Kodak 4X5 B&W to be packaged in 10 sheet boxes (only)?

[David Lindquist]

See post number 16: http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/tmax-400-in-4x5.142983/

Note that this information is shown to come from Kodak Alaris.

David

[Ektagraphic]

I just saw this over there...Great for low volume users I suppose, for the rest, a real pain in the neck. More boxes to deal with, and undoubtedly a higher cost.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I cannot fathom the rationale for such a pitiful quantity-per-box. At 10-per I think they make more money on the box than the contained film.
.

[jp]

They can sell more boxes of film this way.

10 per box is dumb.

Seems like they could fit 20 or more sheets no problem.

[Jac@stafford.net]

They can sell more boxes of film this way.

10 per box is dumb.

Seems like they could fit 20 or more sheets no problem.

Of course; some idiot bean counter convinced brain-dead Kodak that selling almost empty boxes was better.

[David Karp]

At least you come out even on your holders. I always wish Ilford sold 26 sheet boxes instead of 25 five sheet boxes! I guess I should not complain. Ten sheet boxes seems not only annoying, but wasteful.

[faberryman]

They can sell more boxes of film this way.
Yes, they've decided selling boxes is more profitable than selling film.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, they've decided selling boxes is more profitable than selling film.

;)

[Jim Noel]

As long as there is going to be a change, why not go back to the old way of 12, 24 and 144?

[Sal Santamaura]

Tonight, Keith Canham mentioned that, while Kodak is changing its standard catalog item size to 10 sheets for 4x5, he's been told he'll still be able to special order 50-sheet boxes. So, if any large volume users are really annoyed by the smaller quantity per box, they need only get together the minimum quantity and have Keith place an order with Kodak for them.

[Wayne]

They've only sold 10 sheet boxes of color film for years, so the only thing that surprises me is that they were still selling larger boxes of B&W.

[Mick Fagan]

At least you come out even on your holders. I always wish Ilford sold 26 sheet boxes instead of 25 five sheet boxes! I guess I should not complain. Ten sheet boxes seems not only annoying, but wasteful.

Well I have been buying 100 sheet boxes for some time now, certainly the best way to go. The boxes contain 4 x 25 sheet packets, which are inside the normal plastic bag and in-between the folded cardboard that are standard in the Ilford 25 sheet box.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=235_178_253&product_id=621

As far as I know, only the USA has these 100 sheet boxes. I was told in Australia that Ilford didn't make anything over 25 sheet boxes, although they did go a bit silent (when in the store) when I gave them a link to a USA site with the 100 sheet boxes at about 43% of the Australian cost of Ilford 4x5" film on a per sheet basis.

Mick.

[Fred L]

Tonight, Keith Canham mentioned that, while Kodak is changing its standard catalog item size to 10 sheets for 4x5, he's been told he'll still be able to special order 50-sheet boxes. So, if any large volume users are really annoyed by the smaller quantity per box, they need only get together the minimum quantity and have Keith place an order with Kodak for them.

My guess is this will be the new norm. I wonder if Kodak would entertain producing 100 sheet boxes for these special orders ?

[EdSawyer]

time to buy up the stock 50-sheet boxes now while they are available.

[LabRat]

The big "head slapper" would be going to buy film, and being told they only have 10 sheet boxes available, so paying more and having to buy 10 boxes for 100 sheets, etc... :-(

Steve K

[HMG]

Even I, a very casual 4x5 user, see 10 sheet boxes as ridiculous (except for when I want to try out a new emulsion). I have to wonder if the person who thought this up did any real research on 4x5 film usage. I think its a desperate move to save money in the short term to the detriment of the longer term. But - assuming the price per sheet rises significantly in 10 sheet boxes - I expect an immediate decline in sales.

[interneg]

My guess is this will be the new norm. I wonder if Kodak would entertain producing 100 sheet boxes for these special orders ?

I'd imagine they would, if you could come up with enough people prepared to pay for them.


Even I, a very casual 4x5 user, see 10 sheet boxes as ridiculous (except for when I want to try out a new emulsion). I have to wonder if the person who thought this up did any real research on 4x5 film usage. I think its a desperate move to save money in the short term to the detriment of the longer term. But - assuming the price per sheet rises significantly in 10 sheet boxes - I expect an immediate decline in sales.

Maybe they've actually done some market research and found that a price point around that of a 5-roll 120 pro pack might actually improve sales? I suspect the C41 4x5s outsell the BW 4x5s by some margin.

[Tobias Key]

Personally I have been put off trying Kodak's black and white emulsions because I'd have to put down £100+ for a box and would be stuck with lots of film if I didn't like it. Having said that 10 sheets isn't enough, 20 or 25 is a much better number for the casual user.

[faberryman]

The only upside is users will have lots of extra 4x5 boxes.

[BarryS]

Clearly, Kodak's target market is students, and people who try large format for a day, shoot two film holders (forget to remove darkslide on one exposure, another double-exposed), and drop the idea immediately thereafter.

[Kevin Crisp]

I suspect one of the reasons is that a new user would think hey it's not that expensive..... If course it is only 10 sheets.

[jp]

Now all the 4x5 tmy2 at BH is backordered. People preparing for the zombie apocalypse.

[Sal Santamaura]

Now all the 4x5 tmy2 at BH is backordered...It's been backordered there for weeks, long before these threads made the newly announced package size change widely known.

[BrianShaw]

This is great news for the box manufacturers!

[DG 3313]

Kids trying to use sheet film.....don't buy 50 sheet boxes of film. I'm mentoring two youngsters (23ish) in 4x5 and they would rather shoot 120mm or 35mm because of the cost. The 10 sheet box of 4x5 may serve them well.......

Don

[John Layton]

While I find this move to 10-sheet boxes somewhat exasperating...I do wonder if the associated logistical hassle and (assumed) associated cost increase would tend to encourage a more careful/thoughtful approach?

[Richard Wasserman]

I think this is probably welcome news at Ilford (who still have the good sense to sell film in reasonable quantities). Their sales should show an uptick shortly.

[jp]

While I find this move to 10-sheet boxes somewhat exasperating...I do wonder if the associated logistical hassle and (assumed) associated cost increase would tend to encourage a more careful/thoughtful approach?

If they were the only game in town. I suspect the reality is that people will see a Kodak box of 10 and an Ilford box of 25 for similar cost and know they are both good and buy the Ilford. They might see it as a cult choice, sort of like Apple but younger people drink the Apple koolaid, and the old duffers drink the tri-x or tmax Koolaid.

If people want to try tmax400 or any film out, it seems practical to try it in smaller sizes like MF and if you like it, then buy more of it in different sizes such as LF. If they offered more than one box size like Ilford that would be easily understood.

[faberryman]

Kids trying to use sheet film.....don't buy 50 sheet boxes of film. I'm mentoring two youngsters (23ish) in 4x5 and they would rather shoot 120mm or 35mm because of the cost. The 10 sheet box of 4x5 may serve them well......
Or they could split a 25 sheet box.

[Pere Casals]

Really, I don't understand why Kodak have a similar pricing than Ilford with rolls while in the LF arena they are so expensive...

Is 10 sheets box a way to hide another price increase ?

The reality is that Kodak is comming from another level and they don't know how to deal with present market challenges.

In fact they are discouraging new film photographers to use their LF products.

[Wayne]

Is 10 sheets box a way to hide another price increase ?

Yes. That's all it is, IMO. Kodak yet again inadvertantly (or advertantly) trying to force itself out of the market. They can blame the resulting poor sales when nobody wants to spend more money for more cardboard and less film. Perhaps they foolishly think well, people are still buying Ektar and Portra, lets do that with black and white! But there are few if any other options for large format color negatives. They may not know other companies make black and white sheet film...

I just hope Ilford has the sense not to follow suit. I stopped buying Kodak B&W a long time ago.

[Tim Meisburger]

As long as there is going to be a change, why not go back to the old way of 12, 24 and 144?

Gross!

[Alan9940]

Is 10 sheets box a way to hide another price increase ?

Yes. That's all it is, IMO.

IMO, too! It's why I placed an order, yesterday, with B&H for a few 50-sheet boxes of my beloved 4x5 Tri-X. It will never be as cheap, again!

[k_redder]

Is 10 sheets box a way to hide another price increase ?

Yes. That's all it is, IMO. Kodak yet again inadvertantly (or advertantly) trying to force itself out of the market. They can blame the resulting poor sales when nobody wants to spend more money for more cardboard and less film. Perhaps they foolishly think well, people are still buying Ektar and Portra, lets do that with black and white! But there are few if any other options for large format color negatives. They may not know other companies make black and white sheet film...

I just hope Ilford has the sense not to follow suit. I stopped buying Kodak B&W a long time ago.

I stopped using Tmax a while ago because I could no longer bring myself to spend nearly twice the money (over Ilford) for film. These new 10 sheet boxes won't do anything but drive that per sheet price even higher. I've also been trending away from Kodak's darkroom chemistry lately because a lot of their products now only come packaged in larger quantities that are not convenient for my level of usage. Kodak seems to be finding new and exciting ways of driving away business. This should work out well.

[thomas ciulei]

and Kodak announced they wanna bring back Ektachrome in 135 format.
probably with 10 exposures pro roll
haha

they are nuts

[cowanw]

Gross!
:)

[vinny]

They only had one foot remaining to shoot, this is it. As long as it's available, don't complain.

[Wayne]

and Kodak announced they wanna bring back Ektachrome in 135 format.
probably with 10 exposures pro roll
haha

they are nuts

This does me no good unless they also bring back Ilfochrome.

[BrianShaw]

It's a lot better than nothing... wouldn't you agree?

[Sal Santamaura]

This does me no good unless they also bring back Ilfochrome.I disagree. In my opinion, Ilfochrome's absurdly high contrast and surface gloss are better off gone. Kodak couldn't "bring it back" anyway. What Kodak could bring back are Carousel projectors, enabling the highest, best use of 35mm transparency images. Then: Ektachrome in 120. It could be displayed using these currently available medium format projectors:


http://www.vicom-international.com/High_power_slide_projectors.html


It's a lot better than nothing... wouldn't you agree?I would, but many who know the price of all things and the value of none, take pleasure in knocking Kodak and can't see the advantages of some Kodak products for certain applications don't. They'd rather Bldg. 38 disappeared and Kodak film went with it. Sad.

[Thalmees]

I'm afraid that the new commitment of Kodak is only to increase film price!
Other manufacturers are usually follow that even if they have a bigger market share.
BTW, the old Kodak commitment is to keep the film alive.

[Wayne]

I disagree. In my opinion, Ilfochrome's absurdly high contrast and surface gloss are better off gone.

Um, you can't disagree that slide film does me no good without a way to print it. I understand you weren't very good at it lol :p and I know Kodak didn't make Ilfochrome (need hammer hitting head emoji here). I am enjoying RA-4 but I could still make good use of pos-pos material. I think Kodak is about as likely to bring that back as projectors.

[DG 3313]

Or they could split a 25 sheet box.

I agree

[B.S.Kumar]

Or they could split a 25 sheet box.

Maybe some bright spark will come up with a tag line that says 24 sheets + 1 free :)

Kumar

[Willie]

My Uncle tells me that a few decades ago you could buy Kodak sheet film in 4x5 in 10 sheet boxes. Many did so to test new films so they did not have to buy 50 sheets at a time just to try some.

Is this the only size box Kodak will be selling?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Hey! Y'all best behave or Mr. Kodak will cut ya down to 5-per-box.
.

[Alan9940]

My Uncle tells me that a few decades ago you could buy Kodak sheet film in 4x5 in 10 sheet boxes. Many did so to test new films so they did not have to buy 50 sheets at a time just to try some.

Is this the only size box Kodak will be selling?

Don't know about that...I've been shooting LF Kodak film since 1978 and I don't remember no stinkin' 10-sheet boxes. Must have been before my time.

[Wayne]

Hey! Y'all best behave or Mr. Kodak will cut ya down to 5-per-box.
.


Or 4 plus 1 FREE!

[DG 3313]

Don't know about that...I've been shooting LF Kodak film since 1978 and I don't remember no stinkin' 10-sheet boxes. Must have been before my time.

I was in the 8th grade in 1978.......that was 15 years before......I dove in to large format photography... my first box of film was a 10 sheets box of Fuji Velvia ISO 50. I still have the camera and one of the chromes from that box today............I am ok, with the 10 sheet box of film.....

[Alan9940]

I was in the 8th grade in 1978.......that was 15 years before......I dove in to large format photography... my first box of film was a 10 sheets box of Fuji Velvia ISO 50. I still have the camera and one of the chromes from that box today............I am ok, with the 10 sheet box of film.....

Ah, that might explain it...I've only ever shot B&W in LF.

[Wayne]

.I am ok, with the 10 sheet box of film.....

So am I. Just not as the only option.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am ok, with the 10 sheet box of film...


So am I. Just not as the only option.See post #10.

[Wayne]

See post #10.

Yeah special order yippee, but if you miss the order its not available till the next special order. Occasional special orders probably doesn't compensate for the loss of readily available, buy when you want to buy boxes >10 for most people.

[loonatic45414]

If the price per sheet remains the same - I don't care what size the boxes are as long as I can buy a brick of the same emulsion (if I'm not going to be able to get a 50 or 100 sheet box within a reasonable time)

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[Leigh]

I stopped buying Kodak B&W a long time ago.
I stopped buying Kodak products (except Kodachrome) back in the late 1950s, when they refused to correct the color bias in Ektachrome.

- Leigh

[Wayne]

The price is never the same...more sheets per box is always less cost per sheet.

[Sal Santamaura]

The price is never the same...more sheets per box is always less cost per sheet.Freestyle has now added the 10-sheet boxes to its Web site.

Using TMY-2 as an example, Freestyle's regular price (although it's on sale at the moment, probably to clear out stock before the new packaging arrives on February 24) for a 50-sheet box is $126.99, or $2.54 per sheet.

The new Freestyle price for a 10-sheet box of TMY-2 is $26.79


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1006899-Kodak-TMAX-400-ISO-4x5-10-Sheets-TMY

or $2.68 per sheet.

So, yes, the price is more. A whopping 14 cents more per sheet, which covers the cost of five times as many boxes and two-and-a-half times as many foil envelopes per 50 sheets. If that's what it takes for Kodak Alaris to effectively sell this extraordinary product into today's market, and perhaps even expand the market, I'm willing to spend those extra 14 cents. Compared with other expenses related to my photography trips, film, even 4x5 TMY-2 in 10-sheet boxes, represents a noise-level cost.

[Tin Can]

+1.


I know, but NOW I agree. :)

[loonatic45414]

I'd rather they brought back the 25 sheet box for $65 to $67 a box.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[faberryman]

Ten sheet boxes? Really? That's five film holders. Is it because they are not selling much of it? Are they just in the business of selling cardboard boxes?

[Sal Santamaura]

Ten sheet boxes? Really?...This thread has been here for three weeks. How long does it take to understand? Yes, really.


...Is it because they are not selling much of it?...Speculate at will. Other have surmised that young people with limited resources might not be able to pay for 50-sheet boxes but could afford a smaller quantity, thereby expanding the market. Ask Kodak Alaris if you've a need to completely understand its marketing strategy.


...Are they just in the business of selling cardboard boxes?See the analysis in post #57. That's pretty cheap for cardboard and vapor-seal foil.

[faberryman]

blah, blah, blah
Thank you for your penetrating observations.

[LabRat]

I guess from an accounting perspective, they will sell a lot more ten sheet boxes than the other sizes (because all they will sell is 10 sheet boxes)... :-0

Steve K

[HMG]

...So, yes, the price is more. A whopping 14 cents more per sheet, ...

I am (frankly) surprised that the increase in price is so minimal. I was certainly wrong on this score.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Email I just received from Kodak Alaris...

Dear Andrew,

Some good news to share. We have decided to maintain availability of the 50 sheet-4 x 5 black and white film items along with the new 10 sheet items for the time being.

Best regards,

Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020
thomas.j.mooney@kodakalaris.com | Office: 585.310.5776 | Mobile: 585.520.2639
www.kodakalaris.com
cid:image001.png@01D0784F.34F11A30

[Fred L]

haha. just after I got some fresh stock of 50 sheet boxes lol. Good news nonetheless !

[Bob Salomon]

Email I just received from Kodak Alaris...

Dear Andrew,

Some good news to share. We have decided to maintain availability of the 50 sheet-4 x 5 black and white film items along with the new 10 sheet items for the time being.

Best regards,

Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020
thomas.j.mooney@kodakalaris.com | Office: 585.310.5776 | Mobile: 585.520.2639
www.kodakalaris.com
cid:image001.png@01D0784F.34F11A30

For the time being really means until boxes run out and they have to order more boxes, or until sales drop. It is not the most positive marketing responses!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Well... it's better than, "we're not offering it anymore".

[BrianShaw]

I suppose its totally useless to mention how much I like the 25 sheet boxes.

[loonatic45414]

If not 25, I would think at least a 20 sheet box would have made sense given 2 per holder. 10 is wasteful in terms of box trash.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[jp]

Email I just received from Kodak Alaris...

Dear Andrew,

Some good news to share. We have decided to maintain availability of the 50 sheet-4 x 5 black and white film items along with the new 10 sheet items for the time being.

Best regards,

Thomas J. Mooney | Film Capture Business Manager
Kodak Alaris Inc., 2400 Mount Read Blvd., Rochester, NY 14615-03020
thomas.j.mooney@kodakalaris.com | Office: 585.310.5776 | Mobile: 585.520.2639
www.kodakalaris.com
cid:image001.png@01D0784F.34F11A30

It's better news. No need for everyone to be crotchety.

[BrianShaw]

Okay. I'll stop. I was just about to suggest 24 or 26 sheet boxes. Ha ha.

[Richard Wasserman]

So maybe now B&H will fill my backorder.

Just for the record I prefer 100 sheet boxes, but will buy whatever size is available.

[letchhausen]

I like the 10 sheet boxes. I shoot mostly Portra in 4x5 but do occasionally see something I want in B&W and never shoot more than six on a given trip. It'll be nice not to have to pull one of those 25 packs out and stick them into an empty Portra box. It'll also allow me to keep my B&W separate from my color. Also I like something that divides into holders evenly (unlike 25). But I agree that 20 would have been perfect.

[Leigh]

I suspect this is driven much more by the supply chain than by the consumer.

Film expires. After that date it either is thrown out or sold at a considerable discount.

Selling 10-sheet boxes rotates the dealer's inventory much faster than selling 100-sheet boxes.
All buyers will purchase product more often than they would with large boxes.

- Leigh

[letchhausen]

Just saw that they raised the prices on the 50 sheet boxes as well! How does that track? Is that to punish us for not buying the 10 sheet boxes?

