TMAX400 100' roll reaching almost 300$ in Japan

Michael R 1974 said:

Edit: B&H has it for $85 which is closer to $0.12/frame.

Click to expand...

Is this the price of a 100ft roll of TMax400? If so, it is in line with or only slightly better than the price of the U.K. price of 100ft of Ilford D400, the nearest comparable film and makes a mockery of the 120+ GBP being charged by a range of U.K. retailers for TMax400 compared to the price of bulk 100ft of D400( about 65 GBP)

Assuming I have understood correctly to what you are referring i.e. a roll of 100ft TMax 400 it suggests that either the U.K. retailers have banded together in a price cartel or EK/KA are charging the U.K retailers much more and 120+ GBP only represents a reasonable profit for the retailers. My gut instinct is that a U.K. price cartel is unlikely.

However it is difficult to know towards whom the accusatory finger should be pointed at, in the U.K.

pentaxuser

Yup, $85/100ft roll of TMY-2 at B&H currently:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29132-USA/Kodak_1587716_TMY_35mm_100_Roll.html

Michael R 1974 said:

$0.40/frame doesn't seem all that outrageous to me. It isn't cheap, but then again it's a relatively special film with relatively low demand.

Edit: B&H has it for $85 which is closer to $0.12/frame.

Click to expand...

0.40$ a frame is 14.40$ for a 36 exposure roll. At this price, you see me out of the game for good.

0.12$ a frame is 4.32$ for a 36 exposure roll. At this price you'll see me as a faithful customer.

That's quite a range.

But I paid more than that higher figure for the last few rolls of Provia 400X I bought and, if I didn't have enough in the freezer for the coming season, I'd be looking for more - I think Japan Exposures actually still has it at less than I paid for the last batch from some camera store through Amazon, which I noted too late.

Of course that's different from any Kodak black and white film because Provia 400X is a unique film. There is no other 400 speed slide film - well there isn't Provia 400X either now but there was, and it was last, and the best. I can't just switch to Kodak. While TMY-2 may be in some ways unique, there is no Kodak black and white film where I couldn't easily switch to something similar enough as to not really affect my photography. Big, big difference. No way I'd pay $14.40 a roll for any current Kodak black and white film, not even Tri-X, when I could easily buy Ilford. But I DID just pay $10 a roll for two rolls of 35mm Delta 3200. It's worth it, and there's nothing else like it except my remaining TMZ and I fear that's too old to trust as such fast film doesn't cold store well. Cold helps a little but not much.

Would I have paid $14 a roll for that D3200? Don't tell Simon, but probably.

the price of bulk 100ft of D400( about 65 GBP)

Click to expand...

D400 100ft bulk is £59.63 with Harman Express and with free delivery as it passes the £50 mark. It is actually cheaper than their discounted price for a brick of pre-rolled packaged D400 135-36 (£59.79). Single 135-36 rolls are at £6.52.
Pretty much directly from the factory and fresh as it can be.
My last order of K400 by Christmas had a near 5 year shelf life. The are all used now.
Other retailers might have better prices for single packed rolls, but bulk prices are some of the best.

I love Ilford/Kentmere and Foma films and chemistry.
And I just bought 100ft bulk of Fomapan 400 for £39.

pentaxuser said:

Is this the price of a 100ft roll of TMax400? If so, it is in line with or only slightly better than the price of the U.K. price of 100ft of Ilford D400, the nearest comparable film and makes a mockery of the 120+ GBP being charged by a range of U.K. retailers for TMax400 compared to the price of bulk 100ft of D400( about 65 GBP)

Click to expand...

I'd assume there is no one buying unless they are challenged in arithmetic department.
Even at 60 GBP for 30.5m I'd not be interested.
I only use kodak when expired or cheap.

The bw400CN seems to have disappeared from our pharmacy chain shelves took ages to vanish.

David Lyga said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's the way the world works. I would be absolutely surprised if he told the whole story of his operating costs here on a public forum where his competitors could read. I'm sure they'd love to know what Ilford's operating costs, margins, profits, etc are. To air the inner workings of their business model would be just plain stupid.

If you want the whole story, you'll have to go work for Ilford.

But that doesn't mean you're completely in the dark. One thing I have learned in my career: A company which has a pretty good reputation for integrity and customer service are usually trying their hardest to keep prices down for the customer. At the same time they are trying hard to take care of their employees. Those are diametrically opposed ideals to strive for, and every cut in price means the company has sacrificed something internally to keep the end user's costs down.

They are also the ones which are the most likely to fail when the market turns, unfortunately. Narrow profit margins means higher long-term corporate health risk.

That is why I did not denigrate Simon. He is obligated to do NOTHING for either David Lyga or anyone else on APUG.

But ... importantly, I wanted that fact to be open and clear, for all to see. In sum, there really is a cost analysis that could be very telling in this 'competitive' market. Again, I really wonder how much of that price is truly necessary and how much is deemed to be truly necessary (for excess profit purposes).

Ilford is certainly not alone here and they might well be among the most responsible out there, (albeit not terribly 'responsive'). All factors should be considered. - David Lyga

pbromaghin said:

+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.

Click to expand...

As the owner/CEO/President (and all that other stuff) of a very, very small manufacturing company (non-photographic), I can add very little to the above except to say that maybe the word "stupid" might be a bit strong, however upon reflection and rereading what was written, maybe not.......Regards!

pbromaghin said:

+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.

Click to expand...

Funny, you just called my father stupid. For years he grew the best and largest potatoes in the county. Several times I remember a lack of rain or whatever caused others to have lower yield and prices went up. He always based his prices ONLY on what it cost him that year in terms of seed potatoes, fertilize, insecticide, gasoline for the roto-tiller etc. When others were charging $20/bushel because potatoes were rare that year, but his crop did ok, I tried to get him to go to $18, or at least $15, but he refused. Said it didn't cost him any more to grow them that year and he wasn't about to gouge anyone by charging more. He held his price of $12, sold all he grew and could have sold several times as many. For that matter his were always larger and many said tastier - I'm sure a lot of folks would have paid a premium.

I got my attitudes toward pricing from him. I'd still probably be somewhere in between but I wouldn't have gone from $12 to $20 just because I could.

David Lyga said:

That is why I did not denigrate Simon. He is obligated to do NOTHING for either David Lyga or anyone else on APUG.

But ... importantly, I wanted that fact to be open and clear, for all to see. In sum, there really is a cost analysis that could be very telling in this 'competitive' market. Again, I really wonder how much of that price is truly necessary and how much is deemed to be truly necessary (for excess profit purposes).

Ilford is certainly not alone here and they might well be among the most responsible out there, (albeit not terribly 'responsive'). All factors should be considered. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

But on the other hand - I doubt anyone in this business is making "excess" profit (though I do agree there is such a thing, just not, I think, in film photography and related areas. The market is too small.)

Harman has ("have" for the folks on that side of the pond) a lease on the building I believe and will need to do something more permanent at some point, or at least a long term renewal. They have other considerations. They seem to be doing well in right-sizing for the greatly reduced market. They make excellent products at prices that are at least competitive. I'd rather they make a bit more and stay in business than make less and be in precarious shape.