The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

138S said:

Really have you ever been in a manufacturing plant?

Click to expand...

I've had factory visits in five different film manufacturing plants: Harman technology / Ilford Photo, Ferrania, TIP / Polaroid, InovisCoat/Inovisproject, Adox. The next visit is planned.
And several other manufacturing plants like e.g. Franke&Heidecke/Rollei, JOBO, Heiland. And it's well documented, as I've published reports about it, e.g. in the PhotoKlassik print magazine.
Just read it.
And in which photo or film factories have you been? In none, as your comments here clearly demonstrate.

You are hiding under your "138S", and don't know what you are talking about.

Henning Serger said:

I've had factory visits in five different film manufacturing plants: Harman technology / Ilford Photo, Ferrania, TIP / Polaroid, InovisCoat/Inovisproject, Adox. The next visit is planned.
And several other manufacturing plants like e.g. Franke&Heidecke/Rollei, JOBO, Heiland. And it's well documented, as I've published reports about it, e.g. in the PhotoKlassik print magazine.
Just read it.
And in which photo or film factories have you been? In none, as your comments here clearly demonstrate.

You are hiding under your "138S", and don't know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Ok, Mr expert, please explain me what difficulty/cost has splitting a master roll to the width the sheet cutter takes, or to make shorter rolls from a longer roll for an smaller batch

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€.

It is absolutely FALSE conversion has any impact in the 27€ per sheet of Portra 8x10 price, who told you that?

138S said:

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.

Click to expand...

Alaris sold Harrow - an incredibly inefficient production facility due to age and over-capacity - and focused their production at the facility in Colorado that they continued to own a leasehold interest in (along with Carestream).
Carestream is the result of Eastman Kodak selling their X-ray production business to a number of former Eastman Kodak employees. The "Photographic" part of Carestream is just a small part of Carestream Health, a much larger health services company.
Onex is a really large wealth management corporation that owns a large number of corporations, including theatre chains, airlines and Carestream Health.
And yes, Onex is based in Canada, but Onex doesn't make or sell anything.

138S said:

Alaris is for sale and bearing an insane debt.

Click to expand...

Alaris is not for sale. They are attempting to sell only their photography related business, because although that business is profitable, the pension security officials in the UK consider the profit being earned to be less than what would be achieved if the expected return from the sales was invested elsewhere.
If the prices offered for that business are to low, those pension security officials have indicated they will have Kodak Alaris continue tgo operate that business and earn that profit.

I'm out of here - 138s is absolutely clueless about anything approaching reality. The Ignore function it is!

138S said:

Ok, Mr expert, please explain me what difficulty/cost has splitting a master roll to the width the sheet cutter takes, or to make shorter rolls from a longer roll for an smaller batch

Click to expand...

I've already explained to you above when you given that wrong BW Ilford vs. Kodak colour sheet film example, that converting is not as easy and cheap as you think. Ilford engineers had explained us that it needed additional investments and new operating techniques to do smaller part-converting runs of their parent-rolls efficiently and economically. And that their former standard - and industry standard - has been / is converting a parent-/master-/jumbo-roll completely.
You have above said that all that is wrong, and now you come again saying it is wrong. You are saying the Ilford engineers are all idiots, and you - who have never seen a film factory from the inside - know all that much better.
O.k., we have all got your message. And your other message that Kodak Alaris is always the devil.
Looks like you feel fine in your strange fact-free bubble. Enjoy it.
But I am out here and will not waste any more time with you. There are much better things for me in my life.

MattKing said:

Alaris sold Harrow - an incredibly inefficient production facility due to age and over-capacity - and focused their production at the facility in Colorado that they continued to own a leasehold interest in (along with Carestream).
Carestream is the result of Eastman Kodak selling their X-ray production business to a number of former Eastman Kodak employees. The "Photographic" part of Carestream is just a small part of Carestream Health, a much larger health services company.
Onex is a really large wealth management corporation that owns a large number of corporations, including theatre chains, airlines and Carestream Health.
And yes, Onex is based in Canada, but Onex doesn't make or sell anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, but let me add that Harrow was that inefficient due chronic lack of investnent, at the end Alaris lost that industrial capability because they lacked management skills and investment drive, as all money was sinked in kpp2.

Henning Serger said:

I've already explained to you above when you given that wrong BW Ilford vs. Kodak colour sheet film example, that converting is not as easy and cheap as you think. Ilford engineers had explained us that it needed additional investments and new operating techniques to do smaller part-converting runs of their parent-rolls efficiently and economically. And that their former standard - and industry standard - has been / is converting a parent-/master-/jumbo-roll completely.
You have above said that all that is wrong, and now you come again saying it is wrong. You are saying the Ilford engineers are all idiots, and you - who have never seen a film factory from the inside - know all that much better.
O.k., we have all got your message. And your other message that Kodak Alaris is always the devil.
Looks like you feel fine in your strange fact-free bubble. Enjoy it.
But I am out here and will not waste any more time with you. There are much better things for me in my life.