[Sal Santamaura]

Just saw that they raised the prices on the 50 sheet boxes as well!...I'm not sure who "they" are, but B&H got 50-sheet boxes of 4x5 TMY-2 in yesterday and it's unchanged from before the 10-sheet announcement -- still $119.95:


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545368-USA/Kodak_8438202_TMY_4053_4_x.html

There are 187 boxes in stock and available for purchase as this is posted.

[Richard Wasserman]

I received an email this morning from B&H that my backorder of TMY-2 was shipped! Life is good...

[rdenney]

Thank you for your penetrating observations.

Don't make a snarky comment if you don't want a snarky reply.

Rick "thinking we could all do with a bit less snark" Denney

[Sal Santamaura]

blah, blah, blah


Thank you for your penetrating observations.


Don't make a snarky comment if you don't want a snarky reply.

Rick "thinking we could all do with a bit less snark" DenneyAnd please don't post fabricated "quotes" you attribute to other members. While not explicitly prohibited by the Usage Guidelines, doing that is certainly not in the spirit of "Maintaining Forum Decorum."

[letchhausen]

I'm not sure who "they" are, but B&H got 50-sheet boxes of 4x5 TMY-2 in yesterday and it's unchanged from before the 10-sheet announcement -- still $119.95:


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545368-USA/Kodak_8438202_TMY_4053_4_x.html

There are 187 boxes in stock and available for purchase as this is posted.

I just bought a 50 sheet box of Tri-X for 99.95 (three weeks ago) and now it's 114.95. Unless B&H was having a sale and I didn't realize it.

[Sal Santamaura]

I just bought a 50 sheet box of Tri-X for 99.95 (three weeks ago) and now it's 114.95. Unless B&H was having a sale and I didn't realize it.I don't track the price of 320TXP in 4x5 since discovering the superiority of TMY-2 where enlargement is intended. My use of 320TXP is limited to contact printing applications, such as 8x10, where the B&H price has remained steady since dropping last year.

So, yes, if one buys 4x5 320TXP I guess the price has increased. My suggestion is to spend another $5 and realize the benefits of TMY-2. :)

[Richard Wasserman]

So, yes, if one buys 4x5 320TXP I guess the price has increased. My suggestion is to spend another $5 and realize the benefits of TMY-2. :)

+1 TMY-2 is wonderful stuff

[Andrew O'Neill]

Best film ever... but I still love my HP5!

[macandal]

Someone in this thread mentioned and sounded to me as if special ordering boxes containing more than what is normally stocked by stores is possible. My questions is, does anyone know if it is possible to special order a 50-sheet box or a 100-sheet box (hell, even a 25-sheet box) of 4x5 Ektar? If so, how would one go about placing such an order?

Thanks.

[ben_hutcherson]

This was interesting to read, and January was about the time I started ordering 4x5 film.

With that said, I've yet to buy any current production Kodak sheet film products. I shoot a LOT of Tri-X in medium format, and it's an emulsion that I know well and love. The problem is that I know TXP is a different emulsion from TX, and now TXP is only available in sheet film. So, I'm left with an issue of shelling out big bucks for a box of something that I may not like. A 10 sheet box is at least attractive to me in that respect.

Ilford has been getting a lot of my B&W business lately. I've come to really love FP4+ as my defacto Plus-X replacement. There's also a big argument for economy when stepping up to 4x5. The last 25 sheet box of FP4+ I bought(from Freestyle) was $36. 5 rolls of 120 is $27.50 or so. By contrast, with Tri-X, a 5-roll pro pack is $25.91(per my last order) while a 10 sheet box of TXP is $24.39. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that Kodak and Ilford can keep their roll film prices competitive with each other(with Ilford actually tending to be a bit more expensive, albeit not by a significant amount) while Kodak sheet prices are astronomical vs. Ilford. At least now I can try TXP for $25 and not commit $100 to a 50 sheet box.

[Sal Santamaura]

I just bought a 50 sheet box of Tri-X for 99.95 (three weeks ago) and now it's 114.95. Unless B&H was having a sale and I didn't realize it.


I don't track the price of 320TXP in 4x5 since discovering the superiority of TMY-2 where enlargement is intended. My use of 320TXP is limited to contact printing applications, such as 8x10, where the B&H price has remained steady since dropping last year.

So, yes, if one buys 4x5 320TXP I guess the price has increased. My suggestion is to spend another $5 and realize the benefits of TMY-2. :)I still don't track B&H's price for 320TXP in 4x5, but just happened upon it after noticing that TMY-2 in 4x5 has gone up again (now $134.95 for 50 sheets). However, the 320TXP is down to $99.00:


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html


Get some now if you want it. Personally, I'm about to spend the additional $36 for TMY-2. :)


Someone in this thread mentioned and sounded to me as if special ordering boxes containing more than what is normally stocked by stores is possible. My questions is, does anyone know if it is possible to special order a 50-sheet box or a 100-sheet box (hell, even a 25-sheet box) of 4x5 Ektar? If so, how would one go about placing such an order?

Thanks.The person to ask is Keith Canham:


kodakfilm@canhamcameras.com

However, if past is prologue, expect a specially-ordered 50-sheet box of 4x5 Ektar to cost more than five 10-sheet boxes, and anticipate needing to convince a lot of other people to purchase it at the same time. The minimum order has been around $18k. In my opinion, that's a large hurdle to jump just to avoid some cardboard and foil. :)

[Thalmees]

Similar behavior by some ebay sellers,
Hindering photographers from staying in the medium! Preventing many more from entry to photography!
Helping for further much more discontinuity of the photographic(film) industry!!!
Selling used items or film, for much higher than maximum profit at much lower number of transactions.
Savage sellers in awful market!
.
Kodak is leading the market to a no return point !!!
TMY2, 50 sheets 4X5 at $135 ?
That's $2.7 for single exposure!!! $2.8/sheet, for 10 sheets box.
Now, if you add another sheet for intra-camera duplicate, insurance for dust or development artifacts,
Then, a third sheet as a bracketing toward the favorable side of exposure scale,
It's above $8(at least) for a single subject. Crazy! $8.4 per 3 exposures, for 10 sheets box. Crazy for the dwarf 4X5 of LF photography!
Kodak does not wish to die alone peacefully!
Kodak want to kill the market before it die!
Never said that before, did not wish to say that, did not expect, I was loyal to Kodak films.
Kodak took this step after studying the market well, and concluded that they can continue selling at the newer price as before or maybe more!
Kodak know well, that it will not be able to sell a box of TMY2 at $135, beside another boxes from ILFORD, Bergger, Foma and Others at lower than half price.
But they already increased price again, decided, based on a robust! conclusion! What does that mean?
Other manufacturers will follow, soon or not much later. The market(any market) does not need a reasonable justifications to move in either direction, and Kodak is still at least a traditional leader!
If Kodak is seriously willing to continue film industry, they should sell their fixed assets or at least share with another manufacturer. Only, If it's true that they are really supporting continuity of photographic film.
No industry in the history has sustained what photographic(film) industry suffered during the last 15 years, and continued as photographic film continued today. Really magnificent young for ever, photo-opto-chemical devise, of an ancient human invention of unlimited age. Few to several manufacturers has been entered the market. Still waiting more.
But unfortunately, at this point of history, Kodak now(and has been, during the last 10 years), is playing a harmful negative factor toward photographers and film customers, not toward film industry alone.
.
A much better and meaningful tale, is the traditional alternative. ILFORD.
If they are clever enough, they should keep their present prices for the coming several years, regardless the amount of profit, as possible as there is a profit from the process.
Or, hard to believe, introducing Delta400 !
Why not? It's a war! Kodak is clever, did not increased TMX price, just to hinder any further advantage of competitors ISO100 films.
I know, HP5+ is not the typical alternative of TMY2.
But, at the present prices of film(100 sheets HP5+ at $125; Vs. ; 50 sheets TMY2 at $135), even in the shortest run, the difference is HUGE. The same huge advantage for Delta100 and FP4+ films.
Off course, the advantage of the later two films against TMX, is clear at a little longer run.
Plus, the MAJOR advantage of, as early as possible, adopting same film(or same primary film), against jumping from film to another. Both advantages, make Delta100(or FP4+) the primary, and TMX just one of many alternatives. The advantage is more clear, for HP5+ against TXP.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would also like to see Delta 400 in sheets but that won't happen. It could cut into sales of HP5, their flagship film. I'll just have to make due with it in 120.

[ben_hutcherson]

Plus, the MAJOR advantage of, as early as possible, adopting same film(or same primary film), against jumping from film to another. Both advantages, make Delta100(or FP4+) the primary, and TMX just one of many alternatives. The advantage is more clear, for HP5+ against TXP.

There again is one of my criticisms from me as a "yellow" loyalist from my early days in photography(at least when it comes to B&W-I tend "green" for transparency film).

If I have fewer than 50 rolls of 120 TX in the freezer, I tend to order more. I don't shoot a LOT of 35mm anymore, but do keep some on hand.

I KNOW TX very well. I DO NOT know TXP at all, and the only way to learn it is to pay the steep prices for 4x5. I know it used to be available in 120 and 220, but that's long gone.

I don't know HP5 very well, but I can get it across the board in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.

I'm just happy that I have FP4+. I didn't shoot a lot of it before getting into LF, but have come to really like it.

Truth be told, I prefer medium format for learning a film as it's often less expensive per roll than 135-36 and I get a big negative/transparency that I can view on the light table. Plus, I just try to make 12 meaningful shots rather than burning film so that I can develop the roll as I do in 35mm.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Kodak know well, that it will not be able to sell a box of TMY2 at $135, beside another boxes from ILFORD, Bergger, Foma and Others at lower than half price...And yet, B&H keeps selling it and replenishing its stock. At the moment, after a large quantity arrived within the last few days, there are 242 boxes in stock. Two boxes sold between when I checked this morning and now. I'll be ordering a box Monday when they reopen.

Only those who recognize both the product's superiority and how small a percentage of their total photo-travel expenses it represents will continue to buy 4x5 TMY-2. I'm among them. I also have three boxes of 5x7 TMY-2 on the way from Keith Canham, with delivery expected in around five weeks. Spreading fixed costs across smaller and smaller volumes leaves only two choices. Raise prices or cease production. I'm glad Kodak keeps choosing the first option.

[Thalmees]

Thanks Sal for your comment.
Please continue reading after what you have quoted:


Kodak know well, that it will not be able to sell a box of TMY2 at $135, beside another boxes from ILFORD, Bergger, Foma and Others at lower than half price.
But they already increased price again, decided, based on a robust! conclusion! What does that mean?
Other manufacturers will follow, soon or not much later. The market(any market) does not need a reasonable justifications to move in either direction, and Kodak is still at least a traditional leader!
If Kodak is seriously willing to continue film industry, they should sell their fixed assets or at least share with another manufacturer. Only, If it's true that they are really supporting continuity of photographic film.
As for Kodak other options and consequences, will come back with more details.
Thanks.

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks Sal for your comment.
Please continue reading after what you have quoted:


...Kodak know well, that it will not be able to sell a box of TMY2 at $135, beside another boxes from ILFORD, Bergger, Foma and Others at lower than half price.
But they already increased price again, decided, based on a robust! conclusion! What does that mean?
Other manufacturers will follow, soon or not much later. The market(any market) does not need a reasonable justifications to move in either direction, and Kodak is still at least a traditional leader!
If Kodak is seriously willing to continue film industry, they should sell their fixed assets or at least share with another manufacturer. Only, If it's true that they are really supporting continuity of photographic film...

As for Kodak other options and consequences, will come back with more details.
Thanks.I think the idea that Eastman Kodak could or would sell Bldg. 38, including the equipment therein, to another photographic film manufacturer, which would then continue operating the facility to produce photographic film, is way outside the realm of reality. Kodak would scrap its coating line and demolish the building first. As for 'sharing' it with another manufacturer, Kodak might be comfortable with contract coating, but I can't imagine it turning over the line to a competitor's team to come in and operate.

Eastman Kodak, like every other publicly held corporate entity, is interested only in supporting continuity of its own profit. If that means selling photographic film, fine. If it means printing boxes, just as fine. Apparently enough customers have been willing to pay a substantial premium for TMY-2 in comparison to alternative 4x5 black and white negative films that Kodak Alaris can market it for $135 per 50-sheet box at retail. I don't anticipate HARMAN or FOMA increasing prices even close to that per sheet; their sales would plunge dramatically if they did.

[faberryman]

The market(any market) does not need a reasonable justifications to move in either direction, and Kodak is still at least a traditional leader!
The justification is supply and demand. They set the price on the demand curve to maximize profit.

What is Kodak leading in on the consumer side?

[Thalmees]

Hello all,
Hope the non-stop "increasing film prices" per se, will get more exposure.
Just put my 200 cents! in a separate thread. Wish it find your acceptance to share your opinions.
"Kodak Vs Film. Bourgeois Extorting Laborers? TMY2 Raising Price Again!"
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?137828-Kodak-Vs-Film-Bourgeois-Extorting-Laborers-TMY2-Raising-Price-Again!
Thanks so much.

[Rich14]

I just spoke to Freestyle Photo today about a pre-order I put in for TMX and TMY to be shipped in mid-April. I don't know to whom I was speaking, but he assured me that both will be available in 10 sheet and 50 sheet boxes for as long as there is demand for those quantities. He agreed that the smaller quantity option is necessary for students/first time users who likely find the 50 sheet price an insurmountable obstacle to ever trying these films, therefore never becoming customers. I suggested that having 10, 20, 50 and 100 sheet options could only result in increased sales over all. He thought the 20 and 100 sheet options were a good idea. Small quantities at a reasonable price and larger quantities at a quantity discount make sense.

The only way to ever get these options is to show Kodak there's a market. Money, or the promise of a sale at the right price/quantity talks. Let them know you want the product in the quantity that makes sense to you.

Rich

[faberryman]

How are you going too show Kodak there is a market for 20 and 100 sheet boxes if they don't offer them?

[Rich14]

Request them from vendors. Freestyle said they are listening.

[Pere Casals]

The justification is supply and demand. They set the price on the demand curve to maximize profit.

What is Kodak leading in on the consumer side?


Justification is marketing/corporate policy for the short term or for the long term.


New LF photographers adjust their process for Ilford (or FOMA, mainly for studio), exactly same results can be obtained and the sheet is half the price, just different filter and process settings.


There is a pool of established users that are using TMXY films, and they are not going to change their process, so Kodak is to extract as money as they can from them now, and tomorrow does not matter...


For this reason future is easy to guess, it happened before:


Ilford BW paper range: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=5&t=Photographic+Papers


Kodak BW paper range: ????


90% of Ex factory film cost is emulsion. Why punishing LF this way?


IMHO if Kodak/Fuji were promoting LF photography popularity they were going to promote film prestige in a field where digital cannot match performance/aesthetics, at the same time they were promoting the rest of film photography. And this would result in a nice long term business.

They are using primitive marketing analysis tools with little HumInt factor. And this is destructive.

[koraks]

I have an eery feeling of deja vue. Maybe a few boxes of TMY2 or another Kodak product will make this go away.

[Bruce Barlow]

I always get in trouble for saying this...

But if we all spent more time photographing and less time complaining about the availability of materials, we'd use more film and drive demand...

I agree with Sal. How many times have I been on a trip, had the camera set up, darkslide removed and thought "Is this picture worth the cost of the film?"

Then I think: "$30 in gas to get here, $30 on dinner last night, $80 for the hotel, $10 for breakfast because the hotel buffet was so bad. $5 for film for this exposure, which is why I'm here anyway."

Click.

[esearing]

If Kodak wanted to make money and really support film again they could open their processing labs back up and offer development by mail like they did way back when. The newbies with their retro cameras would burn through rolls of 35mm and 120 faster if they had someone else to process and print contact sheets, small prints, or digitize the negatives. Some Pros may even go back to using film if they had a reliable lab to process.
Then if that caught on, we could see local film labs pop up again with their one hour machines serving both the digital and film markets.

The rest of us will still putter about our darkrooms and marvel at all the new/old chemistry and products available. Then probably argue about it here and complain about the price of sending off to the lab.

[Pere Casals]

I have an eery feeling of deja vue. Maybe a few boxes of TMY2 or another Kodak product will make this go away.

Kodak/Fuji cannot destroy BW film, they will destroy a choice. As they could not destroy wet printing. If it was for them wet BW printing was not going to exist today.

Most important damage Kodak/Fuji will do (for sure) to film culture is in LF color photography field, by discouraging new LF photographers. They have monopolies there, so they can harm a lot.

[Pere Casals]

I always get in trouble for saying this...

But if we all spent more time photographing and less time complaining about the availability of materials, we'd use more film and drive demand...

I agree with Sal. How many times have I been on a trip, had the camera set up, darkslide removed and thought "Is this picture worth the cost of the film?"

Then I think: "$30 in gas to get here, $30 on dinner last night, $80 for the hotel, $10 for breakfast because the hotel buffet was so bad. $5 for film for this exposure, which is why I'm here anyway."

Click.


This is your case, the $30+30+80+10 is monthly salary in some countries, and the 6 months salary of people that make your shoes in Bangladesh.

Look, selling the sheets at 2x the (per surface) price compared with rool film is a LF punishing policy. If you are rich... ok, for you $135 is nothing. For others this is painful and discouraging.

[esearing]

This is your case, the $30+30+80+10 is monthly salary in some countries, and the 6 months salary of people that make your shoes in Bangladesh.

Look, selling the sheets at 2x the (per surface) price compared with rool film is a LF punishing policy. If you are rich... ok, for you $135 is nothing. For others this is painful and discouraging.

The same logic keeps me from buying a Ferrari and a multi-million dollar home. However after paying for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and saving for retirement, if I have extra income to support a hobby then I will.

[Pere Casals]

The same logic keeps me from buying a Ferrari and a multi-million dollar home. However after paying for food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and saving for retirement, if I have extra income to support a hobby then I will.

I'm glad for you, really. Same logic is keeping new LF photographers to adjust their process for Kodak LF products, that normally have budgetary problems, so Kodak LF punishing pricing is a short term oriented policy to squeeze present customers at the cost of product survivality.

[jp]

If Kodak wanted to make money and really support film again they could open their processing labs back up and offer development by mail like they did way back when.

That ship has sailed. The "good ole days" of good cheap outsourced processing are gone. Good cheap processing was a result of scale and competition and no need for transportation; you can't will that into existence.

For B&W film, I think there is still plenty of innovation remaining to be done in home processing. The variety of processing methods and documentation resulting from the Internet is exciting.

[Pere Casals]

That ship has sailed. The "good ole days" of good cheap outsourced processing are gone. Good cheap processing was a result of scale and competition and no need for transportation; you can't will that into existence.

For B&W film, I think there is still plenty of innovation remaining to be done in home processing. The variety of processing methods and documentation resulting from the Internet is exciting.

I agree. Still a good&cheap color processing home solution is not there.

[Bruce Barlow]

This is your case, the $30+30+80+10 is monthly salary in some countries, and the 6 months salary of people that make your shoes in Bangladesh.

Look, selling the sheets at 2x the (per surface) price compared with rool film is a LF punishing policy. If you are rich... ok, for you $135 is nothing. For others this is painful and discouraging.

True, it is my case, and I have friends in far away places where this is their month's salary. Interestingly enough, they don't pursue large format photography. They all have iPhones, though.

$135 is not nothing, but compared to a day's worth of film at the differential between Kodak and other makers, it is illuminating to think about. After all, I spent the $135 in order to expose film. So why go cheap if I like the expensive stuff? That's a false economy if I use the cheap stuff and don't like the results later when I look at the prints. Sure, I'd love it to be cheaper, but it isn't, so I choose not to sweat the things I can't do anything about.

Real artists refuse to compromise on materials, and while they may moan about the cost, they don't skimp.

I also stand by my other statement that if we all got out and photographed more, and wore out our chair arms less, there just might not be as big a problem. Think I'll go out photographing. Since I'm at home, there's no $135 involved unless I get a really good lunch.

[Pere Casals]

So why go cheap if I like the expensive stuff?

Well... everyone has an answer for that question.

My answer is that same expensive thing cut in rolls instead in sheets has 1/2 the price (per surface), so that expensive stuff is unfairly priced, IMHO, and I'm not prone to buy something I consider very unfairly priced.

Then also I value the companies that have a fair pricing policy for LF film, because this promotes LF popularity, so I prefer my money in their pocket to reward their fairness.

And also finally I concluded I can obtain exactly the same result with a fairly priced alternative than with the expensive unfairly priced stuff.

[loonatic45414]

I don't know what the problem is. If you can afford Kodak, buy it, otherwise don't. I get it, some people can afford Ilford, some have to buy Foma. But going on about how good Foma or whatever is, well, that's just funny. We know you can't afford decent film, but please don't go on about how good it is.

The idea about a $135 outing isn't about the $135. I spend that at a hotel per night because I don't want to sleep with cockroaches, bedbugs & belligerent drunks next door. The point is, saving a buck or Euro on film is a false economy.

If I only earned $135 a month, I'd still shoot Kodak, or perhaps Ilford. I would just choose what I shot carefully.

Unfair pricing? There's nothing fair or unfair regarding film pricing. You've got options.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk

[ben_hutcherson]

I agree. Still a good&cheap color processing home solution is not there.

In the US, Freestyle(Arista) sells both C-41 and E6 kits that are very economical. I haven't looked at the C41 kit, but the E6 kit is 3 bath(as opposed to the 5 baths of the old Kodak kits) and uses Blix-that step is somewhat controversial from what I've seen. With that said, the closest lab to me I know of that will process sheet film is in Chicago, and I prefer not dealing with shipping and the complications that come with that.

I still have a local lab do my 35mm as I like them mounted. I do all my medium and large format at home, however.

BTW, I've never shot Foma, although I understand Arista.edu is Foma and I have a box of it in the freezer. I use to shoot some Efke, however. Aside from rolls, I picked up a 2x3 Crown several years ago and at the time Efke 50 was the only available 2x3 emulsion. My worst memories, though, are of how terribly it would curl. I've fought curly roll film in older stocks from Kodak and the like, although fresh Kodak and Ilford dry dead flat. Even in-date Efke would curl worse than the 30 year old Tri-X I developed this past weekend.

[Pere Casals]

I don't know what the problem is. If you can afford Kodak, buy it, otherwise don't. I get it, some people can afford Ilford, some have to buy Foma. But going on about how good Foma or whatever is, well, that's just funny. We know you can't afford decent film, but please don't go on about how good it is.

The idea about a $135 outing isn't about the $135. I spend that at a hotel per night because I don't want to sleep with cockroaches, bedbugs & belligerent drunks next door. The point is, saving a buck or Euro on film is a false economy.

If I only earned $135 a month, I'd still shoot Kodak, or perhaps Ilford. I would just choose what I shot carefully.

Unfair pricing? There's nothing fair or unfair regarding film pricing. You've got options.

Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk


I can buy Kodak/Fuji sheets, but I actively favor a manufacturer that is supporting LF photographers because excellent film at excellent price and because they support darkroom printing. It is my choice.


My position is the oposite than yours. Let me show you my reasoning:


> Ilford suports LF film photographers by a fair LF film pricing policy, and sources a wide range RC / FB papers that allow us with print with HQ materials.

> Fuji / Kodak punishes LF photographers with an (IMHO) unfair pricing policy, and this damages LF popularity where they have a monopoly (slides and negative color film).


So IMHO, when we have a choice we can support a manufacturer that supports LF photography by placing our money in their pocket. If Ilford disapears good RC/FB paper will disapear, and excellent film at fair pricing it will also disapear. And this is critical.


IMHO Kodak/Fuji are squeezing present LF customers aganist long term profit, and they don't care if they damage LF popularity with that (IMHO) unfair pricing policy.


Until I know rolls are more expensive to manufacture than sheets (per surface), base considered. Also a box of sheets is a volume buy, you buy 10x to 20x more product, so you may even expect a discount. Fuji/Kodak are not charging a 20% more with sheets, this is a 200% to 300% more, basicly because they cut film different.

As Ilford can sell sheets at same (per surface) price than 120 rolls, my interpretation is that c. 200% Kodak/Fuji overprice is due short term corporate policy, intended to sequeeze present LF customers aganist long term profits, as with paper happened. This is my interpretation, well based in fact.


Well, Kodak/Fuji can do that policy, and I can actively favor the manufacturer I think he supports me, beyond if I can buy or not the Kodak/Fuji sheets. And this also includes chem.

If a lot of people also do that perhaps they will change their LF punishing policy. And at the end we can protect the manufacturer that also sources affordable/best paper.

My personal policy is to favor Ilford LF products, still I can buy some LF Acros because reciprocity. And what's for color I tend to do it in 120.

[Pere Casals]

In the US, Freestyle(Arista) sells both C-41 and E6 kits that are very economical. I haven't looked at the C41 kit, but the E6 kit is 3 bath(as opposed to the 5 baths of the old Kodak kits) and uses Blix-that step is somewhat controversial from what I've seen. With that said, the closest lab to me I know of that will process sheet film is in Chicago, and I prefer not dealing with shipping and the complications that come with that.

I still have a local lab do my 35mm as I like them mounted. I do all my medium and large format at home, however.

BTW, I've never shot Foma, although I understand Arista.edu is Foma and I have a box of it in the freezer. I use to shoot some Efke, however. Aside from rolls, I picked up a 2x3 Crown several years ago and at the time Efke 50 was the only available 2x3 emulsion. My worst memories, though, are of how terribly it would curl. I've fought curly roll film in older stocks from Kodak and the like, although fresh Kodak and Ilford dry dead flat. Even in-date Efke would curl worse than the 30 year old Tri-X I developed this past weekend.


I was using Tetenal E-6, but now 5L kit is not made, and the 2.5L kit is much more expensive per L. The arista 5L is competitive, but I've expensive shipping with it, I'd like to test it. An important issue may be mixed chem shelf life... but anyway I mix just what I need.

For curling, you know... a weight pulling, and right to sleeves to rest there before scanning/printing... With Adox, Rollei and Ilford I've no problem.

[Michael Kadillak]

I can buy Kodak/Fuji sheets, but I actively favor a manufacturer that is supporting LF photographers because excellent film at excellent price and because they support darkroom printing. It is my choice.


My position is the oposite than yours. Let me show you my reasoning:


> Ilford suports LF film photographers by a fair LF film pricing policy, and sources a wide range RC / FB papers that allow us with print with HQ materials.

> Fuji / Kodak punishes LF photographers with an (IMHO) unfair pricing policy, and this damages LF popularity where they have a monopoly (slides and negative color film).


So IMHO, when we have a choice we can support a manufacturer that supports LF photography by placing our money in their pocket. If Ilford disapears good RC/FB paper will disapear, and excellent film at fair pricing it will also disapear. And this is critical.


IMHO Kodak/Fuji are squeezing present LF customers aganist long term profit, and they don't care if they damage LF popularity with that (IMHO) unfair pricing policy.


Until I know rolls are more expensive to manufacture than sheets (per surface), base considered. Also a box of sheets is a volume buy, you buy 10x to 20x more product, so you may even expect a discount. Fuji/Kodak are not charging a 20% more with sheets, this is a 200% to 300% more, basicly because they cut film different.

As Ilford can sell sheets at same (per surface) price than 120 rolls, my interpretation is that c. 200% Kodak/Fuji overprice is due short term corporate policy, intended to sequeeze present LF customers aganist long term profits, as with paper happened. This is my interpretation, well based in fact.


Well, Kodak/Fuji can do that policy, and I can actively favor the manufacturer I think he supports me, beyond if I can buy or not the Kodak/Fuji sheets. And this also includes chem.

If a lot of people also do that perhaps they will change their LF punishing policy. And at the end we can protect the manufacturer that also sources affordable/best paper.

My personal policy is to favor Ilford LF products, still I can buy some LF Acros because reciprocity. And what's for color I tend to do it in 120.

All of these emotional feelings about Kodak or Fuji harming LF photography because of unfair pricing policy is completely unfounded and unnecessary.

