Tri-X bulk roll cheap at unique photo. maybe all is not lost!

[Sirius Glass]

My photographs are worth much more than the saving the money.

 

[David Lyga]

In my profession wages have gone up at least 10X compared to 1975, so $8 then is $80 now. Right in line with the selling price.

Lets take another example, a mid sized family car such as a Ford Granada was $3700 in 1975. A middle of the range Ford Taurus lists now for ~$37,000, also 10X the 1975 price. I don't know where you get the 4x multiplier, everything I looked at was roughly 10X more expensive now.

I lived in NYC from 1971 to 1983. In the mid-70s minimum wage was about $2.50 per hour. Today, 42 years later the minimum wage (nationally) is $7.25. True many municipalities offer a somewhat higher wage, but 4 X $2.50 is about the highest norm out there.

Craig, as smart as you probably are, let me gently remind you that not everyone is in either 'high tech' or 'medicine', (or, now, teaching) and there are many out there who do not have the wherewithal to deal with these ever-increasing prices. At least, offer a bit of consideration for this utter fact. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

The Texas Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market back when, and paper prices have been ridiculous ever since.

I remember well, back in January 1980 when we all thought that silver would rule the world (over $50 per troy ounce). And equally true, silver paper prices never dropped, although currently silver is almost $17 now. Of course, the $50 for 1980 is not stated in constant dollars but, rather, the actual dollars in 1980, so if you wish to compare you would have to state the 1980 silver price at about $150. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

And did you have to walk 10 miles uphill in both directions to go buy it?
I'm afraid a simple 4x multiplier since 1975 doesn't make sense.
For some commodities that were and are sold and used in high volumes (milk and gasoline?) maybe, but film??? And particularly bulk film????

In the photo district in New York it was ALWAYS available. - David Lyga

 

[trendland]

My photographs are worth much more than the saving the money.

Saving money is not the case - to have the money to buy the stuff you'll neet is my point. The films to next 10 - better 15 years are on a list. Some films possible will not exist in 15- or 10 years. I'll better buy the stuff before.
I did also not expect cheaper prices the next years.
So I need 300 better 400 bw films in different formats. And if a single type of bw emulsions increases just 1,- USD
I soon have to spend 300 or 400 bucks
more. That not peanuts.

with regards

PS : I don't intend to have any digital
equipment. And 30 bw films/year is not realy much. It is an absolute minimum.

 

[trendland]

My photographs are worth much more than the saving the money.

Saving money is not the case - to have the money to buy the stuff you'll neet is my point. The films to next 10 - better 15 years are on a list. Some films possible will not exist in 15- or 10 years. I'll better buy the stuff before.
I did also not expect cheaper prices the next years.
So I need 300 better 400 bw films in different formats. And if a single type of bw emulsions increases just 1,- USD
I soon have to spend 300 or 400 bucks
more. That not peanuts.

with regards

PS : I don't intend to have any digital
equipment. And 30 bw films/year is not realy much. It is an absolute minimum.

 

[trendland]

Sorry for posting twice....
Bulk rolls are the best buy the way.
But the tendency of higher pricing with bw is dramaticaly.
During the whole 70th bulks in bw were very popular. Pricing was 1/2 of films in cassettes. In some cases only 40% or less - if you might remember.

with regards

PS : With E6 I just have all my films.

 

[David Lyga]

Trendland: Thank you for remembering what others choose to ignore. - David Lyga

 

[dabsond]

These guys have great prices on Kodak 100ft rolls as well.

Dead Link Removed

 

[MattKing]

Trendland: Thank you for remembering what others choose to ignore. - David Lyga

David:
No ignoring here. I understand well how important it was and is to many, many people that they be able to save money by using bulk film. And when volumes were high, bulk films could be made available at attractive prices.
I do however understand why bulk prices and individual roll prices haven't increased the same way.
The costs of distributing what is now a niche product are, relatively speaking, a far greater portion of the shelf price than they once were.
There are still some economies of sale in the system for individual rolls.
The number of bulk rolls sold, and the number of places left that sell them, are now so insignificantly tiny that there are no economies of sale left.
In the old days, it didn't cost a Kodak (as an example) dealer in Arkansas (as an example) anything more than the product wholesale cost to add (as an example) 5 rolls of bulk film to their weekly order.
Now it costs them a significant amount to add the minimum order quantity of 40 (or whatever the number is) bulk rolls to their half-yearly order, with the full realization that there was a real chance that those 40 rolls wouldn't all sell in that half year.
The film photographic supply market in New York is still somewhat active, on greatly reduced volumes. But elsewhere, almost no one is selling the stuff.
Just before Christmas I was in a photographic store that is local to me. They were trying to clear out two bulk rolls of expired Tri-X. Great (??) discount - 50% off - from their "regular" price of $300.00 CDN per roll. I expect that their "regular" price was that high because it was based on their cost if they were to order from their suppliers a single bulk roll to fill a single order from one of the store's customers. I do know that the various competing distributors that sell Kodak film to Canadian retailers either have very high minimum order requirements, or very high prices, or a combination of both. Many retailers aren't stocking bulk rolls - they don't order from the distributors except to fill a customer's order. I expect the distributors don't keep stock either - they too only order when they receive an order.

