TMAX400 100' roll reaching almost 300$ in Japan

MattKing said:

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.

.

Click to expand...

You might be right but it just seems incredible that EK costs are twice as high as Ilford for bulk rolls( I base this on Ilford v Kodak bulk rolls in the U.K.) but on the basis of your premise are about the same for cassettes. So economies of scale work against EK on bulk but on the other hand do not work for it compared to Ilford on cassettes. So for EK it is not even lose/win but lose/lose.

To turn my question to Ilford in reverse: I wonder what EK's bulk to cassette price was even as recently as 3-4 years ago. I suspect it wasn't twice as expensive then, so could the loss of EK's market in the intervening few years explain this massive rise in bulk to cassette price ratio?

I am one who wishes EK well in its film business, believing that as film users it is in our interests that it survives but my credibility is sorely stretched on this issue and without an explanation from EK which I am not going to get, I will tend to ascribe the worst behaviour or combinations of behaviours to it, be that stupidity or greed with a large helping of arrogance towards its consumers.

pentaxuser

NB23 said:

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.

Click to expand...

NB23, your curiosity will have to either wait ... or wane.

Sometimes the 'free market' just does not make much sense. I think that I remember when a gallon size packet of D-76 was but cents more than the liter size. Why? There must be reasons somewhere, somehow, making sense with at least a facsimile of logic.

And then there are times when we all love to take advantage of capitalism's 'mistakes', like overstock that ends up selling cheaply. About a decade or so ago, Freestyle was selling repackaged Pan F+ 100 foot rolls for $11.69 each. I did what I will never regret, but at the time, was considered nuts, stupid, crazy, wasteful: I bought over 100 rolls and they are safely stored. I spent a lot on film but have yet to regret anything additional other than the fact that I did not buy more.

Simon Galley is not telling the whole story. But that is his justified prerogative and that lack thereof just might become ultlmately legitimate, as I am not, nor are most, privy to the inner workings of Harmon, or the industry in general. I said that I accepted his reticence but I also inferred that I still am waiting for the full story (whether it comes from him or someone else). Ilford is not the 'culprit' here but, rather, the villain is the: misunderstandings, arcane reasoning, frustrating ignorace we all 'enjoy' and must endure, concerning this topic.

Talking about this topic is good in and of itself, regardless of whether you agree with what I, or anyone else, has said. Wading through this debate-quagmire, we will be in a better position to see better, understand more, and become increasingly open towards those whose viewpoints we are reluctant not only to adopt, definitively, but to accept even as potentially valid. - David Lyga

NB23 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'll just buy the whole pizza. You can make yourself crazy trying to figure out the "why" of things that really don't make sense, or at least don't make sense without information you are not privy to.

I may wonder about it, but I'm not going to make a big fuss.

David Lyga said:

NB23, your curiosity will have to either wait ... or wane.

Sometimes the 'free market' just does not make much sense. I think that I remember when a gallon size packet of D-76 was but cents more than the liter size. Why? There must be reasons somewhere, somehow, making sense with at least a facsimile of logic.

And then there are times when we all love to take advantage of capitalism's 'mistakes', like overstock that ends up selling cheaply. About a decade or so ago, Freestyle was selling repackaged Pan F+ 100 foot rolls for $11.69 each. I did what I will never regret, but at the time, was considered nuts, stupid, crazy, wasteful: I bought over 100 rolls and they are safely stored. I spent a lot on film but have yet to regret anything additional other than the fact that I did not buy more.

Simon Galley is not telling the whole story. But that is his justified prerogative and that lack thereof just might become ultlmately legitimate, as I am not, nor are most, privy to the inner workings of Harmon, or the industry in general. I said that I accepted his reticence but I also inferred that I still am waiting for the full story (whether it comes from him or someone else). Ilford is not the 'culprit' here but, rather, the villain is the: misunderstandings, arcane reasoning, frustrating ignorace we all 'enjoy' and must endure, concerning this topic.