Click to expand...

No, Henning no...

What I say is that Foma sells 8x10 sheets at 2.38€, including conversion, so trying to justify the 27€ per Portra sheet from conversion is a plain fallacy you have thrown, just being clear.

To me 27€ per sheet is a plain abuse, I won't buy it. Do it it you want.

138S said:

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.

Click to expand...

true, however, if you’re not the target audience for a particular product, then who cares? Simply pricing sheet film a lot more than roll film is not abusing the vast majority of their market. Again, sheet film is a very, very small percentage of total film sales. Those that professionally shoot sheet film will (should) factor in whatever that cost is and pass it along. The same applies to digital cameras. If I’m shooting your portrait with a tiny little $300 camera, and available light, you’ll probably protest if I charge you $1000 sitting fee. If I take that same portrait with a Canon 1DX MIII, and 85mm f/1.2 L series lens, and augment the available light with several thousand dollars worth of strobes, you’ll probably think twice about booking me after seeing my sitting fee, but won’t complain that much as soon as it becomes very obvious that my equipment costs more than a couple of months of your wages. Conversely, a major corporation is paying you to deliver images, so you charge accordingly and bring the best equipment you have access to.

Henning Serger said:

Hello Adrian,

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



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

Click to expand...

thank you. I’m speaking from the trenches myself.

Adrian Bacon said:

true, however, if you’re not the target audience for a particular product, then who cares? Simply pricing sheet film a lot more than roll film is not abusing the vast majority of their market. Again, sheet film is a very, very small percentage of total film sales. Those that professionally shoot sheet film will (should) factor in whatever that cost is and pass it along. The same applies to digital cameras. If I’m shooting your portrait with a tiny little $300 camera, and available light, you’ll probably protest if I charge you $1000 sitting fee. If I take that same portrait with a Canon 1DX MIII, and 85mm f/1.2 L series lens, and augment the available light with several thousand dollars worth of strobes, you’ll probably think twice about booking me after seeing my sitting fee, but won’t complain that much as soon as it becomes very obvious that my equipment costs more than a couple of months of your wages. Conversely, a major corporation is paying you to deliver images, so you charge accordingly and bring the best equipment you have access to.

Click to expand...

My point, post 61, is that LF film overpricing is from manufacturer marketing policy and not from ex-factory cost.

From that everyone may judge and take decisions.

My position is not to buy products I find they are abusively priced. If many people do the same then manufacturers may think twice before abusing cutomers.

138S said:

My point, post 61, is that LF film overpricing is from manufacturer marketing policy and not from ex-factory cost.

From that everyone may judge and take decisions.

My position is not to buy products I find they are abusively priced. If many people do the same then manufacturers may think twice before abusing cutomers.

Click to expand...

if you’re not the target market, what you view as abusive pricing is irrelevant. If it’s truly abusively priced for the people who actually use it, they’ll simply switch to something else. All of this stuff is a means to an end, there’s more than one way to get there. If your customers don’t value you using 8x10 sheet film, then it doesn’t matter how it’s priced. Shooting something with 8x10 sheet should command a premium. The actual cost of the film is very secondary in that scenario.

This is why I make wet plate collodion negatives now. It costs me about a dollar-fifty to make an 8x10 negative on glass.

Adrian Bacon said:

if you’re not the target market, what you view as abusive pricing is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I'm some $500 yearly relevant, OP that named this thread "The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control" saying "at some point it's just unaffordable" is running a photo business and he may be(say) $5000 relevant, how $relevant are you ?

Today LF consumption is in the hands of amateurs, enthusiasts and artists, not much commercial photography.

If we are irrelevant for them then manufacturers make their decisions, we make ours.

Adrian Bacon said:

If it’s truly abusively priced for the people who actually use it, they’ll simply switch to something else.

Click to expand...

At 27€ the shot in the EU it's truly abusive, impact in the sells will be totally clear, we'll see what they do.

Adrian Bacon said:

If it’s truly abusively priced for the people who actually use it, they’ll simply switch to something else. All of this stuff is a means to an end, there’s more than one way to get there. If your customers don’t value you using 8x10 sheet film, then it doesn’t matter how it’s priced. Shooting something with 8x10 sheet should command a premium. The actual cost of the film is very secondary in that scenario.

Click to expand...

Look, many LF photographers (not all) we consider this kind of lists:

(€ in the EU)


We perfectly know what manufacturers support us to make our activity viable, and what manufacturers are a problem for us, in part we make our decisions based on that.


Switching:

Not easy to switch, as Alaris exploits a CN film monopoly in LF, but as I'm not to pay 27€ per shot by far then I'll do next, let me explain it:

> I'll use 120 film back for mundane shots which I will be able to afford.

> I'll engage Lumieres for 8x10. 8x10 commands a premium effort, true, and now to me this has a new name: Lumieres

I'm quite proficient at dry plate and at BW reversal so Autochromes can be my next step for 8x10", a great challenge, but it can be quite with rewarding, current LF Portra prices in the EU for me it's time to make that move, it will be sad finishing my last 8x10 Portra sheet box, but I'm not to look back, Autochromes:




https://www.google.com/search?q=lum...03#imgrc=d_LxMo2jfuV0hM&imgdii=7BZlZvBexZy9sM

138S said:

top notch supreme Lumieres for 8x10

Click to expand...

Which will be on nearly every technical respect far inferior to a shot on even high resolving 35mm film, and they're a pita to get to work in the first place. Somehow comparing autochromes to film is just not a sensible comparison, which of course does not mean it's an uninteresting endeavor. It's just a different game, played for entirely different reasons.

In simple terms are there not just two questions: 1. What is a fair price to charge? Let's say that a fair price is one that covers the cost of getting the product to a finished state at the end of the production line 2. What price will the market bear?

Is Kodak's price 1 or 2? If it is 1 but not enough buyers believe it to be fair or believe that it takes more of their money than they can afford to spend then sales may drop and not justify Kodak continuing production and presumably the product will cease to be. If it is 2 then buyers believing it to be higher than what they regard as the fair price will cease to buy. It is at that point and only at that point that we will know if it is really 2 because presumably Kodak then reduces the price and still makes what it, Kodak, regards as a reasonable profit. It has then been "found out" and the reduction in price is an admission that it has been "found out"

Clearly a cessation of purchase carries risks but in these situations I cannot see any other way of testing the market.

I am only certain of one thing. Debating it on Photrio will not make the slightest difference to Kodak's price nor it would appear has it even caused any movement in any party's position.

pentaxuser

koraks said:

Which will be on nearly every technical respect far inferior to a shot on even high resolving 35mm film, and they're a pita to get to work in the first place. Somehow comparing autochromes to film is just not a sensible comparison, which of course does not mean it's an uninteresting endeavor. It's just a different game, played for entirely different reasons.

Click to expand...

Koraks, I guess that you are not aware about what a lumiere can resolve, it has around 4 million color particles per square inch, wich would be 320 MPix "Bayer" mosaic in a 8x10". I'd made preliminary tests. Also we may use the same concept with synthetic coloured particles of even smaller size.

It is a different game, for sure, a very nice one.

A sound self made lumiere will have a very low speed, perhaps ISO 20 doing all well with DIY resources, this would be a bit challenging, but not for those used to wet plate.

For a sound result you need consistence in emulsion making, and calculating the mixes of different emulsions to get longer latitude.

Also preserving the emulsion frozen until usage can be important, as DIY emulsion is way less durable than commercial film.

A lot of challenges, but the extreme beauty of shots like of Christina in Red are like lighthouse illuminating the path to supreme excellence, something not seen in the photography arena for many decades.

Belive me, a sound Lumiere plays in another league.

Of course in photography madium can be irrelevant and supreme shots can be made with the phone, but this is another debate.

pentaxuser said:

I am only certain of one thing. Debating it on Photrio will not make the slightest difference to Kodak's price nor it would appear has it even caused any movement in any party's position.

Click to expand...

Possibly a boss at EK may take a look here to see what community thinks, and to guess what can happen.

It will not make the slightest difference, true, but this is because Alaris is crashed, for sell, eager of cash, and not interested in knowing the damage they will make to future sells.

But of course at EK they may want to know the effects in the market share, as they are captive of Alaris exclusive rights, not controlling them, and not controling who will own those rights in the future.

Well, the examples we have from the heyday of autochromes in any case exhibit dramatically lower resolving power than today's media. I do accept that it is theoretically feasible to get higher resolutions. However, getting it to work practically is a different matter, but since you've been doing experiments on it yourself, I trust you are very much aware of this. Even if you get it to work, it will be an involved process and not really an alternative to LF film for most other photographers. Unless of course you're going to market your improved autochrome plates, but then you'll run into the same commercial dilemmas that you criticize in the case of Kodak (and earlier Fuji as I recall) - basically giving away stuff for next to no profit, or having to charge prices that are too high for most of us to afford. As a hobby, of course it can be a nice alternative.

