The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

[138S]

you can say the same thing about every company who sells digital cameras. Expending time and energy on something that you cannot change or control is pointless. It’s either more than you’re willing to pay or it isn’t.

Customers can sometimes change things.

Customers can favor those corporations that have good policies for the community, this have been seen before.

Customers have all the money that corporations may get, so misstreating customers have certain risks.

 

[Henning Serger]

They owned the RA-4 paper manufacturing facilities, a product that still it is sold well, but they destroyed that business and now they rebrand photopaper made by a 3rd party in Canada, IIRC.

Please stop spreading this permanent misinformation about the photo industry. You really have no idea at all in which way this industry is really working.
There is no colour emulsion making and coating factory in Canada at all, and therefore also none who works for Kodak Alaris. Their RA-4 paper is made in the US.

Also your permanent bashing of Kodak Alaris being generally the "bad guys" ripping the consumers off and Eastman Kodak being the "good guys" bound by Kodak Alaris has nothing to do with reality. Both are working together in a very close relationship. And despite your claims here: All the price increases of Kodak films were made by Eastman Kodak to keep the lines running and profitable. Kodak Alaris have had just to accept it and pass it onto the customers. With the last big increase Kodak Alaris even absorbed a certain amount of the EK increase and did not pass all onto their customers.

What you always ignore is the fact that film production and distribution is a very low margin business. Most companies are living "from hand to mouth". No one is getting rich in this industry. No one!!
Last year I had a talk with a former Agfa (Germany) employee from the R&D department. At the time of film record sales Agfa made a net profit of 1 Cent per m² of colour film. 1 crappy cent.
And since then the market has crashed until it found a bottom in 2015 - 2017 (depending on the regional major market).

I am currently involved in helping two film-photo related companies staying alive: Popular companies and with a very good reputation, both with strong increasing demand. But because of the extremely low profit margins and increasing costs for labour and other supplies the danger of future insolvency is real.
Your comments here have nothing to do with business reality in this industry. I am facing the reality every day.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[athbr]

One major reason for film in these applications is, that film is much easier to store long-term than digital files.​

I'd have imagined the opposite as film can degrade and takes up more space per X images than a hard drive that can store drum scans of those images, which increases storage costs. Hard Drives also degrade but you can make infinite backups of the file sans generational loss. You can also store said copies in multiple locations as a redundancy against floods and fires.

I know nothing whatsoever of professional archiving of images so this is about as naive of an opinion as one can have.

I also didn't know archivists were using LF film to reproduce works of art. That is so cool.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Adrian,

from my long-year experience in this industry I can completely agree with your explanations. You are spot on.

sigh... it’s painfully obvious that you’re complaining for no other reason than you don’t think it should cost that much.

do us all a favor: go open an online storefront that carries exclusively large format sheet film, then price your product so that you can stay in business for the volume you’ll sell. You’ll discover very quickly that the price you end up charging has *nothing* to do with the cost of goods sold and *everything* to do with how much volume you move. You’ll also discover that your prices will be so high that nobody will buy from you. You’ll then make the discovery that you’ll have to start selling other products that move at much higher volumes in order to stay in business, which will then let you charitably lower the price of the sheet film so that you can even have half a chance of selling it.

slower moving product is always priced somewhat charitably, in terms of profit margin.

besides, are you shooting 8x10 for personal reasons or for business reasons? If it’s for business reasons, just pass your costs on. If your clients won’t tolerate it, then they don’t value you using 8x10, which should prompt you to change what you’re using. Business is business. Making expensive business decisions purely on personal feelings is not a great way to do things.

Exactly, Mr "138S" should really open a film store and give real evidence of all his claims, showing us that he can do this business so much better.
Honestly, I would bet all my money on his fast failure. It would be a 100% safe bet . He will be bancrupt in a very short time.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I know nothing whatsoever of professional archiving of images so this is about as naive of an opinion as one can have.

Film has indeed lots of advantages for archiving of pictures and documents. Mainly in the fields of safety and costs. It makes a resurgence also in these areas. Have for example a look at the "Digital Dilemma" research projects of the film institute in Hollywood.
FilmoTec has currently a research project (supported also by the government) concerning long term storage of bank data on film. Banks are very interested in it.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[athbr]

Film has indeed lots of advantages for archiving of pictures and documents. Mainly in the fields of safety and costs. It makes a resurgence also in these areas. Have for example a look at the "Digital Dilemma" research projects of the film institute in Hollywood.
FilmoTec has currently a research project (supported also by the government) concerning long term storage of bank data on film. Banks are very interested in it.