 

[Craig]

I lived in NYC from 1971 to 1983. In the mid-70s minimum wage was about $2.50 per hour. Today, 42 years later the minimum wage (nationally) is $7.25. True many municipalities offer a somewhat higher wage, but 4 X $2.50 is about the highest norm out there.

Not all of us live in depressed areas. When I am the min wage has gone up 7X since 1975, and it's going up again this year. However, I somehow doubt that those making min wage are buying bulk rolls of film now, so I don't think that it's an accurate barometer of costs. Photography has always been an expensive hobby and not for those just scraping by.

 

[Cholentpot]

Not all of us live in depressed areas. When I am the min wage has gone up 7X since 1975, and it's going up again this year. However, I somehow doubt that those making min wage are buying bulk rolls of film now, so I don't think that it's an accurate barometer of costs. Photography has always been an expensive hobby and not for those just scraping by.

Not even close!

Restoring cars? Collecting guitars? Woodworking? Shop work? Painting?

Photography is one of the most affordable hobbies around. Heck, even fishing has costs that creep up on you.

 

[chip j]

Yeah, but I've been doing it for 50 yrs. Now I'm finding myself priced out of it in my old age.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, but I've been doing it for 50 yrs. Now I'm finding myself priced out of it in my old age.

In the distant future I see age as a bigger impediment than the costs. Already the 4"x5" cameras seem to get heavier every year.

 

[RattyMouse]

Yeah, but I've been doing it for 50 yrs. Now I'm finding myself priced out of it in my old age.

Because of film prices????

 

[rpavich]

Thats pretty good, and free shipping!

 

[chip j]

Because of film prices????

PAPER prices.

 

[David Lyga]

David:
No ignoring here. I understand well how important it was and is to many, many people that they be able to save money by using bulk film. And when volumes were high, bulk films could be made available at attractive prices.
I do however understand why bulk prices and individual roll prices haven't increased the same way.
The costs of distributing what is now a niche product are, relatively speaking, a far greater portion of the shelf price than they once were.
There are still some economies of sale in the system for individual rolls.
The number of bulk rolls sold, and the number of places left that sell them, are now so insignificantly tiny that there are no economies of sale left.
In the old days, it didn't cost a Kodak (as an example) dealer in Arkansas (as an example) anything more than the product wholesale cost to add (as an example) 5 rolls of bulk film to their weekly order.
Now it costs them a significant amount to add the minimum order quantity of 40 (or whatever the number is) bulk rolls to their half-yearly order, with the full realization that there was a real chance that those 40 rolls wouldn't all sell in that half year.
The film photographic supply market in New York is still somewhat active, on greatly reduced volumes. But elsewhere, almost no one is selling the stuff.
Just before Christmas I was in a photographic store that is local to me. They were trying to clear out two bulk rolls of expired Tri-X. Great (??) discount - 50% off - from their "regular" price of $300.00 CDN per roll. I expect that their "regular" price was that high because it was based on their cost if they were to order from their suppliers a single bulk roll to fill a single order from one of the store's customers. I do know that the various competing distributors that sell Kodak film to Canadian retailers either have very high minimum order requirements, or very high prices, or a combination of both. Many retailers aren't stocking bulk rolls - they don't order from the distributors except to fill a customer's order. I expect the distributors don't keep stock either - they too only order when they receive an order.

Matt, your reply is entirely rational and economies of scale really do rule our economic system. Thank you for both re-iterating and confirming this. - David Lyga

 

[RattyMouse]

Ilford bulk prices are lower so they must have a good economy of scale.

 

[removed account4]

PAPER prices.

you can buy bulk emulsion in a jar or make it yourself
it will cut down on your paper expenses.
making emulsion is really not too hard, its as difficult as baking a loaf of bread,
if you like foma emulsion fwee stile sells KILOs of it
for not too much money. you can even coat it on clean glass, print your
photos on that, and make your own photographic stained glass
( no reversal chemistry / ambrotye chemistry required, just regular old dev, stop fix )
careful, it gets kind of addictive

 

[David Lyga]

Of course, economies of scale can be intentionally thwarted when the manufacturer wants to price according to what he will be able to get. Elasticity is the concept here, and it looks like Tri-X just might be inelastic, in that price increases do not cause a strictly concomitant drop in demand. But, perhaps, that is changing with the slightly lower bulk price that, ultimately, might have had to result over time. Kodak is not stupid, even though they have done stupid things. - David Lyga