Why is T-Max so expensive in Canada?

[Sirius Glass]

If you have to raise prices to stay in business but doing so raises the price beyond what the bulk of consumers are prepared to pay then you go out of business anyway, don't you, unless you can find a way of configuring your business to reduce costs in enough places in the chain?

pentaxuser

So you are saying that the engineers at Kodak are so stupid that they cannot find their way out of bed in the morning without help? That is what you are stating in your post. If the cost of quality film is too high for you, you need to change what and how often you photograph or get a new hobby. I am willing to pay what it takes to use film that I can count on having consistent high quality.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm still wondering why eyeglasses cost as much as a high-quality camera lens?

Hearing aids is another culprit.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'd buy as much as that Delta 100 as I could at those prices. It's a better film than T-Max, at least to my eyes. I've only shot one roll so far, but those negs are unlike any that I ever developed. Really clean and sharp, almost seem lit from the inside. I have my 2nd roll in a camera now, can't wait to see the results.

I shoot Tmax never Delta. But from what I've seen posted on the internet, they're very similar.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

https://www.essilor.com/en/ owns most of that business - no mater what brand name - and they price for maximum profit.

And the glass isn't glass. It's plastic like the frame.

 

[Craig]

deleted because of politics

All of this should affect both Ilford and Kodak equally. Yet looking at B&H (simply because it was cited upthread) in 4x5 HP5 is $2/sheet and TMY is $4.70. It's not the price that interests me, it's the difference between Kodak and Ilford. I understand inflation and material and labour cost increases, but if anything I would expect that to affect Ilford more than Kodak, as Ilford is a smaller volume producer. Energy costs to run their factory are increasing ( and were more expensive to begin with) in the UK than in the USA.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All of this should affect both Ilford and Kodak equally. Yet looking at B&H (simply because it was cited upthread) in 4x5 HP5 is $2/sheet and TMY is $4.70. It's not the price that interests me, it's the difference between Kodak and Ilford. I understand inflation and material and labour cost increases, but if anything I would expect that to affect Ilford more than Kodak, as Ilford is a smaller volume producer. Energy costs to run their factory are increasing ( and were more expensive to begin with) in the UK than in the USA.

What I haven't figured out is how Kodak in America, who manufactures Kodak film for Kodak Alaris in GB, prices their product sold to Alaris? What stops Kodak America from raising prices to Alaris to whatever they want?

Also, keep in mind that Alaris itself is like a wholesaler. They don't make the film whereas Ilford makes and sells the film to the retailers. With Kodak film, there seem to be two levels of pricing and profits that go into the eventual sales to the retailers. So either or both of these factors could create higher Kodak pricing.

 

[Craig]

They don't make the film whereas Ilford makes and sells the film to the retailers.

Slight correction, Ilford ( or technically, Harman) doesn't sell directly to retailers, there is a distributor who sells to retailers. Both of the film manufacturers ( Harman and Eastman) don't sell direct to retailers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Slight correction, Ilford ( or technically, Harman) doesn't sell directly to retailers, there is a distributor who sells to retailers. Both of the film manufacturers ( Harman and Eastman) don't sell direct to retailers.

Thanks for that info. Of course, I don't know all the arrangements different manufacturers make. Does Kodak Alaris also use distributors? My only point is that there seems to be an additional level of markups from Kodak to Alaris which might account for higher prices than other film manufacturers.

I'd also like to know what their contract is regarding pricing. How does Kodak America determine that? Is it spelled out in the original bankruptcy decision of the courts? Otherwise, Alaris would be at the mercy of Kodak to charge whatever they want. Maybe they are.

 

[MattKing]

Slight correction, Ilford ( or technically, Harman) doesn't sell directly to retailers, there is a distributor who sells to retailers. Both of the film manufacturers ( Harman and Eastman) don't sell direct to retailers.

Harman is their own distributor in the UK, where they do sell directly to retailers.

 

[Craig]

Harman is their own distributor in the UK, where they do sell directly to retailers.

Learn something every day! I didn't know that.

 

[MattKing]

What I haven't figured out is how Kodak in America, who manufactures Kodak film for Kodak Alaris in GB, prices their product sold to Alaris? What stops Kodak America from raising prices to Alaris to whatever they want?

Also, keep in mind that Alaris itself is like a wholesaler. They don't make the film whereas Ilford makes and sells the film to the retailers. With Kodak film, there seem to be two levels of pricing and profits that go into the eventual sales to the retailers. So either or both of these factors could create higher Kodak pricing.

