PDA

View Full Version : Film prices (Kodak TMY in particular)



k_redder
8-Mar-2014, 07:06
Did I miss something? At the end of last week I could have purchased a 50 sheet box of Kodak T-Max 400 (4x5) for $85 from B&H. In the next day or so, I start seeing ads from B&H saying that $85 is the sale price and the retail price is $99.95. On Sunday I go to place an order, and the price is $109.95! Now I'm seeing ads from B&H that shows $109.95 as the "sale" price with the retail price now at $128.94!
I always expect that film and paper prices are going to go up, but up by over 50% in less than a week? That kind of increase starts to make me nervous.
I have noticed that B&H is also increasing prices on Ilford films and papers also, just not quite as big as that TMY increase.
What happened?

vinny
8-Mar-2014, 07:24
Greed.

BetterSense
8-Mar-2014, 07:36
Supply+demand+overhead costs (taxes, materials, labor...)

I'm watching the situation and wondering if it will become profitable for a domestic competitor to appear. Given the capital investment needed, uncertainty of future demand, I think prices will have to go much higher first. I've only been shooting since 2007 and even I can remember $1/sheet for TMY 4x5.

Jmarmck
8-Mar-2014, 08:00
Try clearing your browser history or better yet, check the price from a computer that had not looked for that item using your account if you were using one. I would be interested to know if they are storing your searches.

Jmarmck
8-Mar-2014, 08:04
Yep, that is what I thought. I looked and Kodak T-Max 50 sheets is $85. I may have to start dealing with another distributor.

Michael Cienfuegos
8-Mar-2014, 08:33
I checked Freestyle and their price is 109.95 for 50 sheets.

m

k_redder
8-Mar-2014, 08:41
I checked Freestyle and their price is 109.95 for 50 sheets.

m
That's up $15 from their price last week also.

Jmarmck
8-Mar-2014, 08:44
$97 for me. I am telling ya, try it anonymously and from a clean computer. They are putting cookies and trackers on your system that keeps records of what you look at.


That's up $15 from their price last week also.

k_redder
8-Mar-2014, 09:10
$97 for me. I am telling ya, try it anonymously and from a clean computer. They are putting cookies and trackers on your system that keeps records of what you look at.

You are looking at TMX (Tmax 100). I'm talking about TMY (Tmax 400), currently showing $109.99 at both Freestyle and B&H.

jnantz
8-Mar-2014, 09:28
some call it the best film on the market and worth every penny they charge.
only 10 maybe 13 years ago it was 65$ shipped for 100 sheet boxes .. and
100 sheets from pw were 25$ ...
times change

there is a film being being made as we type this thread which will cost 300$/ 50 sheets ..
photography has never been for those with very little money ( even on the 1800s )
the first kodak cameras cost hundreds / several month wage in the 1880s ...

Jmarmck
8-Mar-2014, 10:04
My bad. Still check the browser for cookies. This is a common practice for hotel and airline booking sites. I have heard that some of the major retailers are doing this too.


You are looking at TMX (Tmax 100). I'm talking about TMY (Tmax 400), currently showing $109.99 at both Freestyle and B&H.

Nathan Potter
8-Mar-2014, 11:16
$109.99 at Freestyle for me. I've never visited their site.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Pawlowski6132
8-Mar-2014, 13:51
Id be curious to know why the cost has increased if anyone has the answer.

Bruce Watson
8-Mar-2014, 14:29
Id be curious to know why the cost has increased if anyone has the answer.

Decreased volume. As the volume of boxes declines, they have fewer boxes to spread their fixed costs of manufacturing over. Those costs can't be reduced -- the coating line and the building can't be reduced.

It's still the best film ever made, and it's going to be the last B&W film design brought to market. TMY is the end of the road. Over a hundred years of continuous improvements have lead to this. It's awesome. I'm definitely going to miss it when it's gone.

mdm
8-Mar-2014, 18:21
I would suspect they are not making anymore, and since the remaining stock is owned by a retirement fund, the way to maximise value is to increase prices and to keep increasing them. If they were still making it, they would have a strong interest in competing with other film manufacturers.

Pawlowski6132
8-Mar-2014, 19:07
Decreased volume. As the volume of boxes declines, they have fewer boxes to spread their fixed costs of manufacturing over. Those costs can't be reduced -- the coating line and the building can't be reduced.

It's still the best film ever made, and it's going to be the last B&W film design brought to market. TMY is the end of the road. Over a hundred years of continuous improvements have lead to this. It's awesome. I'm definitely going to miss it when it's gone.

You know for a fact volume is down?

Kodachrome25
8-Mar-2014, 20:37
I would suspect they are not making anymore, and since the remaining stock is owned by a retirement fund, the way to maximise value is to increase prices and to keep increasing them. If they were still making it, they would have a strong interest in competing with other film manufacturers.

I bet your suspicions are incorrect, if they are not making TMY anymore then they are not making anything because TMY in 4x5 sells very very well.

I love TMY so much I sold all my Tri-X stash so I could by more in 35, 120 and 4x5. Also, not that I am running low, I just ordered 4 boxes from Adorama for $84 each, obviously that won't last...

DG 3313
8-Mar-2014, 22:49
[QUOTE=jnanian;1117616]some call it the best film on the market and worth every penny they charge.
only 10 maybe 13 years ago it was 65$ shipped for 100 sheet boxes .. and
100 sheets from pw were 25$ ...
times change

Consider this, what was your annual income 10 maybe 13 years ago? We have inflation..........the film makers do as well!! Pay for the film and be thankful they still produce it......

jnantz
8-Mar-2014, 23:06
Consider this, what was your annual income 10 maybe 13 years ago? We have inflation..........the film makers do as well!! Pay for the film and be thankful they still produce it......

perhaps you should read what i wrote ?


kodak raises their prices by 15% a year, and have done it for decades ...
( yes, even before they went bankrupt )

did i say i wasn't thankful for the film?
or film makers don't do well ?
did i say i didn't buy it ?

i said it is expensive ? and other film at the time, was less expensive ( not available )

TODAY... ilford film is 1/2 the price ..

are YOU paid, paid more than than 2x -3x the amount you were paid in 1991 ( for the same amount of work) ?

Roger Cole
9-Mar-2014, 00:04
Kodak just priced themselves out of my film freezer. I could afford to continue shooting TMY-2 if I wanted to given how little I get to shoot, but given the price difference, I no longer want to. My next order will be for HP5+. Another film to calibrate but oh well - easy enough and support those who support you.

StoneNYC
9-Mar-2014, 06:44
I was considering specializing in TMY-2 for my night work and gravitating away from ACROS100 as the price was better and similar in reciprocity for 20+ minute exposures etc, not he same but similar enough. Even if I enjoy the spectral response of Acros100, if I could use TMY-2 for night shots I could also use TMY-2 for normal shots and essentially use it for everything, but I have to be practical too, and night shots aren't that often, so, as Roger is doing, I've decided on HP5+ which is also amazing and flexible, and "cheap" in comparison, I just hope it stays that way...

k_redder
9-Mar-2014, 06:55
Kodak just priced themselves out of my film freezer. I could afford to continue shooting TMY-2 if I wanted to given how little I get to shoot, but given the price difference, I no longer want to. My next order will be for HP5+. Another film to calibrate but oh well - easy enough and support those who support you.

This is where I find myself too. I don't shoot that much either, so the extra money isn't the end of the world, but for me this is a hobby (albeit a very serious one) and I don't have an endless amount of money to spend on materials. As of today, 100 sheets of FP4 will cost $125 and 100 sheets of TMY will cost $220 (and I suspect that going even higher, see original post). That $95 could buy me a box of paper, or maybe a whole years worth of chemistry. It is a meaningful amount of money to me and my particular circumstances. So I'm also going to take this opportunity to jump ship and switch to Ilford film. Also, and I don't have any particular evidence to support this but, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on Ilford to be be the one still standing when Kodak decides to give up the ghost. So there's that consideration.
To all of the other responses, I'm guessing that we all know that analog photography was never cheap, I understand the concepts of supply and demand, inflation and such (and, no, my salary has decidedly NOT kept pace with the price of film, thank you Mr. President). I accept that prices will creep ever upwards, I was just wondering if there was some particular event causing prices to go up so much in such a short span of time. That, I suppose, will remain a mystery.

StoneNYC
9-Mar-2014, 08:42
This is where I find myself too. I don't shoot that much either, so the extra money isn't the end of the world, but for me this is a hobby (albeit a very serious one) and I don't have an endless amount of money to spend on materials. As of today, 100 sheets of FP4 will cost $125 and 100 sheets of TMY will cost $220 (and I suspect that going even higher, see original post). That $95 could buy me a box of paper, or maybe a whole years worth of chemistry. It is a meaningful amount of money to me and my particular circumstances. So I'm also going to take this opportunity to jump ship and switch to Ilford film. Also, and I don't have any particular evidence to support this but, if I were a betting man I'd put my money on Ilford to be be the one still standing when Kodak decides to give up the ghost. So there's that consideration.
To all of the other responses, I'm guessing that we all know that analog photography was never cheap, I understand the concepts of supply and demand, inflation and such (and, no, my salary has decidedly NOT kept pace with the price of film, thank you Mr. President). I accept that prices will creep ever upwards, I was just wondering if there was some particular event causing prices to go up so much in such a short span of time. That, I suppose, will remain a mystery.

I'm guessing Kodak-Alaris sat down and did the math finally... Just as Fuji has...

I'm willing to bet, that Ilford has figured out that by keeping their prices where they are, many many many of the previous Kodak users would switch, given the price hikes, and that the offset of the amount of people that are switching is helping to keep the price down because their numbers of production /purchases are actually increasing... At some point this will level off, at which time the Ilford prices will probably go up a little bit, but being that the purchases are still going to be at a higher rate, the price comparatively to Kodak would be still better.

I would also bet, that if Kodak can hold out long enough, they will be able to soak up all of the Fuji film shooters when Fuji stops producing film, the fact that the Fuji users are used to paying higher prices for film would mean that they wouldn't mind paying higher prices for Kodak as a substitute. And it would also be more than likely to purchase TMY-2 at the higher price because of it's spectacular reciprocity failure rate, or lack thereof as a substitute for Acros100.

So there is still hope for Kodak if they can hold out long enough to take the fall off from Fuji.

Only time will tell, but in reality it seems sadly that Fuji will probably cease production of film way efore Kodak does despite all of these seemingly gloomy price hikes.

But in the meantime Ilford reap the benefits of Kodak's price hikes...

These are all just my opinions based on observation and understanding of patterns of behavior, so it's just an opinion as my signature says I could be wrong...

jp
9-Mar-2014, 08:51
I've got about a 4 year hoard of tmy2 in the sizes I use. So if it goes up 15% a year, I'm ahead about 40% if the film is still available and I'm in a position or inclination to keep buying it. 15% a year is better than I'd get in most investments these days. I'll replenish if it goes on sale rather than be at the mercy of any market. Ilford is good stuff too. I use both.

Roger Cole
9-Mar-2014, 09:09
I've got about a 4 year hoard of tmy2 in the sizes I use. So if it goes up 15% a year, I'm ahead about 40% if the film is still available and I'm in a position or inclination to keep buying it. 15% a year is better than I'd get in most investments these days. I'll replenish if it goes on sale rather than be at the mercy of any market. Ilford is good stuff too. I use both.


And I have an unopened box of 4x5, I forget the date but I've had it probably a bit over a year as I haven't used up the last box as quickly as I expected, refrigerated since purchase, that I'm now thinking of selling. If I'm switching to HP5+ anyway I could probably get enough for the TMY-2 to buy some HP5+ and just get started. Well, sort of, since it's a 50 sheet box and Ilford is sold in 25 and 100 sheet boxes, but you get the idea.

Interestingly enough, 120 film still seems to be priced close enough to Ilford as to make no difference so I'll probably stay with TX for my 400 MF film (and I switched to FP4+ for medium speed when Plus-X went away.)

Kodachrome25
9-Mar-2014, 09:15
I've got about a 4 year hoard of tmy2 in the sizes I use. So if it goes up 15% a year, I'm ahead about 40% if the film is still available and I'm in a position or inclination to keep buying it. 15% a year is better than I'd get in most investments these days. I'll replenish if it goes on sale rather than be at the mercy of any market. Ilford is good stuff too. I use both.

+1, if I ordered 20 boxes at the current price, I will still be below $95 a box for an average unit cost due to what I have in my freezer, not a big deal for what is about the best black and white film ever made. And to all the others on here that think a total ship jump to Ilford is going to insulate them from paying a lot more for film in the future, you are dreaming and don't have a very reasonable outlook on business.

Is it really that much more fun to come up with anti-Kodak conspiracy theories than go out and hone your skills as a photo enthusiast? It sure seems that way...people on here love to bitch and complain, I applaud Kodak for doing what they have to in order to keep making it, I'm sure going to keep buying it.

Roger Cole
9-Mar-2014, 09:25
Oh ptui. I don't think it's going to "insulate me from paying a lot more from film in the future" but I do think it will have me paying a lot less for film NOW than otherwise. Bottom line is that, for my work, I really won't be able to tell the difference in the final print between HP5+ and TMY-2 so why the hell should I pay nearly twice as much when I don't have to? THAT is the bottom line.

No conspiracy theories here, just hard nosed economic realism. I can get a product that's as good for the vast majority of my work* for a lot less money so why wouoldn't or shouldn't I?

*The exception being long low light exposures of which...well come to think of it I've never done ANY in LF, just MF - I've done a few seconds in LF but at that range HP5+ will still do nicely.

Kodachrome25
9-Mar-2014, 09:57
Interesting, I think that the grain and sharpness on TMY is even better than Delta 100 let alone HP5, I guess it all depends on what you are looking for, I often print at 16x20 and I see a difference there. I'm probably set for 5 years for TMY in 4x5 at this rate though, I seem to go through it at a ratio of 1:3 to TMX in 4x5. 120 and 35mm is another story, pretty much my standard film.

Roger Cole
9-Mar-2014, 10:01
Oh the grain is better. I can't see the grain from HP5 at a 4x enlargement / 16x20 from 4x5. If you can, well it might make a difference. Grain is just something that doesn't matter to me in 4x5 (within reason, I'm sure if they made Delta 3200 in 4x5 I might see it when shot at 3200 or so, or maybe if I pushed HP5+ to 1600 or whatever.)

If one routinely prints larger than 20x24 then it would make a difference. I'm not set up to print larger than 16x20.

Roger Hesketh
9-Mar-2014, 10:18
It is Ilford who I am upset with. What I do not understand is why Ilford film in the US is very nearly half the price that it is in the UK.

25 sheets of FP4+ 4x5 at B&H New York $32.95. At $1.67 to the pound that is 19.70.

25 sheets of FP4+ 4x5 at Ag Photographic in Birmingham is 38.49 This seems to be typical though I do note Morris Photographic Centre has it at 32.95. Which is the best price I have found in the UK. At Calumet the price is 41 and that is plus Vat in that case. Alright we do have VAT at 20 % which you do not have but even still that does not even come close to explaining the price differential.

I am forced to conclude that Ilford are taking the p*** and ripping off UK customers.

DG 3313
9-Mar-2014, 10:20
perhaps you should read what i wrote ?


kodak raises their prices by 15% a year, and have done it for decades ...
( yes, even before they went bankrupt )

did i say i wasn't thankful for the film?
or film makers don't do well ?
did i say i didn't buy it ?

i said it is expensive ? and other film at the time, was less expensive ( not available )

TODAY... ilford film is 1/2 the price ..

are YOU paid, paid more than than 2x -3x the amount you were paid in 1991 ( for the same amount of work) ?

We all do what is right for us. I was speaking of how I look at the price increase. I do not take pictures for a living. I only buy film twice a year (maybe). So, I pay for fresh film when I need it and look for expired sheet film to play with. I understand the pinch a PRO would have by the increase in cost of the raw material.

1991 was a long time ago.........everything has gone up in price since then. Yes, I am paid 2x to 3x more now than I was in 1991. I am not a professional photographer.

That's all I was saying, sorry to offend

Don

k_redder
9-Mar-2014, 11:11
+1, if I ordered 20 boxes at the current price, I will still be below $95 a box for an average unit cost due to what I have in my freezer, not a big deal for what is about the best black and white film ever made. And to all the others on here that think a total ship jump to Ilford is going to insulate them from paying a lot more for film in the future, you are dreaming and don't have a very reasonable outlook on business.

Is it really that much more fun to come up with anti-Kodak conspiracy theories than go out and hone your skills as a photo enthusiast? It sure seems that way...people on here love to bitch and complain, I applaud Kodak for doing what they have to in order to keep making it, I'm sure going to keep buying it.

In all fairness, if you are ordering film 20 boxes at a time, your financial considerations are probably quite a bit different from mine.

jp
9-Mar-2014, 12:13
To purchase my hoard, I stopped buying DSLR lenses and accessories (what I have is functional), and mostly stopped buying LF glass and cameras unless something came up that was irresistable like the verito for $100 and stayed out of the for sale forum here. I've also stopped buying ammo as it's gotten expensive. I am paid decently but don't have satellite/cable TV, don't have expensive unhealthy vices, don't drink much, don't travel far for vacation, etc..

Tin Can
9-Mar-2014, 12:35
Exactly, cut all foolish expenses and many things are possible. I now live on 25% of my former salary. It's been hard to adapt. But if I want something, like film, I get it.


To purchase my hoard, I stopped buying DSLR lenses and accessories (what I have is functional), and mostly stopped buying LF glass and cameras unless something came up that was irresistable like the verito for $100 and stayed out of the for sale forum here. I've also stopped buying ammo as it's gotten expensive. I am paid decently but don't have satellite/cable TV, don't have expensive unhealthy vices, don't drink much, don't travel far for vacation, etc..

Kodachrome25
9-Mar-2014, 15:35
In all fairness, if you are ordering film 20 boxes at a time, your financial considerations are probably quite a bit different from mine.

Yep, it's also a tax deduction which helps.

StoneNYC
9-Mar-2014, 15:39
Yep, it's also a tax deduction which helps.

Yeah you can say that again, it's about the only good thing about being an artist is all the things you can expense legally, however if you're like me you don't make very much....

I only made roughly $35,000 last year, but got $3,000 back from photo deductions/expenses.

Of course unfortunately now with that new law I'm going to have to pay taxes on that money, but such is life... If I get back at lease the same amount I'll be able to pick up the camera I want to buy, and then I can write off that money at least...

Roger Cole
9-Mar-2014, 17:02
Exactly, cut all foolish expenses and many things are possible. I now live on 25% of my former salary. It's been hard to adapt. But if I want something, like film, I get it.

Who's to say what's foolish though? My wife and I travel a fair amount (domestically and almost entirely by car) and get a lot out of it. It's expensive but I don't consider it foolish. When my circumstances were different I spent a fair amount on airplane rental as a private pilot - flying myself is one of the best things I've ever done and worth every penny I spent on it though I can't really afford to indulge that passion at present. I will again some day though (and there's nothing like it for making all your other hobbies including photography look affordable!)

I think what you are saying is to prioritize and cut back on the things not so important to you and then you can afford more of the things that are important to you, and I completely agree.

Tin Can
9-Mar-2014, 17:16
Yes, Roger, vacation is important. But I have cut down the always creeping cost of electronic media and communications.

The digital world wants a big chunk monthly which many seem to not notice.

We are not the sample. I ask young people what they spend on 'necessities' like cell phone, cable, Internet and I am amazed they they think a new car payment, for what I consider foolish, is perfectly fine, while they also complain about being broke.

Just making espresso home can save $1000 a month!

Excuse me, I am baking bread...


Who's to say what's foolish though? My wife and I travel a fair amount (domestically and almost entirely by car) and get a lot out of it. It's expensive but I don't consider it foolish. When my circumstances were different I spent a fair amount on airplane rental as a private pilot - flying myself is one of the best things I've ever done and worth every penny I spent on it though I can't really afford to indulge that passion at present. I will again some day though (and there's nothing like it for making all your other hobbies including photography look affordable!)

I think what you are saying is to prioritize and cut back on the things not so important to you and then you can afford more of the things that are important to you, and I completely agree.

AuditorOne
9-Mar-2014, 17:39
Lookie there. Another reason to start coating my own film. :)

Roger Cole
9-Mar-2014, 17:49
Well yes. I and my wife both have smart phones with data because, well, we are addicts that way. And high speed Internet both for that reason (and streaming movies and our only TV) and because I must have it for my job and she for her grad school (I'm a network engineer and have to be on call sometimes but my employer comps almost half my cable Internet bill for that.)

But we have no TV service on that cable, no landline etc.

Tin Can
9-Mar-2014, 17:58
I miss the landline, but ATT here kept messing it up. It was no longer reliable in Chicago. I think they did that on purpose, to get rid of landlines.

It was constantly going dead the last few years.


Well yes. I and my wife both have smart phones with data because, well, we are addicts that way. And high speed Internet both for that reason (and streaming movies and our only TV) and because I must have it for my job and she for her grad school (I'm a network engineer and have to be on call sometimes but my employer comps almost half my cable Internet bill for that.)

But we have no TV service on that cable, no landline etc.

Rollinhofuji
10-Mar-2014, 05:03
Just for comparison: TMX price (excl. VAT) is about 102 USD over here in Germany (exchange rate EUR/USD 1.38), for quite a few months now - TMY very similar. I think it was a cheaper one year ago, something around 92 USD. Perhaps US dealers ran out of stock later than the German dealers, and had to refill their stocks now...
Indeed Delta 100 is about the same over here, only slightly more expensive.

jnantz
10-Mar-2014, 06:32
SNIP
SNIP


sorry to offend

Don

no worries ..
after the long haul
fora have become a millstone around my neck
i owe you an apology, sorry to sound on-edge ...

i gotta keep bailing, the ship's sinking!

john

Kodachrome25
10-Mar-2014, 06:51
People on here seem to "love" to encourage newcomers to LF by saying how cheap it is, the gear is cheap, it's easy to develop, easy to post all those flickr-tastic snapshots of tree bark and other "film tests" using some barely adequate flatbed scanner.

Fact of the matter is compared to medium format in getting really high quality results, LF is very expensive. 4x5 is so cheap compared to larger sizes it is mind boggling and yet, those larger sizes for an even sharper image of said "tree bark" are pushed around like some serious you are missing-out-itis.

Kodak has done what Fuji and even Ilford will continue to do in order to keep paying the bills and keep the product afloat, it is the first price increase I have seen since starting with LF in May of 2012. So not only does it not surprise me, it confirms what I believe we will all see in using film in the years to come, it's niche and will be an expensive one in larger formats.

I am willing to bet that the people who complain the loudest of all about these increases are right on the ragged edge of not being able to pursue photography at all in any format because they simply are not facing the facts that they can not afford it...so they blame the makers of film.

StoneNYC
10-Mar-2014, 08:11
People on here seem to "love" to encourage newcomers to LF by saying how cheap it is, the gear is cheap, it's easy to develop, easy to post all those flickr-tastic snapshots of tree bark and other "film tests" using some barely adequate flatbed scanner.

Fact of the matter is compared to medium format in getting really high quality results, LF is very expensive. 4x5 is so cheap compared to larger sizes it is mind boggling and yet, those larger sizes for an even sharper image of said "tree bark" are pushed around like some serious you are missing-out-itis.

Kodak has done what Fuji and even Ilford will continue to do in order to keep paying the bills and keep the product afloat, it is the first price increase I have seen since starting with LF in May of 2012. So not only does it not surprise me, it confirms what I believe we will all see in using film in the years to come, it's niche and will be an expensive one in larger formats.

I am willing to bet that the people who complain the loudest of all about these increases are right on the ragged edge of not being able to pursue photography at all in any format because they simply are not facing the facts that they can not afford it...so they blame the makers of film.

Pretty well said, that last bit is going to hurt but is very true I'm sure for many.

But we need those guys to buy their one or two boxes a year too, it adds up, and helps keep film flowing...

Honestly Dan, I hate to say it but what hurts film production most is the ebb and flow... When people like you hear there is a hike you "stock up" which means less purchase of film at the higher price for an extended period of time until you run out...

So instead of getting trickle income from constant purchasing, the film makers are seeing large periods of time without purchases... They may even make a price hike just to get people buying at the lower price, or why would they announce a hike at all, they would just implement it suddenly....

So by stocking up, you're also hurting film a little bit, because for the next 5 years... You don't count... And a company can't wait 5 years for you to come around again to buy more....

Rollinhofuji
10-Mar-2014, 08:42
Good point, Stone. I guess the stock-keeping in our own fridges might really affect the demand. Might sound a bit idiotic, but I moved to Kodak products (being a former Fuji-shooter, especially Velvia, Neopan 400 and Acros in MF) about 2 years ago just to support them. In fact, I think that TMX and TMY-2 are unsurpassed, although some people tend to prefer Delta 100. Ektar 100 is simply fantastic and more and more replaces Velvia for me. Both are more or less worth the money, I think. A shot costs my about 2 EUR/3USD (roughly, including development costs). I usually shoot no more than 6-8 sheets a day, including backup shots. So that's still affordable to me, especially when considering that with negatives, I have an archival proof solution which will hopefully outlast me. Furthermore, if you would sell some of your prints, the material costs for the film are almost negligible. I feel we should more compare our hobby to painters, whose materials are still way more expensive than ours (at least I heard that). Let'`s face it, we are a niche market, not a mass market any more.

jp
10-Mar-2014, 08:52
Some people stocking up hasn't hurt ammo or AR15 sales. Or anything costco/sams club/bj's sells.

Kodachrome25
10-Mar-2014, 08:57
Pretty well said, that last bit is going to hurt but is very true I'm sure for many.

But we need those guys to buy their one or two boxes a year too, it adds up, and helps keep film flowing...

Honestly Dan, I hate to say it but what hurts film production most is the ebb and flow... When people like you hear there is a hike you "stock up" which means less purchase of film at the higher price for an extended period of time until you run out...

So instead of getting trickle income from constant purchasing, the film makers are seeing large periods of time without purchases... They may even make a price hike just to get people buying at the lower price, or why would they announce a hike at all, they would just implement it suddenly....

So by stocking up, you're also hurting film a little bit, because for the next 5 years... You don't count... And a company can't wait 5 years for you to come around again to buy more....

Stone, that’s not quite how I operate…

For example, after experimenting, I decided I want to standardize my 4x5 use with TMX and TMY. I made an initial capital investment of 20 boxes in each speed as a method to mitigate any shortages and *expected* price increases. Once my stock dips below a certain point, like say, down to 15 boxes, I re-order and rotate stock. I was down to 17 unopened boxes of TMY so it made sense to order up.

This operative applies to all the formats I shoot and usually means I re-order film quarterly. I keep roughly 10 years worth of film in total in stock and rotate it regularly, so not only am I spending big amounts up front to get started, I spend more than most on here do in re-stocking.

By the way, this is the manner in which most professional fine art film shooters operate, they don't have time to mess around with product shortages, discontinuations so they keep a steady flow of fresh stock coming in that comes to rest on a much larger foundation of said stock.

I keep much less stock of paper, no more than a couple hundreds sheets of each size, 8x, 11x, 16x and 20x so it is always very fresh. And since Ilford is my paper of choice, I know the line is stable in terms of availability, price of course is another matter...

Bernice Loui
10-Mar-2014, 09:02
Sheet film image making is NOT inexpensive or "cheap" to do.

The real expense is not in hardware, it is in the actual cost of materials and all else involved with making these images.

There is so much focus on getting bargains on lenses, cameras, film holders, the latest tripod and all else, little is often mentioned about what it actually cost to burn a box of sheet film and produce actual work from this.

The entire endeavor of LF is expensive, IMO far more expensive than most other forms of film photography as one goes up in film size, the cost involved and effort goes up significantly more over the smaller format sizes. During the mid 1990's when a sheet of 8x10 E6 color transparency film cost about $10+ including processing, it was a bargain. Today with the significantly reduced volume of materials being made and the cost of running a lab increasing for similar reasons, is there any wonder why so many have gone under? It is also why the cost of materials has gone up and up simply due to the significantly reduced volume of production and cost of making this stuff. Once the cost to produce -vs- market demand drops below a point where the business cannot sustain it's operating expenses and produce a reasonable living, they will die.

It can be fun to experiment and tinker with new lenses, films and etc.. but work to make each sheet of film result in a good expressive image. In the beginning there will be a given amount of wast, loss and more due to the learning curve involved which is why it makes sense to use the smallest sheet film format (aka 4x5 or even 6x9 roll) to learn how to use the camera, what lenses do and all that with the goal of eventually making each sheet of film result in a good expressive image.

I don't complain, balk or blink when a box of 25 sheets, 5x7 B&W film cost $60 USD, it is what it is and considered a basic expense of making images with sheet film. Yet, this is only the very beginning, each sheet will need one's time (cannot be replaced folks), effort, travel cost and all related to make the exposure. Then comes processing and all the rest of the process of producing that image. Once all these other expenses are added up, the cost of film is simply not that much in the overall cost of image making.

It would be better to spend funds on creating expressive images than forever trying to seek out bargains on a new fangled fantasy lens, camera or other "magical" bit-O-hardware. In the end, producing expressive images is what photography is all about, yet it is so easy for some to get tangled up in the stuff to create expressive images and totally forget why they got involved with photography to begin with.



Bernice





People on here seem to "love" to encourage newcomers to LF by saying how cheap it is, the gear is cheap, it's easy to develop, easy to post all those flickr-tastic snapshots of tree bark and other "film tests" using some barely adequate flatbed scanner.

Fact of the matter is compared to medium format in getting really high quality results, LF is very expensive. 4x5 is so cheap compared to larger sizes it is mind boggling and yet, those larger sizes for an even sharper image of said "tree bark" are pushed around like some serious you are missing-out-itis.

Kodak has done what Fuji and even Ilford will continue to do in order to keep paying the bills and keep the product afloat, it is the first price increase I have seen since starting with LF in May of 2012. So not only does it not surprise me, it confirms what I believe we will all see in using film in the years to come, it's niche and will be an expensive one in larger formats.

I am willing to bet that the people who complain the loudest of all about these increases are right on the ragged edge of not being able to pursue photography at all in any format because they simply are not facing the facts that they can not afford it...so they blame the makers of film.

Brian C. Miller
10-Mar-2014, 12:08
Sheet film image making is NOT inexpensive or "cheap" to do.

The real expense is not in hardware, it is in the actual cost of materials and all else involved with making these images.

There is so much focus on getting bargains on lenses, cameras, film holders, the latest tripod and all else, little is often mentioned about what it actually cost to burn a box of sheet film and produce actual work from this.
...
It would be better to spend funds on creating expressive images than forever trying to seek out bargains on a new fangled fantasy lens, camera or other "magical" bit-O-hardware. In the end, producing expressive images is what photography is all about, yet it is so easy for some to get tangled up in the stuff to create expressive images and totally forget why they got involved with photography to begin with.

Bernice

Freestyle, Arista EDU 100, 4x5, 25 sheets, $19. Cheap.
Developer, cheap.
Stop bath, cheap.
Fixer, cheap.
Trays, cheap.

Look, it's not as cheap as Mad Magazine, but it is what it is.

Every week, I spend about $20 on comic books. (Yeah, I read instead of going to the movies. No, I don't move my lips as I read.) Everybody doing this as a hobby spends a little bit. Now, how many hobbyists shoot over 25 sheets per week?

How many of the hobbyist photographers have 25 filmholders to load up a 50 sheet box? And once out and about, how fast does a person go through them? The only LF cameras with a motor drive were the big sports monsters and the military aerial survey crews, and they used roll film.

So yeah, it's cheap to get into this, and cheap to go photographing for a few images. At $0.76 per shot, and some time in the bathroom, that's a pretty cheap thrill.

The rest of it, "expressive images," is actually a philosophical question. For instance, what's-her-face-in-Canada, the photographer who went around photographing people's trash bags before they got picked up, were those images "expressive?" And how much physical work went into popping a snap of a trash bag? The real work was writing the ad copy.

Me? I'll always remember why I got into photograph. Moonlight.

Kodachrome25
10-Mar-2014, 12:44
Well that is a good point Brian and if you go for the 50 sheet box it drops to 66 a sheet, but that is the bottom of the scale. Never used the EDU / Foma stuff though so I don't know how it is for QC and consistency...

It all depends on what you want to do, dabble, sure, get a crown graphic, some 100EDU, some trays and play around. But if you want to equal your high end medium format output in 4x5 in terms of fine prints to earn a living with like I do, it costs thousands, by far the most expensive production in photography I have engaged in, easily the price of a nice used car at this point.

Personally, I *really* don't like to dabble, lens test, experiment, etc. I like to know I can rely on the gear and materials to the point that I am the sole factor if I get a killer image or not. For the Flickr/flatbed crowd, it is not worth it to be so particular but for me, it is well worth the peace of mind...

jnantz
10-Mar-2014, 12:48
for a hobbyist at least ...
photography is as cheap or as expensive as you want to make it.
people get caught up in the gear game which ends up being a sinkhole.

theres nothng wrong with hoarding film, unless you dont use it...

DG 3313
10-Mar-2014, 13:29
Not one photo shared on this thread......please allow me to be the first. I shot this on a Horseman 450 and my Grandagon 90mm F6.8. It was made on Provia 4x5, and the lighting was a 240 watt second Novatron mono-light with a shoot threw Westcott umbrella. I don't recall the exposure because it was done in 1996. The print is a Ciba-chrome 11x14 that I printed in my first darkroom (I'm on #4 now). The pants were draped over a kitchen chair. It took me 3 hours to get this sharp enough to shoot. It was done for a safety slogan at work "pocket money". The idea was.....if you are safe at work it pays.....we got quarterly incentives not to get hurt.........

This print is in my living room and I see it every day. It makes me think about photography and how my efforts may have helped other people work safer.

I remember taking this photo like it were yesterday.

That's one reason why I shoot LF and it's hard to put a price on that.

Don

Its a digi snapshot of the print

111936

Roger Cole
10-Mar-2014, 15:25
As I said before I can afford to shoot more sheet film, even TMY-2, than I have time to process, by a long shot. I'm not rich by any means but I earn a good professional salary. I could afford to spend $400-$500 a month on airplane rental when I was single, and after that when we were a two income household and I got back into photography I could continue doing that in addition to my photography. I can't do that anymore since my wife left work to pursue her next graduate degree full time but I can damned sure afford sheet film, given how much time it actually takes to shoot and process it. I can't afford the thousands K25 has put into it, but I don't need to - it's a hobby. And if I COULD, I wouldn't, I'd buy the 1/4 share of a sweet Piper Warrior I know of for sale locally and keep shooting more affordable photography gear like I do now while flying my wife and myself around the southeast on our travels instead of driving. :D Oh, there's a few things I'd like to pick up when I can, and still will just at a slower pace. Foremost, I need to replace my aging and ailing Tech III that works, but is patched up and worked around badly. I'd like a better spot meter than my Soligor, maybe another lens or two. I'd love a color head for my D2 but the filter drawer suffices for both VC and, once I finish the darkroom buildout (oh yeah, I'm doing that too) and have running water down there again, RA4 via filters, which I've done plenty of in the past and it works fine. I'd love a Rolleiflex or even Rolleicord but every time I price one, been close to pulling the trigger on a couple of 'cords, I realize my Yashicamat 124 looks and works great and gives me results probably indistinguishable stopped down and plenty good enough for my tastes wide open, cost me $185 and is already paid for.

Foma got most of their QC issues under control. The emulsion is soft and you have to be careful with it while it's wet but if you can do that, it works fine. Reciprocity failure is bad, though not AS bad as reputation would have it, but for exposure down to 1/2 second is a non-issue and for as much as a few seconds can be dealt with the usual ways. It's grainy but not absurdly so, and that won't be seen much at the usual LF enlargement ratios (my favorite size is 11x14 and at that size I can't see grain in Tri-X from MF, much less from 4x5.) LF is not that expensive to get into or do (black and white - color sheet film is now, agreed, out of sight) IF one is already into 35mm and/or MF and has darkroom stuff. Even if you had to buy it all ab initio I bet you could do it for $1000. Hell, I have about $1700 in my bicycle from my racing days and that was circa 1992. $1000 to get started in a big hobby is not a huge amount of money, and the materials costs can be, as Brian says, pretty reasonable.

It's not so much the absolute cost of TMX and TMY-2 that bothers me as the cost relative to alternatives. With Delta 100 and FP4+ and HP5+ all available for so much less I just don't feel the need to pay that kind of premium. I agree that TMY-2 is quite possibly the best black and white film ever made. But you pay a lot more for something that is, for me, really only marginally better in practice. Oh it's much finer grained and that matters if you are doing mural sized prints but for my purposes and my tastes printing no larger than 16x20 it's a difference which makes no difference.

Drew Wiley
10-Mar-2014, 15:55
I learned the hard way that bargain film is not a bargain, esp if you have to use two sheets to (maybe) ensure that one of them is not blemished to begin with, or
that it carries a much higher risk of getting marred during processing. Thanks, but no thanks. I keep buying TMY for a reason.

Kodachrome25
10-Mar-2014, 16:12
The cost is not insignificant, even for me at $2.20 a sheet compared to HP5 at $1.22 a sheet. It's now the 2nd most expensive black and white 4x5 film there is, Acros beats it at $2.85 a sheet. Some will continue to use it, some will cry uncle and bail for cheaper options.

Drew Wiley
10-Mar-2014, 16:19
When I can't stand the pain in the wallet when thawing out another box of 8x10 TMY, I just shoot 4x5 for awhile.

Brian C. Miller
10-Mar-2014, 20:24
I learned the hard way that bargain film is not a bargain, esp if you have to use two sheets to (maybe) ensure that one of them is not blemished to begin with, or that it carries a much higher risk of getting marred during processing. Thanks, but no thanks. I keep buying TMY for a reason.

Personally, I've never used Arista, I just use it as a price point. AFAIC, it's better than using x-ray film. I've heard tell that at times it has been Kodak or Ilford, and last I heard it was Foma. I've used Efke, and I've been occasionally disappointed with the coating, both roll and sheet. So far I haven't had a problem with Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

Roger Cole
10-Mar-2014, 21:21
I learned the hard way that bargain film is not a bargain, esp if you have to use two sheets to (maybe) ensure that one of them is not blemished to begin with, or
that it carries a much higher risk of getting marred during processing. Thanks, but no thanks. I keep buying TMY for a reason.

That was true for Efke and sometimes has applied to Foma (though for those using a hybrid workflow the Photoshop clone stamp and healing tool will do wonders to make defects just go away) but is not true of Ilford which has excellent QC. You may prefer the spectral response, reciprocity characteristics grain or whatever of TMY and those are perfectly valid reasons to keep using it, but you won't have to shoot two sheets of Ilford to make sure one wasn't jacked up at the factory.

Bernice Loui
10-Mar-2014, 22:09
$0.76 per sheet of 4x5 film.

What about your time, time required to order, load, expose, un-load, process and store.. what is that worth?

That does not result in a finished image.. which is a mounted print that can be presented to share with others for that $0.76 per sheet of film?

It appears we have greatly different values and it depends on what you're trying to do.

There is also a tone of confrontation with your reply as if you're baiting me to a challenge which I'm simply not interested.

At this point in the game for me after so many years of doing LF, I'm going to make every sheet count or not even bother making the exposure. This means using the best film possible, optics that meet what I'm after and a camera & tripod combo that causes me no grief with minimal limitations. Life is short, our time here on planet earth is short, the entire image making experience should be an extension of one's passion and interest for making images..

As for what is an "expressive image" it completely depends on maker and viewer.. no?


Bernice



Freestyle, Arista EDU 100, 4x5, 25 sheets, $19. Cheap.
Developer, cheap.
Stop bath, cheap.
Fixer, cheap.
Trays, cheap.

Look, it's not as cheap as Mad Magazine, but it is what it is.

Every week, I spend about $20 on comic books. (Yeah, I read instead of going to the movies. No, I don't move my lips as I read.) Everybody doing this as a hobby spends a little bit. Now, how many hobbyists shoot over 25 sheets per week?

How many of the hobbyist photographers have 25 filmholders to load up a 50 sheet box? And once out and about, how fast does a person go through them? The only LF cameras with a motor drive were the big sports monsters and the military aerial survey crews, and they used roll film.

So yeah, it's cheap to get into this, and cheap to go photographing for a few images. At $0.76 per shot, and some time in the bathroom, that's a pretty cheap thrill.

The rest of it, "expressive images," is actually a philosophical question. For instance, what's-her-face-in-Canada, the photographer who went around photographing people's trash bags before they got picked up, were those images "expressive?" And how much physical work went into popping a snap of a trash bag? The real work was writing the ad copy.

Me? I'll always remember why I got into photograph. Moonlight.

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 05:02
These days ALL the LF film is good film, and I wouldn't call Ilford film "bargain priced" as someone said.

What Dan said is very true...

I buy Acros100 which is NOT cheap, but it had value to me because of it's characteristic look. If it were twice as expensive, I would not buy it in sheets and only use roll film in a 6x12 back, but I would still use it.

If you find TMY-2 valuable, as an artist, you will buy it, if you don't, you won't....

I've got 25 sheets of TMY-2 4x5 sealed, does anyone want to trade for some Velvia50 4x5? or Acros100? The TMY-2 is fresh frozen and in date...

jp
11-Mar-2014, 06:13
I'm all for keeping film inexpensive, but it's cheap compared to a recent artistic hobby I've dabbled in... linoleum block cutting/printing. A 4x6 sheet of the eraser like material you carve up for making a 4x6 print with that is like $4-6, making film look pretty good. As such, I won't be carving with reckless abandon like I would shoot smaller format film.

Brian C. Miller
11-Mar-2014, 08:05
$0.76 per sheet of 4x5 film.

What about your time, time required to order, load, expose, un-load, process and store.. what is that worth?

That does not result in a finished image.. which is a mounted print that can be presented to share with others for that $0.76 per sheet of film?

It appears we have greatly different values and it depends on what you're trying to do.

I thought that my post was explicit that I was approaching this from the perspective of a hobbyist. I perceived your post as not being directed towards a working professional. After all, most professionals don't go chasing "magic bullets." Rather, they work within their budgets and produce a product the client enjoys. As an example, Kirk Gittings has recounted how he mostly used a view camera and a roll film back. He sold his old equipment on the forum a while back, and it was fairly modest equipment.

How much is personal time worth? How much time is spent, say, watching television? No, I'm not going to bother to take into account loading holders, etc. If I want speed and quantity, I have a MF camera with a motor drive. I even have a digital camera if I need something right now, post haste.

Now, does any negative automatically result in a finished image? Of course not. True for LF, true for roll film. The camera is a tool, just like the paint brush is a tool. Film and paper are part of the process, just like brush, paint, and canvas. Is every painting a masterpiece (http://www.museumofbadart.org/)? Neither is every negative or print. But once we begin printing, the "cost" of the negative is no longer in the equation. It's over, it's done. Gary Winogrand exposed zillions of rolls, and would only use a few images from each. I doubt he ever factored film cost into his shooting.

Large format simply is what it is. I view it like the shark: No need for much change since its inception. It's been a known quantity for over 150 years. Big camera, lots of labor.


There is also a tone of confrontation with your reply as if you're baiting me to a challenge which I'm simply not interested.

:confused: Your perception is what it is.

Sal Santamaura
11-Mar-2014, 08:33
These days ALL the LF film is good film...In your opinion...

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 09:10
In your opinion...

Most of the skilled I hear talk, say that they can make the image they want with any film, just have to learn how it responds and adjust accordingly and shoot, develop so you can attain the print you want. If that is true of all current film, ipso facto all current film is good and usable, you just need the skill.

There's really only ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Rollie, FOMA... That's it... And the worst... FOMA, is only bad in that a long exposure images takes a little longer and you need a water stop bath instead of a "stop" bath... It's grain is a bit larger... But it's not BAD film...

EFKE might have been bad because it was inconsistent with it's EFKEitis but the only current film I can think of with ANY complaints is FOMA and even FOMA is good so long as you don't use a stop and that prevents the emulsion issues.

So it's not opinion, it's fact...

jp
11-Mar-2014, 09:17
Maybe you're right that foma isn't bad, but it was when I tried it and I don't use stop. I'm not going to keep trying it. Ilford is pretty similar in price and much more consistent and good.

I will agree that skill is paramount; making bad images on good film proves that.

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 09:25
Maybe you're right that foma isn't bad, but it was when I tried it and I don't use stop. I'm not going to keep trying it. Ilford is pretty similar in price and much more consistent and good.

I will agree that skill is paramount; making bad images on good film proves that.

I like contrast so it wasn't hard for me to work with FOMA, but I prefer ilford as well.

Some FOMA from a mini transportation project...

111964
111965
111966
111967

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 09:28
FOMA with people...

111968

111970

111969

111971

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 09:35
In contrast... TMY-2...

111972
111973
111974
111975
Ok I'm done with image spam.

My point was just that you have to find the balance between what to want to accomplish and the funds you have available.

All sheet films still produced are valid options for making film and are good quality, the photo TAKER on the other hand, may not be (like me hah, I show my images but know they aren't really GREAT, but aren't totally awful I hope).

Sal Santamaura
11-Mar-2014, 10:42
These days ALL the LF film is good...


In your opinion...


Most of the skilled I hear talk, say that they can make the image they want with any film, just have to learn how it responds and adjust accordingly and shoot, develop so you can attain the print you want. If that is true of all current film, ipso facto all current film is good and usable, you just need the skill...Skill will generally provide no advantage if the film manufacturer's QC falls short. Ipso facto not ALL LF film is good.

jnantz
11-Mar-2014, 11:17
Skill will generally provide no advantage if the film manufacturer's QC falls short. Ipso facto not ALL LF film is good.

not sure sal,
sometimes by shooting the bad and the ugly
you get good at assimilating the bad and ugly
into your style.
im all for bad, fogged, soft emulsion, dead spot
scratched damaged film, but thats just me
i can certainly see why quality is an issue for some though ...

is lucky film is still being made?
now that is good stuff ..

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 11:59
Skill will generally provide no advantage if the film manufacturer's QC falls short. Ipso facto not ALL LF film is good.

I'm saying, there are currently no films with serious quality control issues... The last was EFKE, they are gone...

That's all I meant.

I suppose we are both talking from our own experiences and opinions/perspective. All films will SOMEWHERE have at least one emulsion lift spec even from the best manufacturer... I don't like to change my process and I enjoy using ilfostop instead of water, so I don't shoot FOMA anymore, because FOMA doesn't like that kind of stop... Does that mean FOMA has QC issues? No. It means I like a process that is unlike the one recommended by the manufacture, so if I have bad results, that's MY quality control issue, not theirs...

jnantz
11-Mar-2014, 13:04
I'm saying, there are currently no films with serious quality control issues... The last was EFKE, they are gone...

That's all I meant.

I suppose we are both talking from our own experiences and opinions/perspective. All films will SOMEWHERE have at least one emulsion lift spec even from the best manufacturer... I don't like to change my process and I enjoy using ilfostop instead of water, so I don't shoot FOMA anymore, because FOMA doesn't like that kind of stop... Does that mean FOMA has QC issues? No. It means I like a process that is unlike the one recommended by the manufacture, so if I have bad results, that's MY quality control issue, not theirs...

people have reported more than stop bath issues with foma
and i am sure if you dig around you will find other films with issues
like orwa and slavich and adox ( which is efke if i remember correctly )
and lucky hasnt gotten glowing review either. the jury's still out on washi
havent met anyone who has pony'd up the cash to use this newest film
( paper film that is ) ...

its all opinion anyways, and everyone has one ...

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 13:46
people have reported more than stop bath issues with foma
and i am sure if you dig around you will find other films with issues
like orwa and slavich and adox ( which is efke if i remember correctly )
and lucky hasnt gotten glowing review either. the jury's still out on washi
havent met anyone who has pony'd up the cash to use this newest film
( paper film that is ) ...

its all opinion anyways, and everyone has one ...

Wasn't aware ORWO and Slavich made sheet film. My mistake.

And I hadn't used any ADOX films and totally forgot they made sheet film, though I haven't heard anything bad about it.

I stand corrected (assuming those films have QC issues).

Kodachrome25
11-Mar-2014, 14:01
If you want TMY in 4x5 at the old price, I highly suggest you go here (http://www.adorama.com/KK40534550.html) and put in an order before they fill their backorder and it is back in stock at $110.

I did this with 120 Acros 100 a few years back to the tune of 300 rolls at $2.64 each and they honored the price, then they had it in stock again and it was at the new higher price. I now top off and my average per unit cost is still far lower than the current asking price.

jnantz
11-Mar-2014, 14:19
Wasn't aware ORWO and Slavich made sheet film. My mistake.

And I hadn't used any ADOX films and totally forgot they made sheet film, though I haven't heard anything bad about it.

I stand corrected (assuming those films have QC issues).

and slavich supposedly still coats glass plates if you ever want to dry plate without the effort of self coating

k_redder
11-Mar-2014, 14:35
Did I miss something? At the end of last week I could have purchased a 50 sheet box of Kodak T-Max 400 (4x5) for $85 from B&H. In the next day or so, I start seeing ads from B&H saying that $85 is the sale price and the retail price is $99.95. On Sunday I go to place an order, and the price is $109.95! Now I'm seeing ads from B&H that shows $109.95 as the "sale" price with the retail price now at $128.94!
I always expect that film and paper prices are going to go up, but up by over 50% in less than a week? That kind of increase starts to make me nervous.
I have noticed that B&H is also increasing prices on Ilford films and papers also, just not quite as big as that TMY increase.
What happened?

For those that are interested, this is a screen capture of the ad that I keep seeing with the new $128.94 price tag.111982

AuditorOne
11-Mar-2014, 16:30
I have been buying 100 sheet boxes of Ilford HP5+ for $125 USD. Great quality control, great film.

Roger Cole
11-Mar-2014, 17:06
Most of the skilled I hear talk, say that they can make the image they want with any film, just have to learn how it responds and adjust accordingly and shoot, develop so you can attain the print you want. If that is true of all current film, ipso facto all current film is good and usable, you just need the skill.

There's really only ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Rollie, FOMA... That's it... And the worst... FOMA, is only bad in that a long exposure images takes a little longer and you need a water stop bath instead of a "stop" bath... It's grain is a bit larger... But it's not BAD film...

EFKE might have been bad because it was inconsistent with it's EFKEitis but the only current film I can think of with ANY complaints is FOMA and even FOMA is good so long as you don't use a stop and that prevents the emulsion issues.

So it's not opinion, it's fact...

Myth that you need water stop with Foma. The emulsion is soft but I've used acid stop with no problems. Just be careful with the wet film until it's dry.

Roger Cole
11-Mar-2014, 17:12
About Foma - it's true thay had some QC issues but reports, and my experience, have been that these are largely if not completely resolved. I don't hear anyone saying it's the equal of Ilford (Maris did say he uses it because he's shooting 8x10 for contact printing and it's fine for that, which I can see.) I'll continue to shoot some of it because it's cheap and has an old look and is basically fun, though I do that more in 120, but it won't replace Kodak (or Ilford.)

I'm just talking about personally switching my main, quality film from TMY-2 to HP5+, certainly not Foma. If Ilford would make Delta 400 in sheets again I'd jump to it instead. Excellent film.

Foma isn't in the same league, true, but it depends what we are talking about. If we are talking about hobbyists being able to shoot LF on a budget then I agree that excellent results are possible on Foma. If you can afford more for Ilford though I think the consistency, QC and film characteristics are worth the price. I'm much less convinced (as in, "not at all") that the price difference between Ilford and Kodak is now worth it, to me personally. YMMV of course.

k_redder
11-Mar-2014, 17:20
I also noticed while double checking the TMY price at B&H that they list TMY in 8x10 as "discontinued", is that a recent development or something that happened a while back that I just never noticed (since I don't shoot 8x10)?

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 17:33
Myth that you need water stop with Foma. The emulsion is soft but I've used acid stop with no problems. Just be careful with the wet film until it's dry.

Well I will say this, I certainly had some emulsion lifts with mine using ilfostop. And I was told that using a water bath stop would correct for this. I never ended up trying to see, as it wasn't a huge deal, and I decided that I didn't want to go with FOMA anyway as my main film, but it wasn't terrible by any means. And none of the issues had to do with scratching the emulsion.

Anyway we are way off track here I think, sorry about that.

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 17:38
I also noticed while double checking the TMY price at B&H that they list TMY in 8x10 as "discontinued", is that a recent development or something that happened a while back that I just never noticed (since I don't shoot 8x10)?

B&H lists anything "discontinued" they can't get. The film buyer is largely an idiot...

I had to make a fuss to get them to find a way to order Velvia100, because they only had Velvia100f and didn't understand it was different. After that, they said it was discontinued and again I had to argue with the guy and tell him he could still get it... And convinced him by showing him that Adorama had it and that I would have to buy from them instead if he didn't find a way to get some.

So suddenly they had the new box style Velvia100 in stock...

I would email him and be like "why is it showing discontinued! It's not!" And see what he says. At least they respond to emails, though, it takes a few days usually...

Oren Grad
11-Mar-2014, 18:02
B&H lists anything "discontinued" they can't get.

Yes. But in fact, 8x10 TMY was discontinued by Kodak as a regular stock item, and remains special-order only under Kodak Alaris:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/2013_filmCatalogSpecOrder.jhtml

When B&H shows 8x10 TMY in stock, it likely means that they've decided to invest in a special order. If you watch their sheet film listings carefully you'll see that they do this from time to time - beyond TMY, in recent months I've spotted 5x7 color neg and 4x10 Ilford HP5 Plus and Delta 100 in stock for a while.

Roger Cole
11-Mar-2014, 18:07
Well I will say this, I certainly had some emulsion lifts with mine using ilfostop. And I was told that using a water bath stop would correct for this. I never ended up trying to see, as it wasn't a huge deal, and I decided that I didn't want to go with FOMA anyway as my main film, but it wasn't terrible by any means. And none of the issues had to do with scratching the emulsion.

Anyway we are way off track here I think, sorry about that.

I use a citric acid based stop though I'm not sure that makes any difference.

You can also mix the stop 1/2 strength. It will still be acidic enough to evenly stop development and be less prone to problems if there are any.

I don't think it's really OT much less way OT. Thread is about Kodak film prices, discussion naturally turns to alternatives, it seems not OT to me to talk about how to use those alternatives without issues (though again it seems to me the real alternative is Ilford, not Foma/Arista.)

Edit : Fixed to read "seems NOT OT" ;)

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 18:40
I use a citric acid based stop though I'm not sure that makes any difference.

You can also mix the stop 1/2 strength. It will still be acidic enough to evenly stop development and be less prone to problems if there are any.

I don't think it's really OT much less way OT. Thread is about Kodak film prices, discussion naturally turns to alternatives, it seems OT to me to talk about how to use those alternatives without issues (though again it seems to me the real alternative is Ilford, not Foma/Arista.)

Agreed with all you said.

dsphotog
11-Mar-2014, 21:29
HO:Y CRAP!!!
While we were whining about TMY 8x10 prices, BH quit even listing it!

I hope Ilford stays in business.

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 21:33
HO:Y CRAP!!!
While we were whining about TMY 8x10 prices, BH quit even listing it!

I hope Ilford stays in business.

Ya snooze ya lose!

Ilford is the only company I'm NOT worried about.

Kodachrome25
11-Mar-2014, 21:45
Ya snooze ya lose!

Ilford is the only company I'm NOT worried about.

Please Stone, really?

You can get 8x10 TMY through Canham just like TMX, Ektar, Porta...

I am getting really fed up with this provocative shit man, really, stop being part of the problem and start being a part of the solution...

dsphotog
11-Mar-2014, 21:47
Sometime in the future, people will read this thread and marvel at how cheap film was, in the good ol' days, when it was still being made way back in 2014.

Bottom line, I'm happy to be able to get film at all.
Looks like that digital stuff is catching on.

Daniel Stone
11-Mar-2014, 22:15
Sometime in the future, people will read this thread and marvel at how cheap film was, in the good ol' days, when it was still being made way back in 2014.

Bottom line, we should be happy we can get film at any price.

As much as I agree with the "be happy you can get film still" idea, I don't believe that a corporation like Kodak(heck, even a place like B+H) has to RAPE(yes, I use that term realistically as a description as to what I see them doing here) us photographers with "bend over backwards, we're selling you 24 karat gold in a box" prices... Utter horsesh** in my opinion. I prefer TMY for rollfilm use, and would continue to use it in sheet form IF it was priced more competitively compared to Ilford's offerings now. I've been an ardent Kodak/Alaris fan up until now, but if something doesn't change really quick, they're cutting their own throat here.

Silver prices are down compared to the bubbled up prices from a few years back($21.10 USD/oz as of my writing this), and have been down for quite a while now. Besides Tmax was designed to use LESS silver anyhow as inherent in its design formulation compared to more "traditional" emulsions.

If a company as chock full of brains as Kodak/Alaris is, you'd think that there's at least 1-2 that would say "If we want to continue selling this stuff, we need to sell it at prices people can actually afford to buy it at!"

-Dan

Kodachrome25
11-Mar-2014, 22:41
From the time I started shooting LF in May of 2012, Ilford upped the price on a 100 sheet box of Delta 100 twice from just under $100 to $129, Acros went up several times to a whopping $2.85 a sheet and now TMY goes from from $86.50 down to $85 and then up to $109 a box. Do you see the pattern here? None of those companies are bound by a union, they increase prices as needed, the percentages are all over the map...

I am not at *all* surprised at how Kodak finally increased price on sheet film, it is going to keep happening with ALL makers of film. I am however very surprised at how utterly juvenile people are being about it in expecting one company to follow the other's lead in terms of how they conduct business...that is moronic.

What are you going to do when in 5-10 years from now and if Kodak and Fuji films are gone, Ilford has to overcome a new unforeseen business challenge that would see them up the price of a sheet of Delta 100 to over $3?

Are you going to crap all over them too via your precious internet personas?

StoneNYC
11-Mar-2014, 22:42
Please Stone, really?