Talking about this topic is good in and of itself, regardless of whether you agree with what I, or anyone else, has said. Wading through this debate-quagmire, we will be in a better position to see better, understand more, and become increasingly open towards those whose viewpoints we are reluctant not only to adopt, definitively, but to accept even as potentially valid. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

The gallon D76 was probably only a little more because the chemicals themselves are dirt cheap in the quantities Kodak would be buying them and you're paying mainly for the packaging and distribution, which costs very little more for the gallon than the liter size. In fact if they sold a lot more of the gallon size they might even be less expensive due to economies of scale in the bags they bought to pack them in or something like that. That makes a certain kind of sense to me.

I'm not sure what Simon is being reticent about, but then again I don't see any problem with Ilford pricing. It makes sense, in the same way Kodak's doesn't (sheets and bulk rolls are also market competitive and bulk rolling 35mm is still less expensive than buying pre-rolled, albeit not as much so as in days gone by.) We can complain that it isn't cheap enough but it's market competitive and, probably more important, is low enough for the limits on my shooting to be my time not my budget (at least in 35mm and 120 - sheet film gets expensive but of course it takes even more time) while simultaneously being high enough to keep Ilford profitable. I don't know anyone, even people who are in a certain field out of passion for it as Harman is (are for the Brits) who is (are) in business to lose money. They shouldn't make it all off me, granted, but I want them to make enough to keep making film.

I do wonder, though, if the paper backing on 120 film costs more than the film itself, why a roll of 120, which has about the same film area as a roll of 35mm, costs significantly less than 35mm. The only thing I can think of is that the metal film cartridges cost even more than the paper backing. This seems to be true across manufacturers, though. The base is different and it's also possible that costs more for 35mm. Of course it's perforated but 120 is machine rolled with the backing paper and I'd think both sets of machinery were long ago paid for.

Roger Cole said:

I'll just buy the whole pizza. You can make yourself crazy trying to figure out the "why" of things that really don't make sense, or at least don't make sense without information you are not privy to.

I may wonder about it, but I'm not going to make a big fuss.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not making a big fuss. I'm only writing a few posts on the internet.

HOWEVER, the big Colleges throughout the world make a big fuss about the wealth of knowledge they teach. I have been in one of those, and we've never seen such a case. Never. Even in the wost business cases, nothing came even close to such an illogical scenario.

NB23 said:

Well, I'm not making a big fuss. I'm only writing a few posts on the internet.

HOWEVER, the big Colleges throughout the world make a big fuss about the wealth of knowledge they teach. I have been in one of those, and we've never seen such a case. Never. Even in the wost business cases, nothing came even close to such an illogical scenario.

Click to expand...

You're right of course. And I'm posting too. I wonder about it but I don't sit up worrying or thinking about it, I just don't buy Kodak bulk film (well, I no longer buy any bulk film, I just don't shoot enough 35mm black and white to bother even if it did save money) and am migrating away from Kodak sheet film.

It is still less.

NB23 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because people WILL pay that price. That's why the price is set the way it is.

No wonder so many start up businesses fail. Most people have zero understanding of pricing.

Alessandro Serrao said:

Not in Italy, dear Simon.
An Ilford Fp4+ 30,5mt bulk roll is estimated 72€, that is 4€ per roll against 5,1€ per factory rolled.
Not significantly less...

http://www.ars-imago.com/ilfordfp4plus35mmx305m-p-8507.html

Click to expand...

Alessandro,
Consider this: your 72 Euros are about £53.
In the UK you an buy from Harman Expess and that will be about £56. Not much difference in price.
And single rolls are £5.41
In other retailers it can be as high as £70 for the same 30.5m bulk rolls.

