What's with Kodak film pricing?

[georg16nik]

...they still have wonderful products (e.g. Tri-X - all formats, Selenium toner, D76, wash aid, and a host of other products).

From you list, maybe Tri-X is made by Kodak, while their chemistry is made by others for about 10 years now, Champion, Tetenal...

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I will not support kodak. If they dont care about me, why should i care about them? I have not purchased any kodak product since 2000. I hope they finally go bankrupt.

Why so bitter? They aren't in business to make sure you have the film you want. If they are losing money, whether the reasons may be construed as proper or stupid, they go out of business anyway.

If they go out of the film business, it's everyone's loss.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

@chris crawford: Beautiful images, Chris! I'm jealous.

 

[john_s]

Film pricing here at the end of the Earth is opportunistic. Our only shop front in this city of 3 million still selling film has 5 rolls (120) of TMax400 at $54.01 and Tri-X at $82.26. These are Australian dollars, not real ones, but it's a bizarre difference. I think Tri-X got some general publicity recently, so maybe that's the reason.

 

[pbromaghin]

Heck, I just got 100ft each of Hp5 and Fp4 for $55 and $51 at B&H.

 

[NB23]

A roll of film for 82.26$ ???
Pardon me but I had to laugh (a lot).

 

[cmacd123]

The price of Tri-x bulk seems to have jumped about every two months. The price of the prepaired 36 exposure rolls has increased but not by as much. using freestyles posted prices today and assuming 18 useable rolls from 100 ft. there is a 40% penalty from rolling your own.

My assumption is that offering bulk rolls is either getting difficult (perhaps the warehouse is running out of 100ft cans and the supplier will only sell them a several truckload lot) or the management has decided that they no longer want to offer the product and so they are trying to price it out of the market.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...or the management has decided that they no longer want to offer the product and so they are trying to price it out of the market.

Once the Freestyle "Made in the USA" version was discontinued, bulk loaded was, as far as I know, essentially the final surviving de facto value price point. Leapfrogging the premium price point by adding an extra 40% above it to bulk rolls may indicate an intentional abandonment of the value customer demographic.

Now only the wealthy can afford the product, and sales volumes are thus again forced lower. When the discontinuation notice finally posts, I expect it will once again cite lack of demand.

Dang! We really wanted to keep making it, but you guys stopped buying it. Whadda' you expect us ta' do??



Ken

 

[NB23]

The price of Tri-x bulk seems to have jumped about every two months. The price of the prepaired 36 exposure rolls has increased but not by as much. using freestyles posted prices today and assuming 18 useable rolls from 100 ft. there is a 40% penalty from rolling your own.

My assumption is that offering bulk rolls is either getting difficult (perhaps the warehouse is running out of 100ft cans and the supplier will only sell them a several truckload lot) or the management has decided that they no longer want to offer the product and so they are trying to price it out of the market.

Would changing the Cans for Cardboard boxes (ala Ilford) solve Kodak's problem? I really doubt that tin can alone is worth ++100$

 

[gzinsel]

Kodak is not committed.periodically

 

[Xmas]

If I want d76 I can buy id11 in shop or scratch mix a clone.
Etc.
If I print a 8x10 from
Kentmere 400 or
Tx or
HP5+
It is very difficult to see a difference.

Apart from the £ for Kentmere being more than three times cheaper.

The story that there is a difference between d76 and id11 compromises all the other claims.
I don't use metol from choice normally.

Fomapan 400 bulk comes in can and is cheaper still.

I have had more quality problems with Kodak than Foma.

I'll let you guess which film I don't buy.

I do buy film in middle of day when I run out if Tx is all I can get then yes Ill use it but otherwise I'll support Foma or ilford.

If I can get a group together and 5222 is cheap then yes otherwise no.

Sold all my Leica lenses as well...

If you are a fan boy buy Kodak if you want.

 

[gzinsel]

o.k. so I was . . . a little harsh!!!! and a little . . . . whatever!!! may be I do have "misdirected animosity " towards kodak!! Maybe it should be directed towards those who "capture with digital" that i should blame, or . . .. . But in the end, I feel Kodak has made choices that support their financial goals, ( which in no way, is about supporting those who still use film) but most of those goals have nothing to do with film. I feel that, "THAT" company doesn't really care about film, the way most of us care about film. For "THEM" its just about "market share" etc. . . .

so if they go bankrupt, I wouldn't care: because in the end, as a company, "film" is just a product/ bought and sold. it has no religious " realm". film to them is just Vapid production. so ya ..... I am bitter. if tri-x disappears, so what!!!!! what about the other 50 -100 products that they do not make anymore. where is that "outrage"? We as a community have to support companies who support "us". Kodak, I have to say is "out to lunch" indefinitely!!!!!!!!!!! they are going back home every quarter, cryin' to their Mama, about how they are makin as much money as they used to. . . . since the mid 80's, has kodak done anything for film? besides cancel or end production of film? what is it, in their "platform" , that says to me, YA!!!! i can support you? for those sorry a** slobs who still use film? I think they have walked away as fast as possible, only leaving crumbs for us to follow!! trying to squeeze out a few more bucks along the way. Kodak is for me, a reminder of corporate greed at the expense of those people who use their product. it is no longer symbiotic /mutually beneficial.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Now only the wealthy can afford the product

Seriously? Only the wealthy can afford Kodak films? I still buy it all the time, and I am not rich. Never have been, probably never will be, but I will continue buying the films I like regardless of price. Many people here have tens of thousands of dollars in Leicas, Hasselbads, and other costly gear...yet they whine about paying $6 for a roll of film.

 

[MattKing]

Which Kodak would you like to see in bankruptcy - the new one that is manufacturing and selling all the Kodak colour paper, and buying and re-selling all the Kodak chemicals, and buying and re-selling all the Kodak still films, and supporting the pensions of all the Kodak UK pensioners?

Or is it the Kodak that is trying to recover out of bankruptcy, is primarily a commercial printing supply company, but also happens to manufacture all the remaining Kodak still films, as well as manufacturing and selling all the remaining commercial motion picture films?

The latter is still indirectly supporting at least some of the benefits of many of the other Kodak related pensioners - so you would like to see it go back into bankruptcy, and stop that support as well?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Seriously?

In a relative sense, sadly yeah. I learned long ago not to mess with the concept of OPM.* What's pocket peanuts for some is incomprehensible wealth to others.

Perhaps not for you or me, but for a lot of people US$6.00/roll is a big deal for a frequently repeated purchase that can't be eaten. And for our upside down good friends, AU$200.00 = US$158.67 / 18 = US$8.815 per bulk loaded roll is even 47% worse.

Value price points are designed to mitigate the OPM issue, thus assuring the production lines keep rolling. Yank the value prices and volume will drop, because eating wins every time.

Ken

* Other People's Money.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Very nice shots Chris.

 

[eddie]

Everyone needs to make their own choices as to a particular film's value. There are cheaper options. Wishing for a manufacturer's demise is foolish. Would anyone prefer one manufacturer, and one choice of film? In which direction do you think prices will go, once that manufacturer knows it's the only game in town? What incentive would they have to continue R&D, and introduce new products (as Ilford has)?

I also don't understand the problem with a 5-6 dollar roll of film. You're buying possibilities.... Adding the cost of the film, chemicals, and paper, you're still in for about 20-25 bucks. But, you're probably spending a few hours shooting the roll, another hour developing it, and many more printing. Let's say that roll of film ends up occupying your time for 10 hours. That's 2-2.50 an hour. And, in the end, you have something you've created yourself. These days, a movie will cost you 12 dollars, occupy you for 2 hours, and your hunger for creativity won't be fed. I still see film as a relative bargain (at least in the States- I can't speak for elsewhere).

Buy the film you want, from wherever you want, and create images you're so proud of that the cost of materials isn't even an afterthought.

 

[Rodinalforever]

Bizarre. I have always found Ilford films to be more expensive than the Kodak ones.

the shop chain Il Fotoamatore sells Hp5 120 at 4,90€ and Trix at 5,80€
Online shop are much more economical; at Westernphoto you can find Trix 120 at 4,30€. If you're interested in Tmax they have a stok of Tmax100 at 3,50€, cheaper than lower quality film (Foma, Kentmere, Rollei).
Have a nice weekend

 

[Xmas]

the shop chain Il Fotoamatore sells Hp5 120 at 4,90€ and Trix at 5,80€
Online shop are much more economical; at Westernphoto you can find Trix 120 at 4,30€. If you're interested in Tmax they have a stok of Tmax100 at 3,50€, cheaper than lower quality film (Foma, Kentmere, Rollei).
Have a nice weekend

You have transposed, quality performance and price.

I've not had any problems with Kentmere Foma... Some problems with Kodak.
If it was not that way round I'd still not be able to afford to pay x4 times the price for 30.5 m.
On a 8x10 there is not a lot of difference between Kentmere and Tx, but Forma has more grain which I like.

Noel

 

[john_s]

A roll of film for 82.26$ ???
Pardon me but I had to laugh (a lot).

5 roll pack. Maybe I wasn't clear.

 

[Rodinalforever]

You have transposed, quality performance and price.

I've not had any problems with Kentmere Foma... Some problems with Kodak.
If it was not that way round I'd still not be able to afford to pay x4 times the price for 30.5 m.
On a 8x10 there is not a lot of difference between Kentmere and Tx, but Forma has more grain which I like.

Noel

I use almost 120 format; Kentmere are not availabe in 120, Foma's film had experienced a lot of trouble with quality control. Has appened that I've bought Fomapan 100 and 400 with emulsion damaged (many little holes in the emulsion). I've never had any issue with Ilford or Kodak, their quality control process is effective at an high level standard. Due to quality control erratic, I consider Foma a second tier producer and I'm willing to buy Foma products only if their price are 50% less than Kodak's or Ilford's. In 120 format rolls I don't see this kind of difference in price, so I will stay with Kodak/Ilford: same rolls, same quality, same predictable final results with no negative surprise.
Thomas

 

[JackRosa]

Good to Know

From you list, maybe Tri-X is made by Kodak, while their chemistry is made by others for about 10 years now, Champion, Tetenal...

This is good to know. In the event (and I surely hope this will not be the case) that Kodak completely ceases to exist, we will still (in some form) have these chemicals. I know there are similar chemicals (toners, developers, etc.) .... in my case, once I get used to a product (after much testing), I prefer to stick to it.

 

[R.Gould]

I use almost 120 format; Kentmere are not availabe in 120, Foma's film had experienced a lot of trouble with quality control. Has appened that I've bought Fomapan 100 and 400 with emulsion damaged (many little holes in the emulsion). I've never had any issue with Ilford or Kodak, their quality control process is effective at an high level standard. Due to quality control erratic, I consider Foma a second tier producer and I'm willing to buy Foma products only if their price are 50% less than Kodak's or Ilford's. In 120 format rolls I don't see this kind of difference in price, so I will stay with Kodak/Ilford: same rolls, same quality, same predictable final results with no negative surprise.
Thomas

I would have to say that I completely disagree with you that Foma a second tier producer, I would put them on a par with Ilford and Kodak, Fomapan 200/400 has been my prefered film for at least years, I have yet to have a bad roll, never had a QC problem, use mainly 120, a bit of 35mm, The only time I had pinholes in the emulsion was my fault in that I ignored Foma's advice and used stopbath, Foma suggest that water stop is better for their films, as soon as I left the stopbath out no problems, If I had had problems I would have dropped Foma like a hot brick, I can't afford bad film, fact is I find it to be a very good film indeed,

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

To those expressing anger and frustration with Kodak (and other film manufacturers): "To be, or not to be, that is the question". 'Tis better for Kodak to be, IMO, and if Kodak believes raising prices is their only way survive then so-be-it. It's unfortunate that some folks may be unable continue buying their products. But please consider this: The world's wealth is cyclical. At this time, China is rapidly becoming the new world champion of wealth and prosperity... not to all who live there but that's the way it's always been everywhere in the world. There will always be those so vastly wealthy that US$100K means nothing to them and they'll waste that much every day. Others suffer at the loss of a dollar or two. Everything in this world is getting pricier. And very few peoples' incomes are keeping up with these cost increases. Kodak and every other manufacturer is just trying to survive. Believe me, they very carefully consider their profit margins and weigh these against how much they think they can get for their goods vs. sales volume. It's a tricky balancing act. And yes, they're going to maximize their profits rather than lose millions or billions in revenue just so we little folk can have our cheap film. As a corporation that's responsible to its shareholders, this is precisely what they must do. Kodak is certainly not the only corporation doing this balancing act. Everyone here knows that every single corporation does this. Anyone who believes Kodak should be a 'nice guy' and lose money out of the kindness of it's corporate heart... is fooling himself. And ranting about it is just useless bitching about not getting one's way.

The above stated: I say dump the damn middle-men. Often those are the crux of the sales volume v. pricing problems. They're friggin' leaches.

 

[fotch]

To those expressing anger and frustration with Kodak (and other film manufacturers): "To be, or not to be, that is the question". 'Tis better for Kodak to be, IMO, and if Kodak believes raising prices is their only way survive then so-be-it. It's unfortunate that some folks may be unable continue buying their products. But please consider this: The world's wealth is cyclical. At this time, China is rapidly becoming the new world champion of wealth and prosperity... not to all who live there but that's the way it's always been everywhere in the world. There will always be those so vastly wealthy that US$100K means nothing to them and they'll waste that much every day. Others suffer at the loss of a dollar or two. Everything in this world is getting pricier. And very few peoples' incomes are keeping up with these cost increases. Kodak and every other manufacturer is just trying to survive. Believe me, they very carefully consider their profit margins and weigh these against how much they think they can get for their goods vs. sales volume. It's a tricky balancing act. And yes, they're going to maximize their profits rather than lose millions or billions in revenue just so we little folk can have our cheap film. As a corporation that's responsible to its shareholders, this is precisely what they must do. Kodak is certainly not the only corporation doing this balancing act. Everyone here knows that every single corporation does this. Anyone who believes Kodak should be a 'nice guy' and lose money out of the kindness of it's corporate heart... is fooling himself. And ranting about it is just useless bitching about not getting one's way.

The above stated: I say dump the damn middle-men. Often those are the crux of the sales volume v. pricing problems. They're friggin' leaches.

Well said, except comment about middle-men. The reason they exist in so many industries is they are needed.