What's with Kodak film pricing?

[Roger Cole]

Who's crazy to use tri-x when there's the excellent and legendary HP5?

HP5 is good, but I like what Tri-X does in Diafine better than HP5. I could use either in normal developers but shoot Tri-X. I shoot FP4+ and Pan F+ and Delta 3200 though.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Kodak would then have to provide facilities and staff do that function. That costs and that gets passed to you. Somebody needs to do that function and the need to get paid for it.

Grocery stores aren't really buying from the farmers because the farmers can't support that part of the business. And other examples are legion.

Does anyone really know if there are distributors and middle men in film distribution anymore? Really? And if one retailer has to charge virtually twice as much as another, don't they have a bargaining chip? Freestyle and Photo Warehouse are only about thirty miles from each other, so they definitely would be buying from the same regional distributor if such an animal exists. If so, why? Who else would a distributor sell to? It isn't the non-exitant minilabs, it isn't the drug store chains, who?

The proof that a distributor is unnecessary and may no longer exist anyway, is in the sales of Eastman Vision movie stocks. You go on line, you order it. Anyone. Any amount from 100'. (I'm sure Spielberg calls up his account rep in Rochester and gets priority attention and a steep discount!)

So, no, I doubt if "middle men" is the reason for the extreme pricing variation.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Kodak's reorganization has created a bad situation for those of us who love Kodak films.
Eastman Kodak can manufacture film, but cannot distribute it or sell it to any other that Kodak Alaris. There is no incentive for EK to promote or improve their films.
Kodak Alaris is really nothing more than a marketer of films, using film profits to further their future products. I doubt any money is budgetted for future development.
Neither company is willing to take any risks they can't control.
As we discuss the incredibly high price of their bulk films, we have to ask: Is EK no longer unable to manufacture this product efficiently? or does KA not want to place any significant orders? The bottom line is that there is no "Kodak", only two separate companies milking the cash cow until the udder runs dry.

I dread the day when the trademarks are sold off and "Kodak Tri-X Pan" rolls off the Shanghai production lines.

Let's think this thing through. If every film retailer we know and love has to buy from KA, it still begs the question about a virtual 2:1 pricing difference between retailers. KA is not the issue.

I'd rather see the TX and TMX and TMY made in China than not at all. Film making technology is not rocket scientist. And as long as the production lines are overseen by the "real" company behind it, it's the same stuff.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Same thing applies to brand names being sold off. You think, "Ah, they started making so and so again" only to find out it's a piece of junk with so and so's name on it. If they(the Chinese) did market a junk clone to Tri-X with the Tri-X name on it I don't think it would take us very long to figure out what was going on and not buy it anymore. I'll buy Chinese film if it's good stuff at a good price, but I won't buy junk at any price. John W

Amen.

I assume your reference to names on films that are different are due to the "need a program to tell the players and films" saga of things like Agfa/Orwo/Rollei/Maco. Am I right? And what ever happened to 3M/Ferrania/New Ferrania?

 

[pentaxuser]

In saying this I might be as guilty of an unsupported generalisation as others who put forward their theories without being able to produce real evidence but I strongly suspect that pricing has less to do with various costs and more to do with what manufacturers and retailers believe the "market will bear".

Of course the retailer cannot sell below what he is charged by the maker or distributor so they have a hand in the matter of pricing and in the case of Kodak bulk film at a much greater price than it rivals compared to its cassettes at a price much nearer to that of its rivals then this can be laid at the door of Kodak.

In the vast bulk of items what the market will bear would seem to be key. There are a limited number of retailers in the U.K. whose prices vary very little but each "does OK" in the market they serve so peace reigns. If one retailer were to pare prices to the bone then he might expect a reaction for the others and they are then in a race to the bottom where each might end up with about the same market share as before but with much less profits. A very risky strategy if you are one of those retailers.

The few high street shops that sell film do so to a very small market of customers who want the film there and then and are willing to pay more for that. The best example of this what-the-market-will-bear behaviour is demonstrated when a supermarket opens in a town and sells film. Suddenly one of two things happen: 1. the small retailer drops his price or 2. decides to get out of the market. He might still make a profit by competing with the supermarket but if film is only a very small part of his business he may judge it not worth his while to continue selling film and divert his resources to selling other things.

Anyone who does not believe that pricing behaviour reflects what the market will bear should have a look at the price they pay for film at public attractions where it becomes close to a "distress purchase"

To a lesser extent I believe all retailers operate on this principle.

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Your observations and experience are valid evidence. Many others experience them also. But don't forget that sometimes "loss leaders" involve stuff sold below cost to generate traffic and collateral sales.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Paul,

I do not intend to sound 'sniffy' but commercial and professional photographic film manufacturing to ISO 9001 as done by KODAK / FUJI / AGFA and Ourselves is actually 'rocket science' ..... with more than 100 years of technical development ( if you will excuse the pun ).

Regards : Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've never bought short-dated or expired film when new film is available.

I have been given some.

I do, however, look for deals or specials or favourable prices on the new film I purchase.

Same for me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

C- for imagination (must try harder)

No sale on this idea. I do not buy out dated film unless it date just passed and the store kept the film refrigerated and i know that I will shoot the film in a very short time. My photographs have value to me so I do not buy out dated film unless forced to. I do not believe shaving half the price to have a fogged up photographs.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Please be honest:

1-What film do you buy?
2-What price?
3-Do you/Will you buy a 200$ Bulk roll?

1. In date film only.
2. Usually at the best price available. If I have time mail order or where I get a discount, otherwise whatever the prevailing price is.
3. I find it hard to bulk load 120 and 4"x5" film. I have not found bulk loading 35mm cost effective for me since the 1970s.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

... maybe a mom+pop store wouldn't restock items, but mom and pop photo supply houses seem to be a thing of the past, they don't have enough of a draw to sell what they have...

B&H is a mom and pop store. Blimie and Herbert Schreiber are the mom and pop who founded and own it.

 

[removed account4]

B&H is a mom and pop store. Blimie and Herbert Schreiber are the mom and pop who founded and own it.

thanks sal maybe i should have said " teeny weenie mom and pop store"

 

[Xmas]

In saying this I might be as guilty of an unsupported generalisation as others who put forward their theories without being able to produce real evidence but I strongly suspect that pricing has less to do with various costs and more to do with what manufacturers and retailers believe the "market will bear".

Of course the retailer cannot sell below what he is charged by the maker or distributor so they have a hand in the matter of pricing and in the case of Kodak bulk film at a much greater price than it rivals compared to its cassettes at a price much nearer to that of its rivals then this can be laid at the door of Kodak.

In the vast bulk of items what the market will bear would seem to be key. There are a limited number of retailers in the U.K. whose prices vary very little but each "does OK" in the market they serve so peace reigns. If one retailer were to pare prices to the bone then he might expect a reaction for the others and they are then in a race to the bottom where each might end up with about the same market share as before but with much less profits. A very risky strategy if you are one of those retailers.

The few high street shops that sell film do so to a very small market of customers who want the film there and then and are willing to pay more for that. The best example of this what-the-market-will-bear behaviour is demonstrated when a supermarket opens in a town and sells film. Suddenly one of two things happen: 1. the small retailer drops his price or 2. decides to get out of the market. He might still make a profit by competing with the supermarket but if film is only a very small part of his business he may judge it not worth his while to continue selling film and divert his resources to selling other things.

Anyone who does not believe that pricing behaviour reflects what the market will bear should have a look at the price they pay for film at public attractions where it becomes close to a "distress purchase"

To a lesser extent I believe all retailers operate on this principle.

pentaxuser

Nice theory but not to the point, 400 ISO cubic grain bulk film has a 4:1 spread in cost here between Foma, Harman and Kodak, so only Kodak seem to be milking the cow.
No one will be buying bulk Kodak Tx when it is significantly more expensive than 135 Tx.
We still have high street chain shops open on Sunday selling HP5+ 135, but not Tx.

So Kodak are missing out on bulk sales of Tx and Sunday sales of 135, here. They have always had poor marketing.

Noel

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Dear Paul,

I do not intend to sound 'sniffy' but commercial and professional photographic film manufacturing to ISO 9001 as done by KODAK / FUJI / AGFA and Ourselves is actually 'rocket science' ..... with more than 100 years of technical development ( if you will excuse the pun ).

Regards : Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon, I respect you and your long history of quality input here immensely. I wasn't referring to the fact that ISO standards - and they did not exist until relatively recently - doesn't mean that something can't be off kilter. Three to five hours to thaw a roll of film? Where is the logic? There is none.

That was my beef.

 

[Ektagraphic]

If we all went out and shot a roll/sheet of Kodak film for every negative post related to Kodak on APUG, they probably would see a serge in business.

 

[removed account4]

If we all went out and shot a roll/sheet of Kodak film for every negative post related to Kodak on APUG, they probably would see a serge in business.

you are probably right !
and if it is color, it will keep the
local mini lab / pro lab running as well ..
a vital key in the whole film>photographer>process chain.

 

[gzinsel]

hey why doesn't kodak alaris have a sponsorship on Apug!! any one willing to guess. My guess is, they don't care.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

If we all went out and shot a roll/sheet of Kodak film for every negative post related to Kodak on APUG, they probably would see a serge [sic] in business.

you are probably right...

I disagree. Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak would probably be unable to detect any change in still film sales volume with that miniscule number of additional sheets/rolls exposed. Even if every APUG complainer immediately purchased new stock to replace what they'd shot. It's below measurement error. In the scope of worldwide sales, and especially compared to what the market was before digital, those making negative Kodak posts here are a drop in the ocean. "Hollywood" controls all.

Kodak film prices will be what the Kodaks decide they'll be for as long as they decide they'll be at all. Period. "APUG activism" will have no impact on Kodak still film prices or availability. Reality sucks, but it's real.

 

[BrianShaw]

... It's below measurement error.
...

Probably true even if it is within measurement error it may not be within the realm of enough profit to change the way they do anything. As you say, reality...

p.s. thanks to the unknown Mod who brought this thread back into focus. It was an interesting diversion, but

 

[MattKing]

I disagree. Kodak Alaris and Eastman Kodak would probably be unable to detect any change in still film sales volume with that miniscule number of additional sheets/rolls exposed. Even if every APUG complainer immediately purchased new stock to replace what they'd shot. It's below measurement error. In the scope of worldwide sales, and especially compared to what the market was before digital, those making negative Kodak posts here are a drop in the ocean. "Hollywood" controls all.

Kodak film prices will be what the Kodaks decide they'll be for as long as they decide they'll be at all. Period. "APUG activism" will have no impact on Kodak still film prices or availability. Reality sucks, but it's real.

You are probably right Sal, but there is one thing that activism on APUG and other places might do.

If it increases demand for still film, it just might interest Kodak Alaris in seeking alternative supply sources for film.

Kodak Alaris is owned by a bunch of people who are/were believers in film. It is also strongly interested in the health of the colour photographic paper market, which is indirectly connected with the film market.

And Kodak Alaris depends on the health of its distribution network, so problems with that network are important to KA.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...If it increases demand for still film, it just might interest Kodak Alaris in seeking alternative supply sources for film...

In which case the products offered as "Kodak" will have no relationship to what's made in Bldg. 38 today. They will bear no more resemblence to Kodak film than current "Polaroid" branded stuff does to real Polaroid film of yore. They'll engender none of the enthusiasm that TRI-X, 100TMX and TMY-2 do now. Also, what alternative supplier would have the capability to provide pseudo "Ektar" and/or "Portra?"

From my perspective, when Bldg. 38 stops coating film, Kodak film will be history.

 

[MattKing]

In which case the products offered as "Kodak" will have no relationship to what's made in Bldg. 38 today. They will bear no more resemblence to Kodak film than current "Polaroid" branded stuff does to real Polaroid film of yore. They'll engender none of the enthusiasm that TRI-X, 100TMX and TMY-2 do now. Also, what alternative supplier would have the capability to provide pseudo "Ektar" and/or "Portra?"

From my perspective, when Bldg. 38 stops coating film, Kodak film will be history.

The films will be different.

But Kodak films always did vary depending on where they were manufactured.

And Kodak Alaris has available to them valuable human resources - people who have spent their careers with Kodak film.

 

[Xmas]

Kodak Alaris is owned by a bunch of people who are/were believers in film.

An accountant is not interested in accounts or your business merely the money you pay him.

The KA staff are ex EK staff in the main still. They are only interested in their salary check next year.
The principles are former EK staff who retired.
The ones I knew thought the only difference between the Tatanic and Kodak was the Tatanic had a band.

 

[Xmas]

They'll engender none of the enthusiasm that TRI-X, 100TMX and TMY-2 do now. Also, what alternative supplier would have the capability to provide pseudo "Ektar" and/or "Portra?

Tx is just a film like HP5+ can't tell 8x10 apart blind.
Fuji sold equivalents or better but have decided there is more profit in digital.

 

[Xmas]

Probably true even if it is within measurement error it may not be within the realm of enough profit to change the way they do anything. As you say, reality...

p.s. thanks to the unknown Mod who brought this thread back into focus. It was an interesting diversion, but

Think from memory that EKs cine: stills split was 90:10 around 1990.
The statistic was published and went on to talk about relative profit margins cine lower than stills, stills was jam on the bread and butter.
But Kodak did other things like Retina 35mm cameras, instant cameras etc. while they made a sufficient profit...

You don't stop when you start making a loss you stop when your predictions are that that you are not going to make enough profit. You need to have other ventures already, so your cash flow does not reduce, or you need to stop trading and close the company.

EK's Excel spread sheet must have had a bug they shut down lots of lines in 2004-5 but still became insolvent 2011.

I've worked in large companies anticipation does not always occur.