maximise profit at all times If that is not the case then I venture to contend that such execs are likely to be removed at the next AGM
Finally was what you wrote in your first sentence always the Kodak philosophy even when it was a U.S. giant making very respectable profits and if its philosophy is now what it is because it wishes to retain those niche customers and might lose them unless it priced its bulk rolls at the minimum commensurate with making what I infer from what you say is a very small profit then I wonder what happens if the Kodak film demand really picks up
Can we expect a continuation of this "minimum profit" philosophy in the future with no temptation to price according to what the improving market will bear
Will Kodak always be the the film user's friend requiring of him that he only pays what is the minimum required commensurate with making just enough to remain in reasonable health?
Yes, it would be nice if we had what the economists called "perfect competition" where only normal profits commensurate with the ability to maintain economic health and the continuation of the company existed. However I fear that in reality, exploitation in some form or another of the consumer is the reality for all companies who exist to make a profit and I see no reason for film companies not to conform with this "norm"
I enjoy staying warm in winter and I enjoy using film but the electricity company who keeps me warm is not my friend who wants to give warmth to me at minimum cost now and in the future so I have healthy doubts about whether film companies see me in a light which is much different
pentaxuser
MattKing
Moderator
No, I'm referencing bulk film specifically. It is a low volume, low profit product that is a niche within their line, kept in production because the interests of niche customers have both current value because of the associated goodwill, and potential future value because those customers may very well buy more profitable film in the future.
They should stop selling film all together If they are going to gouge!
I hope film interest diminishes and they go back to cheaper prices or bankrupt.
Because it makes no sense.
In capitalism more demand and more supply is supposed to make the prices cheaper.
But this is pure greed and monopoly.
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
How is the interest in film diminishing going to reduce their costs, and therefore lead to a reduction in their prices?
Their net earnings in 2021 were 2% of revenues (company wide).
Supply of raw materials is the problem. What do you know of that has become cheaper and easier to get in the last 3 years? I can't think of anything.
That's a similar profit margin to Harman, although I think theirs was ever so slightly higher.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |