Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

  1. #1
    Hack Pawlowski6132's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    826

    8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    Why such a gap in price between Kodak and Ilford in the 8x10 size???

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Westport Island, Maine
    Posts
    912

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    Cuz they only package 10 measly sheets per box, rather than 25 like Ilford or 50 the way they used to.

    Their packaging costs (think of all the cards, internal envelopes, 3-piece box) are huge, for one thing.

    They also need to recoup the cost of the new production lines from a few years ago.

    I'm just annoyed with the inconvenience of 10 sheet boxes, so I've become an HP5 guy, mostly in protest.
    Bruce Barlow
    author of "Finely Focused" and "More Finely Focused."
    www.bwbarlow.wordpress.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    216

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    Here in Toronto I find that Kodak and Ilford aren't that far apart in price for 4X5, but I recently got some Fuji Acros in 4X5, and it came in 10 sheet boxes too.
    I really do prefer at least the 25 sheet size.
    Back in the eighties and ninties I was running the Custom Printing dept for a major Lab, and there was a colour print product or two that we used that only came in 10 sheet boxes in 16X20 and 20X24, and complained to our rep, but he more or less said "that's the way we sell it". The waste of all the packaging used to bug me. The up side, was all nice white card that they used as stiffeners, made great drawing card for my kids, and some of my friends that had young ones.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    6,672

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    I still have 50 sheet boxes of Kodak TMY and TXP in the freezer. When it's gone...?
    At one time the explaination from Kodak was that the 10 sheet boxes would allow more folks to try out the new emulsions
    It must be more profitable for Kodak to sell packaging materials than film.

    HP-5+ and FP-4+ (and Fomapan/Arista.eduUltra) look pretty good to me!
    I steal time at 1/125th of a second, so I don't consider my photography to be Fine Art as much as it is petty larceny.

  5. #5
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    7,322

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    It's probably a way to keep 8x10 film profitable for them as they anticipate reduced
    demand. So in that respect, it's a good sign, because if they make money they will
    keep it going, along with further R&D overhead. Probably the 10-sheet box thing is
    just a ploy to charge a premium, and would also save additional money on duplicate
    inventory in different packaging options. As Kodak went up, the other brands have
    increased prices too. Whatever the market will bear. If you also shoot 8x10 chromes
    like me, you really feel the pinch; but an 8x10 isn't a machine gun anyway.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,296

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    It's probably to reduce the number of products they sell and have to maintain inventory for, as well as making it easier for dealers to buy inventory. In the old days studios would run through a 50-sheet box of chrome film for paying work... nowadays the only people shooting 8x10 are hobby-artists and more of them rather spend $50 on ten-sheets of TXP than $250 for 50 sheets, it's just psychology.

    The nice things about the 10 sheet boxes is that you can afford to at least buy a box of film. A 50-sheet box of Portra 400NC would be $450. That's an intimidating number and if you fog it... big Opps!

    Kodak will always be the most expensive film because that's their place, they pretty much invented everything and created the industry, so they won't play price games. Just as you'll won't see Mercedes or Rolex trying to compete with Hyundai or Timex... Ilford, Efke, etc. hardly matter.

    You're also getting a better quality product, with better quality control. This is coming from a disgruntled former HP-5 user.

    I also know Kodak actually does talk to photographers all the time. In fact they probably talk to so many and get so much information that they are overwhelmed. I mean look at this forum -- some of you hens want to have fistfights over developer formulas. So what's a Fortune 500 company to do when they wade into asking our opinions? Ever try herding cats?

    The raw materials and even the packaging only cost a tiny fraction of the price. I bet that a lot of thought went into their price point so that they can recoup the optimal, most efficient profit.

    Of course Kodak offers emulsions that others simply can't match, even this new fangled color stuff in practical ISO speeds like 400. So what if it costs $10 a pop? It's the only game in town.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Gresham OR
    Posts
    1,328

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    Well said Frank.

    My film use in any format from 8x10 down is 90% Kodak and i have yet to see any imperfection in the negatives unless i screwed up and that happens.

    Ilford on the other hand, i have seen plenty of problems in the emulsion so i use it rarely.

  8. #8
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    7,322

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    I'm going to spend an annoying amount of time spotting a print tomorrow because I
    wanted to first use up the last sheets of private-label 8X10 film instead of thawing out a box of TM400. So from now on, when I start feeling the dollar crunch of Kodak in the 8X10 category, I'll simply take a "vacation" to 4x5 for a month or two!

  9. #9
    Vlad Soare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    460

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    Because it's worth it.
    TMY-2 is a gorgeous film. It's worth every penny. All other ASA 400 films don't even come close to it.
    Unfortunately, its magenta dye, which makes development by inspection impossible, forces me to use HP5+ instead. But in small and medium formats I'll never give up TMY-2, no matter how expensive it might be or it might become in the future.

    All Kodak films are great from all points of view. It's a pleasure to use them. Also, as a bonus, their technical data sheets are the best and most comprehensive I've ever seen.
    This level of quality cannot come cheap.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    3,931

    Re: 8x10 Film: Why Kodak so Expensive

    Expensive? It's the cheapest part of photography.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

Similar Threads

  1. Some observations on old Kodak 4x5 pack film
    By Chauncey Walden in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22-Aug-2007, 21:20
  2. Depth of Field, Depth of Focus, and Film Flatness
    By robc in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2006, 13:44
  3. Canadians, where do you buy your 8x10 film?
    By Deniz in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 9-Jun-2004, 21:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •