thoughts on the announced Kodak film price increase?

[Alan Edward Klein]

As prices go up, photographers might not stop using a particular film. They could cut back. No more bracketing. Less shooting just to shoot. More discriminatory shooting. Etc.

 

[brbo]

Isn’t it clear? Because I value the quality of film over the quality of digital to the point of actually paying for film over shooting digital for free.

It's clear to me. Not to many other as it seems.

Today, still film usage isn't dictated by the cost of its direct competitor - digital. The users that were price sensitive went digital a LONG time ago. Shopping for best price within a film niche is still happening. But Ilford, Adox, Foma know that they only loose if they don't follow the price leader. They know that they'll have you if they are only $2 cheaper, they don't need to be $5 cheaper.

 

[NB23]

It's clear to me. Not to many other as it seems.

Today, still film usage isn't dictated by the cost of its direct competitor - digital. The users that were price sensitive went digital a LONG time ago. Shopping for best price within a film niche is still happening. But Ilford, Adox, Foma know that they only loose if they don't follow the price leader. They know that they'll have you if they are only $2 cheaper, they don't need to be $5 cheaper.

Of course.
If kodak set its film prices across the board equal to foma, they would kill the entire competition.
And themselves.
Which would actually be a self explanatory example of how the market regulates itself.
There is no way around it, the market is constantly looking to maintining a balance.

 

[ITD]

Aren't y'all tired of b*tching about this yet? Seriously.

I’m having a reasoned discussion. It’s only b*tching when other people do it

Totally. Just that Jnanz (and a few others) seemed to suggest that kodak lovers would follow kodak’s prices.

I, like maaaany others, am a total whore when it comes to buying film.

Absolutely, I agree that’s a common approach. In the end, we’re all just being armchair economists only able to extrapolate from individual perspectives. I wonder what research Kodak has about what they think will happen.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's clear to me. Not to many other as it seems.

Today, still film usage isn't dictated by the cost of its direct competitor - digital. The users that were price sensitive went digital a LONG time ago. Shopping for best price within a film niche is still happening. But Ilford, Adox, Foma know that they only loose if they don't follow the price leader. They know that they'll have you if they are only $2 cheaper, they don't need to be $5 cheaper.

Cost to manufacture is going up with all film makers, not just Kodak. So it's not just a matter of following Kodak. All firms have to pass their costs along.

 

[Pat Erson]

I think it’s called ‘inflation’ and isn’t limited to just film.

The pessimist in me thinks Kodak tries to follow the path Apple took : "hey let's price our products insanely high, our fandom is so addicted to them they'll buy them anyway!!".

Like some of you here, I started photography mid-90's being a 100% Kodak buyer (film chem paper). From 2019 on I've been a 100% Ilford buyer.
Enough said.

And... I really do hope their sales will suffer badly from the price increases. Otherwise Ilford and Foma might think it's the way to go.

 

[BrianShaw]

“Enough said” if all you want is B&W. Kodak Portra is a dream film, especially 160. Forgoing that is almost like biting off ones nose to spite ones face.

 

[removed account4]

Not really. I’d venture to say Absolutely not, actually.

Analyze this; The Magical question to you: why am I not using my favorite films? You must be flabbergasted, aren’t you? Weren’t I supposed to just “buy what I love most”?

because you decided you didn't want to ?

People have their reasons for changing films and emulsions. Some stopped using tri x because it started to look too much like Tmax 400, some stopped using tmx and tmy because they didn't like how clinical the new emulsions looked so they went to Ilford adox or foma branded things, and others when the UV layer was added to the TMY film. I have no idea why you changed emulsions, and im sure if you want to spend money on the emulsions you love you would find a way to do it, like people putting change in a jar and going on a vacation ..

 

[Sal Santamaura]

My name isn't Sal!

Finally, a post that engenders sympathy for you.

...it's Ilford for me. I might stretch to a new Kodak b&w if it represented some kind of a real breakthrough in film technology and was head and shoulders above anything else...

There is such a Kodak black and white film. It's TMY-2.

I was a substantial user of Ilford sheet film for quite a few years. HARMAN's commitment to its annual special sizes order program was the deciding factor when I spearheaded an effort to revive the Goldilocks format, namely, whole plate:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017120...007/04/more-about-ebony-sv-wholeplate_09.html​

Years later, something changed about Ilford sheet film's base side. I use Jobo Expert drums on a CPP-2 processor. Initially, developed sheets were immaculate. Then, using the same chemicals, distilled water, drum rotation speed, process steps, temperature and film (I'm anal retentive about repeatability/details), each and every negative dried with smeary smudges and swirly scratches on its base. Extensive experimentation has revealed no means of effectively dealing with this situation. Now, the only way I've got to cleanly process Ilford sheet film is limited to 4x5 in Combi-Plan T tanks. Even inversion on Jobo 2509n reels in 2500-series tanks causes base side scratches.

Today, I'm happily using TMY-2 in 4x5, 5x7 (still have some from Keith Canham's most recent special order in that size) and 8x10. It's damned expensive, getting more so all the time, and the whole plate camera sits idle, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Anyone who doesn't feel Kodak film's cost is justified can do one of two other things. Either buy different film or go digital. Bitching and moaning about Kodak, however, has never made a photograph or changed the increase of film prices.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Years later, something changed about Ilford sheet film's base side. I use Jobo Expert drums on a CPP-2 processor. Initially, developed sheets were immaculate. Then, using the same chemicals, distilled water, drum rotation speed, process steps, temperature and film (I'm anal retentive about repeatability/details), each and every negative dried with smeary smudges and swirly scratches on its base.