It is business and it is no different than any other industry that sets up a manufacturing operating infrastructure to produce a product for sale with an intent to generate the highest profit possible. The quality of the product they chose to manufacture, how they market it, price it and service it is a decision that their management team has the responsibility to make. Outside of the business particularly within private or foreign companies we have no idea as to what drives the numbers. We as consumers look at the purchase options we have and decide to buy or not buy and the aggregation (i.e. the price and/or quality point) of these individual decisions formulates the success or failure of each companies business plan. They can lower the costs and see if this will drive volume or raise the costs and see how much degradation of sales actually takes place. What drives some consumers crazy is the fact that they want to assume that higher prices hurt the manufacturer and then they begin to draw hypothetical conclusions based upon this false premise. Sometimes higher prices do not make a lick of difference in sales as some consumers will buy at what ever the price is. Business is not a charity that acts in the role of a benefactor to a cause or artistic passion. If these companies were not generating a profit they would close shop since the industry consolidation phase has already happened. Even during the best times in the photographic industry many companies came and went with the one constant being perpetual change. At the end of the day we should think favorably that Kodak is still in the game irrespective of if it is not to your liking because it speaks to the solvency of the business model and that is a very positive thing. We need to stay positive because we still have a lot of choice.

[Sal Santamaura]

All of these emotional feelings about Kodak...We need to stay positive because we still have a lot of choice.Michael, please don't quote people on my Ignore List. :D :D

Save your posting effort. Rational responses will have no effect in this situation. Use the Ignore function. It leads to much greater satisfaction than batting one's head against a wall.

[Pere Casals]

All of these emotional feelings about Kodak or Fuji harming LF photography because of unfair pricing policy is completely unfounded and unnecessary.


Not at all, IMHO it is necessary. I favor the manufacturer that has a fair Ex Factory cost based pricing, making profits by favouring LF popularity in the long term, and servicing customers, for example with ULF cuts and paper.

When I favor Ilford I reward, as a customer, the kind of corporate policy I think is good for me and for LF popularity. It's my personal choice and my right.




...hypothetical conclusions based upon this false premise...

Facts !!

> LF products are (per surface) cheaper to manufacture than rolls.

> Fuji/Kodak charges 200% overprice vs 120.

> A 200% overprice damages color LF popularity for sure. It is legal and they can do it.

> I can dislike that policy and I can favor a manufacturer that promotes LF popularity. It's my choice and my right.





Business is not a charity that acts in the role of a benefactor to a cause or artistic passion.

Ilford has a long term policy based in servicing LF customer with fair pricing based on Ex Factory cost. It is the policy that secured quality print paper availability, and I'm grateful with them because that.


Fuji/Kodak (IMHO) seek short term profits by squeezing captive customers, aganist long term survavility of LF photography.


So, It's my choice and my right favouring a manufacturer that IMHO is securing LF survavility for the future.

IMHO Fuji/Kodak will kill the color LF, I can do nothing. But I can try to protect (from my modest position) BW survavility by helping the manufacrurer that demonstrates a long term bet with us.

[koraks]

Save your posting effort. Rational responses will have no effect in this situation.
Word. He's clueless about how business works and prefers to stay that way. That's fine by me.

[Pere Casals]

Michael, please don't quote people on my Ignore List. :D :D

Save your posting effort. Rational responses will have no effect in this situation. Use the Ignore function. It leads to much greater satisfaction than batting one's head against a wall.

Hello Sal,

My position is very rational. My arguments are solid like a concrete wall.

You can try to discredit my reasoning, promoting "Ignore function" just tells about your arguments.

I don't feel ofended because "ignore button", just I feel I'm right.

I say all this here in the little hope that somebody in the Kodak/Fuji management positions get aware that they can do things in another way, that may end in something like this long term business fashion:

163733

[Pere Casals]

Word. He's clueless about how business works and prefers to stay that way. That's fine by me.

I know very well how business works. I know what is betting for the long term profits.

Also I know why I'm favouring Ilford like others because their commitment with photographers. So IMHO I think I know what Fuji/Kodak are doing wrong and Ilford is doing well.

Well, we have the BW paper example to make a good guess: Ilford has a very profitable product line for the long term... and a lot of customers are grateful with them !!!

The new film market requires a commitment with customers. Saying price is now 200%... what is that?

[koraks]

Why don't you apply the same kind of objective rationalism to this matter as you do to the technical aspects of photography? It's really remarkable how you can go on about technical details, getting to the bottom of things, while in this matter, you just stick to a price list, some personal prejudice and then use them to beat that same dead horse over and over again.

[Pere Casals]

I want to add that Kodak announcing Ektachrome back is commitment with customers, while LF punishing pricing is not. Sure Kodak saw possible profits with Ektachrome, but they made the effort for a long term relationship with customers.

So I'll react accordingly, personally I'll support Kodak by purchasing Ektachrome rolls, and I'll punish Kodak in the sheets range. Customers can reward/punish a manufacturer upon their satisfaction with the brand corporate policy.

For example a car manufacturer can be punished by customers because they lied with emissions. One may favour/punish the corporation that is good/bad for the community.

[faberryman]

I want to add that Kodak announcing Ektachrome back is commitment with customers, while LF punishing pricing is not. So I'll react accordingly, personally I'll support Kodak by purchasing Ektachrome rolls, and I'll punish Kodak in the sheets range. Customers can reward/punish a manufacturer upon their satisfaction with the brand corporate policy.
You say you are going to buy Kodak Ektachrome, and yet you do not even know the pricing on it. Interesting.

[Pere Casals]

You say you are going to buy Kodak Ektachrome, and yet you do not even know the pricing on it. Interesting.

Yes, you are right, this is a weak point in my argumentation, in reality I was very happy because the announcement, perhaps when I see the price I'll feel deceived...

[ben_hutcherson]

Facts !!
> LF products are (per surface) cheaper to manufacture than rolls.



At the risk of once again driving myself crazy...

Do you know this to be a fact?

I'm speculating, but I'd venture to guess that 80% or better of what gets coated in building 36 is on an acetate base, especially now that MP prints are mostly a thing of the past.

With that behemoth of a plant, I suspect that switching over to coat on polyester is not exactly a small undertaking. I'm no engineer, but I'd guess that the same emulsion also has to be formulated differently in order to get it to adhere to the polyester base vs. acetate.

You also have to factor in that you may be looking at a decent amount of downtime to make the switch.

Building 36 is a relic from Kodak's days of churning out inexpensive, high quality consumer film and motion picture print film. Ilford has publicly stated that their facilities are much more "flexible" than those at Kodak.

Just based on this alone, I have a strong suspicion that the cost is not "less" than roll film, but then I don't know that for a fact nor do you know for a fact that it is less.

[Thalmees]

All of these emotional feelings about Kodak or Fuji harming LF photography because of unfair pricing policy is completely unfounded and unnecessary.
It is business and it is no different than any other industry that sets up a manufacturing operating infrastructure to produce a product for sale with an intent to generate the highest profit possible. The quality of the product they chose to manufacture, how they market it, price it and service it is a decision that their management team has the responsibility to make. Outside of the business particularly within private or foreign companies we have no idea as to what drives the numbers. We as consumers look at the purchase options we have and decide to buy or not buy and the aggregation (i.e. the price and/or quality point) of these individual decisions formulates the success or failure of each companies business plan. They can lower the costs and see if this will drive volume or raise the costs and see how much degradation of sales actually takes place. What drives some consumers crazy is the fact that they want to assume that higher prices hurt the manufacturer and then they begin to draw hypothetical conclusions based upon this false premise. Sometimes higher prices do not make a lick of difference in sales as some consumers will buy at what ever the price is. Business is not a charity that acts in the role of a benefactor to a cause or artistic passion. If these companies were not generating a profit they would close shop since the industry consolidation phase has already happened. Even during the best times in the photographic industry many companies came and went with the one constant being perpetual change. At the end of the day we should think favorably that Kodak is still in the game irrespective of if it is not to your liking because it speaks to the solvency of the business model and that is a very positive thing. We need to stay positive because we still have a lot of choice.
Hello Michael,
Not emotional or hypothetical, at all. All that justifications mentioned(with full respect to you) are just weak justifications to take Kodak down the hill more and more.
What you have said can be valid ONLY, for dealers, retailers, studios, labs, their personnel, their families, whoever doing or relating to a business, BUT NOT for photographers.
Honestly, I can buy a box of 4x5 TMY2 at $270, but will not pay a $135 for it.
The story is not similar to feeding or sheltering your self or your family, at all. Can not compare life essentials with a higher intellectual requirements like doing ART. Can not compare feeling safe, secured and replete with the satisfaction and pleasure of art.
Kodak should think about their customers this way.
Hopefully, freestyles now, sells Kodak 4x5 sheet films at the previous prices, still much higher than any other equivalent film, but think still good sign. Wish other dealers show the same ASAP.
.
Then, inflating the market, is not good for all, Kodak in the first place, other manufacturers and the DIEHARD film gentlemen customers(artists mainly).
Kodak can decrease the margine of their CURRENT profit as long as they can earn a profit. Or, share their technology with others, before destroying everything about film and photography.
Kodak should think of the film market, as simple as this.
.
Then YES, the following phrases are emotional, but are very TRUE to the last letter:
You are the photographers(not the digital) who introduced Kodak to 2017. Thanks so much.
You are the photographers(not the digital) who paid whatever possible money every now and then, for Kodak to manage to arrive 2017. Thanks so much.
You are the photographers(not the digital) who spent every possible time to shoot film and then using Kodak chemicals, for Kodak to continue manufacturing historic chemical formulae in 2017.
Thanks too much on behalf of mankind.
Since 2004, all serious photographers has been sustaining the fear of film disappearing, please serious photographers(not the digital), do not sustain that bad feeling in 2017 and forever.
.
No emotions or hypothesis here:
I honestly, like the products of Kodak, wish they continue forever, better and the best, BUT I like MUCH MORE(at the same time) the film that does not destroy or alter my standards of life.
Thanks too much Michael.

