TMAX400 100' roll reaching almost 300$ in Japan

Colin Corneau said:

......Correct me if I'm missing something here -- but, people in America are belly-aching about the cost of a bulk roll of film in Japan? I don't buy too many Kodak products from Japan.

Click to expand...

I agree. just last week I bought 4 bulk rolls of tmax 100 from B&H. the boxes where a little smashed so they discounted them. $58 each shipped. figured I would never find them that cheap again. If they where discounted to $150 each I would have passed.

It's the new arrivals that are high priced.

I expect that once the present rolls are sold out, the new arrivals will probably be priced double.

In the last decade, we all feared that Kodak was possessed by the devil. But now it's clear: kodak is the Devil.

Just close the shop already.

The price that gets paid to Ilford/Harman for their film is not very closely related to the price the end-customer pays at a retailer. There is no fixed-price market in film. As in the case of the Australian importer, look at the in-between distribution layers for a large proportion of the retail costs of our materials.

My impression and it's only a vague and possibly wrong impression is that a few years ago, say 5-7, bulk film was cheaper in relation to cassettes than it is now. If I am right then it is difficult to see why this change in relative pricing should have occurred.

In terms of getting to the bottom of this, the problem is finding what a range of retailer bulk film prices were compared to cassettes 5-7 years ago which isn't within Ilford's control.

However if Simon can give us information on what if anything has changed in the Ilford relationship between bulk and cassettes in say the last 5-7 years then at least we will know if we need to address our concerns to our retailers rather than Ilford itself.

My impression relates to the U.K. market. I have no idea of any changes in bulk to cassette in other markets.

pentaxuser

Dinesh said:

Not your concern.

If you deem it too expensive, don't buy it.

Click to expand...

+1

The cost of producing a product is none of the purchaser's business. Neither is how much the owners of the company are profiting from it. The ONLY thing that is the purchaser's business (other than slave labor, etc) is whether the price is right for the benefit gained from the purchase.

To pay more than the benefit is worth is stupid.

To charge less (or more) than the price that maximizes profit is stupid.

To buy something and then bitch about the price is doubly stupid.

Kodak may be pricing their product based on how much labour is involved, plus the cost of materials.

Their labour costs per bulk roll may be very high, if the production process is manual, as compared to the more automated process for individual rolls.

The cores and cans may be more expensive than we think too.

And there may be minimum volumes involved - we don't know whether the Japanese consumers make much use of bulk films.

The currency fluctuations may also pay a role in this - the Japanese Yen has been plummeting against the US dollar. The Japanese pricing may reflect both the distributor and the retailer building in a large safety factor to prevent losses due to currency change.

I think it is informative to recall Simon's recent post confirming that when it comes to 120 film, the backing paper actually costs more than the cost to produce the film. That is just one example of a factor in the cost of film that has little to do with the production cost.

It may be that the only way that Kodak, the Japanese distributors and the Japanese retailers can sell bulk film in Japan at a "reasonable" price is to either increase the volume tremendously, or sell it at a loss.

Simon, I accept your reply and, thank you, but I also accept my query, as it does focus upon factors that are not usually directly asked.

Your 'no comment' response was telling and we will have to leave it at that. Certainly, Harmon is probably the best of all out there, but, nevertheless, I felt that the question should have been asked. Others can think what they wish to and come to their own honest conclusions. - David Lyga

tokam said:

Price jump in Australia as well. Vanbar list bulk TMax 400 at $269 and Tri-X at $155. I'm sure the situation was reversed a month or so ago with Tri-X being more expensive.

The bulk prices for Ilford 35mm is between $90 and $112 for all types. Aussie dollars, of course. These prices still make sense for bulk loaders.

Click to expand...

I don't know how Vanbar set their prices, but I have my theories. Last time I looked, Tri-X in 120 was 50% more than T-Max in 120. A few months earlier the Tri-X was cheaper.

David Lyga said:

Simon, I accept your reply and, thank you, but I also accept my query, as it does focus upon factors that are not usually directly asked.

Your 'no comment' response was telling and we will have to leave it at that. Certainly, Harmon is probably the best of all out there, but, nevertheless, I felt that the question should have been asked. Others can think what they wish to and come to their own honest conclusions. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

Ilford have to make sufficient profit for the staff to eat and to be able to afford to maintain the factory.
The UK price for film is pretty high cause of our reseller and retail markups.
Foma bulk is cheaper than ilford bulk which is cheaper than kodak.

