What the heck happened to the price of Ilford Multigrade FB Paper??

[logan2z]

I purchased a box of 50 11"x14" (glossy) sheets in January from B&H for $145.95. I just checked the price and the same box is $183.99! That's a shockingly big increase in such a short period of time. I don't know what could account for such an increase but these prices are not sustainable, IMHO. I like the paper and would love to continue supporting Ilford, but at nearly $4/sheet I'm going to have to look for an alternative.

 

[Pieter12]

Paper in general has gotten more expensive. And with the tariff circus, who knows what prices will be in the near future.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's nuthin'. Compare the price hike over the past two years! And be glad you don't need a size larger than 11X14. Welcome to the new "norm". It could go higher still, given all the economic chaos in play these days. I use a lot of 16X20 MGFB glossy, and it has actually been priced lower at B&H than MG Cooltone or Classic. It just went up $50, so I'm glad I bought a 50-sheet box in January; but that's still $150 less than what the local camera store wanted last fall. 20X24 has gotten out of my reach.

So far, the UK where Ilford is based, hasn't been threatened by tariffs like the EU per se. But supply chains of necessary ingredients tend to be rather entangled, so who knows what will happen overall. I'm going to print much more circumspectly this season.

What's even worse is how much the price of quality mounting and mat board has gone up in recent years - a double whammy.

 

[loccdor]

Maybe the secondhand market is where to look. I hear paper holds up pretty well.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Maybe the secondhand market is where to look. I hear paper holds up pretty well.

that's a big IF....how it was stored; heat and condition due to humidity
usually graded paper holds up better.
unfortunately if we don't support the makers of these products there will be no paper!!

 

[Disconnekt]

I'd say look for it at other photo stores & see what prices they have it at. Midwest photo has it for $149 (here: https://mpex.com/ilford-mg-fb-11x14...MI-rPt7YCAjAMVcShECB3ZKjwfEAQYBCABEgJPIfD_BwE)

 

[brian steinberger]

Yes might be time to look elsewhere. I recently saw B&H cranked up the price of 120 HP5 to 9.50 a roll so I’m now buying it from Midwest Photo mentioned above, for about for $8 a roll. I’ll buy paper there from now on too. Probably the cost of doing business in a place like New York.

 

[MattKing]

I expect the sales volumes for fibre based paper are miniscule, and that the US distributor often has shipments come from Harman that have no FB paper in them.
A retailer with a lower price probably has slightly older stock remaining.
Small volume sales are the most vulnerable to all the myriad price increase effects.

 

[Alan9940]

I so clearly remember Fred Picker saying to buy all the Ilford Ilfobrom paper you thought you'd ever need because it wasn't going to be as cheap or available as time marched on. That was when a 100-sheet box was $28! Probably the same advice applies today. Yep, paper has gotten more expensive but I doubt the price will come down. Just sayin...

 

[Paul Howell]

This is true, the anomaly was in 2009 when many excess rolls were sold off at bargain prices. Today, if you like ILford, Foma or other branded paper buy as you can afford. Well stored paper will last long past expiration date.

 

[Milpool]

I purchased a box of 50 11"x14" (glossy) sheets in January from B&H for $145.95. I just checked the price and the same box is $183.99! That's a shockingly big increase in such a short period of time. I don't know what could account for such an increase but these prices are not sustainable, IMHO. I like the paper and would love to continue supporting Ilford, but at nearly $4/sheet I'm going to have to look for an alternative.

Indeed. I never really printed larger than 8x10 but I'm down to 5x7 now.

Substantial price increases on declining/legacy products - this is a tactic often used.

 

[MattKing]

Indeed. I never really printed larger than 8x10 but I'm down to 5x7 now.

Substantial price increases on declining/legacy products - this is a tactic often used.

Or alternatively, having to bear more and more of the fixed costs per box, as volumes shrink and setup and changeover costs add up to a higher and higher percentage of the per unit manufacturing expense.

 

[logan2z]

I'd say look for it at other photo stores & see what prices they have it at. Midwest photo has it for $149 (here: https://mpex.com/ilford-mg-fb-11x14...MI-rPt7YCAjAMVcShECB3ZKjwfEAQYBCABEgJPIfD_BwE)

Right, I did hunt around for a better price this morning and discovered the $149/box price at Midwest and ordered some. To their credit, B&H did offer me a discount on the paper after I inquired about the price increase (thought it must have been a typo ), but it was still more than Midwest and they restricted me to 1 box - and they charged CA sale tax which Midwest didn't. I tend to be loyal to B&H but the savings elsewhere was too great to ignore.

 

[BMbikerider]

I purchased a box of 50 11"x14" (glossy) sheets in January from B&H for $145.95. I just checked the price and the same box is $183.99! That's a shockingly big increase in such a short period of time. I don't know what could account for such an increase but these prices are not sustainable, IMHO. I like the paper and would love to continue supporting Ilford, but at nearly $4/sheet I'm going to have to look for an alternative.

Largely it is down to the cost of the silver on the wholesale markets. Without silver there would be no printing paper. The price is out of Ilford's control.

I have just checked and the wholesale price of silver in October 2024 was $40 per ounce. Since then it has gone up by 17%, and continues to outstrip the price of gold in percentage terms.

I have just checked and one of the outlets I use in UK have Ilford MG RC for a box of 50 11x14 is £90 and for fibre based, £145 for the same quantity. You can work out the UK£ v the US$ exchange rate yourselves.

 

[GregY]

Indeed. I never really printed larger than 8x10 but I'm down to 5x7 now.

Substantial price increases on declining/legacy products - this is a tactic often used.

Yes, I was shocked to calculate the current price of a box of 20x24" paper. $756 USD / $1092 Cdn. I have shelves of large work prints from when the cost was $300/ box. The same is true of film. Earlier in the week I bought 4 rolls @ of Delta 100 in 35 & 120...
The price was $101 US / $133 Cdn....does anyone else remember buying 50 roll boxes of Ilford 120 film from B&H?? I used to have at least 4 boxes in my fridge all the time...

 

[Milpool]

Or alternatively, having to bear more and more of the fixed costs per box, as volumes shrink and setup and changeover costs add up to a higher and higher percentage of the per unit manufacturing expense.

I agree that's almost certainly a part of it, however I think there is more going on than that.

 

[jeffreyg]

At B&H 17x22 Hahnemuhle cotton paper is $226 + tax for 25 sheets not to mention inks for an Epson 3880 @ $75+
Maybe pt/pd printing isn’t so bad

 

[DREW WILEY]

Paper doesn't hold up all that well at all. I wouldn't consider anything older than 10 years. Almost all graded papers were discontinued well before that. The only exception might be the former slow contact printing papers like Azo, which seems to keep longer. Otherwise, expect an annoying level of fog and anemic contrast performance.

Inkjet papers and inks are one of the biggest ripoffs in the industry. Art papers you coat yourself might be cheaper from outlets other than photographic stores, which probably buy them from an art supplies middleman anyway. And you're going to really get a boot kick in your butt when you see the cost of platinum salts these days. Look into carbon printing instead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Greg - are you even allowed anymore to export your pictures of the Bugaboos across the border via the web without a tariff added on our side? Don't worry, I won't tell. Maybe the whole Bugaboo Range could just itself be relocated further south instead if someone has a good towing chain. I heard a tugboard was in mind for Greenland.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Ultrafine and Multitone for work prints, Foma graded FB for exhibition prints, and as noted prices are climbing. Seems that the current administration is intent on replacing income tax with tariffs I am bracing for tariffs on products the U.S no longer makes, 10 to 20%.

 

[logan2z]

I use Ultrafine and Multitone for work prints, Foma graded FB for exhibition prints,

I could use a cheaper paper for work prints, but I'd have to spend time figuring out how to map a print made on one paper to the other. At one point I made work prints on the less expensive 8x10 MG Fiber paper and then made the final print on 11x14, but I found it easier to simply make tests on small bits of the 11x14 paper before committing to a full 11x14 print. I don't really know which way has the best trade off of nuisance vs economy.

 

[Milpool]

Paper doesn't hold up all that well at all. I wouldn't consider anything older than 10 years. Almost all graded papers were discontinued well before that. The only exception might be the former slow contact printing papers like Azo, which seems to keep longer. Otherwise, expect an annoying level of fog and anemic contrast performance.

Inkjet papers and inks are one of the biggest ripoffs in the industry. Art papers you coat yourself might be cheaper from outlets other than photographic stores, which probably buy them from an art supplies middleman anyway. And you're going to really get a boot kick in your butt when you see the cost of platinum salts these days. Look into carbon printing instead.

I have some Lodima/Azo #2 sitting around. Maybe I can cash in and retire early.

 

[GregY]

I could use a cheaper paper for work prints, but I'd have to spend time figuring out how to map a print made on one paper to the other. At one point I made work prints on the less expensive 8x10 MG Fiber paper and then made the final print on 11x14, but I found it easier to simply make tests on small bits of the 11x14 paper before committing to a full 11x14 print. I don't really know which way has the best trade off of nuisance vs economy.

Good question. I've used both methods and in the end prefer seeing the entire image before committing to a large print. It's easy to miss flaws on the negative or even the framing in the easel. I'd rather make a 5x7 or a print on a sheet of 8x10....also helps me plan any dodging or burning.

 

[Pieter12]

I could use a cheaper paper for work prints, but I'd have to spend time figuring out how to map a print made on one paper to the other. At one point I made work prints on the less expensive 8x10 MG Fiber paper and then made the final print on 11x14, but I found it easier to simply make tests on small bits of the 11x14 paper before committing to a full 11x14 print. I don't really know which way has the best trade off of nuisance vs economy.

I usually make initial prints on 8x10 Ilford MGRC Deluxe. The tonal range is pretty comparable to their FB and when I am ready to make 11x14 FB prints, times usually translate well--more or less +1 1/4 stops for the paper and size difference.

 

[BMbikerider]

I have some 9.5 x 12 paper left MG RC but my chosen paper size of choice is now the boxed 100 sheets of A4. This has litle wastage being an ideal format to equal a 35mm neg For my 120 negs those can fit on the 9.5x12 with only a little cut off from the neg or printed 9.5x9.5 square to use the full negative and the wastage is not actually wasted I use it to make test strips.