[faberryman]

Yes, you are right, this is a weak point in my argumentation, in reality I was very happy because the announcement, perhaps when I see the price I'll feel deceived...
If they only offer 35mm, and you cannot compare to the price of 120 and 4x5, how will you determine if they are punishing you or not?

[Pere Casals]

Why don't you apply the same kind of objective rationalism to this matter as you do to the technical aspects of photography? It's really remarkable how you can go on about technical details, getting to the bottom of things, while in this matter, you just stick to a price list, some personal prejudice and then use them to beat that same dead horse over and over again.

Thanks for praising my technical debate, but I'm near a newcomer to LF, I've been learning a lot here, a deep technical debate has helped me a lot to understand advanced topics and knowing what matters or not and when.


I don't stick in price list, but in a factual pricing policy. It is a fact, as numeric as focal length is: 2x is 2x.


IMHO film is not only a comercial product, to me it's also an inmense cultural asset. Our Imaging Culture (in capitals) was forged by Plus-X, Double-X, Tri-X, Kodachrome, Vision 1,2,3 , Eterna, Ishikawa, Double-X usage at Schindler's list, Bleach bypass at Save Private Ryan... to mention some little spots.


Now I see Kodak/Fuji going for short term profits, damaging color LF popularity. This is making all profits they can do now aganist long term product survavility. I'm aganist this corporate policy, as a customer I want a long term survavility for film culture. Color film technology is owned by Kodak/Fuji, but color LF film subculture is a social asset that IMHO is to be killed by a short term profit policy.


I envision another way for those manufacturers:


> LF color has major/unique technical/aesthetical strengths.

> They promote that in their sites (like they promoted Vision 3). (What about a Kodak prize for LF color photography?)

> LF color (affordable) gains prestige & popularity, sells rise.

> Higher production -> lower cost -> lower price -> lower cost

> Fuji/Kodak exploit this new prestige in the imaging business



Are they bound to protect LF film culture over short term profits ? May they damage this subculture ?


Well, we now see that darkroom printers are supported by Ilford. If one can do things like Ansel or Karsh with HQ materials this is thanks to Ilford. And this has an inmense value !!! Where is Ektalure ???

Ilford is protecting that cultural asset !!!!


So Kodak and Fuji products are not only commercial products, they have to understand that their products are linked to survavility of a deep cultural heritage.


Well, they also have to make profits, true. But the way Ilford makes profits, for the long term, is good for us (see paper). The way Kodak/Fuji makes profits will (IMHO) help to destroy a subculture I love.

So we can get involved by evaluating if a corporate policy is to create or to destroy culture, and rewarding corporate policies that promote that culture for the long term.

[faberryman]

Your cultural asset is another's buggy whip.

[Pere Casals]

If they only offer 35mm, and you cannot compare to the price of 120 and 4x5, how will you determine if they are punishing you or not?

True: I won't be able in that case. But here the debate is about LF film pricing, if 10 sheets boxes is for a new price increase.

We see that Ilford has the same "per surface" price of sheets vs rolls, and kodak/fuji has a 200% overprice.

Sheets are a little share of film business... one manufacturer allows popularity with HQ LF film, 2 manufacturers punish LF popularity. So a single HQ manufacturer is promoting LF popularity, and also supporting darkrooms.

About Ektachrome I own 40 frozen sheets, and I wellcome Ektachrome back in rolls. I desire a pricing policy for it that allows its popularity.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/33608535481/in/dateposted-public/

[Pere Casals]

Your cultural asset is another's buggy whip.

I can be wrong, but I'm absolutely sincere. It's what I think.

[Thalmees]

Michael, please don't quote people on my Ignore List. :D
...
Hello Sal,
Can you accept my apologies on behalf of Michael:D? Thanks so much.
Still remembering that you mentioned TMY2 is fogging faster than other films even if kept in a favorable conditions!
Now, if my memory is correct, thanks so much again for this valuable information, I confirmed the fact with my TMY2. If my memory is not correct, please accept my apologies.
While you still reading this;), please bring your ignorance list to the nearest tailor:D to shorten at least one or two lines only. I honestly respect and follow your posts, and believe others do so.
.

...
Do you know this to be a fact?
...
Hello ben,
Other manufacturers, exceeded the phase of knowledge, they are actually ACTing the FACT, or a major part of that fact.
Studying the prices is a good enough indicator.
Please remember, how many manufacturer entered the market or revived to a better level of business.
At the same time, please remember, Kodak is a long time established manufacturer.

[ben_hutcherson]

Hello ben,
Other manufacturers, exceeded the phase of knowledge, they are actually ACTing the FACT, or a major part of that fact.
Studying the prices is a good enough indicator.
Please remember, how many manufacturer entered the market or revived to a better level of business.
At the same time, please remember, Kodak is a long time established manufacturer.

Once again, do you know that what's true for Ilford or Foma is also true for Kodak? I posted my thoughts on why it very well might not be.

Kodak is the oldest film manufacturer around and has better name recognition when it comes to film than anyone else. That name recognition-and subsequent sales that came from it in the past-also ties into production facilities that don't necessarily change/adapt/scale the same as the smaller makers.

[Pere Casals]

At the risk of once again driving myself crazy...

Do you know this to be a fact?

I'm speculating, but I'd venture to guess that 80% or better of what gets coated in building 36 is on an acetate base, especially now that MP prints are mostly a thing of the past.

With that behemoth of a plant, I suspect that switching over to coat on polyester is not exactly a small undertaking. I'm no engineer, but I'd guess that the same emulsion also has to be formulated differently in order to get it to adhere to the polyester base vs. acetate.

You also have to factor in that you may be looking at a decent amount of downtime to make the switch.

Building 36 is a relic from Kodak's days of churning out inexpensive, high quality consumer film and motion picture print film. Ilford has publicly stated that their facilities are much more "flexible" than those at Kodak.

Just based on this alone, I have a strong suspicion that the cost is not "less" than roll film, but then I don't know that for a fact nor do you know for a fact that it is less.


Hello Ben


FOMA sells LF film 30% cheaper than roll film

ILFORD sells LF film at same price than roll film.

KODAK sells LF film 200% to 300% more expensive than roll film

FUJI sells LF film 200% to 300% more expensive than roll film



Sure you know that emulsion is 90% of the cost of a master roll, 80% at least. A cascade coating machine coats all: poliester, acetate and even prepared PVC, etc, if you want: any plastic where emulsion can be well adhered. Most machines are able to coat any master roll width. Base thickness is not a problem, as the cascade is adjusted for the job...

The machine that cuts sheets is very low technology...

The line that makes rolls is very expensive and complicated, with a lot of automation, 135 canister is expensive, and was designed for very high production, having efficiency drawbacks for low runs.


LF has something more expensive: a thicker plastic base, but all plastic in a 8x10 box of sheets is not $5 worth, IMHO, difference has to be under $2. In the 135 you need 20 canisters.


If Kodak cannot coat TMY sheets they can hire Foma...


Well, today the major cost of film is having an idle coating plant, and this is the Kodak/Fuji bet.

Here you can see a cascade coating machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhW77dN94S0

rolls: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtz7a_Guu54&t=3s

Even Fotoimpex/Adox can make run one...

Regards

[koraks]

Well, today the major cost of film is having an idle coating plant, and this is the Kodak/Fuji bet.
Very interesting to see an inheritance as a "bet". But at least you're starting to be aware of what drives costs apart from what you personally have remembered from high school chemistry. At this rate, by the year 2035 you'll be starting to talk sense about pricing policies as well. I'm staying tuned.

[Pere Casals]

Very interesting to see an inheritance as a "bet". But at least you're starting to be aware of what drives costs apart from what you personally have remembered from high school chemistry. At this rate, by the year 2035 you'll be starting to talk sense about pricing policies as well. I'm staying tuned.


ILFORD sells LF film at same price than roll film.

KODAK sells LF film 200% to 300% more expensive than roll film.


Koraks, look, this is not a +15%...

My understanding is that Ex factory costs of roll film is very close to sheets (per surface), being rolls more expensive to manufacture.

200% Kodak/Fuji overprice is a marketing decission.

Look, it's very simple. Ilford has a corporate policy to mantain film business for the long term, like with BW paper. Kodak/Fuji are squeezing LF captive customers for short term chash.


We have a LF friendly manufacturer. An 2 LF punisher manufacturers.

[ben_hutcherson]

I can't believe I'm entering into this debate again.

But, again, I'll argue that you can't necessarily compare E-K manufacturing costs to those of Ilford and Foma.

Spare repeating the same pricing statistics that I've seen a hundred times now. I know what they are.

All I'm saying is that E-K has a lot of overhead to keep building 36 running. Ilford and Foma are not widely known outside photography circles. If every digital camera suddenly died and there was rampant worldwide demand for 35mm film like there was c.1995, neither could produce in the quantities that E-K(and Fuji) are capable of. That production capacity, I would also argue, is Kodak's achilles heel in the current market.

