thoughts on the announced Kodak film price increase?

[faberryman]

Did any of you actually READ this?? https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2021/10/film-price-analysis/

From the above article, I quote: "Put into the perspective of inflation and buying power, a 135 / 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost 11.60 USD (1.15 USD) in 1956, and a roll of Kodacolor film even hit at over 22 USD (2.60 USD) back in the “golden age.” The current price of Tri-X, depending on reseller, is somewhere between 9.95 USD (B&H) and 9.09 USD (Freestyle) and thus roughly equals the pricing level of 1968, when Tri-X first flew to the moon on Apollo 8. Coupled to the 2020 US mean income, a roll of Tri-X is still at 0.012%, and thus not substantially more expensive than it was in the past."

Well, I guess that is a good reason for Tri-X users who want to keep using Tri-X to spend more on Tri-X than some of the other available film options. Some people are price sensitive; others aren't. Who knew?

 

[logan2z]

Like everyone else, I hate these continual price increases - probably more on principal rather than the real effects on my wallet. I only shoot a handful of rolls (120 and 35mm) a month so these increases don't amount to a whole lot, and now that I've started developing at home I'm saving on lab costs and shipping. I still might make the jump to Ilford because I like their products and their devotion to film photography, but the cost savings probably won't be significant for me. I'd probably feel differently if I were shooting large format as those prices do seem very high.

 

[Ian Grant]

Don't UK import duties really hurt Kodak compared to Ilford?

A couple of weeks ago I priced up buying Kodak 10x8 Tri-X 320film fom B&H. they have scheme where they collect the import Duty and VAT and that actually worked out slightly cheaper than buying from a UK supplier. a second advantage was there was no VAT on the Shipping or the typical £7 or £8 handling fee to collect the taxes if you opt out and import privately. B&H do offer that option as well but then when the Duty is added here it's on the Item and the Shipping,and then the 20% VAT compounded on top.

There must be a financial incentive for companies like B&H to handle the Duty & VAT at the point of sale and it saves a lot of time etc at Customs hubs here in the UK

So no the duty doesn't make a very significant difference in terms of the huge price differences between Kodak and Ilford or Adox here in the UK and the rest of Europe for B&W films.

Ian

 

[DMJ]

Are these films worth the extra cost?

That is the right question to ask.

Now, why prices go up or down, who is driving the demand (influencers, youtubers, inflation) is out of my control. As much as I despise Kodak's decission I still use Tri-x and if I know for sure that there will be a 20% increase starting next year, then I will get some now. My original post was about validation of a news that didn't have any primary source. Now we have confirmation at #64 so thank you @Kosmo Foto for sharing.

 

[George Mann]

I will not pay more than $20 a roll for Ektachrome, and I could care less about the rest of their film stocks.

It looks like I won't be purchasing any more Kodak film in the future.

 

[Don_ih]

a 135 / 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost 11.60 USD (1.15 USD) in 1956,

Kodak didn't have to worry about the main competitor of all current film in 1956: digital cameras (including cell phone cameras). Raising prices too high will do more than make people switch to an "inferior" film. It will be the last nail driven into their own coffin, as more and more people opt for cheaper digital photography.

In 1956, if you wanted pictures, you bought film or paid someone to use it.

 

[faberryman]

I will not pay more than $20 a roll for Ektachrome, and I could care less about the rest of their film stocks.

It looks like I won't be purchasing any more Kodak film in the future.

I am surprised you'll pay $20/roll for Ektachrome now. My slide show and Cibachrome print days have long been over.

 

[George Mann]

I am surprised you'll pay $20/roll for Ektachrome now. My slide show and Cibachrome print days have long been over.

I demand the best technical quality from my photographs. Only slide film provides it.

 

[faberryman]

I demand the best technical quality from my photographs. Only slide film provides it.

So why are you shooting 35mm? Seems like if you demand the best technical quality for your photographs you would be shooting medium if not large format. Do you process your own slides? What do you do with your slides when processed? Slide shows? Scan and print? Scan and post to the internet?

 

[cramej]

Everything in that article came from an official Kodak Alaris source who did not wish to be quoted.

... which means it's not an official source because they do not have the authority to be a spokesperson for KA. They didn't want to be quoted because they weren't supposed to tell you.

The reporting is the equivalent of "I heard that......"

 

[mshchem]

I love slides 6x6 cm and 35mm. I mostly shoot Provia.

 

[George Mann]

So why are you shooting 35mm? Seems like if you demand the best technical quality for you photographs you would be shooting medium if not large format. What do you do with your slides? Slide shows? Scan and print? Scan and post to the internet?

Medium and large format, blah blah blah, yah yah yah. I get better photos from my 35mm slides than any digital devil can provide me. It is thoroughly satisfying.

I wouldn't waste my time and money on this type of film (and bw reversal) if I was just going to ruin it by scanning or printing it.

I view it directly with a high quality loupe using the sunlit sky for illumination.

 

[George Mann]

Best of all, slides are less sharp and grainier than negatives.

Complete HORSEPUCKEY!