Sal, I recall discussing the ILFORD and Kodak sheet film situation with you in the past, but I wonder, have you used the Adox CHS II film in conjunction with the Jobo Expert drums?

Tom

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, I recall discussing the ILFORD and Kodak sheet film situation with you in the past, but I wonder, have you used the Adox CHS II film in conjunction with the Jobo Expert drums?

Tom

Hi Tom. Yes, I have. CHS 100 II, as well as Bergger Pancro 400, TMX, TMY-2 and 320TXP come out of Expert Drum processing with perfectly clean bases and even results. Ilford sheet films are the only ones to exhibit this problem. Note that I've never used Foma films, so can't comment on them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It hasn't got anything to do with (ir)rationality of film shooters. Many goods (not just film) will show minimal demand decrease with even a significant price increase (price elasticity of demand). You can hardly be called irrational if you keep buying/drinking the same amount of water even if its price goes up.

Sure, film has higher price elasticity than water, but you can get a good sense that film will be pretty inelastic when you see what some film cameras are sold for lately. Users of those cameras won't just stop using those cameras and film because film has gone up 20%. The large army of users that were price sensitive have exited the market quite some time ago. Truth is, most of us who notice film getting more and more expensive will b***th about it, but will still buy it...

I also don't expect Kodak pricing themselves out of market where they need to be competitive (BW film). It makes much more sense for Kodak's competitors to follow the price increase than try to increase production (and then additionally sort out logistics) in these times.

Water never has provided memories to me the way that film does.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Better question is why aren't you using digital (being so price sensitive as you say you are)?

Because a digital Hasselblad would cost me $30,000US to $50,000US for the body alone. I would have to upgrade some lenses for compatibility, replace my Apple tower with a serious upgrade, rent software, buy printers and ink, ... Now if you would like to finance the digital migration, please give me a call.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As prices go up, photographers might not stop using a particular film. They could cut back. No more bracketing. Less shooting just to shoot. More discriminatory shooting. Etc.

As prices of film go up, some will cut back on driving since gasoline prices have gone up much more.

 

[George Mann]

Finally, a post that engenders sympathy for you.

I require neither your sympathy, nor your trollish response to my contributions to this forum!

 

[brbo]

Water never has provided memories to me the way that film does.

Wait till you get some water and develop that film that has already provided you with such lovely memories. Developed film will blow your mind. I promise!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As prices of film go up, some will cut back on driving since gasoline prices have gone up much more.

Good point. Getting there just to shoot costs more as well. Actually, if you figure cost of gas, insurance, amortization of the car's value, etc. the increase in the cost of film is a tiny part of the whole cost. Then there's development, printing etc. Of course, everything's going up alongside buying film.

 

[BrianShaw]

As prices of film go up, some will cut back on driving since gasoline prices have gone up much more.

That shouldn't be a problem for you. You can walk over to Westwood Village and have a lifetime of photo opportunities. As long as you don't get your old ass beat down and camera stolen by a gangster.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That shouldn't be a problem for you. You can walk over to Westwood Village and have a lifetime of photo opportunities. As long as you don't get your old ass beat down and camera stolen by a gangster.

We ship most of the crime to other neighborhoods. It is an export, not an import.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I require neither your sympathy, nor your trollish response to my contributions to this forum!

!!!

 

[pentaxuser]

I was a substantial user of Ilford sheet film for quite a few years. HARMAN's commitment to its annual special sizes order program was the deciding factor when I spearheaded an effort to revive the Goldilocks format, namely, whole plate:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017120...007/04/more-about-ebony-sv-wholeplate_09.html​

Years later, something changed about Ilford sheet film's base side. I use Jobo Expert drums on a CPP-2 processor. Initially, developed sheets were immaculate. Then, using the same chemicals, distilled water, drum rotation speed, process steps, temperature and film (I'm anal retentive about repeatability/details), each and every negative dried with smeary smudges and swirly scratches on its base. Extensive experimentation has revealed no means of effectively dealing with this situation. Now, the only way I've got to cleanly process Ilford sheet film is limited to 4x5 in Combi-Plan T tanks. Even inversion on Jobo 2509n reels in 2500-series tanks causes base side scratches.

Sal, what was it about Combi-Plan T tanks that you believe avoided the problem

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Manufacturers don't like it when their costs go up as they have to raise prices to cover increases. Then demand could fall off. Sales, profits and earnings drop. Employees start to get laid off. That's the problem with inflation overall. It hurts not only film but the entire economy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Manufacturers don't like it when their costs go up as they have to raise prices to cover increases. Then demand could fall off. Sales, profits and earnings drop. Employees start to get laid off. That's the problem with inflation overall. It hurts not only film but the entire economy.

Plus they get tired of hearing from their own equivalent of the Kodak haters bitching at them. But then again, if Kodak haters could not bitch, they would have no meaning to their life at all.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, what was it about Combi-Plan T tanks that you believe avoided the problem

Thanks

pentaxuser

When used in accordance with its directions, the Combi-Plan T rack holds 4x5 sheets under slight compression against the rack's curved slots. I conclude that this prevents any movement of the film during agitation and precludes anything non-liquid, including other sheets, from touching the base side.

I only had one Combi-Plan T tank, and its fill/drain times are so long that, used alone, it suffered from uneven results. Desiring to use inversion agitation rather than the open top "dip and dunk" method others have written about at the LF forum, I solved that issue by obtaining additional tanks, then turning lights off when removing the cover and moving the rack from one solution/tank to the next, immediately attaching the cover and turning lights back on. For non-Ilford sheet films of all sizes, I still develop in Jobo Expert Drums on my CPP-2 processor.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Sal. It sounds a bit of a chore to d what you have to do but still better than risking ruined sheets.

pentaxuser