Best regards,
Henning

thanks for the info.

cheers.

 

[138S]

Exactly, Mr "138S" should really open a film store and give real evidence of all his claims, showing us that he can do this business so much better.
Honestly, I would bet all my money on his fast failure. It would be a 100% safe bet . He will be bancrupt in a very short time.

Instead I will give you examples about how certain corporations do well their job in the photo business and others do fail.

For example, Kodak lost their BW photopaper business long ago, while other manufacturers today enjoy a privileged position in that sector.

Alaris is an specially interesting case about missmanagement as they also lost their manufacturing business in RA-4 sector, having to rebrand photopaper produced by others in Canada. Canada is not cheaper than UK for manufacturing, difference is management.

Now let me explain a case of succesful CRM: Yearly ULF custom cuts from ilford, this is about serving well customers while making money.

Something else, making a management effort to source LF products at similar price than roll film, ilford charges an additional 20% while kodak charges an additional 100%. One company looks forward expanding customer base and paving the way for future sells, the other one is preparing for a product line closing, like it happened to Fuji with Neopan LF and later with rolls. Now they want to re-launch that product line with large investments, but a lot of damage was made well before from mistaken marketing policies.

A similar case with Ektachrome, instead promoting well the product they spent a lot of money closing the product line and later re-launching it, losing many years of sells in the way.

Look, the Alaris situation is pathetic, a distributor with exclusive rights that is totally crashed and for sale. Today Eastman Kodak does not know who will be exclusively distributing their photo products in the future, and they have a partner that is behaving like a true hooligan in the business. 27€ per shot... how many sheets are they to sell? Is the 1 sheet box in prepration to overcome the drop in the sales?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you, incognito "138s" for the cave picture. I had a friend here who was a very notable Himalayan climber of Basque ethnicity, who eventually returned to the Pyrenees as a cave guide. I hope you sink project is going well. There was a large RA4 paper liquidator in Canada at one time, but they certainly didn't manufacture anything.

 

[btaylor]

exactly...
we should be thanking our lucky stars that we can even still buy 8x10 at retail at all.

This!

I've been following this thread with some amusement. I come to the same conclusion as Adrian. If I ever did decide to shoot and print RA4 8x10, if it cost $30 a sheet to do it, I would.

As others have offered, the costs of actually getting the shot, for me, would make the film cost a small percentage of the overall effort.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One really good shot is better than a thousand ordinary one. My philosophy with color sheet film is that if it's not worthy to be printed, don't trip the shutter.

 

[Henning Serger]

For example, Kodak lost their BW photopaper business long ago, while other manufacturers today enjoy a privileged position in that sector.

Nonsense. Leaving the unattractive BW paper market was a smart move. In that market no money could have been made for more than a decade. Just look at Ilford's numbers: Decreasing demand until last year! And just look at the current difficulties ADOX is facing (see the BW forum).

Alaris is an specially interesting case about missmanagement as they also lost their manufacturing business in RA-4 sector, having to rebrand photopaper produced by others in Canada. Canada is not cheaper than UK for manufacturing, difference is management.

Lies, lies, lies!!! As explained above: There is no colour paper production in Canada.

Now let me explain a case of succesful CRM: Yearly ULF custom cuts from ilford, this is about serving well customers while making money.

No, as Ilford has explained many times: They are not making money with it. They are lucky if they can cover the costs. That is more a marketing and LF support initiative than money earning business.

Something else, making a management effort to source LF products at similar price than roll film, ilford charges an additional 20% while kodak charges an additional 100%.

Again apples to oranges comparison: BW sheet film is much different to CN sheet film because of much higher demand. CN sheet is niche in a niche in a niche. And Ilford is much different because they can convert in a more cost efficient way. They can cut parts from their parent-roll. That is not easy. General operation in the industry is converting a parent-/master-roll completely.

Regards,
Henning

 

[138S]

There is no colour emulsion making and coating factory in Canada at all, and therefore also none who works for Kodak Alaris. Their RA-4 paper is made in the US.

