Kodak price jump for 8x10 320TXP

[Sal Santamaura]

I keep tabs on the prices of certain films at B&H. Yesterday, and for quite some time before that, 10 sheets of 8x10 320TXP was $74.95. Today it's $119.95:


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533812-USA/Kodak_8179707_TXP_4164_8x10_Tri_X.html

I contacted Henry Posner to ask whether the 60% increase was an error or resulted from Kodak Alaris raising the wholesale cost. Henry just answered: not an error. Alaris almost doubled its price, retroactive to April 1.

Methinks Kodak is exhibiting a level of desperation so great that it has shot itself in the foot. Also, the 100 sheets of 8x10 320TXP in my freezer will be the last I purchase.

[Andrew O'Neill]

And that is why I no longer use their film. 20 bucks per exposure is crazy.

[Tin Can]

The end is near.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Are they still going ahead reintroducing Ektachrome, me wonders...

[paulbarden]

It was already too expensive at $7.50 a sheet. Pick anything else and learn how to make it work for you.

[Oren Grad]

The end is near.


Are they still going ahead reintroducing Ektachrome, me wonders...

Before we get carried away assuming broader implications, keep two things in mind:

1) Sheet film is on a different base so requires a different coating run. Overall, it's also a much smaller market than roll film. Can't conclude much if anything about roll film from what's happening with sheet film.

2) 8x10 TXP is not a stock item for Kodak Alaris - it's special-order only; B&H has been placing special orders for its own stock because they've concluded they can sell enough of it. So all that we know from this is that Alaris has raised the price for an item that requires a special cut. Have the prices of 4x5 TXP and 5x7 TXP, which are stock items for Alaris itself, also gone up just now? If so, by how much? I don't know - has anyone else been following? How about sheet film TMX and TMY?

None of which is to deny that Eastman Kodak is in dire straits. It is. But we don't even know whether Alaris is raising the price because Eastman raised theirs, or whether this is purely an Alaris marketing decision.

[Tin Can]

I just bought a pile of Pan F+.

Adorama says closeout on https://www.adorama.com/kk41644550.html

[Oren Grad]

Adorama says closeout on https://www.adorama.com/kk41644550.html

I tried asking Adorama about that just now using their website Live Chat feature. Nothing doing - the representative was clueless, couldn't provide a clear answer.

[letchhausen]

I just got an Intrepid 8x10 and just got 10 sheets at the old price. Guess I'll need to start looking for another film, which is a bummer since my whole career has been with TXP 320 in 4x5. I hate learning new stuff like that....


My guess is that Adorama closeout is on the 50 sheets boxes which was supposed to be gone by now anyway....

[Tin Can]

Just bought a 100ft of Tri-X 400.

I like to use 12 shot rolls. I can't shoot 37 quick now.

I also like enlarging.

Fetching an 8X10 enlarger tomorrow!

Never quit.

[Oren Grad]

My guess is that Adorama closeout is on the 50 sheets boxes which was supposed to be gone by now anyway....

No, the 50-sheet box of 4x5 TXP was brought back and is a current Alaris stock item.

I'm going to try converting the list to pdf and attaching it here so we'll all be on the same page - it's labeled "2017", but if you follow the "2018 Pro Film List" from the Alaris website, it links to this list. Will add the special order list too.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Have the prices of 4x5 TXP and 5x7 TXP, which are stock items for Alaris itself, also gone up just now? If so, by how much? I don't know - has anyone else been following? How about sheet film TMX and TMY?...

I don't follow 4x5 TXP, but 5x7 is still $179.95 per 50-sheet box, which is unchanged for many months. B&H currently has 12 boxes in stock.

4x5 TMX increased a few months ago from, as I recall, $89.95 per 50-sheet box to $99.95. 4x5 TMY has been stable for nearly a year at $127.00 per 50-sheet box.

FYI, B&H currently has 21 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 320TXP in stock. It's what left of an approximately 150-box shipment that arrived some months ago, i.e. well before April 1 of this year. Also, B&H still has 47 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 TMY-2 in stock at an unchanged price of $89.95 each. Those were part of the most recent shipment of 148 boxes, which I mentioned in this December 28, 2017 post:


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?70502-B-amp-H-has-8x10-TMax-400-in-stock-right-now&p=1422321&viewfull=1#post1422321

[Tin Can]

Sal, B&H now has 11 boxes of 5X7 Tri-X 320. The one size I didn't have.