You can get 8x10 TMY through Canham just like TMX, Ektar, Porta...

I am getting really fed up with this provocative shit man, really, stop being part of the problem and start being a part of the solution...

Sorry Dan,

In another thread you pointed out that you're able to purchase 20 boxes of your favorite film and cycle through it and then purchase more as your supply dwindles...

My supply is 1 box...

So if suddenly the supply runs out, all of my learning that particular films characteristics and reactions to X and Y situation, goes out the window. If the film isn't CONSTANTLY available for purchase FOR ME, then it's not a viable option.

On the other hand, Rodinal is cheap, so I can buy a few bottles and "deal" with inconsistent supply because I'm able to stock up, and the supply lasts forever. So from your perspective it doesn't matter much, but for those of us with less $ capability, supply flow is a HUGE factor, add to that the increase in price over other products, and you have to realize the product just won't work for some people.

Please accept that, and you will be less stressed.

On the same note, if Canham carried Velvia50, I would be in touch with them. Thankfully Kodak's color film prices are on par with Fuji's, and I know that if kodak is still producing color when Fuji "quits" I'll have a viable option to switch. I am glad that kodak prices for color film are competitive and that's a good sign for the future of kodak.

My guess is that eventually Kodak will be the last color film company and ilford will be the last B&W film company... And so that was what my statement meant. This is opinion and projection from what I see the future could hold, hence my comment about ilford. I'm sorry if this upset you, and thanks for the reminder.

Oren Grad
11-Mar-2014, 23:27
Kodak discontinued TMX and TMY as regular stock items in 8x10 size THREE YEARS AGO. B&H carries them to the extent that it places special orders for its own account. Canham doesn't "carry" anything - it aggregates orders to meet the MOQ for a Kodak special order.

Here is the current list of Kodak Alaris stock items:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/2013_filmCatalog.jhtml

If you want a black and white film that you can count on having available in 8x10 off the shelf from multiple US retail sources, right now your only choice is Ilford. If you like TMY in large sizes, you need to plan ahead and keep your own buffer stock. Again, this is not new - the change occurred three years ago, and was well publicized and chewed over on the discussion boards at the time.

StoneNYC
12-Mar-2014, 00:00
Kodak discontinued TMX and TMY as regular stock items in 8x10 size THREE YEARS AGO. B&H carries them to the extent that it places special orders for its own account. Canham doesn't "carry" anything - it aggregates orders to meet the MOQ for a Kodak special order.

Here is the current list of Kodak Alaris stock items:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/2013_filmCatalog.jhtml

If you want a black and white film that you can count on having available in 8x10 off the shelf from multiple US retail sources, right now your only choice is Ilford. If you like TMY in large sizes, you need to plan ahead and keep your own buffer stock. Again, this is not new - the change occurred three years ago, and was well publicized and chewed over on the discussion boards at the time.

Darn, I wasn't in LF "back then" ...

Also, this list tells me my plans to possibly use EKTAR100 in 8x10 when Velvia50 is gone won't work...

Sigh...

Buying large stock and planning ahead is in my future...

jnantz
12-Mar-2014, 05:25
Darn, I wasn't in LF "back then" ...

Also, this list tells me my plans to possibly use EKTAR100 in 8x10 when Velvia50 is gone won't work...

Sigh...

Buying large stock and planning ahead is in my future...


thanks, i needed a good laugh this morning

... and you thought $2.20 / sheet or 6$ / sheet was expensive ...
8x10 color film stock is between 16 + 18$ / sheet

and then you need to figure out a way to get a print out of it ...

personally i love shooting 5x7 slide film and rephotographing it with my cellphone

Kodachrome25
12-Mar-2014, 08:15
Ok, Stone, move to Ilford products and leave Kodak alone, stop making a point at every chance you can to grandstand that you are no longer choosing Kodak.

In order for you to be a financially sound professional photographer who uses film like you aspire to be, you need to identify your markets, make sure you are producing in the top 5% of that market, market accordingly, make sound investments using long term strategies that you can readily employ and stop wasting your time on the Internet. Period.

Lots of people are going to continue to buy Kodak films, it's ok if you are not one of them but it is not ok to keep dragging these browbeating discussions along as some form of vindictive outburst. If the enemy is digital, and it is, then stop fighting with your allies.

You are never going to succeed if you keep racking up post counts on the Internet...

ScottPhotoCo
12-Mar-2014, 10:21
Ok, Stone, move to Ilford products and leave Kodak alone, stop making a point at every chance you can to grandstand that you are no longer choosing Kodak.

In order for you to be a financially sound professional photographer who uses film like you aspire to be, you need to identify your markets, make sure you are producing in the top 5% of that market, market accordingly, make sound investments using long term strategies that you can readily employ and stop wasting your time on the Internet. Period.

Lots of people are going to continue to buy Kodak films, it's ok if you are not one of them but it is not ok to keep dragging these browbeating discussions along as some form of vindictive outburst. If the enemy is digital, and it is, then stop fighting with your allies.

You are never going to succeed if you keep racking up post counts on the Internet...

Amen.

djdister
12-Mar-2014, 19:01
For those that are interested, this is a screen capture of the ad that I keep seeing with the new $128.94 price tag.111982

You should ignore those spontaneous pop-up ads - they are generated by a third party service based on your browsing history and loosely set cookies. The prices in those ads should not be relied on. When I go directly to the B&H website I get consistent prices on film.

Tin Can
12-Mar-2014, 19:06
I just ordered more 11x14 Ilford HP5.

B&H cheapest and free shipping.

jp
2-Apr-2014, 05:41
113199
Found this ad on my facebook news feed at about the 10 hour old mark.

$65 TMY2 8x10!

Clicked on it and it was all gone :-(

Sal Santamaura
2-Apr-2014, 13:00
I also noticed while double checking the TMY price at B&H that they list TMY in 8x10 as "discontinued", is that a recent development or something that happened a while back that I just never noticed (since I don't shoot 8x10)?


HO:Y CRAP!!!
While we were whining about TMY 8x10 prices, BH quit even listing it!...As explained by Oren, that was simply because they had sold out their special order stock. More now available:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html

dsphotog
2-Apr-2014, 15:52
As explained by Oren, that was simply because they had sold out their special order stock. More now available:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html


Good news!

Drew Wiley
2-Apr-2014, 16:08
TMY is basically an addictive substance. Use it once and you'll pay whatever you have to.

Kodachrome25
2-Apr-2014, 21:35
TMY is basically an addictive substance. Use it once and you'll pay whatever you have to.

I might have a quote for my sig line, thanks!

Michael Kadillak
7-Apr-2014, 07:21
TMY is basically an addictive substance. Use it once and you'll pay whatever you have to.

Absolutely spot on. I used to just let it fly in the field with TMY in years past but no longer. I now regularly come back to the darkroom with only one side of a holder exposed. The net result driven by necessity is that I am continuing to hone in on using Ilford as a viable option given its half cost position in the market. I continue to wonder why if you have the best product in the market why Aleris would not drop the price 35-40% for a short time because the increase in revenue would easily make up the margin discount. I would probably be buying another chest freezer under that scenario.

StoneNYC
7-Apr-2014, 08:01
Absolutely spot on. I used to just let it fly in the field with TMY in years past but no longer. I now regularly come back to the darkroom with only one side of a holder exposed. The net result driven by necessity is that I am continuing to hone in on using Ilford as a viable option given its half cost position in the market. I continue to wonder why if you have the best product in the market why Aleris would not drop the price 35-40% for a short time because the increase in revenue would easily make up the margin discount. I would probably be buying another chest freezer under that scenario.

Ironically, I'm still keeping TMY-2 as an option in case Acros100 shuts down (good reciprocity failure reasons) etc.

Drew Wiley
7-Apr-2014, 08:26
I took only one shot this week, and it was 8x10 TMY, even though though it was a memorably beautiful day with wildflowers and fascinating rock formations everywhere. I'm am strongly rooting for all the machine-gunners out there, who shoot lots of film and keep reordering it. But I don't shoot something unless I intend
to print it. But it all seems to work out, budget-wise. One thinks twice about wasting 8x10 shots. There are inevitable goofs and near-misses, and nobody hits a
home run every time. I don't know what the Kodak/Alaris profit margin is, but plenty of people go out of business precisely because they don't have a realistic profit
buffer. I squirm at at the price of 8x10 film, esp color, but also realize that I'd rather pay more and have it around tommorrow than whine later, if the business model failed. Sustainability is the key these days.

Sal Santamaura
7-Apr-2014, 09:01
...I continue to wonder why if you have the best product in the market why Aleris would not drop the price 35-40% for a short time because the increase in revenue would easily make up the margin discount...In addition to manufacturing RA-4 paper itself, Kodak Alaris is a British marketing/distribution entity for film manufactured by Eastman Kodak Company in the latter company's Rochester, New York Building 38 facility. Volume of Kodak film sales is a miniscule fraction of what it once was, but the coating line in Building 38 is sized for "the good old days." None of us are privy to Kodak Alaris' supply agreement with Eastman Kodak, but I strongly suspect there are two problems with dropping the price as you suggest. First, wholesale cost may already be so high and margins so low that any price reductions are not viable. Second, any resulting percentage increase in revenue is likely to be calculated on a baseline that's already vanishingly small. It's a tough business case to make.

Last Thursday, Kodak Alaris' new CEO, Ralf Gebershagen, posted this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A3ClKy3E98

In it, he asks for questions and comments. On Saturday I emailed him the following message:


Dear Mr. Gerbershagen,

You asked for questions -- here are mine.


What contractual commitment do you have from Eastman Kodak Company to continue producing the current range of Kodak still camera films?


Is it connected to sales volume?
Does it relate to the manufacturing of motion picture film, which Eastman Kodak can reasonably expect to plummet when existing contracts end next year?
Is there some date after which or sales volume floor below which Eastman Kodak is no longer obligated to coat films for Kodak Alaris?



In the event that Eastman Kodak Company, for one or more of the reasons listed above, ceases to be a Kodak Alaris supplier of still camera films, does your agreement with it include any provision for transitioning production of existing Kodak-branded still films from Building 38 in Rochester, New York to your facility at Harrow?


Would associated engineering/manufacturing personnel and intellectual property be transferred to Kodak Alaris?
Can your coating line at Harrow be switched back and forth between RA-4 paper and the film products without undue disruption?
If neither Eastman Kodak supply nor relocated production in Harrow are available, does your agreement permit Kodak Alaris to source still camera films elsewhere and use the Kodak brand on them?



Thank you in advance for your answers. Photography forums around the world are abuzz with rumor and speculation, none of which is based on facts or knowledge. This situation cannot be positive for Kodak Alaris. In my opinion, sharing factual information is the only way you can prevent customers from fleeing to other film sources in the face of uncertainty.

Best regards,

Sal Santamaura

Perhaps Mr. Gerbershagen's response (if any :) ) will offer some insight concerning future availability and prices of Kodak-branded films, TMY in particular. Or not. :D:D

Drew Wiley
7-Apr-2014, 11:34
Sustainability. They scaled down the line so that they don't have to coat such big batches, but can do it more frequently as needed. That's a good business model. Eliminate redundancy. Fewer films, but the remaining ones are very high quality, more versatile, and have a distinct market niche. Don't subsidize an unrelated part of the corporation with film sales. Operate for hard profit rather than smoke and mirrors on the stock market. They've done all that. So they don't need anywhere near the cumulative volume to be profitable as they once did. Why would they want to relocate? And why on earth would anyone want to make film on the same line as linty paper? That sounds like something certain plants in Eastern Europe did, and drove everyone crazy with quality issues. Ilford knows better than to do that. Why would Alaris? And a move wouldn't just an intellectual property transition. You'd need the equipment and the experience talent behind it. Ron Mowrey over on APUG has already addressed some of these very questions and provided realistic answers. But nobody has a perfect crystal ball.

Sal Santamaura
7-Apr-2014, 12:27
...They scaled down the line so that they don't have to coat such big batches, but can do it more frequently as needed...Based on everything I've been able to glean from Ron Mowery's posts, Bldg. 38's line (the only one left / in use) was built for massive volumes Kodak was selling in the late 1990s. He also indicates that the necessarily huge master rolls are coated infrequently so as to not overproduce for current low demand.


...And why on earth would anyone want to make film on the same line as linty paper?...Ilford knows better than to do that...Because it's the one and only coating line available. That's exactly what Ilford does.



...Why would Alaris? And a move wouldn't just an intellectual property transition. You'd need the equipment and the experience talent behind it...As stated in my question to Ralf Gerbershagen, Alaris might do that if/when Eastman Kodak Company is no longer able or willing to be a supplier of still films. Since Alaris currently uses its coating line at Harrow to make RA-4 paper, if its Rochester supplier of still films dropped out and it wished to continue selling still films under the Kodak brand, there would only be two choices. Coat them itself at Harrow or purchase them from a third-party supplier and slap a Kodak label on them.

One would obviously need equipment, IP and personnel to coat film at Harrow. Alaris already has coating equipment there. That's why my question to Gerbershagen asked whether the IP and personnel would transfer from Eastman Kodak to Alaris in such an eventuality.

It's easy to dismiss this scenario in the hope that TMY-2 will flow forever from Bldg. 38. Pondering what is more likely to happen can be depressing. Nonetheless, reality always wins out.

Tin Can
7-Apr-2014, 12:29
Since I never used TMY, I better try it now.

I know I have an addictive personality. I am also an obsessive collector.

See you all on the other side...

Drew Wiley
7-Apr-2014, 12:51
Sal - they're apparently using the small batch coater previously used for R&D. And they're running things like TMY, Ektar, and Portras rather frequently. Paper is a
different game, and the switchover would involve tremendous scrubbing, which Harman even has to do between different kinds of paper to avoid contamination issues with different kinds of emulsion. Rolls are RA4 paper are still being made quite large by both both Kodak and Fuji, so I don't see how they could use the same machine.
The demand for paper is also very high in terms of square footage. Obviously lots of digital printing is done RA4 and not just inkjet. But tell us what you find out.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If one kind of film or paper dries up, I'll just learn another one. That has been the case in photography as long as I can remember. Even when something wasn't broke, it seems someone always wanted to fix it anyway. Marketing.

Sal Santamaura
7-Apr-2014, 12:56
... I have noticed that B&H is also increasing prices on Ilford films and papers also, just not quite as big as that TMY increase...Since there's been a lot of discussion about larger sheet sizes in this thread, may I point out that B&H's price for 8x10 Delta 100 was recently reduced by $5.00 per 25-sheet box:


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/108315-REG/Ilford_1743490_Delta_100_Professional_8x10_25.html

Developed using XTOL in Jobo Expert drums, I get a true EI 200 from this film. Seems like a great, reasonably-priced alternative to TMY. :)

Sal Santamaura
7-Apr-2014, 12:58
...they're apparently using the small batch coater previously used for R&D. And they're running things like TMY, Ektar, and Portras rather frequently...Can you please provide a link to where Ron Mowery (or anyone else in the know) stated this? Thanks in advance.

Drew Wiley
7-Apr-2014, 13:49
I can't recall exactly. He's posted so much regarding Kodak, since he worked there for so long. I think it might have been related to a thread on Kodak pension issues, which drifted that way. You can always ask him yourself. Just e-mail him. I'm just like you - relying on second-hand information, since I obviously haven't visited the current plant myself. A lot of the potential complication has to do with the general site overhead, and what might happen as it gets converted to cute little boutiques and Starbucks or whatever. At what point does hard industry get kicked out? There was some concern about this. But I'd imagine a lot of hazmat issues stand in the way of that happening fast - or at least it would around here, or most reasonably educated communities. There's no much any of can do anyway, except buy what amount of film we realistically can, and put some in the freezer. We've got way bigger things to worry about over the next few decades.

Sal Santamaura
7-Apr-2014, 14:37
...Last Thursday, Kodak Alaris' new CEO, Ralf Gebershagen, posted this video...In it, he asks for questions and comments. On Saturday I emailed him the following message...Moments ago I received a reply from Mr. Gabershagen thanking me for reaching out to him. He wrote that he'd forwarded my message to Kodak Alaris' Director of Operations / VP in the UK and Film Capture Business Manager in Rochester so they can "assist with my questions."

I'll post again if/when substantive answers are received.

Sal Santamaura
7-Apr-2014, 17:28
...they're apparently using the small batch coater previously used for R&D...From page 55 of Bob Shanebrook's book "Making KODAK Film:"


"...Building 38...one of two operating Kodak traditional silver halide film coating production machines in the world. Building 38 primarily makes camera films for still and motion picture photography...The second photographic film coating machine, which is of similar size and capacity, is...located in Building 29, next door to Building 38. Both machines have the capability of making a wide variety of films...many films, including motion picture print films, have been made on both machines...though the [Building 29] machine is older, it has been retrofitted with state-of-the-art technology, some of which was developed for Building 38..."

I added the bold italics in that excerpt. So, no joy in terms of it being "smaller."

Update: Bob's book was published in 2010. Slightly less than one year ago, he posted this on APUG


http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1484408

reporting that Kodak demolished Building 29. So, even less joy, since the second line doesn't even exist any longer.

Drew Wiley
8-Apr-2014, 08:37
It takes awhile to publish any book, Sal, so even if it was dated yesterday, the information would not be current. Kodak obviously owned high-end prototyping coaters for R&D purposes. No such company could function without small batch prototyping ability. So your worries don't really tell us anything other than our usual guesses and rumors. Somebody either needs to visit the current facility or get a definitive answer from someone directly involved. Besides, some have depended for years on film sources far more tenuous than this. With all the selection out there, it pretty likely someone will be cutting high-quality 8x10 black and white film as long as we need it. I'd hate to lose TMY - it's a wonderful product; but color neg sheet film is really where the Kodak label is crucial at the moment.

StoneNYC
8-Apr-2014, 08:38
It takes awhile to publish any book, Sal, so even if it was dated yesterday, the information would not be current. Kodak obviously owned high-end prototyping coaters for R&D purposes. No such company could function without small batch prototyping ability. So your worries don't really tell us anything other than our usual guesses and rumors. Somebody either needs to visit the current facility or get a definitive answer from someone directly involved. Besides, some have depended for years on film sources far more tenuous than this. With all the selection out there, it pretty likely someone will be cutting high-quality 8x10 black and white film as long as we need it. I'd hate to lose TMY - it's a wonderful product; but color neg sheet film is really where the Kodak label is crucial at the moment.

Drews information will always be more up to date than any book you read ;)

Drew Wiley
8-Apr-2014, 08:54
Have you ever published anything, Stone?

Tin Can
8-Apr-2014, 08:58
But, he is correct. I worked in a huge factory all my life and we prototyped everything. We had a big hand made unit, that would fabricate our product asap. We made one offs all the time. We had huge coating lines, giant rolls of all kinds of materials and even used photo processes on a big scale. We were 100% self contained in a single million sq ft building. R&D, production, sales and shipping. I was R&D, I saw it all.


Drews information will always be more up to date than any book you read ;)

StoneNYC
8-Apr-2014, 11:06
Have you ever published anything, Stone?

Yup, poetry :-p

(Some minor photography published in articles on mashable, but nothing hardcover on the photo front).

Sal Santamaura
9-Apr-2014, 12:24
Moments ago I received a reply from Mr. Gabershagen thanking me for reaching out to him. He wrote that he'd forwarded my message to Kodak Alaris' Director of Operations / VP in the UK and Film Capture Business Manager in Rochester so they can "assist with my questions."

I'll post again if/when substantive answers are received.Yesterday morning the Film Capture Business Manager (heritage Eastman Kodak, located in Rochester), having been delegated to deal with my questions, sent a reply of exactly the nature I expected:



"Dear Mr. Santamaura,

As you've noted, our award-winning portfolio of consumer and professional films are manufactured in Eastman Kodak's world-class film factory via a supply agreement. Unfortunately, due to commercial and contractual reasons it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly.

That said, film is our heritage. Kodak Alaris remains committed to the film capture business and has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Mooney | Product Line Business Mgr - Film Capture | "

While he might have included a blind copy to the CEO, what I received was addressed to only me. I quickly sent this follow up to both him and Ralf Gabershagen:



"Dear Mr. Mooney and Mr. Gabershagen,

I anticipated you might be bound by PIAs with Eastman Kodak Company that would prevent you from answering my questions. It nonetheless seemed worthwhile to ask them, on the off chance that a subset fell within the "allowable" range. Mr. Mooney's response included the phrase "it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly." Does that mean there are any you can answer? If so, I look forward to hearing more.

My inquiry reflects the interest of a lifelong Kodak film user whose late mother was even a Kodak employee seven decades ago. It has been painful to watch the brand plunge toward oblivion while corporate management made decisions that appeared to have enhanced external forces conspiring against silver halide imaging, rather than working against them. Lately, substantial price increases for Kodak film, combined with the kind of vague statements found in Alaris communications, including Mr. Mooney's response ("Kodak Alaris...has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future"), have convinced me that the foreseeable future ends very soon. Perhaps as soon as next year. I take no pleasure from this and hoped that, if you could disseminate substantive, positive answers, your loyal customers would be willing to pay higher prices and stick with your film products. Absent such transparency, I suspect flight to competitors' films will continue unabated, if not increase rapidly. Already some of your staunchest supporters have publicly indicated that much of their work is now being done using non-Kodak films.

While the "contractual reasons" Mr. Mooney cites for inability to disclose information may not be easily overcome, in my opinion perpetuating secrecy on these matters for "commercial reasons" is exactly the wrong decision. If KPP accepted Kodak Alaris as the best bankruptcy deal it could extract and hopes to milk film sales for as long as Eastman Kodak will coat product, then abandon the market, you might do well enough. However, if Kodak Alaris has any desire to continue in the film business after Building 38's coating line joins Building 29's on the scrap heap, I strongly suggest a much more open dialog with your customers. That's the only thing imaginable which might motivate them to stick with you at today's prices.

My sincere best wishes for success.

Sal Santamaura"

I waited a full day before posting this in case anything further came from either of them. It's been silent. Given how Gebershagen responded to the Rochester, New York Democrat and Chronicle newspaper's questions in this article


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/08/kodak-alaris-ceo-lots-change-quickly/7465411/

I'm neither surprised, expecting real information from Alaris nor able to conclude its "commitment" to film differs in any way from that of Eastman Kodak.

Michael Kadillak
9-Apr-2014, 12:42
Yesterday morning the Film Capture Business Manager (heritage Eastman Kodak, located in Rochester), having been delegated to deal with my questions, sent a reply of exactly the nature I expected:



"Dear Mr. Santamaura,

As you've noted, our award-winning portfolio of consumer and professional films are manufactured in Eastman Kodak's world-class film factory via a supply agreement. Unfortunately, due to commercial and contractual reasons it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly.

That said, film is our heritage. Kodak Alaris remains committed to the film capture business and has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Mooney | Product Line Business Mgr - Film Capture | "

While he might have included a blind copy to the CEO, what I received was addressed to only me. I quickly sent this follow up to both him and Ralf Gabershagen:



"Dear Mr. Mooney and Mr. Gabershagen,

I anticipated you might be bound by PIAs with Eastman Kodak Company that would prevent you from answering my questions. It nonetheless seemed worthwhile to ask them, on the off chance that a subset fell within the "allowable" range. Mr. Mooney's response included the phrase "it is not possible for us to answer many of your questions directly." Does that mean there are any you can answer? If so, I look forward to hearing more.

My inquiry reflects the interest of a lifelong Kodak film user whose late mother was even a Kodak employee seven decades ago. It has been painful to watch the brand plunge toward oblivion while corporate management made decisions that appeared to have enhanced external forces conspiring against silver halide imaging, rather than working against them. Lately, substantial price increases for Kodak film, combined with the kind of vague statements found in Alaris communications, including Mr. Mooney's response ("Kodak Alaris...has the ability to meet the needs of our customers for the foreseeable future"), have convinced me that the foreseeable future ends very soon. Perhaps as soon as next year. I take no pleasure from this and hoped that, if you could disseminate substantive, positive answers, your loyal customers would be willing to pay higher prices and stick with your film products. Absent such transparency, I suspect flight to competitors' films will continue unabated, if not increase rapidly. Already some of your staunchest supporters have publicly indicated that much of their work is now being done using non-Kodak films.

While the "contractual reasons" Mr. Mooney cites for inability to disclose information may not be easily overcome, in my opinion perpetuating secrecy on these matters for "commercial reasons" is exactly the wrong decision. If KPP accepted Kodak Alaris as the best bankruptcy deal it could extract and hopes to milk film sales for as long as Eastman Kodak will coat product, then abandon the market, you might do well enough. However, if Kodak Alaris has any desire to continue in the film business after Building 38's coating line joins Building 29's on the scrap heap, I strongly suggest a much more open dialog with your customers. That's the only thing imaginable which might motivate them to stick with you at today's prices.

My sincere best wishes for success.

Sal Santamaura"

I waited a full day before posting this in case anything further came from either of them. It's been silent. Given how Gebershagen responded to the Rochester, New York Democrat and Chronicle newspaper's questions in this article


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/08/kodak-alaris-ceo-lots-change-quickly/7465411/

I'm neither surprised, expecting real information from Alaris nor able to conclude its "commitment" to film differs in any way from that of Eastman Kodak.

My thanks for taking the time to chase this concern on behalf of all analog photographers.

Drew Wiley
9-Apr-2014, 12:43
Gosh ... In my world, entire perfectly healthy corporations which have survived the Great Depression, World War, you name, are dropping like flies simply due to the
capriciousness of a few greedy individuals and their stock market high-jinx. Everything I see in this instance, however, I'd interpret as a step in the right direction.
Smaller overhead, more tightly defined marketing target, high-quality product with a dedicated following... There simply is no way to engineer risk out of everything. All it takes is one well-placed jackass to ruin any mfg corp. I can't lose sleep over this kind of "what-if" thing. That's my day job. If I can't afford to shoot it routinely, I'll just skip a shot here and there, or take a break with smaller format. I still want the quality results this film gives.

Sal Santamaura
9-Apr-2014, 13:10
...Everything I see in this instance, however, I'd interpret as a step in the right direction. Smaller overhead, more tightly defined marketing target, high-quality product with a dedicated following...I'm not sure what "step in the right direction" you see. The Eastman Kodak overhead, save for retirees and suppliers it shafted through bankruptcy, is still there when coating film. The same G&A expenses, huge minimum master roll sizes. Now an entirely separate company, Kodak Alaris, with its own overhead, has been added between the manufacturer and distribution chain. Marketing target seems unchanged; high-tech, social media apps, etc. Not film. The "dedicated following" seems to be following their best interests to lower-priced alternatives as much as possible.


...There simply is no way to engineer risk out of everything...What risk mitigation are you referring to? I inquired of Gabershagen in an attempt to determine whether anything is changing that would point the gun away from Kodak film's foot. Alaris' responses (and public statements) indicate to me that not only has the sight remained on target, the hammer is pulled back. End of motion picture film contractual production next year now firmly equates in my mind to pulling the trigger.


...I still want the quality results this film gives.Enjoy it now and fill as many freezers as you can. Also, learn to love whatever (if anything) Ferrania will coat in color. I don't think Fuji will be too far behind Kodak in completely exiting the film market.

Brian C. Miller
9-Apr-2014, 13:23
I don't think Fuji will be too far behind Kodak in completely exiting the film market.

Fuji won't exit the film market. They are dedicated to film, the CEO said so. He just didn't say what kind of film, what quantity, and what it would cost. Expect one roll of black & white, once a year, at a very steep price. Perhaps it will be auctioned off, and a Leica collector will buy it.

Drew Wiley
9-Apr-2014, 13:38
I see the glass half-full, you choose to see it half-empty. This is definitely NOT the same old Kodak. It has been restructured and cannot legally play the same games as the former giant octopus corporation. In other words, they can't go robbing one arm to subsidize a wild goose-chase with another arm. Film can pay for itself. Yes, a smaller market, but still huge worldwide. And again, you're making a sheer assumption about master roll sizes and how long it takes to sell them. Motion picture film is a different category on a different base than sheet film. Kodak's color negative film is very much in demand, and has a strong following. TMY replaces several other previous products, so should garner the combined sales potential of those. Even TMX has been easy to get in 8x10... maybe not in your corner drugstore; but it can be had if you need it, and somebody is sure buying up a lot of it on a routine basis. I really don't see how the nature of the game has changed at all. All kinds of favorite films have disappeared over the years, even in the heyday of film. Create a vacuum, and something or someone else will fill it.

StoneNYC
9-Apr-2014, 13:50
Fuji won't exit the film market. They are dedicated to film, the CEO said so. He just didn't say what kind of film, what quantity, and what it would cost. Expect one roll of black & white, once a year, at a very steep price. Perhaps it will be auctioned off, and a Leica collector will buy it.

He will leave and his successor will nix film... I can't see Fuji sticking to film longer than kodak, it frightens me, as essentially the entire Fuji line I use in my work.... :/

I suppose I'm one of the schmucks that kodak hopes will help them pay for the price increases, because I'm basically paying high prices compared to ilford because I want Fuji film's capabilities and the look they produce. Others would do the same for kodak and TMY-2, pay lots, because they utilize it and love it's look and characteristics...

Kodachrome25
9-Apr-2014, 19:44
The "dedicated following" seems to be following their best interests to lower-priced alternatives as much as possible.

Hi Sal,

I really like what you have been communicating on this thread, pretty level headed and it made me write in today too...

Now, with this I am a little surprised that you would say that Kodak's loyal following is going elsewhere for cheaper goods. The only basis I think you have for this is what you read on the web forums like this one. I know far more photographers who are not on sites like these than I do ones who are and a good number of them are still very much buying Kodak films. So I think we have to be careful here which you generally are, just thought I would point that out though...

And what we should *never* assume is that we know all that is going on at Kodak, ever and the speculation often starts to sound like someone knows something they really do not. Because the important numbers, the ones some seem so desperate to know, well we are not privy to those and that is the way it should be. We are also not privy to what is being concluded from a question asked probably 15 years ago at this point, that being what can kodak do to rescale to serve a film market that is about 5-10% of what Building 38 was designed to fill?

Every one of these companies conducts both business and PR differently. Ilford is an exception not only in photography but in most business cases. But they weathered the storm and got to the new market lean and mean before *any* film company did so they know exactly who they are and therefore are very comfortable in addressing their customers. The business they are engaged in right now was very much their plan all along, they knew color would disappear as it will so they made the right moves.

When Kodak gets to a landmark point, be it they are exiting film or have come up with a way to rescale and fill demand for Kodak film products beyond riding on the tails of MP contracts, we will find out...on their terms and that folks is business as usual for most large companies, like it or not. I expect nothing less from Kodak and I take a middle of the road approach to hedging my bets in where they might be with film in 3-5 years.


I understand you can not stop speculation, it is far easier a hobby than going out and finding some awesome light or some brilliant composition...but it really does more harm than good, its rarely pretty.

Sal Santamaura
9-Apr-2014, 21:07
Hi Sal,

I really like what you have been communicating on this thread, pretty level headed and it made me write in today too...Thanks Dan. The extent of baseless speculation, illogical conclusions and wishful thinking on Internet photography forums never ceases to amaze me. I'm retired from a (non-photographic) corporate career in engineering and have seen reality up close. Reality frequently sucks, but it's real. :) I try to inject as much as possible whenever possible.


...The "dedicated following" seems to be following their best interests to lower-priced alternatives as much as possible...


...Now, with this I am a little surprised that you would say that Kodak's loyal following is going elsewhere for cheaper goods. The only basis I think you have for this is what you read on the web forums like this one. I know far more photographers who are not on sites like these than I do ones who are and a good number of them are still very much buying Kodak films. So I think we have to be careful here which you generally are, just thought I would point that out though...Please note that the professional photographers you know who use Kodak film (and don't frequent Internet forums) are probably vanishingly small in number. Digital has captured (sorry, bad pun) the vast majority of pro work. So, I'm still comfortable with my statement, particularly if one gives appropriate weight to the last phrase in it, i.e. "as much as possible." All businesses must control costs, even those rare enterprises which might be able to bill material costs to clients. When a sheet of Kodak film costs nearly twice as much as that of another first-tier-quality producer, buying the more expensive product only makes sense when its unique capabilities are required.


...we should *never* assume...that we know all that is going on at Kodak, ever and the speculation often starts to sound like someone knows something they really do not...My questions to Kodak were written the way they were because we don't know anything that is going on there. I laid out two of the only three possible outcomes should Building 38's line be scrapped. Either Alaris will start coating at Harrow, Alaris will source film elsewhere and brand it "Kodak" or film branded Kodak will cease to exist. In any of those situations, the 320TXP, TMX and TMY-2 that users know now will no longer be available. Even moving the same formula to a different coating line results in very different product. Alaris' decision not to share any information on the matter means we will continue to know nothing until one of those changes occur. I maintain such an approach will only hurt Alaris.


...Ilford...knew color would disappear as it will...I agree and think that anyone used to Fuji or Kodak color products will be hugely disappointed if/when Ferrania offers color film again. In my opinion, it was sub-par when coated decades ago. The new startup has quite a mountain to climb. Regardless of claims to the contrary, I think color is best served by digital. Black and white is where silver halide shines.

Kodachrome25
9-Apr-2014, 22:47
Thanks for the reply Sal, actually only a few of those I refer to are pros, the rest are hobby shooters, for what that is worth...

Tin Can
9-Apr-2014, 23:02
I remember hearing 20 years ago that pros shot many times the total volume of all film than hobbyist users. Seemed logical at the time, but I am sure it has reversed now.



Thanks for the reply Sal, actually only a few of those I refer to are pros, the rest are hobby shooters, for what that is worth...

Drew Wiley
10-Apr-2014, 15:33
Doubt that, at least by square footage. Anyway, what we're concerned with is sheet film base, which places many of us in a no-man's land of hobbyist-pro, since
it's personal work, yet potentially salable. I know that entire batches of 8x10 TMX film are being regularly bought by a single industrial use. Have no idea who it is,
but I have bought some of the few remaining boxes from time to time. TMY is much more popular. Probably a lot of the significant users don't chime in on these web forums at all. ... But with respect to chrome film, probably most of the studio and commercial use has already checked out of town. How many people have switched over to color neg versus digi, I can't say. But a lot of the catalog, food, and stock photographers have obviously gone digi. I suspect that portraiture still favors colorneg work, though the bottom end of that -weddings - is another story. Yet the pendulum might be swinging back a little, cause if people want to make a buck, they need a niche, something different.

jp
11-Apr-2014, 09:39
I think TMX has a UV blocker in it, making it less suitable for alt process, which is kinda important for many artist/hobby customers. TMY has all the fine grain I'd want and faster is usually more convenient than slower except in the bright summer.

Drew Wiley
11-Apr-2014, 10:07
That seems to be the word on the street. But I know that TMX is being scanned by certain people for even larger digital-produced contact negs. I use it for lab
masks and separation negs, where it excels. For general photography, just like many others, I find the speed and better edge effect of TMY to be very desirable.

Kodachrome25
12-Apr-2014, 09:42
Not that I go there anymore because of how nasty and ignorant the place has become but when I went to log on and give feedback to a seller I happened to make the mistake of reading a thread with this (http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1635700) post in it:


"Get rid of TMX, there's enough competition from other 100 speeds and seeing that alternative processes are becoming more popular, the imitations of TMX will limit many."

This is about as ignorant and inconsiderate as it gets, to hell with the rest of us who want to depend on this product eh? I hope this was not "suggested" to the CEO but even if it was, I am sure it was laughed at because of how well TMX likely sells. As far as I am concerned, it has NO competition.

Telling a film maker to GET RID of a film? Wtf????!!!

StoneNYC
12-Apr-2014, 11:48
Not that I go there anymore because of how nasty and ignorant the place has become but when I went to log on and give feedback to a seller I happened to make the mistake of reading a thread with this (http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1635700) post in it:


"Get rid of TMX, there's enough competition from other 100 speeds and seeing that alternative processes are becoming more popular, the imitations of TMX will limit many."

This is about as ignorant and inconsiderate as it gets, to hell with the rest of us who want to depend on this product eh? I hope this was not "suggested" to the CEO but even if it was, I am sure it was laughed at because of how well TMX likely sells. As far as I am concerned, it has NO competition.

Telling a film maker to GET RID of a film? Wtf????!!!

Dan,

Did you read the whole post?

This is taken way out of context from what I said and the point of the post which was that my personal suggestion for keeping Kodak as a company around and to keep some important films was to make certain cuts to some of their lines and focus on being able to coat in the future using their current machinery.

The machinery that Kodak has is way larger and requires a much longer run a film in order to not have waste, this means coating a lot more of a product per run then other facilities.

As Film Sales dwindle, this will make it harder for Kodak to make any money off of their films because of the large amount of film they need to produce per run of the machine.

My suggestion was for them to cut out certain lines and focus on selling a smaller amount of film, instead of spreading themselves to send into many different markets...

This was the whole post...


Well for one trim the color product line to just Portra, and sell the non-passable runs as "Consumer Portra" instead of making a separate batch...

And cut one of the 400 speed lines...

Carrying two 400 (and one 320) speeds is a lot...
This might mean killing TX and TXP and just keeping TMY-2.

Get rid of TMX, there's enough competition from other 100 speeds and seeing that alternative processes are becoming more popular, the imitations of TMX will limit many.

This gives them the strongest films and gives them the ability to make bigger runs that they need to with their larger machine.

But! They need to communicate that with the customers instead of just doing it with no explanation or people will become afraid and flight will happen...


what I'm saying is that if Kodak doesn't cut some of their lines of film now, it'll be too late and in the future they won't be able to sustain them all because of the small amount of runs they would need to make any profit in the whole of Kodak would / will collapse.

I am saying that of all the film lines, the one that has the most competition is the 100 speed line... Period...

They have a better chance of surviving by keeping their more specialized and unique films that have little or no competition like TMY-2 etc.

And the most important line in that whole thing is the end in the last paragraph where I said that if they do this they first need to communicate with customers why they are doing it...

I think it's fairly ignorant to assume that a company that cannot scaled-down should simply continue to compete with other smaller competitors that can slow down, I don't think I'm being ignorant at all...

Tin Can
12-Apr-2014, 11:54
The trouble is American companies are known for not listening to anybody. The highly overpaid CEO answers only to major stockholders, if that. Short term thinking and golden parachutes are the rule of their world.

Kodachrome25
12-Apr-2014, 12:06
You spend SO much effing time speculating on things you have no idea about, no idea if they can or can not rescale and it shows time after time after god damn time Stone. If you contact most photo distributors like Eric Rose at Freestyle, Henry Posner at B&H and simply ASK you find that TMX in all formats sells very well. There are master photographers like John Sexton who use TMX in 90% of the work they do, tons of people choose it and depend on it so it is not about competing with other products when as far as these users are concerned, there is no competition.

It does not matter if I quote the whole post or not, the fact remains that to suggest that a company discontinue a top selling film because you think they can not figure out how to adapt to the new market? You have to be kidding me!

Suggesting Kodak get rid of a film is prolific and outstanding as TMX is a slap in the face to those who use it and promote film use in a positive way.

brucep
12-Apr-2014, 12:39
The trouble is American companies are known for not listening to anybody. The highly overpaid CEO answers only to major stockholders, if that. Short term thinking and golden parachutes are the rule of their world.

Except that Kodak is now British! They had to give the non movie part of the company to the British pension fund that had a hole bigger than some countries national debt. Only way they could get out of chapter 11.

jnantz
12-Apr-2014, 12:44
Did I miss something? At the end of last week I could have purchased a 50 sheet box of Kodak T-Max 400 (4x5) for $85 from B&H. In the next day or so, I start seeing ads from B&H saying that $85 is the sale price and the retail price is $99.95. On Sunday I go to place an order, and the price is $109.95! Now I'm seeing ads from B&H that shows $109.95 as the "sale" price with the retail price now at $128.94!
I always expect that film and paper prices are going to go up, but up by over 50% in less than a week? That kind of increase starts to make me nervous.
I have noticed that B&H is also increasing prices on Ilford films and papers also, just not quite as big as that TMY increase.
What happened?


yup its expensive
and will get more expensive ...

once i run out of all my film and paper
im making my own emulsion and coating my own
paper + glass + metal. it really doesn't take much effort
( i did it when i was 20 and in college with just a manual from 1904 .. no workshops, no internet &c )
and it costs less than buying it in a box ... and now there are places like denise ross' light farm
where the experienced help the less experienced ..

===
i have friends who are institutional chefs and cook for 500 all the time
they have wicked willpower when they come home and cook for 4
i just wonder if they could cook for 4 in their work-kitchen,
i don't think 4 eggs and a couple cups of flour reaches the paddle in the blogett
its the same thing with KODAK these days

hopefully they will figure it out ...
or they could always subcontract that guy in australia with the emulsion coating machine
(in his garage) to do all their film runs.

Tin Can
12-Apr-2014, 15:14
Well, the English have lost a few corporate battles.

This afternoon, I was advising the new owner, on care and feeding my 1967 BSA Lightning. He didn't listen much either and he's born Irish.


Except that Kodak is now British! They had to give the non movie part of the company to the British pension fund that had a hole bigger than some countries national debt. Only way they could get out of chapter 11.

StoneNYC
12-Apr-2014, 16:12
You spend SO much effing time speculating on things you have no idea about, no idea if they can or can not rescale and it shows time after time after god damn time Stone. If you contact most photo distributors like Eric Rose at Freestyle, Henry Posner at B&H and simply ASK you find that TMX in all formats sells very well. There are master photographers like John Sexton who use TMX in 90% of the work they do, tons of people choose it and depend on it so it is not about competing with other products when as far as these users are concerned, there is no competition.

It does not matter if I quote the whole post or not, the fact remains that to suggest that a company discontinue a top selling film because you think they can not figure out how to adapt to the new market? You have to be kidding me!

Suggesting Kodak get rid of a film is prolific and outstanding as TMX is a slap in the face to those who use it and promote film use in a positive way.

Dan, you spend just as much time as I do speculating.

And it doesn't matter how well TMX sells now if a year from now kodak realized it can't scale down small enough and the whole thing gets shut down.... There will be no kodak film at all...

That's what I'm saying... To save the WHOLE of kodak they will have to cut SOME films, or NONE will continue...

I don't known their sales but a few famous photographers who are financially successful can choose to afford to buy the higher prices, but most of the "regular" folk probably will choose to switch, that's my point... There are other TMX-like films that are good enough or better, so there is competition.

BUT TMY-2 does NOT have competition, it's unique and can't compare to many other 400 films... So they should focus their lines to their strongest line. That's all I'm saying, to save kodak.

BetterSense
12-Apr-2014, 16:54
I completely agree that TMX, while maybe the best in its speed class, has competition. TMY is really in a speed class of its own.

jnantz
12-Apr-2014, 19:35
MAYBE, they should do bi weekly seances and have george E.
give instructions from the grave on how they should run the company
much better than armchair quarterbacks.
hopefully ... he could suggest ADVERTISE their products
(something they haven't done in 15 years ).

then, i wonder what they are going to do when people need to have their film processed
seeing they no longer "do the rest" and most other photofinishers don't either.

StoneNYC
12-Apr-2014, 19:37
MAYBE, they should do bi weekly seances and have george E.
give instructions from the grave on how they should run the company
much better than armchair quarterbacks.
hopefully ... he could suggest ADVERTISE their products
(something they haven't done in 15 years ).

then, i wonder what they are going to do when people need to have their film processed
seeing they no longer "do the rest" and most other photofinishers don't either.

That too!

Most of the consumer public think kodak film stopped being made because of the "Kodakchrome ending" news reports....

They need to remind people.

AuditorOne
12-Apr-2014, 19:52
That too!

Most of the consumer public think kodak film stopped being made because of the "Kodakchrome ending" news reports....

They need to remind people.

I agree with this. I was out shooting some film at my grandson's little league baseball game this afternoon and was shooting my K1000. An older gentlemen (all of us older farts are gentlemen) stopped and commented on the K1000. We talked for a bit and he asked what I was using for film. I pulled a couple boxes of Tri-X out of my pocket and showed it to him. He said; "Wow, that must be old. Kodak stopped making film quite a while ago. In fact I heard that went bankrupt and went out of business."

This is not an isolated response. I get this all the time. Kodak Alaris desperately needs to spend some money promoting their film. I don't know whether or not it will change anything but it can't hurt to try. Maybe they should bring out the Brownie again. You press the shutter, we do the rest! It worked once. There may still be some magic in those old words. People are into Retro so it may be just the ticket again.

Tin Can
12-Apr-2014, 19:54
When is the Ilford Special Cutting this year?

AuditorOne
12-Apr-2014, 20:06
When is the Ilford Special Cutting this year? I think ordering starts in May.

jnantz
12-Apr-2014, 20:08
That too!

Most of the consumer public think kodak film stopped being made because of the "Kodakchrome ending" news reports....

They need to remind people.

most thought film stopped around 2003
when the CEO claimed FILM WAS DEAD ...
and then proceeded to dismantle everything
the company stood for ...

Tin Can
12-Apr-2014, 20:30
Thanks.


I think ordering starts in May.

Tin Can
12-Apr-2014, 20:31
Another genius CEO.


most thought film stopped around 2003
when the CEO claimed FILM WAS DEAD ...
and then proceeded to dismantle everything
the company stood for ...

Brian C. Miller
12-Apr-2014, 20:44
hopefully ... he could suggest ADVERTISE their products

I think that it's up to us to advertise film!

Scene: SD card left on a chair. Labrador pads up, sniffs, and wolfs down the card.
Man: (just sees dog eating card) NOOOOOOO!!! (grabs dog) Give that back! Give that back now!
Woman: You leave my dog alone! Don't you dare touch my dog!
Man: But your dog just ate my pictures!
Woman: I don't care! You'll just have to wait for them, won't you?
(scene later, man is sitting in a crouch behind the dog)
Man: Give it up! Nice boy, give it up!
Dog's butt: PPPHHHHHHTTT!

StoneNYC
12-Apr-2014, 20:54
I agree with this. I was out shooting some film at my grandson's little league baseball game this afternoon and was shooting my K1000. An older gentlemen (all of us older farts are gentlemen) stopped and commented on the K1000. We talked for a bit and he asked what I was using for film. I pulled a couple boxes of Tri-X out of my pocket and showed it to him. He said; "Wow, that must be old. Kodak stopped making film quite a while ago. In fact I heard that went bankrupt and went out of business."

This is not an isolated response. I get this all the time. Kodak Alaris desperately needs to spend some money promoting their film. I don't know whether or not it will change anything but it can't hurt to try. Maybe they should bring out the Brownie again. You press the shutter, we do the rest! It worked once. There may still be some magic in those old words. People are into Retro so it may be just the ticket again.

Yep, Holga and Lomography figured that out, their cameras are essentially brownie type (even cheaper!), and the film is overpriced and they can't even keep it in stock it sells so quickly...

Although I'm surprised ilford hasn't at least run a few combo adds about both film and paper.

A smart and clever British VoiceOver:

"Yes, it still exists, please remember that photographic film and paper, unlike British cars doesn't have wires, so our stuff doesn't have electrical problems!

We're committed to the photographic process, film, yes real film like your grandparents used, and photo print paper for the classic photographer and the modern photographer with our high quality ink printer paper, look to Ilford!"

The commercial could have a grandfather shooting with his older fashion camera, while the young grandson would be shooting with his digital camera and then you could show both of them showing each other how to print with their various process, the grandfather would have the grandson in the darkroom developing a print and the grandson could be showing the grandfather how to print stuff on the computer and they would be smiling and happy and connecting. And of course this would give you the opportunity to cross promote Canon printers for example and Canon Digital cameras to both save money and associate with the kind of photo equipment the modern world knows about. (And save money by having canon pay half the bill...). At the end of the commercial we see the father and mother coming home from an evening out and we realize that's why the grandfather and grandson were together as he was kid sitting, then you show them showing each other all the prints happy and smiling and... Wait for it...

British voice again "A perfect canon and ilford moment...." ZING!

PS: Dan, it's just a forum and no I didn't suggest anything to the new CEO about killing TMX, I'm saying it here because it's a thought I was sharing.

The only thing I shared with the CEO was about keeping all the main formats available in a given line. (IE 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10 and not cutting one out of the mix).

StoneNYC
12-Apr-2014, 20:57
I think that it's up to us to advertise film!

Scene: SD card left on a chair. Labrador pads up, sniffs, and wolfs down the card.
Man: (just sees dog eating card) NOOOOOOO!!! (grabs dog) Give that back! Give that back now!
Woman: You leave my dog alone! Don't you dare touch my dog!
Man: But your dog just ate my pictures!
Woman: I don't care! You'll just have to wait for them, won't you?
(scene later, man is sitting in a crouch behind the dog)
Man: Give it up! Nice boy, give it up!
Dog's butt: PPPHHHHHHTTT!

This could easily (and surely has) happened with film rolls / slides / pictures....

Michael Cienfuegos
12-Apr-2014, 21:50
This could easily (and surely has) happened with film rolls / slides / pictures....

My dog doesn't bother with the SD Card, he prefers those tasty 120 rolls. :(

m

Brian C. Miller
12-Apr-2014, 22:41
But does the dog eat the whole roll, or just chew and slobber on it?

I'm sure that no film manufacturer will bother with advertising film. I forget where I saw it, that for some products the advertising doesn't even pay for itself with increased sales.

Tin Can
12-Apr-2014, 23:05
I am right now watching a movie, 'Now is Good' about a terminally ill young lady.

Film is in much the same position. Film is dying and so are all of us. It is a delightful movie.

I acutely feel, that each day counts. 'Now is Good.'

These are the good old days.

ScottPhotoCo
12-Apr-2014, 23:36
But does the dog eat the whole roll, or just chew and slobber on it?

I'm sure that no film manufacturer will bother with advertising film. I forget where I saw it, that for some products the advertising doesn't even pay for itself with increased sales.

As an advertising professional for the past 25 years, if advertising is not showing results you should fire your advertising agency. We have resigned accounts that would not allow us to do work that would advance business goals and requirements. A good marketing plan should be planned, targeted and effective.

As the old quote goes, "Doing business without advertising is like winking at a girl in the dark. You know what your doing, but nobody else does".

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

tgtaylor
12-Apr-2014, 23:37
I just bought 3 pro packs of 135 Kodak Porta 160. The light, atmosphere, and colors today were absolutely gorgeous and I found the subjects to go with it. Tomorrow is supposed to be the same but as Heraclitus noted, we never step into the same stream twice. We'll see tomorrow. I've been out with the new F6 loaded with Porta and the 645NII with Acros but I may also bring a 4x5 with some Porta. This is the time for color.

Thomas

Kodachrome25
12-Apr-2014, 23:37
Does Ilford advertise? And if so, where? Because I can not see them advertising in a magazine chock full of digital. Maybe they advertise in PDN, Communication Arts? They advertise on APUG because they are a partner, logical move.

And I hear "Can you still get film for that thing?" too but most people I talk to only know Fuji and Kodak, have not a clue about Ilford, at least not the average person who would buy Fuji or Kodak print film and pick up their double rolls at the grocery store and call it good. Most people who would be at least serious hobby shooters would know how and where to get film and know that Kodak makes it. The other people some of you seem to think would buy film from Kodak if they advertised are never going to, they are all about convenience, not serious photography. They are digital and they are not coming back.

With that said and what Kodak and Ilford does on social media, they are advertising equally. I'm genuinely blown away by how out of touch some people are on here and act like Kodak owes them something. Through moves, means and methods that are NONE of our business, Kodak Alaris could find a way to maintain the current product line for years to come. But we are their customer, not the guy who used to get double prints at Longs Drugs with his el cheapo K1000 and peruse his snappy-snaps.

No sir, Ilford and Kodak are depending on social media, web forums and us to be the most effective proposition for the promotion of film based products. Shoot, post, share and talk about the great experiences made on these films...

But ironically enough, most of the talk about Kodak despite them having some of the best products in the business is not about the great films, great tales of how said users came about a photo...no, instead it is foul smelling windbagging over and over again about how Kodak should run it's business.

I am honestly surprised that some on here can even operate a camera let alone shoot a decent photograph, because some are utterly blind. And by the way, my plea to Kodak was to get someone like Simon Galley on at least APUG to stick a sock the windbag analysts who flat out never shut up like some damn Super Bowl announcer.

I realized something though and it made me feel at least a little better and that is that most people who are active members of sites like these don't bash film makers over and over again. They instead, choose their film products, make photos with it and stay out of this garbage.

Michael Cienfuegos
13-Apr-2014, 10:30
But does the dog eat the whole roll, or just chew and slobber on it?

I'm sure that no film manufacturer will bother with advertising film. I forget where I saw it, that for some products the advertising doesn't even pay for itself with increased sales.

He just likes to gnaw on it.

jnantz
13-Apr-2014, 11:57
I am right now watching a movie, 'Now is Good' about a terminally ill young lady.

Film is in much the same position. Film is dying and so are all of us. It is a delightful movie.

I acutely feel, that each day counts. 'Now is Good.'

These are the good old days.

thanks randy
you are right ..
if lived
like it was our
last day,
we'd all be
pretty happy.

things could change in an instant ..

jnantz
13-Apr-2014, 12:13
I think that it's up to us to advertise film!


well, that goes without saying ... but still if you want people
to know your product exists ( and a lot of the general public has no idea ( kodak) film still exists )
you need to somehow get the word out ... just relying on the handful of people
who currently use film really isn't going to help anymore sales, or spread the burden of sales
onto more people. its like asking 200 people to buy 10000 people's worth of stuff .. just because ...

it would be nice if somehow they teamed up
with dwaynes or a large photofinisher
or a link to a website with a list of local-minilabs
/ included information about processing ( with rolls sold )
so the regular guy on the street wouldn't have to deal ...
digital cameras are great for what they are have made it easy not to deal.
seeing a lot of people are in the not wanting to deal mode ...

im not sure where anyone came up with with film companies never advertise
i seem to remember ads throughout the 70s + 80s ( kodak moment )
and even a worldwide event ( olympics? ) that kodak sponsored. if that's not advertising
im not really sure what is ...

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 13:09
They are advertising. The whole problem is that the consumer electronics industry has a huge megaphone, and spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually convincing people why they absolutely can't survive without the very latest coolest imaging gadget, which will of course be replaced by something cooler in a few
months. But is anything really any different? Adjusted for inflation, is film really much more expensive than it was decades ago? Or how was it back when you wanted a really good color print from a chrome, and the only game in town was dye transfer? You probably needed a thicker wallet back then.

sun of sand
14-Apr-2014, 13:28
$1 a sheet was cheap
$2 a sheet and you begin to understand that for you -a hobbyist- 4x5 is not long for the world
$2.50-$3 a sheet and 4x5 becomes a once-in-a-while treat only for special trips and places

6-7 years ago I bought 2x fresh 50sh TXP for $85 delivered

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 13:46
Even scroungy rednecks will spend fifty grand fixing up some motorcyle, car, or speedboat that has already been obsolete for decades. Pick your passion. Bucks
have little to do with it. People will spend two thousand dollars a year buying coffee, two hundred dollars on a meal, then complain if a gallon of fixer goes up ten bucks. I have a simple cure to feeling the pinch of 4x5 film. Shoot 8x10 for awhile.... How many damn shots do you need anyway? You can only print so many of them.

Brian C. Miller
14-Apr-2014, 13:50
They are advertising.

When was the last time you saw an advertisement for Kodak or Ilford film outside of a film shop? I found Ilford's advertising agency (http://manifestcomms.co.uk/clients/ilford-photo), but I didn't see something that I would think, "that's an active marketing campaign."

No, I'm sure that it's going to have to be through amateur stuff posted on YouTube or Vimeo. Something that's neat, like that video about books. None of the big three film manufacturers will ever create something like that. It's always somebody outside, with imagination.

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 14:03
I suspect that Ilford is going to get vastly more bang for the buck out of what they are doing right now - creating a worldwide registry or teaching and rental darkrooms. That's the big issue nowadays. Nine out of ten people who I run into who would like to shoot film don't, simply because they don't have a darkroom.
Most of the younger crowd doesn't even own a home yet, and when they do, will be up to their necks in the mortgage. I know a few who load roll film into a tank
in a changing bag, develop it, then scan to view the negs. But that's just a compromise to what they really would like to do, like make real darkroom prints. Big
urban areas like here have full-service pro labs who can print all kinds of things for you, but most towns don't. And ordinary folk no longer give slide shows etc -
they just post shots on the web. So why would they need film to begin with? People who do need film know where to find it. Advertising won't make much difference, unless its some kind of press release informing us of something new. Word travels fast, regardless. What beginners need to know about is how to make
a simple ladder tray in a closet, and how cool a contact print can look like, and the satisfaction of doing something with their own hands. But if you're doing something for a living, you take whatever workflow is the most efficient and cost-effective. Sometimes that equates to film, sometimes it doesn't.

sun of sand
14-Apr-2014, 16:14
Even scroungy rednecks will spend fifty grand fixing up some motorcyle, car, or speedboat that has already been obsolete for decades. Pick your passion. Bucks
have little to do with it. People will spend two thousand dollars a year buying coffee, two hundred dollars on a meal, then complain if a gallon of fixer goes up ten bucks. I have a simple cure to feeling the pinch of 4x5 film. Shoot 8x10 for awhile.... How many damn shots do you need anyway? You can only print so many of them.

never seen anyone consume a car, motorcycle, boat or rv, though.

the fact that only some shots are good enough makes it even worse



tell me how many people complain over the cost of gas to feed those vehicles they've restored
ten cents either way and it's something to talk about


I guess there are a lot of crappy golfers, though.
Cost against the love of just practicing

Drew Wiley
14-Apr-2014, 16:21
Guess you've never been around rednecks much. They tend to consume booze, meth, gasoline, and cars or boats all at the same time, rather frequently, in fact.
Most of those ole cars and boats were gas hogs anyway. Heck, I've seen rednecks four hundred dollars worth of ammo and two hundred bucks of liquor on a typical
Saturday morning, and still not hit an easy target. It's a lucky day when they don't shoot themselves. ... Yuppies aren't much different. Twenty dollar a day Starbucks habit, then the deli for lunch, and eating out every day. One more reason to develop edible film; that way, if you don't like the shot, just run it thru
the pasta machine and boil it.

Corran
14-Apr-2014, 17:26
"Shoot less" is not a viable argument. Maybe when I'm 147 or whatever I'll be able to magically know what the best 4 photos are ahead of time within my 10-mile-hike, but for now I'll shoot 10-12 sheets and figure it out later. But that's okay, for now, as I pick up short-dated film for a little more than $1 a pop. But with the ever-increasing Kodak prices, I'm starting to consider Ilford films as a potential alternative. I don't care how good TMY is, I'm not paying double for that last 5% of performance if it means I can shoot more.

Surely if Ilford can make their comparable films for half the price, Kodak can too, someway or another. As it is now, they seem to be taking the stance of "we're Kodak, practically the inventor of modern film, we'll charge what we please."

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 09:36
A lot of raw materials prices were unusually stable for a long time, esp regarding petrochemical plastics etc. The ice started to break about two years ago, and affects a heck of a lot more than film mfg. What we're already seeing is non-Kodak brands also increasing in price, sometimes significantly. Another sea change is
that companies like Kodak and Fuji are no longer competing in every category, therefore not artificially depressing category pricing for the sake of unrealistic (over
the long term) competitiveness. Rather, they are tending to specialize more (for example, Kodak ducked out of chrome film completely, and ceded that to Fuji,
and instead has promoted their color neg films, where they have the distinct edge). So what you're going to end up with is either the kind of prices necessary to
sustain the industry, or nothing at all. Buying post-dated film and so forth is a trick that sometimes works, but there's only so much of it around, and only so much of that is still reliable. I suspect "Kodak" (Alaris) is doing what it must do to survive. Otherwise, you machine-gunners will have to work out your own addiction. Mine happens to be TMY.

Brian C. Miller
15-Apr-2014, 09:55
Corran:
"Shoot less" is reality.

If you are shooting for a client, then the client will foot the bill for the film, and you will shoot what the client budgets. If you are shooting for pleasure, or essentially speculation (aka fine art that really does generate income), then you will shoot what you can budget. Nobody uses an infinite amount of film, and everybody has a budget. The question is, what is the budget?

Drew is right about material cost. Petrochemical increases have affected everything, and I see it with when electricians and plumbers have to submit new bids due to supplier spikes. When the approval process takes too long, the materials costs change so much that the contractors have to take a loss to do the job.

StoneNYC
15-Apr-2014, 11:25
Corran:
"Shoot less" is reality.

If you are shooting for a client, then the client will foot the bill for the film, and you will shoot what the client budgets. If you are shooting for pleasure, or essentially speculation (aka fine art that really does generate income), then you will shoot what you can budget. Nobody uses an infinite amount of film, and everybody has a budget. The question is, what is the budget?

Drew is right about material cost. Petrochemical increases have affected everything, and I see it with when electricians and plumbers have to submit new bids due to supplier spikes. When the approval process takes too long, the materials costs change so much that the contractors have to take a loss to do the job.

The only thing I would mention is that unfortunately these days, the concept of the client and for the film of material cost is sort of unheard of, and most clients aren't even aware of that process so if you bring that to them they get a little uncomfortable at least that's from my experience, since many of them have experience with digital they never went through that. When they had to pay for the material cost that film has built into normal client shooting expenses.

So just be aware not everyone is familiar with it and you have to try and break that ice gently.

Corran
15-Apr-2014, 11:38
Brian, I don't accept that, unless you change it to "shoot less Kodak."

I don't care how good TMY is, or TMX, or whatever - unsustainable prices - for hobbyists AND commercial photographers - will simply result in less film sold, and less profits, and therefore a faster death of film. Or at least Kodak film.

I am sure you are all aware of the price vs. demand graph. I don't think the prices are at equilibrium. They are going towards the Leica pricing scheme - sell a lot less for more money, and yet apparently their facility is not tooled for that. It seems foolish. But like someone already stated, we don't know what's actually going on. Personally I'm moving away from Kodak products not only because of price, but because I don't see them being available in the future.

tgtaylor
15-Apr-2014, 11:40
How many damn shots do you need anyway? You can only print so many of them.

Just to follow-up with Drew's observation above, last week I attended a talk given by a professional photographer at the Palo Alto Camera Club last Friday evening. This guy is an unabashed all digital (but good) Photoshopper who wouldn't think twice about changing a sky or object in the image. He's out on the road around 8 months in the year and shoots on the order of 10,000 images a month. He said he averages about 24 "signature" images a year or 2 a month. I remember Ansel Adams saying that "if you get one good one a month, you're doing good."

Thomas

Corran
15-Apr-2014, 11:46
And to follow up with another anecdotal observation, my mentor and a fantastic landscape photographer did a month-long expedition along one of our major rivers down here, canoeing. He brought a Speed Graphic and a Pentax 67. He shot something like 10-15 images and several rolls of film every day. Dropped off film to his wife every few days. Shot like 300-400 4x5 negatives. The result was a ~30 image gallery show, all of the images really spectacular.

He would just laugh in your face if you told him to "shoot less." Personally I'm a pretty light shooter, compared to him. He brackets like 4 images and does all kinds of wacky stuff. My point is, we don't all shoot the same, and that suggestion is pretty ludicrous to some.

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 12:04
Nobody is judging someone else's shooting style. I'll admit that I'm the kind of guy who has carried an 85lb pack for ten days on steep trailess terrain, and returned
with only two sheets exposed, and then be pissed at myself for wasting one of them. The fact is, I'm rooting for all these machine-gunners, cause they help keep up the volume of film sales. On the other hand, they might be the very ones who defect from film entirely due to the overhead. Since this thread happens to be about cost, it just strikes me as ironic when people complain, when it IS their style of shooting which makes large format so unreasonably expensive. When I want to goof off and try something new, I often revert to 120 roll film or even 35mm to finance the learning curve. Kinda like using a little spotting scope, which tells you where to aim your big heavy telescope. If you're independently wealthy, and can buy whatever you want, and can hire a porter to haul a huge pile of filmholders, do whatever you like. But like most people here, I have to stay on a money and time budget, and have no interest in exposing and taking the trouble to develop film I don't think has potential to begin with. And frankly, I wouldn't even enjoy LF photography if I had to rush around like a mad hatter filled with
seventy-three cups of coffee a day. That's what Nikons were invented for.

Corran
15-Apr-2014, 12:19
I think there's a tipping point, where the price will simply be too much and almost no one will buy it.

You might be right that TMY has no competition - but hey, if Ilford came out today with "HP6" and it was pretty much identical to TMY, would you still buy Kodak?

The other thing I notice - back when Freestyle had the Arista Premium 400, which was just rebranded Tri-X, they could hardly keep it in stock it seemed. I wonder, how did Kodak supply the film and still make money, and yet Arista was sold way, way less than Tri-X? Couldn't they slash the price of Tri-X to $3 a roll and sell a ton more of it? Surely they were only getting ~$2 a roll from FS for the rebranded stuff.

Michael Cienfuegos
15-Apr-2014, 12:21
Nobody is judging someone else's shooting style. I'll admit that I'm the kind of guy who has carried an 85lb pack for ten days on steep trailess terrain, and returned
with only two sheets exposed, and then be pissed at myself for wasting one of them. The fact is, I'm rooting for all these machine-gunners, cause they help keep up the volume of film sales. On the other hand, they might be the very ones who defect from film entirely due to the overhead. Since this thread happens to be about cost, it just strikes me as ironic when people complain, when it IS their style of shooting which makes large format so unreasonably expensive. When I want to goof off and try something new, I often revert to 120 roll film or even 35mm to finance the learning curve. Kinda like using a little spotting scope, which tells you where to aim your big heavy telescope. If you're independently wealthy, and can buy whatever you want, and can hire a porter to haul a huge pile of filmholders, do whatever you like. But like most people here, I have to stay on a money and time budget, and have no interest in exposing and taking the trouble to develop film I don't think has potential to begin with. And frankly, I wouldn't even enjoy LF photography if I had to rush around like a mad hatter filled with
seventy-three cups of coffee a day. That's what Nikons were invented for.

+1

I used my Nikon last night to attempt a few shots of that eclipse. I got a few good shots, used a 300mm/f4. I'm happy with what I got. I rarely use that camera (D700), my girl friend uses it more than I. I'll stick to film as long as I can get it. :)

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 12:31
Corran - distribution and the added markup that goes with it can be a tricky subject. I know that the local camera store, which does carry sheet film and darkroom
supplies, will not even try to carry something if Freestyle features it, because they won't be able to sell it at a competitive price. On special order things, like a big
roll of printing paper, they can actually undercut the big dot com houses, cause all they gotta do is briefly handle it. But it's hard to have your cake and eat it too.
There has to be an incentive to carry something locally, and not put all your eggs in one basket with just one or two big sources - or worse, gamble everything by
selling direct with your own website, and get ditched by every dealer who previously supported you. There's overhead involved regardless. In my own distribution
game, I'm sure not the cheapest guy around, and everybody knows that - but my sales have been thriving for decades, while so many discounters have come and
gone, that I can hardly remember them all. There's something to be said for both quality and having something on hand when somebody actually needs it.

Tin Can
15-Apr-2014, 12:32
Perhaps Kodak thought it WAS lesser quality. Factory seconds, or simply not quite up to snuff. My former USA factory produced 5 levels of quality. One, the absolute best got the company name and marketing. The other 4 levels were sold under Sears and to other lesser consumer markets. They even went to great lengths to pack the 'garbage' in unlabeled boxes and shipped them somewhere else for labeling. Remember Good, Better Best?


I think there's a tipping point, where the price will simply be too much and almost no one will buy it.

You might be right that TMY has no competition - but hey, if Ilford came out today with "HP6" and it was pretty much identical to TMY, would you still buy Kodak?

The other thing I notice - back when Freestyle had the Arista Premium 400, which was just rebranded Tri-X, they could hardly keep it in stock it seemed. I wonder, how did Kodak supply the film and still make money, and yet Arista was sold way, way less than Tri-X? Couldn't they slash the price of Tri-X to $3 a roll and sell a ton more of it? Surely they were only getting ~$2 a roll from FS for the rebranded stuff.

Corran
15-Apr-2014, 12:36
Good points, who knows? Having shot the Arista, and having about 60 rolls of it still, I haven't had a single issue or difference between the Tri-X I shot before.

Brian C. Miller
15-Apr-2014, 12:46
I think there's a tipping point, where the price will simply be too much and almost no one will buy it.

Yeah, there's a tipping point, but where is it? Kodak isn't the highest priced film, per sheet. (From Freestyle:)

Ilford HP5+: $1.46/sheet, 25 sheets
Ilford Delta 100: $1.60/sheet, 25 sheets
Kodak TMX: $1.96/sheet, 50 sheets
Kodak TMY: $2.20/sheet, 50 sheets
Fujifilm Acros 100: $2.90/sheet, 20 sheets

First place for highest price goes to Fujifilm. Yes, Kodak is more than Ilford, but it's Acros that's actually double the price of HP5+. The market will still bear Fujifilm's price, and nobody carps about it. (Maybe they do, but not like Kodak.) Instead, people laud its qualities.

As for why Freeystyle sold rebranded Tri-X at a big discount, remember when generic foods appeared? And how everybody made a big deal about the price? No brand, no advertising, no brand competition with the manufacturing brand, and all for a big discount.

Kodak knows that the supply of film photographers is limited, the market is smaller than manufacturing capacity (no matter who does it), and competing on price is simply the wrong avenue. Kodak has already cut every single emulsion that didn't turn a profit, or was projected to not turn a profit. The Kodak entities have businesses to run, and at some point we'll see an equilibrium.

And as always, everybody makes a budget, including the landscape photographer you mentioned.

Corran
15-Apr-2014, 12:54
You're right about Acros. I forget about it because I have no interest in it myself.

Anyway, I'm just going to go peruse eBay now for short-dated TMX... :)

StoneNYC
15-Apr-2014, 13:24
I think there's a tipping point, where the price will simply be too much and almost no one will buy it.

You might be right that TMY has no competition - but hey, if Ilford came out today with "HP6" and it was pretty much identical to TMY, would you still buy Kodak?

The other thing I notice - back when Freestyle had the Arista Premium 400, which was just rebranded Tri-X, they could hardly keep it in stock it seemed. I wonder, how did Kodak supply the film and still make money, and yet Arista was sold way, way less than Tri-X? Couldn't they slash the price of Tri-X to $3 a roll and sell a ton more of it? Surely they were only getting ~$2 a roll from FS for the rebranded stuff.

Ilford won't come out with a TMY-2 style film, they used to have Delta400 in sheet and pulled it because TMY-2 was too much competition, already said they won't reintroduce it... Unless TMY-2 goes away.

And at this time Delta400 would only take sales away from HP5+

I would like to see an HP6 (no plus, it's so annoying to type! Lol) just as a slightly finer grained "traditional" grain... The benefit of HP5+ is it's flexibility, something the T-grain films lack in comparison.

That was my main deciding factor between the two, it wasn't grain, it wasn't reciprocity, it wasn't spectral response... It was flexibility, and HP5+ blasts TMY-2 out of the water...

Acros.. Yea in sheet film it's STUPID expensive, but it's unique spectral response and reciprocity characteristics are way beyond what any other manufacturer have produced, much more unique a look (naturally, sure you can fiddle to get that look but naturally and easily it has a unique response to light) than TMY-2 has. So that's why people probably aren't complaining I suppose?

I'm pretty pissed that it's SO expensive over Acros100 roll film... I don't get why the base coating for sheet brings up the price SO high...

It also doesn't seem to be available in 8x10 any longer... So I am complaining about that...

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 13:25
I'm pursuing a better than average rumor right now myself, concerning the difference between a particular Arista-branded film and the higher-priced official product. Marketing-wise, I see the benefit - a significant chunk of film gets cut for a high-volume distributor, which pretty much covers the overhead. The rest goes out piecemeal at higher profit. Seen that game many times. But in this case, the first cut off the roll might (or might not) imply a statistical quality risk. In this particular case, the proper aging of the gelatin after coating seems to be important, with the film having a higher risk or micro-cracks if cut too soon. And the results seem to
have varied from batch to batch. Not everybody is Kodak when it comes to quality control.

tgtaylor
15-Apr-2014, 13:58
For the complainers, Pentax (or rather now Ricoh) just announced the release of the new 645D renamed the 645Z, 51.4mp and priced at a mere $8500. Just in time for those big tax refunds everyone is getting this year.

Thomas

StoneNYC
15-Apr-2014, 14:03
For the complainers, Pentax (or rather now Ricoh) just announced the release of the new 645D renamed the 645Z, 51.4mp and priced at a mere $8500. Just in time for those big tax refunds everyone is getting this year.

Thomas

Wow! That's CHEAP!!! Giving Hassleblad/Leaf(Mamiya) a run for their money!

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 15:17
Cheap all right, but ya gotta add for lenses too. Hmmm... Or I could take that amount of money and buy enough 8x10 film to probably last the rest of my life, and
end up with far better images to boot.

csxcnj
15-Apr-2014, 15:34
Cheap all right, but ya gotta add for lenses too. Hmmm... Or I could take that amount of money and buy enough 8x10 film to probably last the rest of my life, and
end up with far better images to boot.

You can use any Pentax lens made for the analogue 645. There's a bunch of them out there at reasonable prices.

Brian C. Miller
15-Apr-2014, 15:49
It also doesn't seem to be available in 8x10 any longer... So I am complaining about that...

JapanExposures.com: Fujifilm Neopan Acros 8"x10" (http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/film-analog/neopan-acros-8x10-sheet-film.html), only a mere 18,447. And with the current exchange rate, that's not much higher than Kodak 8x10 film.

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 15:55
I'm sure that price could be negotiated if somebody bootlegged in a quantity of ACROS 8x10. It's really the shipping expense in small quantities that kills you. Why Fuji USA refuses to import it is anyone's guess. They have been less than helpful in the past too. Still, it's it, and TMY is TMY. Both wonderful films, but in somewhat
different respects.

Tin Can
15-Apr-2014, 16:02
That comes to $201.00 delivered to Chicago EMS 3 to 6 days. Shipping is $20.

I may try this.


JapanExposures.com: Fujifilm Neopan Acros 8"x10" (http://www.japanexposures.com/shop/film-analog/neopan-acros-8x10-sheet-film.html), only a mere 18,447. And with the current exchange rate, that's not much higher than Kodak 8x10 film.

Drew Wiley
15-Apr-2014, 16:27
That's per 20-sheet box, I presume?

Tin Can
15-Apr-2014, 16:35
Yup


That's per 20-sheet box, I presume?

Brian C. Miller
15-Apr-2014, 18:29
I'm sure that price could be negotiated if somebody bootlegged in a quantity of ACROS 8x10.

That's been done at least twice. I don't remember the thread, but I think at least 10 people on the forum signed up for that, and everybody was happy. And if someone can navigate the Yodobashi Camera page (translated) (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.yodobashi.com/&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dyodobashi%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DQVv%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Dsb) then it's 14,190. (I can't seem to get the cart to work through the Google translation layer, and Japanese is all Greek to me.)
(Try this Yodobashi link in Google. (http://www.yodobashi.com/大判フィルム-ネガ/ct/53220_500000000000000301/?count=24&disptyp=02&mkrbrnds=0000001813&page=1&sorttyp=COINCIDENCE_RANKING))

It's not the US branch of Fujifilm, but the parent corporation that isn't interested in importing it. At least we can purchase 4x5 through most LF retailers.

Added: Food for thought. A Pentax 645z, body only, is worth 1,000 sheets of Kodak 8x10 TMax 100 film. (B&H price check today.) Something to think about.

tgtaylor
15-Apr-2014, 19:45
Wow! That's CHEAP!!! Giving Hassleblad/Leaf(Mamiya) a run for their money!

Yep. Perhaps not quire as good as the Hassleblad, etc, but damn close and about 1/3 (or less!) the cost: http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/dslr/645Z#!product-specs This will give high-end Nikon and Canon digital photographers pause for thought.

Thomas

StoneNYC
15-Apr-2014, 20:49
Yep. Perhaps not quire as good as the Hassleblad, etc, but damn close and about 1/3 (or less!) the cost: http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/dslr/645Z#!product-specs This will give high-end Nikon and Canon digital photographers pause for thought.

Thomas

Yea, $6,500 for low 20's MP OR $8,500 for 51mp... Hard choice.... Lol

I was hoping canon would come out with a 645 camera that took their later 35mm L glass, seems like the IC on those lenses should be larger than 35mm.

I would use this on my 35mm 1V film camera of course.... ;)

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 09:08
This really solves nothing, Stone. Medium format anything will still handle neither like a view camera or like 35mm, but analogously to MF film gear. A completely
different ballgame when it comes to depth of field strategy, perspective control, etc. If that's what you enjoy doing, fine. I was out with a P67 last weekend,
cause it was too windy for a view camera. But given that tool kit, image management and subject selection has to be entirely different, realistically.

Tin Can
16-Apr-2014, 09:14
Who makes the sensor? If there's one, there will be more. Simply more Digital RatRace, to induce some users to upgrade again...

I am so happy I found LF, even late in life!

Brian C. Miller
16-Apr-2014, 09:38
It's a Sony sensor. Currently, the Pentax 645D, 645z, and Leica S all use roughly the same size sensor, which is not full-frame 6cm x 4.5cm.