As to your arguments about the pricing strategies of Kodak etc. - well, we have debated this before and as you can tell, you're getting fairly similar arguments as we've gone through on LFPF a year or so ago. For me I have decided that your viewpoint is more derived from a sense of activism and trying to preserve a technology for end users and it's not so much a matter of business acumen for you. I think that's also where the conflict stems from; you seem to rely mostly on business/managerial arguments on why the prices are too high in your opinion, while that line of reasoning doesn't sit well with many people who have marketing knowledge and/or experience as there are so many counter-arguments to yours that the best you can reach is an 'agree to disagree' deadlock. Which is what you and I arrived at back then as I recall. From a pragmatist viewpoint, I think you can only accept that pricing is set by manufacturers and resellers and as a consumer you can only (1) voice your concerns to those parties and (2) put your money where you think it belongs, which may not be in the hands of parties whom you believe have an unattractive pricing strategy from your perspective.

It's really a clash of two ideologies; a classic capitalist ideology that says optimal pricing is a matter of supply and demand, combined with autonomy of market players to charge whatever price they feel appropriate, and on the other side a community logic that departs from the idea that the fruits of innovation should be made available to as large an audience as possible, even if that goes against the autonomy of individual market players or asks for intervention in the dynamics of the 'free' market. These world views are at times so fundamentally opposing that it's pretty hard to find common ground between them. In the end, I personally believe it is up to market players to decide where they stand and shape their actions accordingly. Maybe they will listen to you, maybe they will listen to the Fayol/Taylorian management thinkers. Who knows. It's up to them to make the call.

koraks said:

Well, the examples we have from the heyday of autochromes in any case exhibit dramatically lower resolving power than today's media.

Click to expand...

It could be the lens or the scan or the lumiere industrial generation, that technology evolved over time. The dry plate emulsion has a high resolving power for luminance, regarding (the less important) color resolution it is 4 million particles per sq inch.

koraks said:

there are so many counter-arguments to yours that the best you can reach is an 'agree to disagree' deadlock.

Click to expand...

OK, but in this debate let's separate what it is ideology and what are facts.

Ideology: We have to support or not those manufacturers making an effort to support LF photographers and darkroom activity. This is a personal choice.


Facts:

> LF film pricing depends on manufacturer's pricing policy, that overprice for LF is not related to ex-factory cost. They are free to do what they want.

> Kodak does not control his exclusive distributor, who is crashed, for sell and with urgent cash needs.


Doubts:

> Present +30-40% in prices in Kodak range with Alaris in the middle may damage more or less film flourishment, and kodak survability ?

> Who will be distributing Kodak products when KPP2/Alaris destruction/sell finally happens ? Will new owners of exclusive rights change that marketing policy to expand customer base and making profits for long term volume? Will they also be focused in short term profits?

_______

I guess that this summary is flawless, I see no debate... just conceding that we are free to have the ideology we want.

138S said:

just conceding that we are free to have the ideology we want.

Click to expand...

Abolutely, I agree. To each their own. And I certainly do understand the point you make.

Adrian Bacon said:

...@138S Black and white sheet film does move quite a bit more than color sheet film (relatively speaking), but sheet film in total is not a volume mover, so stop comparing its price to something that sells much, much, higher volume...

Click to expand...

Adrian, do you lack a sufficient number of flat spots on your head?

138S said:

I'm some $500 yearly relevant, OP that named this thread "The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control" saying "at some point it's just unaffordable" is running a photo business and he may be(say) $5000 relevant, how $relevant are you ?

Click to expand...

given the fact that I sell sheet film, I’m one of those jerks that sets the price that you pay, if you buy it from me, and I always price it as high as I think I can get for it. Rule of business 101: you are not a charity, charge as much as possible. Only come down in price if it doesn’t sell fast enough for it to make a reasonable ROI. The customer does not get to decide what a reasonable ROI is for you.

If you give a crap about what the customer wants to pay, you’ll quickly discover that many if not all customers would rather you give it to them for free, whether they’re willing to publicly admit it or not. This is a very easy thing to test: offer a free box of film. Everybody knows it costs money, yet how many would offer to pay *anything* instead of just outright taking it? The result of that test is human nature.

Sal Santamaura said:

Adrian, do you lack a sufficient number of flat spots on your head?

Click to expand...

lol... I’m going for the flat spot king record.... sometimes I just get on a roll and can’t help myself... I’m usually pretty good about not stepping into dumb things, but with this thread, I’m at a point we’re I’m almost purposely poking with a stick.

"138s" - at this point in history we're simply doing our best to keep endangered species alive. Imposing Darwinian selection by not feeding those manufacturers we don't personally approve of doesn't work very well when there are no realistic alternatives. It just potentially hastens the extinction of an entire product category. We have very few choices left in color sheet film to play off against each other.