And, there again, it doesn't matter how easy the coating machines can coat polyester vs. acetate, there's still the fact that I doubt the change over from one to the other is as simple as just hooking a blank roll of base up to the coating machine.

[Pere Casals]

I can't believe I'm entering into this debate again.

But, again, I'll argue that you can't necessarily compare E-K manufacturing costs to those of Ilford and Foma.

Spare repeating the same pricing statistics that I've seen a hundred times now. I know what they are.

All I'm saying is that E-K has a lot of overhead to keep building 36 running. Ilford and Foma are not widely known outside photography circles. If every digital camera suddenly died and there was rampant worldwide demand for 35mm film like there was c.1995, neither could produce in the quantities that E-K(and Fuji) are capable of. That production capacity, I would also argue, is Kodak's achilles heel in the current market.

And, there again, it doesn't matter how easy the coating machines can coat polyester vs. acetate, there's still the fact that I doubt the change over from one to the other is as simple as just hooking a blank roll of base up to the coating machine.


Hello Ben,

It is quite simple: Manufacturing sheets is a bit cheaper than rolls. This is for FOMA, KODAK, ILFORD and FUJI.

Emulsion and coating work is just the same. A base a bit thicker for sheets and more manufacturing machinery for rolls. The critical process is obtaining master rolls, and this is equal.


There is a different pricing policy, dot. A 200% overprice has absolutely no justification other than squeezing present captive customers.



BTW, Have you seen this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhW77dN94S0?

Any guess about why those rollers cannot transport acetate today and polyester tomorrow?


Look, we can debate why they have that pricing policy... about ex-factory costs there is no debate, really.

Regards

[koraks]

ILFORD sells LF film at same price than roll film.

KODAK sells LF film 200% to 300% more expensive than roll film.


Koraks, look, this is not a +15%...

My understanding is that Ex factory costs of roll film is very close to sheets (per surface), being rolls more expensive to manufacture.
<snip>

Nope, alas. All bets are off on the 2035 thing. We're back to square one again.

[Jac@stafford.net]

...

[Jac@stafford.net]

[... snip ...] All I'm saying is that E-K has a lot of overhead to keep building 36 running. Ilford and Foma are not widely known outside photography circles. [...]

Help me understand, Ben. How is being known outside photography circles important?


If every digital camera suddenly died [...]

So this is a mind experiment? Digital cameras will not suddenly die. Let us cast the worst case as destruction of digital media via a massive EMP. It's a great root for sci-fi.

[Pere Casals]

Nope, alas. All bets are off on the 2035 thing. We're back to square one again.

Koraks, here we have 2 Facts:


>> Sheets and Rolls have near same manufacturing ex Factory cost.

>> Ilford sells both at same "per surface" price while Kodak/Fuji charge 200% overprice on sheets.


2 Facts !!!!


So, technically, a different (200%) pricing policy is there, this is directly concluded from irrefutable 2 facts.


When you understand that we can go to the next slide: Why 200% overprice policy?

[ben_hutcherson]

Help me understand, Ben. How is being known outside photography circles important?

So this is a mind experiment? Digital cameras will not suddenly die. Let us cast the worst case as destruction of digital media via a massive EMP. It's a great root for sci-fi.

The points have no relevance outside my point that I don't think what smaller companies do can be directly compared to E-K. Both of those comments had to do with the scale of the operation that E-K is now essentially stuck with for coating emulsions.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The points have no relevance outside my point that I don't think what smaller companies do can be directly compared to E-K. Both of those comments had to do with the scale of the operation that E-K is now essentially stuck with for coating emulsions.

Thanks for that.

[Michael Kadillak]

My Goodness I had no idea how far off base this has gotten so I am not going to waste any more time on foolishness because that is all it is.

Kodak owns the product they are selling and they can double the price for their film each year if they chose to do so. All the complaining in the world about "doing the right thing" or any perceived unwillingness to being friendly to their customers is not going to change that fact. Time to load some holders and expose some film.

[koraks]

When you understand that we can go to the next slide: Why 200% overprice policy?
Most of us have tried to explain the next slide to you about a thousand times, but you just don't get it. Forget about it, live a happy life inside your bubble. I'm sure it's a comfortable place.

[Pere Casals]

All the complaining in the world about "doing the right thing"

Hello Michael,

Not foolish at all...

I've a very clear perception of what's "doing the right thing" for me: This is rewarding a manufacturer that supports LF photographers, so I'm to support him in exchange.

Quite simple, I prefer my money in the pocket of the manufacturer that's supporting me.

It's my personal choice and my right.

Regards.

[koraks]

So buy something else and stop whining about it! How hard can it be, really!?

[Pere Casals]

Most of us have tried to explain the next slide to you about a thousand times, but you just don't get it. Forget about it, live a happy life inside your bubble. I'm sure it's a comfortable place.

Koraks, facts are there: Kodak/Fuji have a 200% pricing policy for sheets. And this is not related to manufacturing costs, also a fact. We cannot debate if a fact is a fact.

If you want a constructive debate we can analyze why they have that pricing policy, this is the next slide you don't want to see.

Regards

[koraks]

We tried the constructive debate. You insist on sticking to your limited views and not learn how organizations work. That's fine by me. Why don't you put something in your signature about how you prefer to buy non-Kodak LF film so that it's attached to everything you post here? That way, you get your message across without having to actually go in circles on the issue. Please note I'm not being facetious here: it's a serious suggestion.

[Pere Casals]

So buy something else and stop whining about it! How hard can it be, really!?

Not hard at all. But it's also interesting to debate about if it is good that LF photographers favour LF friendly manufacturers when they have the choice.

I don't see why this cannot be debated...

Also I think that if Kodak managers see a lot of posts complaining about their crazy 200% pricing policy perhaps they will reflect.

[faberryman]

Not hard at all. But it's also interesting to debate about if it is good that LF photographers favour LF friendly manufacturers when they have the choice.
It was interesting. It is not any more.


I don't see why this cannot be debated...
Because you are beating a dead horse. There has been no new information on the topic in months.


Also I think that if Kodak managers see a lot of posts complaining about their crazy 200% pricing policy perhaps they will reflect.
You are hopelessly naive to believe that Kodak is going to change its pricing policy because one (yes, one) guy is ranting about it on LFF.

[Pere Casals]

We tried the constructive debate. You insist on sticking to your limited views and not learn how organizations work. That's fine by me. Why don't you put something in your signature about how you prefer to buy non-Kodak LF film so that it's attached to everything you post here? That way, you get your message across without having to actually go in circles on the issue. Please note I'm not being facetious here: it's a serious suggestion.

I've not a limited view, I've a broad view supported by compared pricing policies, with the clear fact that Ilford has a very, very different LF film pricing policy than Kodak/Fuji.

I know for sure that manufacturing sheets is cheaer than rolls, for Ilford and for Kodak.

In commercial terms 200% is a lot. So it is very interesting to know why and also to say them that enough is enough.

[jnantz]

considering a 100 sheet box of kodak 4x5 sheet film would be over 200$ and a 50sheet box is over 120,
i think it is nice kodak is making smaller boxes so if someone doesn't want to sell a kidney they can still use kodak film.
the idea that 10 sheet boxes is something new is absurd, they have been around for decades in both color and b/w flavor.

[Pere Casals]

It was interesting. It is not any more.


To me it is still interesting, I'd like to know for sure what's the reason for that 200% overprice, if they plan to discontinue the product when present customers squeezed...



There has been no new information on the topic in months.


I've personally presented a per surface comparative list of most films/formats/manufacturers, prices mostly from B&H. there is a lot to debate about that huge difference, problem is that contenders show no argument.



You are hopelessly naive to believe that Kodak is going to change its pricing policy because one guy rants about it on LFF.

Perhaps. But from this debate other can be aware about the possibility to favor manufacturers that are supporting LF photographers with a fair, Ex Factory cost based, pricing. And this is beautiful.

[Pere Casals]

considering a 100 sheet box of kodak 4x5 sheet film would be over 200$ and a 50sheet box is over 120,
i think it is nice kodak is making smaller boxes so if someone doesn't want to sell a kidney they can still use kodak film.
the idea that 10 sheet boxes is something new is absurd, they have been around for decades in both color and b/w flavor.

True, I've 4 frozen Ektachrome boxes of 10 sheets.

But the debate was about if the 10 sheet boxes were intended to hide another price increase.

[faberryman]

The only "debate" going on is whether you are going to stop beating this dead horse. At this point, you seem to be winning that debate. Congratulations on that dubious honor. Moderators, isn't it time to close the thread like they did over on APUG weeks ago?

[Michael Kadillak]

The only "debate" going on is whether you are going to stop beating this dead horse. At this point, you seem to be winning that debate. Congratulations on that dubious honor. Moderators, isn't it time to close the thread like they did over on APUG weeks ago?

Amen. The horse died and has been six feet under for quite some time.

[David Lindquist]

I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to the world for starting this thread.

(To be clear, I'm posting this tongue-in-cheek)
David

[jnantz]

[...] the debate was about if the 10 sheet boxes were intended to hide another price increase.

i didn't know it was a debate i thought it was just complaining like the last thread.

there is always a price increase, as i said in the last thread. if you have been shooting
sheet film for 30 years you will have realized it goes up, and often .. like most things.

photography has NEVER been an inexpensive pursuit. the original kodak box camera was more than $200 in 1886 >>> not cheap.

[Oren Grad]

Moderators, isn't it time to close the thread like they did over on APUG weeks ago?

Now that you mention it...