Pentax has also dropped the price significantly on the 645D.

I get about 120Mp from a 645 scan, so there's a ways to go before the resolution is adequate. For medium format.

Randy, it's not a digital rat race. The technology wasn't up to snuff to start, and everything is still trying to catch up to film. However, it's "good enough" for what gets published, and what gets printed brings down people's expectations. Like that "Mad TV" skit, "Lowered Expectations Dating Service." "Hi, I'm digital. I'm cheap and fast. Except when I'm not. But I have blinky lights! You like pixels, right? I've got lots of pixels!"

Tin Can
16-Apr-2014, 10:02
For me it was a digital RatRace. 15 years of Nikon digital and I have finally stopped. I use 2 Nikon DSLR's daily. But I sold my D800...

I will now wait 5 or 10 years for real improvement, but then i'll be too old to care!

StoneNYC
16-Apr-2014, 10:05
It's a Sony sensor. Currently, the Pentax 645D, 645z, and Leica S all use roughly the same size sensor, which is not full-frame 6cm x 4.5cm.

Pentax has also dropped the price significantly on the 645D.

I get about 120Mp from a 645 scan, so there's a ways to go before the resolution is adequate. For medium format.

Randy, it's not a digital rat race. The technology wasn't up to snuff to start, and everything is still trying to catch up to film. However, it's "good enough" for what gets published, and what gets printed brings down people's expectations. Like that "Mad TV" skit, "Lowered Expectations Dating Service." "Hi, I'm digital. I'm cheap and fast. Except when I'm not. But I have blinky lights! You like pixels, right? I've got lots of pixels!"

I've gotten to the point where I know the difference between the "MP of film" on paper and the "REALISTIC expectation of MP of the film" to know that unless you are optically printing, or have the best ultra multi-thousand dollar scanner, you're not going to see the realistic detail that on paper film gives you. With my lowly epson... I can basically match my Canon 5Dmk2 in MF shots on film... and that's ok with me, I don't shoot film for more detail than digital because digital is a lot better than people (especially those who love film so much they don't ever actually use the newer digital technology to have an idea of it's printable quality) give it credit for... but I shoot film because it's better in tones, has a unique look that I'm after, has a sense of permanency and keeps me focussed (no pun intended) and I know that it's my medium of choice... and I'm happy with that. I'm probably selling my digital gear soon.... I'm not shooting LF for "more detail" per-se, I'm shooting LF because I can avoid the distraction of having to worry about detail, to focus on the image, because the grain and detail no longer matter, it's there, in spades, and I can focus on seeing the image.... this is also why I'm going to 8x10 soon, to see the image clearly as I'm shooting, to not be distracted by the last leap, for me that last leap is being able to have the flexibility (and price) of HP5+ and not have to worry about it's semi-grainy nature (as compared to TMY-2) because even though I know it doesn't matter at even 4x5 sizes for most imagery, there is still the subtle and subconscious distraction of concern over that grain, regardless of whether it actually affects the image or not... and I don't need that distraction... I need to FOCUS...

Film is about capture... it's not about all this infighting we have.. sure I will choose HP5+ because it works FOR ME... others will and SHOULD choose TMY-2 because the detail is that much more important to them, and the look of TMY-2 is important, and maybe the flexibility of good reciprocity characteristics are important and not worth carrying two films (Acros100 + another film) to cover both ranges... so TMY-2 works as an all around good film for those. I like FOMA100 sometimes for a certain character it gives... perhaps I'll do a project and shoot FOMA400 sometime...

We are all fighting, and we all have different reasons... and that's great, we are individuals.... but we are driving Dan MAD with all this kodak Negativity... I know we are all angry in a way at any price hike in such financial times, but so are they, and we have to try and be understanding of that. Let's just hope they have their customer base's at heart in their future decisions, at least enough to carry on the legacy of their most spectacular films.

That's all I have to say... kind of a rant... but I think worthwhile.

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 10:37
HP5 is a lovely fast film, and in 8x10, you'd have to enlarge it above 20x24 to spot any resolution difference from TMY. But it has a very different personality in a number of ways, esp with regard to a fairly conspicuous toe and how it handles shadows. I never took a liking to Foma 400. It's really more like a 200 speed film,
and is certainly a usable product, but nothing special in my opinion, other than the low price under the Arista label. Foma 200 is intersting due to its very long straight line, making it competent to handle extreme lighting ranges; but by now everyone knows about its less desirable idiosyncrasies too.

Drew Wiley
16-Apr-2014, 10:42
Cute machine (the Pentax). But really, once you add some lenses, the thing would probably weigh more, and involve just as much bulk, as my 4x5 backpacking kit,
even factoring a few filmholders and a changing tent. Maybe if someone marketed a full frame digital equivalent to a Mamiya 7 rangefinder it would catch on with
the portability crowd (if they could still afford to travel after paying for the thing!)

StoneNYC
16-Apr-2014, 11:50
Cute machine (the Pentax). But really, once you add some lenses, the thing would probably weigh more, and involve just as much bulk, as my 4x5 backpacking kit,
even factoring a few filmholders and a changing tent. Maybe if someone marketed a full frame digital equivalent to a Mamiya 7 rangefinder it would catch on with
the portability crowd (if they could still afford to travel after paying for the thing!)

Actually a Mamiya 7 with digital back already exists, I think it's just one someone hacked, but it exists lol, saw it on eBay once.

BetterSense
17-Apr-2014, 07:11
Yea, $6,500 for low 20's MP OR $8,500 for 51mp... Hard choice.... Lol

Remember that megapixels are a marketing unit. Although 51mp vs. 22mp is 2.3 times as many pixels, it's only 1.5 times as much resolution, which sounds less impressive.

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2014, 08:29
And remember that pixels tend to come out a bit mushy if you use too much soldium sulfite in the developer, or too grainy is you soak them in rodinal.

StoneNYC
17-Apr-2014, 10:22
And remember that pixels tend to come out a bit mushy if you use too much soldium sulfite in the developer, or too grainy is you soak them in rodinal.

:) haha!!! If you soak pixels in Rodinal the thing will short circuit and nothing will come out!

Drew Wiley
17-Apr-2014, 12:06
That's explains it! No wonder so many digital images look like toast.

StoneNYC
17-Apr-2014, 18:31
That's explains it! No wonder so many digital images look like toast.

There's a certain APUG member who's work looks like he shot it with a digital and then soaked the pixels in Rodinal... But he claims he never used Rodinal before so perhaps that's his problem :-0

tgtaylor
17-Apr-2014, 18:55
Cute machine (the Pentax). But really, once you add some lenses, the thing would probably weigh more, and involve just as much bulk, as my 4x5 backpacking kit,
even factoring a few filmholders and a changing tent. Maybe if someone marketed a full frame digital equivalent to a Mamiya 7 rangefinder it would catch on with
the portability crowd (if they could still afford to travel after paying for the thing!)

Actually the 645 lens are quite compact - more on the order of 35mm lens but a little larger. I have 3 dedicated 645 lens for my P645NII which is the film version of the 645D and Z but otherwise the body looks identical. These lens, a 45mm, 75mm, and 150mm are highly transportable requiring minimum weight and bulk. Originally I had the 645N and rather than having it repaired opted to replace it with the newer NII whose features include a mirror lock-up which the older version was lacking. The original intent was to use the Pentax 67 to 645 adapter rather than dedicated 645 lens and this worked well except that the 67 120mm soft focus lens isn't compatible with the N and likely not with the NII but I haven't tested this: Snap off one or two or three frames with the 120 and the 645 suddenly rewinds displaying dead battery on the LCD. After initially replacing the batteries (which wasn't needed) and wasting several rolls I gave up using that lens on the 645 and only use it with the 67. Just recently I augmented the 75mm FA with the 45 and150mm Pentax A lens for lightweight and less bulky carrying. Although not auto-focus, the Pentax 645 A lens are super sharp and a real bargain. And you don't have to carry the larger 67 lens and adapter. I may further augment the 645 kit with the 300 ED-If and 120mm Micro lens.

Thomas

AuditorOne
18-Apr-2014, 22:37
Its no wonder that TMY is so expensive. Everyone is spending their time discussing the new 645Z. :)

Kodachrome25
19-Apr-2014, 08:12
Its no wonder that TMY is so expensive. Everyone is spending their time discussing the new 645Z. :)

Just a reminder, many on here are dabblers and gear-centric hobby types not really interested in committing themselves to producing ground breaking work and would rather rack up thousands of post counts as some form of WWII B-17 Bomber "Nose Art"...

I just put in my B&H basket what I expect to be what I will need for the rest of the year in 35mm and 120 TMY2, I'm set for awhile in 4x5. There is no other 400 speed film I would rather use than TMY2, super sharp, easy to work with, flexible and plenty of character if I do my job as a photographer.

Nothing comes close to TMY2 in 400 for me...

Tin Can
19-Apr-2014, 09:37
Duffers pay for the course the Pro's play on.

Kodachrome25
19-Apr-2014, 10:31
Duffers pay for the course the Pro's play on.

Yeah....but that was not what I was talking about.

HeinrichVoelkel
22-Apr-2014, 13:46
@ kodachrome beeing a pro does include beeing silent up about the size of your fridge. just do what you're doing ( I hope you make enough to save for your retirement) but making fun of the guys having fun with large format and enyoing it does do any good. I know you're great artist and TMY serves you well, but this doesn't make you a better human by any means ( obviously reading your posts).
buy and use what ever you like, film wise, but please refrain from offering advice how others have to manage their economics of film or life

Roger Cole
23-Apr-2014, 04:51
Even scroungy rednecks will spend fifty grand fixing up some motorcyle, car, or speedboat that has already been obsolete for decades. Pick your passion. Bucks
have little to do with it. People will spend two thousand dollars a year buying coffee, two hundred dollars on a meal, then complain if a gallon of fixer goes up ten bucks. I have a simple cure to feeling the pinch of 4x5 film. Shoot 8x10 for awhile.... How many damn shots do you need anyway? You can only print so many of them.

Drew is right. My cure for thinking photography and bicycling were expensive was to get into flying and become a private pilot. ALL my other hobbies now seem cheap, including photography. Prioritize your spending. Given the time it takes to properly compose and expose a sheet of 4x5, it isn't really very expensive.

I'll still use other films though when I can get results just as good for my purposes for way less money than TMY-2, superb film though it is.

Kodachrome25
23-Apr-2014, 17:18
@ kodachrome beeing a pro does include beeing silent up about the size of your fridge. just do what you're doing ( I hope you make enough to save for your retirement) but making fun of the guys having fun with large format and enyoing it does do any good. I know you're great artist and TMY serves you well, but this doesn't make you a better human by any means ( obviously reading your posts).
buy and use what ever you like, film wise, but please refrain from offering advice how others have to manage their economics of film or life

If you read my other posts, you will see I am just not cut out to be on the internet, I get too frustrated at all the talk and wasted energy...

You have far less posts than most, that means you get out and take photos and are thus, a superior human being. I don't consider my self or pros to be superior to other people, I consider people who bitch, complain, rack up post counts on the internet....inferior....because they can choose to be real, do something about it, make *real* photographs, but they dabble with this and that and never go anywhere, all talk, a few flickr happy snaps and that is it.

jp
5-May-2014, 15:29
Frank Petronio shared this link today:

http://www.filmbodies.com/newsviews/kodak-film-prices-going-up.html

I would not buy the Kodak film I adore for 4x5 if the prices change as rumored.

Sal Santamaura
5-May-2014, 15:41
Frank Petronio shared this link...Who? ;)

Drew Wiley
5-May-2014, 15:59
Hard to say what relation profit structures in Japan has to do with here, esp in relation to the dollar/yen differential, which is not inconsequential at the moment.
But simply policy-wise it works both ways. I remember when I was trying to sell Nikon survey equipment and the official importer (Nikon USA) wouldn't budge. After
quite a season of flat sales, Nikon themselves (Japan) dumped their own official importer and signed on to a competing survey equip mfg. The price of the Nikon
units instantly dropped 80%.

John Kasaian
5-May-2014, 17:55
It's the Indian, not the arrow.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2014, 09:12
I prefer a straight arrow. ... and actually, I've got a lovely soapstone arrow straightener in my collection, John. It looks like a giant egg with a nice slot across the
top. Since soapstone hold heat so well, they'd warm it up and then spin the reed thru that slot. I've seen the finished product too, though my klepto cousin stole
that part of my collection long ago for drug money. ... But I like the extra bit of insurance that comes with Kodak film. It's more resistant to scratching, very consistent from batch to batch, close to full speed in TMax products. But this fact won't stop me from also using more affordable products when they will do. More
often, if I'm starting to have budget issues, I just revert to 4x5 photography for awhile. Don't get as good a workout that way, however. Trying to build my knees
up for the high country season.

artinoo
7-May-2014, 02:49
Horrible.........



114986
http://www.nationalphoto.co.jp/1F/kodak_news_06.htm

Brian C. Miller
7-May-2014, 06:49
Sounds like if you're in the East, you'd better stock up right now! And then you'll be relying on people in the West to send film to you. Yep, we'll become film runners!

Google translation:


2014.5.2 Notice of Kodak Professional film price revision

From Kodak, due to lower demand worldwide as well as high raw material costs, such as acetate, price changes color negative film and black-and-white film of (some) have been announced. Please refer to "NP film price list 2014.6.1 (2014 end of May update plans)" for our sales price. From June 1, 2014: Price Revision Date. ※ For a massive hike in prices, holding is expected to buy by the user in the world. Please contact us as soon as possible for the possibility of short supply is high.

.............

2013.5.8 Notice of 100 8 10 special price sale Kodak Professional Ektar color negative film

Kodak Professional film will be a price revision (price increases) from May 10, 2013. In addition, I became number unrealistic (order unit) that 80 months MOQ of 100 8 10 professional color negative film Ektar which had been the custom manufacturing units in 10 months prior.
The Company, on top of the 30 months of custom-made, "than one month unit" We offer at a special price as long as the stock price changes before. For the factory up the end of April 2013, the deadline because it is well with October 2014, please use this opportunity deals. (If you wish) COD shipping fee, cool refrigeration service fee this product, all service at two or more! 100 8 10 (10sh) Kodak professional color negative film Ektar OpenPrice NP special price (including tax) \ 12,744 ※ The sold out after the purchase order in the 80-month basis (about 60 days) NP (tax inc.) \ 15,768 it becomes. By incorporating KODAK VISION Film technology for movies, Kodak professional color negative film Ektar (Ector) 100 is a professional color negative film that achieves the granularity of the world's best at ISO100 color negative film. Protective layer that is specially designed for scanners is, provides superior scanning characteristics and also has print large format, excellent properties to display output, and excellent reproducibility of the digital output.


Notice 2013.4.22 Kodak Professional film price revision

From Kodak, due to lower demand worldwide as well as rising raw materials prices such as crude oil and silver, price revision of professional film was announced. In addition, orders the end of production of 320 5 7 custom-made TXP were presented together. Price increase of 20% average (gold) price revisions May 10, 2013: Price Revision Date [Our Price is NP film price list , please refer to]. [Price revision item] * mark (about 60 days Kodak home country order) custom-made product. Need a custom order unit: MOQ.

Drew Wiley
7-May-2014, 09:34
Maybe the Columbians are in the wrong cartel.

vinny
7-May-2014, 09:46
I don't think the mules are going to like anything larger than 120.

Drew Wiley
7-May-2014, 11:25
Yeah... swallowing and then pooping out a box of 8x10 film might be a bit painful. But at least they'd only be 10-sheet boxes!

Brian C. Miller
7-May-2014, 11:36
Here's the percentage rate hikes for sheet film:

T-MAX 100 45 -- 83.41%
T-MAX 400 45 -- 108.38%
TXP 320 45 -- 66.72%
TXP 320 810 -- 20.09%

It's odd that 8x10 Tri-X has the lowest increase, and why the huge jump for T-Max 400? Cue Twilight Zone theme!

Kirk Gittings
7-May-2014, 12:17
At any given time it is time to stock up. The prices aren't going down in my lifetime.

Tin Can
7-May-2014, 12:49
+1

These are the good old days.


At any given time it is time to stock up. The prices aren't going down in my lifetime.

jp
7-May-2014, 13:59
115014

A fridge/freezer is more efficient when it's full!

115015

Drew Wiley
7-May-2014, 15:35
A freezer full of film and paper is the best insurance there is against your wife putting a frozen turkey in there instead!

Ken Lee
7-May-2014, 16:38
I just bought some film. Thanks for the heads-up.

StoneNYC
7-May-2014, 17:12
I should just hold onto my last 25 sheets of TMY-2 and in a month I'll offer a trade for 2 25 sheet boxes of Delta100 or HP5+ hehe

Kodachrome25
7-May-2014, 18:21
If that spreadsheet and the Hogan rumor are true, this will be one of the biggest price increases of Kodak films that I can recall. I'm not surprised though, most of their roll films have been below even Ilford and with the in house acetate done as of last year, increases in price were bound to happen. And this is just Japan, not the U.S. so I have to laugh at all the bashing going on over at "Windbag" or "Shoot ourselves in the foot" dot com, aka APUG.

I just ran a test roll of 35mm Delta 400 so I can consider it as an option. While it looks to be a good film, it fell behind TMY2 in the finest of details and was of course, a considerable amount more grainy even in Xtol 1:1, that matters to me in 35mm & 120.

I'll watch this closely and if I need to add some more stock, I will. TMX and TMY2 are my go to films, I would rather spend a couple grand more now than double that later....

Kirk Gittings
7-May-2014, 18:28
I just bought some film. Thanks for the heads-up.

Me too-all I could afford for now.

Joseph O'Neil
8-May-2014, 07:31
Okay, so you guys wanna have something to bitch about - okay, I will give you something. :)

Here in Canada, most all Kodak sheet films are special order, never stocked. You can go to some store web sites here in Canada and they will say "usually ships in 24-48 hours", but when you actually go to order the stuff, as I have in the past, you are told maybe a week or more. one time I was told up to 4 weeks.

Also, the price here in Canada for a 50 sheet box of 4x5 Tmax is 400 is $149.99. I can order the same film from B&H in NYC for $85.95. Even with the exchange rate ($1 US = about $1.13 Cdn), shipping, etc, still cheaper and faster.

What really gets me? Even though I live in Canada, I live about a 4 hour drive from Rochester, NY, the old home of Kodak.

I love Tri-X, but man, i am going all HP5 at these prices.
:(

Jim Cole
8-May-2014, 09:33
I can order the same film from B&H in NYC for $85.95.
:(

Not anymore.

Edit: Ah, sorry, I was thinking of the TMY-400.

Drew Wiley
8-May-2014, 11:04
It's all relative. It takes me about a year to use up a 4x5 box of TMY. So what's the difference between two bucks and three bucks per week? Lots of people spend
triple that every day on their Starbucks habit. Now I'm not implying I like these price increases, but that it's all relative. Where I personally feel the sting is in 8x10 film, especially in color, where the Kodak label is getting close to a monopoly. But still, just how many damn shots does one have time to print at the end of the day?
Imagine that you're one of those Kodak pensioners, however, that got the rug pulled out from under you - wouldn't you want to pad that account if your could,
while you could? I don't know if that is a significant factor of not - I'm sure that won't say - but if it is, it's a bit of chicken run... namely, deciding whether to make money bit by bit by keeping the chicken alive and selling the eggs, or just cooking the whole thing quick and trying to sell it for money off the rotisserie rack.