At the time of the bankruptcy, Kodak Alaris took over the infrastructure and all related costs inherent in being the primary distributor in a worldwide marketing entity.
Most of the employees and land and buildings and costs that had been the responsibility of Eastman Kodak (and its subsidiaries) became the responsibility of Kodak Alaris. After that transaction, the film and lab related part of Kodak Alaris became much bigger than the still film part of Eastman Kodak.
Eastman Kodak no longer has anything approaching the resources necessary to support a worldwide distribution and marketing effort for still films or the business that has now been bought by Sino Promise.
The determination of prices is like anything else where the distributor and marketer has to satisfy a market, but also has to pay enough to the manufacturer to make it worthwhile to make the product. It is a matter of negotiation, where each party has a vested interest in the success of the other.
It was Kodak Alaris who pushed for the re-introduction of Ektachrome, because of the perceived market for it. Eastman Kodak came on board, at least partially because of the chance to add the product to their roster of movie films, but mainly because of the Kodak Alaris.

 

[albireo]

I was looking at some of the European retailers, and there I also saw that Kodak was approximately twice the price of Ilford.

I've not bought Kodak B&W film in a long time. Last time I purchased a couple of 5x bricks of 120 Trix they cost me 25£/brick. That wasn't even that long ago, 2018 I'd say. For the price, that film was ok but nothing special given the type of photography I do and my average capabilities.

For the past 2-3 years I've entirely replaced Kodak B&W film with Ilford, Kentmere and Foma. Perfectly good film, especially Ilford, and any issues in my amateur-level processing and exposure practices are likely to completely mask all/most intrinsic qualities Kodak film might have that make it 5x times the cost of equivalent products from competing companies.

I still buy C41 35mm Kodak rolls such as Gold 200 and Colorplus 200: I have found no alternative to them so far, and they are still widely distributed and (arguably) reasonably priced in Europe. Adox is about to release a new C41 35mm product soon, and so is ORWO, and if these will be comparable in terms of performance and pricing, I will drop Colorplus and Gold as well, and bid Kodak farewell.

 

[AgX]

https://www.essilor.com/en/ owns most of that business - no mater what brand name - and they price for maximum profit.

Seemingly there is no functioning anti-cartel authority in Canada.

 

[Don_ih]

So you are saying that the engineers at Kodak are so stupid that they cannot find their way out of bed in the morning without help? That is what you are stating in your post. If the cost of quality film is too high for you, you need to change what and how often you photograph or get a new hobby. I am willing to pay what it takes to use film that I can count on having consistent high quality.

That, in no way, addresses what @pentaxuser was saying, except you inadvertently confirm his point: if the price of Kodak film is too high, you buy less of it or buy something else. Both of those actions will put a company out of business if taken up universally by its customers.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've been using Zenni optical for about 8 years. Many times. Always very pleased with service and quality.

.................and the almost unbelievable price too, I assume.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That, in no way, addresses what @pentaxuser was saying, except you inadvertently confirm his point: if the price of Kodak film is too high, you buy less of it or buy something else. Both of those actions will put a company out of business if taken up universally by its customers.

That is what I do Don. I think TMY2 is the best 400 speed B&W film made, but I don't shoot much of it in 4X5(none) or 120(some) for that matter. 35mm is different and if I need a fast film for 35mm it would most likely be TMY2. For 120 and 4X5 it's HP5+ or Delta films. Yup, I'm a tight Hollander!

 

[brbo]

That, in no way, addresses what @pentaxuser was saying, except you inadvertently confirm his point: if the price of Kodak film is too high, you buy less of it or buy something else. Both of those actions will put a company out of business if taken up universally by its customers.

There is no serious alternative for Kodak negative colour film and there won't be any for at least a few more years (and even that is a big "if"). Adox is selling a nice (but worse in every technical parameter) colour negative film at almost twice the price of Kodak Alaris' consumer film. Orwo's (limited run!) offering is even more expensive.

You are basing your conclusions too much on the comparatively expensive (at the moment) BW film from Kodak. But that is just the problem at the supply side. Eastman Kodak has a bottle neck in confectioning facilities. Until that is resolved, Kodak Alaris will mostly buy those films from Eastman Kodak that they can get the highest margins on - colour negative film. Everything else, BW and slide film in the formats that Fuji hasn't discontinued yet, is basically just to stay in the market and sold at higher than competition prices.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

At the time of the bankruptcy, Kodak Alaris took over the infrastructure and all related costs inherent in being the primary distributor in a worldwide marketing entity.
Most of the employees and land and buildings and costs that had been the responsibility of Eastman Kodak (and its subsidiaries) became the responsibility of Kodak Alaris. After that transaction, the film and lab related part of Kodak Alaris became much bigger than the still film part of Eastman Kodak.
Eastman Kodak no longer has anything approaching the resources necessary to support a worldwide distribution and marketing effort for still films or the business that has now been bought by Sino Promise.
The determination of prices is like anything else where the distributor and marketer has to satisfy a market, but also has to pay enough to the manufacturer to make it worthwhile to make the product. It is a matter of negotiation, where each party has a vested interest in the success of the other.
It was Kodak Alaris who pushed for the re-introduction of Ektachrome, because of the perceived market for it. Eastman Kodak came on board, at least partially because of the chance to add the product to their roster of movie films, but mainly because of the Kodak Alaris.

