TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES'

[michaelbsc]

When that judge gets to hell Cujo's gonna bite his nuts off.

Perhaps in Hell they'll grow back every day, so it can be a daily routine!

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

When that judge gets to hell Cujo's gonna bite his nuts off.

I have a friend whose male cat got pissed when she got a dog. One day, when the dog was sleeping, Mr. Feline crept up to the dog and attacked it! The dog jumped up and flipped the cat off his back. He then grabbed the cat by his testicles and DRAGGED HIM ACROSS THE FLOOR. Trust me, you have never seen a truly angry cat until you've seen one dragged around by his balls by a dog.

The cat was even more pissed after that, and kept attacking the dog, with the same horrible result each time. My friend finally got her cat neutered, so the dog wouldn't have anything to grab onto anymore. The cat finally stopped attacking the dog after that.

 

[Diapositivo]

A suicide cat. The ordinary dog wanting to kill a cat would do it in less than a second, taking it by its neck and applying a torsion on it.

A friend of a friend of mine had some contrast with a neighbour, in the countryside. One day he saw the neighbour's cat near enough to him, and captured it. This person has a field in front of his house which is at least 50 metres deep, if not more, slightly downhill. Almost at the end of the field there is a single tree.

The person threw the cat on the field, and called his dog with a whistle. The cat immediately ran toward the tree but, as obvious, the dog (a "German shepherd") was much faster than the cat. The dog reached the cat and in a fraction of a second killed him instantly. A dog knows how to do it.

The subsequent day the neighbour was looking for his cat and asked the dog owner if he saw it. No, he hadn't seen it

PS Always keep good relations with your neighbours.

PPS I don't approve at all of such behaviour, be it clear.

 

[tomalophicon]

Fabrizio. Great story. My 2 dogs do the same to rabbits, not yet a cat. Though they would if they had a chance.

 

[mwdake]

Fabrizio. Great story.

I'm not sure the cat would agree with you on that.

 

[tomalophicon]

I'm not sure the cat would agree with you on that.

Yes, because its brain doesn't function anymore.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I really think it is time to close this thread!!!!!

PE

 

[MattKing]

I really think it is time to close this thread!!!!!

PE

Are you saying that it has gone to the dogs (and cats)?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

A suicide cat. The ordinary dog wanting to kill a cat would do it in less than a second, taking it by its neck and applying a torsion on it.

A friend of a friend of mine had some contrast with a neighbour, in the countryside. One day he saw the neighbour's cat near enough to him, and captured it. This person has a field in front of his house which is at least 50 metres deep, if not more, slightly downhill. Almost at the end of the field there is a single tree.

The person threw the cat on the field, and called his dog with a whistle. The cat immediately ran toward the tree but, as obvious, the dog (a "German shepherd") was much faster than the cat. The dog reached the cat and in a fraction of a second killed him instantly. A dog knows how to do it.

The subsequent day the neighbour was looking for his cat and asked the dog owner if he saw it. No, he hadn't seen it

PS Always keep good relations with your neighbours.

PPS I don't approve at all of such behaviour, be it clear.

This dog didn't want to kill the cat, he was a nice dog, but he got tired of being attacked and decided to teach the cat a lesson.

If I'd seen a neighbor kill a cat like you described, I'd have turned him in to the police.

 

[2F/2F]

I like cats.

 

[lxdude]

So does ALF.

 

[Diapositivo]

If I'd seen a neighbor kill a cat like you described, I'd have turned him in to the police.

I know, dead cats have to be disposed of properly.




PS The neighbour is not a normal person. He also has one of those dogs (not a pitbull, possibly a Corsican sheperd, whatever) which is totally mad. When you arrive with your motorbike, the "white" road passes near the neighbour. The dog will literally jump against the iron fence which will "elastically" bounce it back, like in a bouncing castle. The dog will then again launch himself against the fence. The utterances the dog emits show clearly he doesn't want you to be in his sight. The flexible fence will shake and flex at any attempt. I have never seen that not even in a videogame. You have the serious sensation that if the fence falls under the dog action, you are in big, big trouble, and I was on my motorbike.

 

[KenS]

In Snow! Up Hill! Both ways!!!

and.....

without any socks to help suck up the sweat.


Ken

 

[djacobox372]

Yes, I am tired of 'excuses' being given for BW film prices.

With such a mature technology (all the R&D long ago paid for) it seems amazing that decent, high quality, 'no frills' film cannot be made in bulk rolls for no more than $20 for 100 ft. Why does 100 ft of Kodak Plus-X have to retail for, what is it now, about $80 before discount?