I am going to shoot my 4X5, 5X7, 8x10 and 11X14 Tri-X 320 very carefully and hope it lasts me well into

I also saw that price anomaly, but you pushed me over the

[chris_4622]

The special run of 5x7 TMY is more expensive than cutting 8x10 down, so Oren's point about Tri-X might be the best explanation. Special runs/cuts cost more.

[Sal Santamaura]

The special run of 5x7 TMY is more expensive than cutting 8x10 down, so Oren's point about Tri-X might be the best explanation. Special runs/cuts cost more.The fact that B&H still has 47 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 TMY-2 in stock at an unchanged price of $89.95 each may be pertinent in evaluating that conclusion.

Even though B&H's remaining stock of 8x10 320TXP was purchased at Alaris' old wholesale price well before April 1, B&H increased the retail price yesterday. However, those 47 10-sheet boxes of 8x10 TMY-2 are still offered at $89.95 each. It's possible that Alaris hasn't received any special orders for 8x10 TMY-2 lately and, therefore, hasn't announced a price increase on that product yet, but will the next time someone places an order. If it does, based on the previous retail price ratio, we can expect that B&H will raise its asking price for 8x10 TMY-2 to somewhere in the range of $144 per 10-sheet box. We shall see. :)

[Drew Wiley]

They seem to spike pricing when the inventory of an item is slim or slow to arrive, then balance the price back down when it is relatively abundant. Timing is
everything.

[John Kasaian]

It's lovely film and a joy to work with, but Kodak sheet film and I had to part ways back during the TMY2 10 sheet box days, and I'm OK with that.
Ilford gets 'er done and so does FOMA (kind of) and maybe one of these days I'll even get x-ray film figured out---then dry plates.
Kodak's shenanigans are disheartening though. Like watching Eddie Haskell take your best gal to the Senior Prom.

[Bernice Loui]

Cost of 8x10 film is what it is. IMO, if film cost for a given film format is too high, find an alternative including different film format sizes but know there is a very real risk that film supplier might disappear (in this case Kodak) if the user base stops using-purchasing their film.

Accept the cost of $20 per sheet of 8x10 Kodak B&W film for what it is and move on. This should be part of the cost of producing 8x10 B&W images. For what ever reason there appears to be the remarkable draw for many image makers to produce images on 8x10 then discounting smaller or other film format sizes as lesser and images produced on 8x10 as the automatic means of the "better" image.

Reality is, 8x10 has a LOT of post camera challenges from enlargement and print production unless contact prints are made. IMO, contact printing with traditional silver gelatin print process and alternative print making processes is what appears to be driving film formats of 8x10 and larger.



Bernice

[paulbarden]

For anyone who finds themselves unwilling or incapable of paying extortionist prices for Tri-X 320, please consider trying Bergger's Pancro 400. Its quite unlike HP5.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Timing is everything.Yes, it is. That's why, in post #15, I gave a heads-up to anyone who uses and wants 8x10 TMY-2 that B&H still has 47 boxes of it at $89.95. For quite a while, including when I purchased a few boxes, it was selling for $104.95. Some time last year it dropped $15.00. Now would seem to be a good time to stock up, i.e. before Alaris repeats its 320TXP action and bumps TMY-2 up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $144.00.

If others clean out B&H's stock of 8x10 TMY-2, it'll save me from temptation. :)

[Mark Sampson]

My recent pictures, from the last five years, are (at least to me) proof in silver that Tri-X Pan is not required to make good photographs. And as many of you know, I come from Rochester and shot for Kodak from 1984-2010. I used TXP for all my personal work from 1981 or so and for a great deal of industrial photography on the job. in 2010 I tested and chose Ilford FP4+ and prefer it now. The changeover wasn't difficult. The pictures look as good or better (to me anyway).

So here's a word from a longtime loyalist. if Kodak's price turns you off, just find another film. There are still enough choices that you'll find one you like.

[Pere Casals]

Methinks Kodak is exhibiting a level of desperation so great that it has shot itself in the foot.

Sal, the shot is our foot. For Kodak the sheet product line is a minor concern.

Probably a second rate manager is in command of all that.

I've a guess about what a 1st class manager would do in the LF segment, and IMHO this is close to what Ilford is doing and what it was done with paper.

I'm pretty confident that sheet market allows for a long term business. A new generation of photographers/artists will engage LF, rediscovering that aesthetics and crafting. But those managers are short term minded, ignoring what they are destroying, this is painful.

[Pere Casals]

See the Portra 400 8x10 price we have today in the EU. (Cheaper in the USA)

305€ per 10 sheets, taxes included. This is $38 per shot. This is x5 more expensive (per surface) than rolls.

177133

[Tin Can]

See the Portra 400 8x10 price we have today in the EU. (Cheaper in the USA)

305€ per 10 sheets, taxes included. This is $38 per shot. This is x5 more expensive (per surface) than rolls.

177133

Yikes!

I reluctantly shoot coloration with DSLR. I vastly prefer B&W movies and stills.

[axs810]

BHPhoto has Kodak 320TXP 8x10 / 10 sheets at $91.95 now

[Tin Can]

True

[axs810]

Why is it lower now? After reading the first post I would assume the price would have stayed the same or gone up.

At Freestyle it's $89.99

[Sal Santamaura]

Why is it lower now?...I don't know, and I'm not going to ask Henry Posner either. No point bringing up something that might cause it to rise again. :)

[Michael Kadillak]

Reality check. Kodak is manufacturing and selling as much T Max 400 sheet film as they have the capability to produce. Although demand destruction has caused many of us to opt out as consumers for Kodak sheet film, there are obviously many others that are still buying it . Furthermore, the price of Kodak sheet film will cycle through price increases until a hard stop in sales will take place. I chose to look at the bright side. Kodak Aleris is obviously pleased at the product sales and is likely to keep manufacturing it. I also like more choices than fewer ones so I continue to buy sheet film which should be around for a long time.

[Sal Santamaura]

Reality check. Kodak is manufacturing and selling as much T Max 400 sheet film as they have the capability to produce...I find that highly unlikely. Doing so would require multiple shifts over many days each week. By all accounts, intermittent coating events with smaller emulsion makes are what's been done to accommodate the shrunken film market. What is your source for that claim?


...Kodak Aleris is obviously pleased at the product sales and is likely to keep manufacturing it...Kodak Alaris manufactures no film. Eastman Kodak does, in its Rochester Building 38. Kodak Alaris markets and distributes the film.

[Michael Kadillak]

I find that highly unlikely. Doing so would require multiple shifts over many days each week. By all accounts, intermittent coating events with smaller emulsion makes are what's been done to accommodate the shrunken film market. What is your source for that claim?

Kodak Alaris manufactures no film. Eastman Kodak does, in its Rochester Building 38. Kodak Alaris markets and distributes the film.

What i stated is factual and yes, I know that the film is manufactured in Rochester by Kodak and sold by Aleris.

My source of market intelligence is Keith Canham as he is at the crest of the wave of sales of Kodak sheet film and the volumes of product he is moving is staggering. Keith is about as honest as the day is long and I could not be happier that he has found a wonderful niche to take advantage of.

[Pere Casals]

Kodak Alaris manufactures no film. Eastman Kodak does, in its Rochester Building 38. Kodak Alaris markets and distributes the film.

This is a major problem Kodak film faces. Alaris (UK Kodak Pension Plan) and Eastman have separate interests, each may want to exploit the product in a different way, with particular interests leading to a possible "Tragedy of the commons". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

IMHO this may explain some erratic behaviour in "Kodak" policy. I only desire they are able to make long term plans to ensure film production in the long term, and for future generations of film photographers. It is not clear how that Alaris vs Eastman relationship works, but this is a major factor for a long term business.

[Sal Santamaura]

Reality check. Kodak is manufacturing and selling as much T Max 400 sheet film as they have the capability to produce...


I find that highly unlikely. Doing so would require multiple shifts over many days each week. By all accounts, intermittent coating events with smaller emulsion makes are what's been done to accommodate the shrunken film market. What is your source for that claim?...


...My source of market intelligence is Keith Canham as he is at the crest of the wave of sales of Kodak sheet film and the volumes of product he is moving is staggering...

I'm a customer of Keith's and have purchased Kodak film from him as part of several different special order runs. I also receive email updates from him about new such offerings and watch his facebook page daily to stay abreast of what emulsions in which sizes he's gathering interest/orders for. Additionally, I monitor sales of TMY-2 in 4x5 and 8x10 at retailers other than Keith. Based on those data, Keith's characterization of Eastman Kodak 'manufacturing and selling as much TMAX 400 sheet film it has the capacity to produce' can only be marketing talk intended to maintain confidence in Kodak despite its current dire financial situation. I'll continue to rely on information about coating line utilization from those who maintain contacts inside Eastman Kodak, where the film is made, rather than Keith, who interfaces with Kodak Alaris.