Sorry, I was not clear, RA-4 is made by a Canadian company in CO, USA. Company is Carestram that is owned by the canadian Onex. Alaris lost their paper manufacturing facilities in the UK from severe missmanagement and now they have to outsource from the canadian corporation.

 

[138S]

BW sheet film is much different to CN sheet film because of much higher demand. CN sheet is niche in a niche in a niche.

What demand? At 27€ per shot? Kodak is the single CN sheet supplier, in the BW there are many brands: ilford, rollei, foma. EK would sell CN LF enough, problem is that EK has the KA hooligans in the midle that say that a sheet has to cost 27€ in the EU, this may be optimal for KA, but it destroys EK profits that require a larger scale to obtain profits, as low scale manufacturing penalizes in extreme production costs.

And Ilford is much different because they can convert in a more cost efficient way. They can cut parts from their parent-roll. That is not easy. General operation in the industry is converting a parent-/master-roll completely.

Converting master rolls to the LF rolls that feed the sheet cutters is the simplest machine in the sector, and the cheapest operation you may find in one of those factories. Alaris has explained may times why an LF sheet has to be that expensive, all are lies, single truth is that they find that this policy it's the one providing more profits for them in the short term, as they as cash hungry, overlooking this policy erodes their customer base. How many LF Kodak enthusiasts moved to ilford ?

For a long time KA kept same price in roll film than ilford, now urgent cash needs at Alaris imposes a +50% price over ilford prices (in the EU), do you have any guess about how will this damage EK?. KA will make more money perhaps, but EK will see its market share decreasing, with problems to pay fixed costs.

Look, damage Alaris is making right now is crazy impressive.

 

[Henning Serger]

"138S"
Again you are repeating the same lies again and again and again.
You have never been in a film factory, but you want others who have to lecture how film production is running. Always ignoring the facts. Sorry, an extremely arrogant and ridiculous behaviour.
Discussing with you is just a complete waste of time, because you are completely reluctant to learn and to look outside your bubble.

 

[138S]

One really good shot is better than a thousand ordinary one. My philosophy with color sheet film is that if it's not worthy to be printed, don't trip the shutter.

LF Portra sheets are specially good for portraiture, problem is that you never know how the portrait will be. Personally I've rigged a DSLR to the view camera, at least I know if eyes are open and how face expression resulted, but for portraiture you may have to waste some film many times if wanting a refined job.

At 27€ per shot better you don't waste much sheets, this is a severe limitation because if planning to make 6 shots then the film alone is $170... so I would have to limit myself to one or two shots... solution, a MF roll film back for the view camera and enjoy that format, still having movements and 1€ per shot instead 27€. Alaris made it impossible, well... to hell with CN sheets, enjoy 120...

 

[138S]

"138S"
Again you are repeating the same lies again and again and again.
You have never been in a film factory, but you want others who have to lecture how film production is running. Always ignoring the facts. Sorry, an extremely arrogant and ridiculous behaviour.
Discussing with you is just a complete waste of time, because you are completely reluctant to learn and to look outside your bubble.

LOL, please explain me what difficulty/cost has splitting a master roll to the width the sheet cutter takes. Really have you ever been in a manufacturing plant?

Look, Foma sells 8x10" 'Fomapan 100' sheets for 2.38€ each retail, so it would be amazing if Portra has to cost 27€ per sheet because cutting it has a cost higher than 2.38€.

____________________


What lies, man?

Isn't Alaris the EK exclusive distributor for photo?

Isn't KPP2-Alaris totally crashed?

Isn't Alaris debt unbearable because KPP2 extracted all possible money?

Isn't Alaris for sale?

Do they have extreme/urgent cash needs for the short term?

Are they expanding their customer base or destroying it?

How EK will feel with a damaged customer base when having to pay fixed costs from lower sells?

 

[faberryman]

Have you been in touch with Eastman Kodak/Alaris to point out the error of their ways? I am sure after you explain everything to them, they will realize their miscalculation. Less expensive film for us and higher profits for them: it's a win-win. Let us know how that works out.

 

[138S]

Have you been in touch with Eastman Kodak/Alaris to point out the error of their ways? I am sure after you explain everything to them, they will realize their miscalculation. Less expensive film for us and higher profits for them: it's a win-win. Let us know how that works out.

Frank, you miss something quite intresting, who has the distribution rights is Alaris, not EK. Most of that crazy overprice is sinking in the KPP2-Alaris black hole, that have 1.7bn deficit.