When I was living in New York City in the 70s, a 36 exposure roll of Plus-X was 63 cents at the Camera Barn chain store. Why does a DISCOUNTED price now have to be over 6 bucks at B&H? That is TEN TIMES the 70s price. Back then minimum wage was $2.50/hour and now it is about three times as much.

I know that the usual excuses will follow (ie, less made) but I really think that the groundwork made in production efficiency and refinement over the years should mitigate the 'less is sold' excuse. Am I dead wrong here? Or is this film simply selling for what the traffic will bear? Lack of competition thwarts reasons for not giving 'value'? - David Lyga.

Foor one thing, u can get plus-x and similar films for around $4 a roll or less, which is right in line with inflation.

Lol at using minimum wage from the 70s as a measuring stick, in today's dollars min wage would need to be around $18 an hour to compare. The USA is not nearly as worker friendly as it once was.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I know the prices are confusing and mysertious, up/down up/down[Increase/decrease], i have too many films in my fridge right now, so i better stop buying more as i was planning to support film, but if the prices are not stable with film then i have to give that a rest for a while and use what i have already until i see there are no changes in film prices for a while.

 

[David Lyga]

I hereby christen my brilliant post about 'high film prices' fully consummated.

 

[benjiboy]

I like cats.

The way the economy is going in both our countrys at the moment we better "like cats", we may end up having to eat them.:eek:

 

[David Lyga]

Benjiboy (et al):

As a vegetarian, I shall not. But you Brits should be smarter than that, Benjiboy! 'Having to eat cats' equates to losing your very sense of being. Plants are not aware of their existence, thus, perhaps, the ability to simmer dried beans in a pot (like I do) will still allow one to sense himself as still ethical and enlightened.

OK: Listen carefully: back in 1975 when a roll of 36 exp Plus-X cost 63 cents at Camera Barn in NYC the minimum wage was about 2.25/hour (lots less per British pound). But today, that SAME roll of film, discounted at B&H costs about $6.30, about ten times the original cost. Mimimum wage has decidedly NOT gone to ten times $2.25 or $22.50, but to about three times as much as in 1975. Why are so many on this board so forgiving of this dire reality? Excuses are regularly made for these outrageous prices. In the 70s I cannot remember ONE INSTANCE of someone stating film prices were high.

This point does seem especially poignant to me because, unlike most of you, I NEVER enjoyed the 'good life' as far as cash was concerned. Chalk it up to stupidty or cupidity or inablility as you may, but, even to stop at a Starbuck's would be an even obscene gesture on my sorry part.

Most of you, comparatively, are wallowing in money. (You say 'no' but you would always say 'no' to living in a 12 foot by 12 foot tiny efficiency like I do.) You have cars (I do not). You have credit cards. (I do not). You own a home. (I do not). You have income. (I do not and am living on meagre savings until Social Security kicks in.) You all own a computer. (I do not but use Temple University's). Maybe you deserve it, maybe you do not. But perception matters because if you see $6.40 film as NORMAL then you are distant from my perceptions and realities. I simply do not have that kind of cash. Thus, what I did, years ago, is slowly buy up film at camera shows, Freestyle 'back dated stuff' and buoyed up these purchases by the accumulated knowledge that I have about 'outdated' slower film not going really bad even at room temp. With Farmer's Reducer as ammo, I am prepared for the US dollar to collapse and then, only then, will I succumb to eating the gelatin therein, thereby voiding my vegetarian prerequisite for life. (And, watch it Benjiboy, the pound sterling is not really sterling at all but fiat currency for all.) - David Lyga

 

[Steve Smith]

Another vegetarian, non cat eater here!


Steve.

 

[David Lyga]

Good Steve, we'll beat 'um up! - David Lyga

 

[moose10101]

Why are so many on this board so forgiving of this dire reality? Excuses are regularly made for these outrageous prices. In the 70s I cannot remember ONE INSTANCE of someone stating film prices were high.

Demand is down, reducing economies of scale.
Raw materials costs are up (way, way, up).

These are not excuses. This is reality. Do you believe you have some god- or government-given right to pay less for film than what the free market dictates? That may work for bread or milk, but not for supplies to feed a hobby. And nobody is getting rich selling film.

 

[David Lyga]

OK you have a point (but only because Mooses are vegetarians). Admittedly, color film (the negative, mass market kind) really is cheaper, constant dollar-wise, than it was in the mid 70s. We know the reason: much more sold today. But I would think (I did pass macro and micro economics with an A) that a technology that has has ALL the BUGS ironed out along with no more R&D to be worried about would be able to be sold cheaply. Maybe I am incorrect and will abide by correct corrections. It's just that I am sick and tired of Ice Cream cones costing upwards of $5 in Philadelphia (I don't eat them) when in Connecticut, growing up in the fifties they were 10 cents. There really IS something skewed here and I think that the credit card has, through the decades, attenuated the 'fear and pain' of actually spending money.