Depends who you want to eat.

Until this year I've never used Trix and only use it occasionally now cause I've trade sources.

When you look at Kodaks formal Inc accounts they are living on film and trying to start up other 'lines' their film volume is shrinking.

We let Efke collapse and are giving kodak a life line they are going to stop making film and make buggy whips instead...

To Simon

I'm sure that factory supply of bulk films haven't dried both for Ilford films as well as Kentmere.

This morning I went to one of our lovely "brick and mortar" shops in London intending to buy some very nice Kentmere 400 in bulk.
They have it advertised in their site and with a nice "buy" button next to it for internet orders.

I was quite admired they actually have no stock of any bulk film.
They expect customers to put orders via the website and then they order as "special order".

Would you be so kind as to pass to your selling and marketing team to "poke", to remind shops to make available and to order from you some bulk rolls, please?
If customers don't see the product, they assume it doesn't exist.
Considering the shop I was in is right next door to a University campus and they have a lot of young customers who might not know that bulk films do exist, it is really a bad customer service of that shop not to have bulk films on their shelves.


To David,

Certainly, Harmon is probably the best of all out there,

Click to expand...

I don't know who HarmOn is, but I know who Alfred HarmAn is, the founder of what is today "Ilford Photo" in 1879.

A quick survey of U.K. retailers has shown a number of things using bulk rolls:

1. It is still possible to save anything from £1.30 to nearly £2 per 36 frame roll depending on the retailer and the film. Generally the bulk film saving is greater for D400 than HP5+

2. As reported by other posters Kodak bulk film cost over twice as much as Ilford and turn the savings on their head. It is much cheaper to buy cassettes than bulk film.

I find it difficult to believe that Kodak needs to charge twice as much for bulk film as Ilford but I find it impossible rather than difficult to believe that the Kodak price for bulk film has to be as much as 50% more than the same film in a 36 frame cassette

It certainly does nothing for Kodak's credibility.

This still leaves my original question as to whether the price ratio of bulk v cassette has altered in the last 5-7 years in the case of Ilford. I am still curious about that

pentaxuser

I think I have a 100' roll or two of TMY in my freezer. On sale today only: $275 a roll plus shipping, Japan-based buyers only.

(That'll rattle some cages)

I recall in the 1970s being told by a Kodak rep that the "Long rolls" were intended for Photographers using long roll cameras and that Kodak did not really endorse using them to roll your own 35mm cassettes. They did however sell "Kodak Snap-Cap 135 Magazines" although the official use was for repacking film where the cassette had to be opened to extract the leader.

With this attitude from a way back, it is not surprising to me that Kodak pricing does not take into account the relative cost of a buck roll compared to 18 36 exposure rolls.

It seems from Simons posts that ILFORD is quite aware of this consumer comparison and has worked to ensure that they still meet our expectations. You will note for example that ILFORD did away with packing bulk rolls in Metal cans (I think it was in the 1980 era) and now uses boxes similar to photo paper, which presumably are less expensive to procure.

{I still have at least one ILFORD 17 meter film can safely holding my safety pins, I think it originally contained some FP4 that had an expiry date of 1979}

I can certainly imagine the spooling of bulk rolls is Much more labour intensive than loading a 2000ft core into the film packing machine shown on the tour video and watching it churn out 360 ready to use films. At the very least someone ends up sitting at a console in a darkroom swapping in 20 cores and stuffing the finished rolls into black bags and boxes to package the same 2000ft of film.

if they have to use one machine to put the edge marking on the bulk stock and then move it to another machine, or perhaps hand crank rewinds to spool it out, the labour would be more intensive. As a customer I don't really expect to know the details of the process, of what the nice young lady who spends her work day packing film is paid. All I can do is decide it it is worth my effort to bulk load my cassettes or if I am better off to just buy ready loaded cassettes. With Kodak new pricing, they were making it clear that they don't expect me to bother to bulk load with their product. Perhaps it is a premeditated decision on their part to phase out the supply of the "401" roll.