To worsen things, Alaris and its exclusive distribution rights are for sale, so at EK they have no idea about who will exclusivelly distributing EK products in the future. Not nice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do you have your actual 138S on a set of rails yet? It appears that you were experimenting with it in horizontal mode. Ironically, I don't use Portra for portraits, but internegs. But I did use predecessor products for outdoor MF for portraiture. All my 8x10 portraiture has been done in black and white. But by shooting 8x10, not only do I get a richer print, but people take you seriously and will pay a higher fee, making color portraiture itself in 8x10 realistic. I don't charge by the job, but by the print, outright "fine art" pricing per print fully matted and framed. So in that scenario, the cost of the film itself is a minor factor. But just in case the subject was squirrelly, I kept a P67 or Nikon nearby equipped with a comparable perspective lens, so the entire session wouldn't be a waste. Just a bit of common sense insurance, though I never actually had to resort to smaller format. My studio is no longer in operation, so I don't do that kind of work anymore. And it would be ludicrous to get into the same mud-bath fight with the 10,000 low bid wannabee digital photographers around here. Hope some of my slang English terms aren't confusing to you, but a web dictionary probably explains them.

 

[faberryman]

Frank, you miss something quite intresting, who has the distribution rights is Alaris, not EK. Most of that crazy overprice is sinking in the KPP2-Alaris black hole, that have 1.7bn deficit.

Which is why I asked you had contacted them. I don't know the costs of manufacture or the costs of distribution, so I don't know how to allocate the responsibility.

 

[138S]

Do you have your actual 138S on a set of rails yet? .

Not on rails, but on wheels, that accessory allows additional degrees of freedom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/49507467486/) to conveniently adjust alingment, I use a mirror in the film holder and a laser on the board (on wall) to easily ensure alignment.

I was planning making a serious bet for CN LF, but from present sheet costs I decided to rely in a roll film back in the rear of my Norma, 1€ per shot, 27€ per shot are for people x27 richer than me , sure some are out there...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I haven't used a roll film back on my Norma yet except for testing its applicability, which is excellent. I mainly use these on my little Ebony 4x5 folder for especially long backpacking trips now that Quickload and Readyload sleeves are no longer available. Roll film, both b&w and color (except for the new 120 Ektachrome) is a comparative bargain here, price-wise.

 

[138S]

Which is why I asked you had contacted them. I don't know the costs of manufacture or the costs of distribution, so I don't know how to allocate the responsibility.

Frank, I've several reliable contacts I obviously won't mention. EK will never say publicly what they think about that, but It's publicly well known that right now nobody has an idea about who will own exclusive ditribution rights on EK photo products as Alaris is for sale and bearing an insane debt. Also it's easy to imagine what kind of unrest such a situation provocates in a corporation, not knowing who will sell their products, amazingly those rights may end owned by UK goverment, which is an extrange situation.

Also exclusivity agreement is not officially disclosed, it looks, what is clear is that EK does not have the distribution of photo products they need to push hard in the business, IMO Alaris is a very, very heavy burden for the industrial company success.

 

[138S]

I haven't used a roll film back on my Norma yet except for testing its applicability, which is excellent. I mainly use these on my little Ebony 4x5 folder for especially long backpacking trips now that Quickload and Readyload sleeves are no longer available. Roll film, both b&w and color (except for the new 120 Ektachrome) is a comparative bargain here, price-wise.

It is a total bargain for a color LF shooter, same happens with velvia. For BW we have alternatives, mainly ilford, but Kodak/Fuji pricing pushes us to using 120 roll film backs for color. Not much quality is lost compared to sheets and a multitude of formats can be used, in particular a 6x12cm back it's quite interesting today as TV/Monitor aspect ratio is matched, but also we have 6x9, 6x8, 6x7, 6x6, 645... each scene has an ideal aspect ratio, so...

Easy development... way cheaper...

I want to shot sheets, but they make it impossible (at least) to me, so let's see the advantages of the 120 alternative !! long life to 120 !

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sheet film, especially 8x10, is way more convenient to work with than roll film when doing any kind of punch and register work like masking or separation negatives, provided it's on stable polyester base rather than acetate. I frequently mask roll film images too; but you still need an appropriate 4x5 sheet b&w film to do that.