 

[faberryman]

Medium and large format, blah blah blah, yah yah yah. I get better photos from my 35mm slides than any digital devil can provide me. It is thoroughly satisfying.

Blah, blah, blah, yah, yah, yah indeed. I wasn't making a comparison between 35mm film and digital, but I understand why you want to deflect the conversation in that direction. I was making a comparison between 35mm film and medium and large format film. 35mm film is not technically superior to medium and large format film. So you are shooting 35mm film for some reason other than technical superiority. Perhaps cost or convenience. Perhaps you shoot slides because you don't print or or scan or post to the internet, and you can't appreciate your photographs through a loupe at the window when they are color negatives. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[markjwyatt]

I was in Riteaid this weekend, and just for the heck of it checked if they even had any film (other than Instax), and if so what they charge for it. They used to carry Fuji Superia XTRA, and it was around $20-$25 for 3 @ 135-36. They had this AND they added Fujicolor 200. The Fuji Superia400 XTRA was $40/3-pak. The 200 was in the low $30s. Freestyle showes prices less than half of Riteaid, but also are out of stock on most Fujicolor (other than the 100).

Around 2018 I asked the manager if they will continue carrying it, and she said, probably no. 6mos-1 year later I noticed it was still tehre and she said, "they keep buying it, so as long as that continues, we will stock it" (good commercial decision). I suspect Fuji is pushing film now, and that is why they actually are expanding offerings, but also increasing prices.

EDIT: just looked and Freestyle is also out of all standard C-41 products. Interesting.

 

[BrianShaw]

Back to the topic at hand… more outrage about rising prices. MacDonalds too. Is nothing sacred?

https://apple.news/AVoFZBWZgRRuuNRI3vRSNMQ

 

[Paul Howell]

From the above article, I quote: "Put into the perspective of inflation and buying power, a 135 / 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost 11.60 USD (1.15 USD) in 1956, and a roll of Kodacolor film even hit at over 22 USD (2.60 USD) back in the “golden age.” The current price of Tri-X, depending on reseller, is somewhere between 9.95 USD (B&H) and 9.09 USD (Freestyle) and thus roughly equals the pricing level of 1968, when Tri-X first flew to the moon on Apollo 8. Coupled to the 2020 US mean income, a roll of Tri-X is still at 0.012%, and thus not substantially more expensive than it was in the past."

I understand that when I'm thinking about film and other supplies costs are not much different in terms of real buying power than in the 60s and 70s, well I make much more money after adjusting for inflation than I did in the 60s. But it still comes down to what I can afford. If I was still a working pro, different story, as a hobby, well price matters much more.

 

[George Mann]

I was making a comparison between 35mm film and medium and large format film. 35mm film is not technically superior to medium and large format film. So you are shooting 35mm film for some reason other than technical superiority.

You need to rethink what I said. My response indicated that I have no real need for the larger formats as I am achieving complete satisfaction from 35mm slides.

 

[BrianShaw]

I demand the best technical quality from my photographs. Only slide film provides it.

Didn’t you say this?

Like you, I can be satisfied with a 35mm slide, but a 6x7 or 4x5 transparency always gives me the “best technical quality” compared to 35mm.

 

[George Mann]

Didn’t you say this?

Like you, I can be satisfied with a 35mm slide, but a 6x7 or 4x5 transparency always gives me the “best technical quality” compared to 35mm.

I know what you are saying. But the only reason I have been seriously considering the purchase of a medium format camera lately is the shortage of new 35mm film.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Complete HORSEPUCKEY!

This exactly, a complete 180 from reality.

Some truths:
- E-6 slides give you very little grain. Trouble seeing it with 60x magnification from a 2m viewing distance;
- Slides are the most straight-forward way to see what the film in question is capable of - no translation to paper or scan/monitor (conversion = reduction), just a lens and a light source on a vinyl screen will do.
- BW Reversal gives you extra tiny grain - Delta 3200 reversed for example looks like your typical ISO 400 negative.

 

[BrianShaw]

I know what you are saying. But the only reason I have been seriously considering the purchase of a medium format camera lately is the shortage of new 35mm film.

Which new 120 film intrigues you? I’m satisfied with my old reliables: FP4+ and Porta 160. Nothing more really excites me except when it gets dark and a 400 speed film is more appropriate. More often, though, I’ll just use flash.

 

[mshchem]

Soapbox in 10, 9, 8…

Oh Yeah. Do you presoak?

 

[George Mann]

Which new 120 film intrigues you? I’m satisfied with my old reliables: FP4+ and Porta 160. Nothing more really excites me except when it gets dark and a 400 speed film is more appropriate. More often, though, I’ll just use flash.

I don't have a medium format camera. Just 35mm.

As I am mainly a slide film shooter, Ektachrome and Provia were my go to films (they will be too expensive next year).

My main b&w film is Delta 100 (dr5 reversal).

 

[MattKing]

As the warning post above stated, careful about "economic theory/political" posts - they just call out for a move to the Soap Box.
Price instability and the factors that particularly affect the price of film and chemistry - they are fair game on this photographic website.
I wonder if the chip shortage for digital cameras might also have an indirect affect on the market.