Young people, especially, look at 'money' as if it were play money. With so many aids towards mitigating the individual debt crises (socially, it is no longer a thing to be embarrassed about!) and bankruptcy no longer 'no man's land' and with a government that tells its citizens to spend rather than, more prudently, telling its citizens to SAVE, I think that my angst is hardly misplaced. I survive because I NEVER looked at money as casually and ALWAYS denied myself luxury even when I could afford it. I never denied myself 'essentials' but, today 'essentials' include three TVs, three cars, three times a week to eat out, Breakfast at Dunkin' Donuts, lunch never bought from home, etc. And their kids ape this ridiculous behavior (or for Benjiboy, 'behaviour') - David Lyga

 

[Diapositivo]

I suspect in 1975 B&W still sold more than colour, volumes were high in any case. Now B&W is a niche product. Negative colour is the mainstream product, and where scale economies weight more.
You can still buy negative colour material (the B&W of today, so to speak) for prices that are more or less in line with the minimum wage increase:

Prices Italian VAT 20% included.

Ferrania Solaris FG 1000 135/36: €1,80;
Ferrania Solaris FG 1000 135/36: €2,22;
Kodak Colour Plus 200 135/36: €1,70;
Fujicolor C200 135/36: €1,38;

In the B&W domain you can buy several Adox products for around €2.5 for a 135/36.

There always is the possibility to save more by bulk loading with certain products (Rollei Digibase CN200 and CR200 bulk loaded for less than €2,00 per roll).

All those products are not the last technology or the best around, but are probably better than those around in 1975 I suppose. Plus-X is probably just a trademark. Is today's Plus-X the same as it was in 1975? Maybe today's film is in another market segment.

We can expect technological improvements to give us, with time, better films for the same price. But we can also expect maybe the market asking for better quality at higher prices. Portra, Ektar lower ISO still cost less than €5,00 per roll, which is three times the cheaper offers, but in a different quality segment.

Fabrizio

 

[moose10101]

OK you have a point (but only because Mooses are vegetarians). Admittedly, color film (the negative, mass market kind) really is cheaper, constant dollar-wise, than it was in the mid 70s. We know the reason: much more sold today. But I would think (I did pass macro and micro economics with an A) that a technology that has has ALL the BUGS ironed out along with no more R&D to be worried about would be able to be sold cheaply.

Not when the variable costs of the product have increased faster than wages.

Maybe I am incorrect and will abide by correct corrections. It's just that I am sick and tired of Ice Cream cones costing upwards of $5 in Philadelphia (I don't eat them) when in Connecticut, growing up in the fifties they were 10 cents. There really IS something skewed here and I think that the credit card has, through the decades, attenuated the 'fear and pain' of actually spending money.

Young people, especially, look at 'money' as if it were play money. With so many aids towards mitigating the individual debt crises (socially, it is no longer a thing to be embarrassed about!) and bankruptcy no longer 'no man's land' and with a government that tells its citizens to spend rather than, more prudently, telling its citizens to SAVE, I think that my angst is hardly misplaced. I survive because I NEVER looked at money as casually and ALWAYS denied myself luxury even when I could afford it. I never denied myself 'essentials' but, today 'essentials' include three TVs, three cars, three times a week to eat out, Breakfast at Dunkin' Donuts, lunch never bought from home, etc. And their kids ape this ridiculous behavior (or for Benjiboy, 'behaviour') - David Lyga

I don't see the relevance of an "I want, I want" argument as the cause of high prices on a product that has seen a 90% DECREASE in demand. Care to stay on topic?

 

[MattKing]

I expect that the 63 cent film at Camera Barn in 1975 was at best a low margin item, and more likely a true loss leader product, designed to draw large numbers in who were also willing to spend much more on other things.

Today I don't think Plus-X in 36 exposure rolls would draw in anyone other than people looking to buy really cheap film.

By 1975 it was colour film that sold in the highest volumes, because by then we were well into the era of readily available inexpensive photofinishing. So loss leader black and white may actually reflect a market over-supply situation.

For a better comparison, I'd like to know what the relative wholesale costs are now and were in 1975 for 36 exposure Plus-X, for major high volume retailers and the smaller low volume sources as well.

I'd guess that the current prices are much higher, and that the differences relate to economies of scale, shipping, taxes and material costs.