I like both Illford HP5 and Kodak Tri-X but my planing on which to buy next may result in more of the film I buy coming from across the Atlantic rather then across Lake Ontario. (it will likely come via New York state in any case as our local dealers here in Canada don't see to bother keeping any film in stock)

Anyway, May I again express to Simon how much I enjoy and appreciate his Zen ability and great openness with information here on APUG.

JW PHOTO said:

Just open your books and show me exactly why and I might just keep being loyal. Otherwise I'm gone.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that your purchases are dependent on how much profit the producer is making and not by whether or not you feel that the price is within your desired spending range?

Dinesh said:

Are you saying that your purchases are dependent on how much profit the producer is making and not by whether or not you feel that the price is within your desired spending range?

Click to expand...

Let me make myself perfectly clear, once and for all. I like Ilford film, I like Kodak film, I like Foma film (a little less) and I like Chinese GP3 film, but I don't like getting screwed and refuse to bend over for it. I just finished processing a roll of 120 HP5+ in Perceptol 1+2 and know for a fact that I can live just fine without Kodak film. So, if they what to continue their very silly business practices then I can continue my very silly purchase practices. That's just me of course and anybody else can do as they very well please. Oh, I bend over for nobody. John W

Oh, before I'm kicked off this forum for speaking my opinion I'd like to say that Simon is at least here and to me, is a stand-up guy. Hmmmmmmm! Is there somebody out there from Kodak that can explain this price difference? I didn't think so! Case closed for me. John W

From the horses mouths:

Dead Link Removed ($274.42)

and

34,750 Yen for TMAX bulk at Yodobashi ($296.59)

And I remember when Tri-X / TMAX bulk were only around 8000 Yen a piece (only a few years ago.)

Just some comments from skimming the thread: except for sympathy to our brethren there I really don't care what film costs in Japan, of course. My puzzlement is film prices here. I have no problem with Ilford film prices. Everything costs more now than it used to (though often not when adjusted for inflation) and film is now a niche market. I'm actually pleasantly surprised it still costs as little as it does overall. This statement applies to other brands and to Kodak pre-rolled 35mm and 120, NOT to Kodak bulk or sheet film.

It's those I don't understand, not only why they are so much relative to the price of pre-rolled film - that might be explainable were it not for the second problem - why Kodak bulk 35mm and sheet films are so much more (even here in the US) than other brands, while their pre-rolled 35mm and 120 films are competitive. That just doesn't make any sense to me. Nor does it make any sense to me why anyone would pay, for example, $104 (current price at Freestyle) for a 100' roll of TMY-2, which will load, if you're careful, eighteen 36 exposure rolls at a cost of $5.83 each not counting wear and eventually replacement of the film cartridges, when you can buy pre loaded 36 exposure rolls from the same vendor for $5.09. Ok, maybe you like shorter rolls as I do too sometimes, but still it just doesn't make any sense to me to pay MORE per length of film for the PITA privilege of rolling your own.

Roger Cole said:

Just some comments from skimming the thread: except for sympathy to our brethren there I really don't care what film costs in Japan, of course. My puzzlement is film prices here. I have no problem with Ilford film prices. Everything costs more now than it used to (though often not when adjusted for inflation) and film is now a niche market. I'm actually pleasantly surprised it still costs as little as it does overall. This statement applies to other brands and to Kodak pre-rolled 35mm and 120, NOT to Kodak bulk or sheet film.

It's those I don't understand, not only why they are so much relative to the price of pre-rolled film - that might be explainable were it not for the second problem - why Kodak bulk 35mm and sheet films are so much more (even here in the US) than other brands, while their pre-rolled 35mm and 120 films are competitive. That just doesn't make any sense to me. Nor does it make any sense to me why anyone would pay, for example, $104 (current price at Freestyle) for a 100' roll of TMY-2, which will load, if you're careful, eighteen 36 exposure rolls at a cost of $5.83 each not counting wear and eventually replacement of the film cartridges, when you can buy pre loaded 36 exposure rolls from the same vendor for $5.09. Ok, maybe you like shorter rolls as I do too sometimes, but still it just doesn't make any sense to me to pay MORE per length of film for the PITA privilege of rolling your own.

Click to expand...

Cast mind back to Oct 2013 when I bought

400 feet of 5222 courier to door for 124£
Or
100 feet of Tx for 121£ in local brick shop

Former EK latter KA.

You dumped the tea in Boston harbour?