Thanks for the update, Matt. The problem as I see it is everyone tries to maximize their profits. That's the way the world works of course without breaking the whole product. So Sino Promise, formerly Eastman Kodak, who now makes the film for Alaris, will keep their prices as high as possible to Alaris. Alaris has nowhere else to get the film. So now that their earnings are being squeezed by Sino, they have to raise their markups to retailers to make a reasonable profit. So there's a double whammy keeping prices higher for retailers and subsequently we photographers. Two markups when Ilford has one. Plus, the first markup is at the mercy of Sino's greed that Alaris can do little about because they're stuck with Sino.

Alaris should have bought Kodak rather than letting Sino buy them. That way they'd control the manufacturing and their overall costs. Now they're dependent on a Chinese supplier who will dump Alaris the first legal chance they get. Dumb move I think in the long term. My guess is that the owners of Alaris, the retirees getting their pensions, didn't want to give up any of it. They were more concerned with their current pensions than long-term company growth. Do you know why they didn't buy Kodak?

 

[Don_ih]

There is no serious alternative for Kodak negative colour film and there won't be any for at least a few more years (and even that is a big "if"). Adox is selling a nice (but worse in every technical parameter) colour negative film at almost twice the price of Kodak Alaris' consumer film. Orwo's (limited run!) offering is even more expensive.

You are basing your conclusions too much on the comparatively expensive (at the moment) BW film from Kodak. But that is just the problem at the supply side. Eastman Kodak has a bottle neck in confectioning facilities. Until that is resolved, Kodak Alaris will mostly buy those films from Eastman Kodak that they can get the highest margins on - colour negative film. Everything else, BW and slide film in the formats that Fuji hasn't discontinued yet, is basically just to stay in the market and sold at higher than competition prices.

I am basing my conclusion on the fact that film is increasingly more expensive and its competition is, by comparison, free. Adox is not Kodak's competitor. All those film companies enable each other by providing more variation and choice for consumers. The real competition is digital. Almost no one is enlarging the film, anyway, so why bother with it? -because it's cool?

There is definitely a point at which everyone will say "I'm not paying that".

 

[Don_ih]

Do you know why they didn't buy Kodak?

Wasn't it sold to bolster their profits?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The thing that should scare Alaris is that their only supplier is now Chinese. While Eastman Kodak, an American company, was bound to secure and effective American bankruptcy laws and US courts to enforce them, Alaris now has to depend on Chinese commercial law to protect them by keeping the bankruptcy terms. Knowing how China has disregarded commercial contracts in the past, that's a very iffy situation for Alaris.

 

[brbo]

There is definitely a point at which everyone will say "I'm not paying that".

Definitely. Unfortunately (for me, maybe also for you), we are not even close to that.

 

[brbo]

The thing that should scare Alaris is that their only supplier is now Chinese. While Eastman Kodak, an American company, was bound to secure and effective American bankruptcy laws and US courts to enforce them, Alaris now has to depend on Chinese commercial law to protect them by keeping the bankruptcy terms. Knowing how China has disregarded commercial contracts in the past, that's a very iffy situation for Alaris.

?! What is Kodak Alaris' dependence on China?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There is no serious alternative for Kodak negative colour film and there won't be any for at least a few more years (and even that is a big "if"). Adox is selling a nice (but worse in every technical parameter) colour negative film at almost twice the price of Kodak Alaris' consumer film. Orwo's (limited run!) offering is even more expensive.

You are basing your conclusions too much on the comparatively expensive (at the moment) BW film from Kodak. But that is just the problem at the supply side. Eastman Kodak has a bottle neck in confectioning facilities. Until that is resolved, Kodak Alaris will mostly buy those films from Eastman Kodak that they can get the highest margins on - colour negative film. Everything else, BW and slide film in the formats that Fuji hasn't discontinued yet, is basically just to stay in the market and sold at higher than competition prices.

What is a confectioning facility?

 

[Don_ih]

Definitely. Unfortunately (for me, maybe also for you), we are not even close to that.

I probably have enough colour film. I continue to buy b&w - but I prefer to buy in bulk.

However, for commercial use - as in, to produce something for sale purposes -, if I ever undertook such a thing, I would likely buy the best I could. If you can't absorb $100 cost for film in a photo shoot, for instance, you're just not charging enough. In the real world, the largest part of what you charge should be for your time and expertise. So, adding a bit more for higher-priced film should be insignificant.

The problem Kodak (whoever they are) and everyone else faces, though, is the fact that most of the people buying still film are not making any money from it. Almost all paid photography is digital. People engaged in a hobby, unless they are wealthy, need to try to control their spending, since every part of it is an expense.