Alessandro Serrao said:

Not in Italy, dear Simon.
An Ilford Fp4+ 30,5mt bulk roll is estimated 72€, that is 4€ per roll against 5,1€ per factory rolled.
Not significantly less...

http://www.ars-imago.com/ilfordfp4plus35mmx305m-p-8507.html

Click to expand...

Simon said ex-factory the resellers and retailers mark up depending on risk.
My brick shop used to stock all available ilford varieties in 30.5m now none. Note no kodak bulk either.

RattyMouse said:

Because people WILL pay that price. That's why the price is set the way it is.

No wonder so many start up businesses fail. Most people have zero understanding of pricing.

Click to expand...

LOL!

First of all, people will not pay that price.

Second of all, Kodak, in the past decade, is possibly the least well run company on the planet. From a Giant leader to a printing company. Kodak hasn't been able to keep a tiny fraction of what was their own market not so long ago.
They have been their worst enemy. And you think their current pricing strategy is smart?
Let's be reminded that Eastman Kodak is dead and Kodak Alaris seem to have no idea at all.

Not even One 300$ can will be sold.

I am getting close to debating how many angels can settle on the head of a pin here but I note that quite a number of posters are using a figure of 18 rolls per 100ft(30.5mt). This seems very conservative. It may not be quite 20 @5 ft per 36 frame roll but I'd have thought that you can get very close to 20 full rolls which brings the bulk v cassette price down further.

pentaxuser

NB23 said:

LOL!

First of all, people will not pay that price.



Not even One 300$ can will be sold.

Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong. There are enough folks out there with "MORE MONEY, THAN BRAINS" and they are the folks who blindly drive prices up. They will drive them high enough so that average folks can't play their game. Many examples out there such as golf. In this country somebody spreads a rumor that the Government is going for your guns and all of a sudden the price of firearms goes through the roof and ammo can't be found(ammo makers aren't dumb either). When ammo is found it's rationed out at prices that no normal human being would ever pay. Who, is willing to pay those prices? Yup, people with "more money than brains". Who gets hurt? People with lower budgets and more brains. I guess that's how capitalism is suppose to work? For me I'll be happy with Ilford and GP3 for now. Oh, I didn't dump my Kodak film in Lake Michigan, but I won't be buying anymore either. John W

pentaxuser said:

I am getting close to debating how many angels can settle on the head of a pin here but I note that quite a number of posters are using a figure of 18 rolls per 100ft(30.5mt). This seems very conservative. It may not be quite 20 @5 ft per 36 frame roll but I'd have thought that you can get very close to 20 full rolls which brings the bulk v cassette price down further.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

If you are using a Watson you wont get more then 17, the 17th may be short, YMMV.

Noel

18 and a bit rolls is the calculation we use

1 x 36 exposure 0.056875m2 one bulk roll 1.0675m2 = 18.76 rolls

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

JW PHOTO said:

... In this country somebody spreads a rumor that the Government is going for your guns and all of a sudden the price of firearms goes through the roof and ammo can't be found(ammo makers aren't dumb either). When ammo is found it's rationed out at prices that no normal human being would ever pay. Who, is willing to pay those prices? Yup, people with "more money than brains". Who gets hurt? People with lower budgets and more brains...

Click to expand...

Really? That's the analogy you're going with?

JW PHOTO said:

That's where you are wrong. There are enough folks out there with "MORE MONEY, THAN BRAINS" and they are the folks who blindly drive prices up. They will drive them high enough so that average folks can't play their game. Many examples out there such as golf. In this country somebody spreads a rumor that the Government is going for your guns and all of a sudden the price of firearms goes through the roof and ammo can't be found(ammo makers aren't dumb either). When ammo is found it's rationed out at prices that no normal human being would ever pay. Who, is willing to pay those prices? Yup, people with "more money than brains". Who gets hurt? People with lower budgets and more brains. I guess that's how capitalism is suppose to work? For me I'll be happy with Ilford and GP3 for now. Oh, I didn't dump my Kodak film in Lake Michigan, but I won't be buying anymore either. John W

Click to expand...