Dear Apuggers

A few answers : As far as I am aware the calculation or ratio of bulk film to ordinary film per linear metre as a cost has not changed in the 10 years of HARMAN:

We used to make 5m 17m and 30m bulk lengths of most film products for lots of specialist applications as well as 'traditional' bulk users.

Our bulk lengths now have very few 'special' applications, our understanding is that users require bulk for short lengths eg 12 exposures, or actually prefer the savings of 'self rolling' film, students can also 'team up' and reduce their 'per shot' cost.

When we launched KENTMERE Film it was a no-brainer that it went to bulk as well.

Finally, we make literally thousands of products, we cannot expect Brick & Morter stores to hold hundreds of products in stock, we always wish to have at least the top 50 film, paper and chemical products available for easy customer access ... that's why we have distributor partners around the Globe who can supply the stores quickly to order.

I would consider bulk film as a must have film product.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Xmas said:

Cast mind back to Oct 2013 when I bought

400 feet of 5222 courier to door for 124£
Or
100 feet of Tx for 121£ in local brick shop

Former EK latter KA.

You dumped the tea in Boston harbour?

Click to expand...

Yes, what a waste of good tea! Probably not even "GOOD" tea since that went to Merry Old England instead. Is there not some former EK or newer KA rep that can explain this bulk to cassette difference to us. All Simon can do is speculate. We need it from the horses mouth. Of course if you have no explanation or excuse it's best to just keep your mouth shut. Hmmm? Well, as soon as the sun comes up I'm off to Grand Haven to dump my few remaining rolls of Tri-X and T-max in the Lake Michigan harbor. After I spud a hole first! John W

JW PHOTO said:

Yes, what a waste of good tea! Probably not even "GOOD" tea since that went to Merry Old England instead. Is there not some former EK or newer KA rep that can explain this bulk to cassette difference to us. All Simon can do is speculate. We need it from the horses mouth. Of course if you have no explanation or excuse it's best to just keep your mouth shut. Hmmm? Well, as soon as the sun comes up I'm off to Grand Haven to dump my few remaining rolls of Tri-X and T-max in the Lake Michigan harbor. After I spud a hole first! John W

Click to expand...

The reseller and retail price of Tx has little to do with EK they 'sell' it to KA at close to cost KA distribute with mark up.
400 foot of 5222 is the bottom of market for cine better is the 1000 foot shorter short ends etc.
Jan 14 EK deltaed 15% or so and I think again in Jan 15.

That will/would have hit any low budget movie people hard in wallet...

I can get Foma 100 for 36£ in brick shop today. Kentmere 400 for 42.

Simon R Galley said:

Dear Apuggers

A few answers : As far as I am aware the calculation or ratio of bulk film to ordinary film per linear metre as a cost has not changed in the 10 years of HARMAN:


Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Click to expand...

Thanks for the very prompt answer, Simon. As far as EK/KA policy is concerned it is all very strange. Either no-one in EK/KA sees what is obvious to us in terms of the likely fatal effect of its pricing policy on its bulk film business or it is a means of letting the customers kill EK's bulk film business by grossly overcharging or at least giving that impression. If it has to charge what it does for bulk film then surely it is better to state that as it can no longer be even remotely competitive it has decided to discontinue the sale of bulk film.

It's present behaviour causes the phrase "another nail in the coffin" to spring to mind.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Thanks for the very prompt answer, Simon. As far as EK/KA policy is concerned it is all very strange. Either no-one in EK/KA sees what is obvious to us in terms of the likely fatal effect of its pricing policy on its bulk film business or it is a means of letting the customers kill EK's bulk film business by grossly overcharging or at least giving that impression. If it has to charge what it does for bulk film then surely it is better to state that as it can no longer be even remotely competitive it has decided to discontinue the sale of bulk film.

It's present behaviour causes the phrase "another nail in the coffin" to spring to mind.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Or (and even more likely), EK's costs are much higher per roll for the parts of the production that are particular to bulk rolls.

Ilford is set up for small production runs. EK isn't.

I wonder if the Japanese retailers (or even the Japanese distributors) are just buying retail from B&H, paying for shipping and adding markup, and then re-selling to their customers.

I'm with David Lyga.

If buying Four 1/4 pizza slices cost me 300% more then buying that whole damned same pizza, as a consumer I want to know why.

I really do.