Let's say it this way: my assumptions are based on solid microeconomics facts.
Yours are based on a few anecdotal stories involving weird people.

As a sidenote: people with money do not bulk roll. Think about it and you might come to the right conclusion. But I'm somehow doubtful of that.

Dinesh said:

Really? That's the analogy you're going with?

Click to expand...

Let's be realistic! People with loads of money can afford to spend it foolishly. Also, people who do not use their heads will also spend money foolishly. Unfortunately, everybody else gets stuck somewhere in the middle. Me, I just will row my boat up a different stream and you can row yours up any stream you want. John W

NB23 said:

Let's say it this way: my assumptions are based on solid microeconomics facts.
Yours are based on a few anecdotal stories involving weird people.

As a sidenote: people with money do not bulk roll. Think about it and you might come to the right conclusion. But I'm somehow doubtful of that.

Click to expand...

As a side note: That's exactly why I say Kodak KA will bite the dust (again)! If only rich folks were the ones that rolled their own they'd be alright, but it's just the opposite. The folks that have to pinch a penny are the ones they are burning and those are the only folks that will buy bulk. There has to be a happy medium between pricing and the targeted consumer. In this case Kodak is not even close to hitting the target. Why? That is the $64,000.00 question that remains to be answered here. John W

JW PHOTO said:

Let's be realistic! People with loads of money can afford to spend it foolishly. Also, people who do not use their heads will also spend money foolishly. Unfortunately, everybody else gets stuck somewhere in the middle. Me, I just will row my boat up a different stream and you can row yours up any stream you want. John W

Click to expand...

No.

The PRE-ROLLED rolls are cheaper, are pre-rolled, are ready to use.

No sick rich man with no brains will sit down in front of his TV and start rolling his rolls AND overpay to do it. That sick, unintelligent, rich boy just doesn't exist.

I think you are mixing things here. I can agree that if a TRI-X 36 exposure roll reaches 20$ There will indeed be a few morons out there buying a few rolls. But this cannot happen with a bulk roll for LOGICAL REASONS, not as long as the bulk roll is more expensive then the single rolls that do not require extra work.

I'm done on arguing over baby-level logical situations.

NB23 said:

No.

The PRE-ROLLED rolls are cheaper, are pre-rolled, are ready to use.

No sick rich man with no brains will sit down in front of his TV and start rolling his rolls AND overpay to do it. That sick, unintelligent, rich boy just doesn't exist.

I think you are mixing things here. I can agree that if a TRI-X 36 exposure roll reaches 20$ There will indeed be a few morons out there buying a few rolls. But this cannot happen with a bulk roll for LOGICAL REASONS, not as long as the bulk roll is more expensive then the single rolls that do not require extra work.

I'm done on arguing over baby-level logical situations.

Click to expand...

Read my last reply and you might just figure out what I'm talking about. I was just throwing a little sarcastic humor into the pot. I'd write more, but I got to keep rowing! John W

If we all bought Kentmere, and ONLY Kentmere, would that send a message to the 'free market'? Maybe that would indiate that price matters more than brand loyalty. - David Lyga

pentaxuser said:

I am getting close to debating how many angels can settle on the head of a pin here but I note that quite a number of posters are using a figure of 18 rolls per 100ft(30.5mt). This seems very conservative. It may not be quite 20 @5 ft per 36 frame roll but I'd have thought that you can get very close to 20 full rolls which brings the bulk v cassette price down further.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I never counted (for that matter I never loaded only 36x loads from a bulk roll, often preferring shorter lengths) that's just what I'd always read.

I assumed the $300 bulk rolls were being used for some sort of special purpose - industrial or commercial photography or something. nobody is going to spend that to "roll your own."

It's really only expensive per frame (talking about pre rolled Kodak or any form of other brand of 35mm) in comparison to the digi crowd who are used to a spray and pray shooting style.