[Michael Kadillak]

I'm a customer of Keith's and have purchased Kodak film from him as part of several different special order runs. I also receive email updates from him about new such offerings and watch his facebook page daily to stay abreast of what emulsions in which sizes he's gathering interest/orders for. Additionally, I monitor sales of TMY-2 in 4x5 and 8x10 at retailers other than Keith. Based on those data, Keith's characterization of Eastman Kodak 'manufacturing and selling as much TMAX 400 sheet film it has the capacity to produce' can only be marketing talk intended to maintain confidence in Kodak despite its current dire financial situation. I'll continue to rely on information about coating line utilization from those who maintain contacts inside Eastman Kodak, where the film is made, rather than Keith, who interfaces with Kodak Alaris.

And you can honestly say that the information inside Kodak is 100% objective? These poor folks have been run through the ringer for 20 years seeing their pension vaporize and having to learn how to work as quasi labor consultants. If anyone has a bone to pick it is them. Aleris is in the driving seat and quite honestly whatever the capabilities are at Rochester, the corporate take over agreements are in play. Aleris calls the shots and the plant has no choice but respond. I like a lot of other LF photographers have come to accept this set of circumstances for what it is not for what I want it to be because it is business and we are not privy to the specifics in the executed agreements between these companies. I consume as much Ilford FP4+ and Delta 100 in 8x10, 11x14 and 8x20 as I can fit into my 23 ft3 chest freezer and believe that as long as sales remain vibrant, film will survive and anyway who cares about the minutia with one specific company. Lastly I will leave you with one comment about Keith. Since we spoke years ago about him selling Kodak sheet film probably eight years ago I have not purchased one box of Kodak film from him and our conversation is about his business, the high cost of Kodak product and the fact that while I could afford to buy it, I chose not to. It is disingenuous to say that Keith is talking his book to me because he knows I am not a buyer and never will be. He gave me some examples of recent sales of color and B&W that will remain confidential but you can chose to interpret this market any way that you want. Me I am just going to count my lucky stars that I can make photographs with quality film and get out into the backcountry as much as possible.

[interneg]

He is at the crest of the wave of sales of Kodak sheet film and the volumes of product he is moving is staggering. Keith is about as honest as the day is long and I could not be happier that he has found a wonderful niche to take advantage of.

And therein lies the truth that is very painful for the amateur photographers (and professional whiners) who populate this & other forums. Prices for professional materials are normalising after a period of significant artificial depression. The complainers would do well to note the prices of high end art & printmaking materials (that are significantly less complex to manufacture than analogue photographic products in many cases) & realise that 'professional' analogue photographic materials now firmly fall in the art materials camp & are no longer able to piggy-back on mass market consumer goods as they were in the 1990's.

[Pere Casals]

interneg, you have Cheshire not very far from you, some 4h by car, there you have a managing example.

Ilford is a solid example about how things can be. Pricing based in ex-factory costs, long term business plans and customer care. Evidently Fuji/Kodak had a way more difficult adaptation to the new situation, comming from extreme mass production.

Probably HP5 sheets and Gallery paper will be in business by 2040.

One model builds a user base for the long term, the other one tends to exploit the present customer base in an optimal way for the short term.

So IMHO present pricing policies are also very related to if the business plans are short or long termed.

[interneg]

interneg, you have Cheshire not very far from you, some 4h by car, there you have a managing example.

Ilford is a solid example about how things can be. Pricing based in ex-factory costs, long term business plans and customer care. Evidently Fuji/Kodak had a way more difficult adaptation to the new situation, comming from extreme mass production.

Probably HP5 sheets and Gallery paper will be in business by 2040.

One model builds a user base for the long term, the other one tends to exploit the present customer base in an optimal way for the short term.

So IMHO present pricing policies are also very related to if the business plans are short or long termed.

I'd suggest it's rather the opposite - if Ilford could raise prices to Kodak's level they would. They'd be more profitable if they did. They can't, because they have a lower level of brand recognition & have to rely on competitive pricing to keep up. They have the major cost advantage that apart from minor tweaks to deal with component availability, FP4+ & HP5+ have not changed in 25+ years, thus the R&D was paid off long ago.

[Pere Casals]

I'd suggest it's rather the opposite - if Ilford could raise prices to Kodak's level they would. They'd be more profitable if they did. They can't, because they have a lower level of brand recognition & have to rely on competitive pricing to keep up. They have the major cost advantage that apart from minor tweaks to deal with component availability, FP4+ & HP5+ have not changed in 25+ years, thus the R&D was paid off long ago.

Interneg, let me point that prices are the same in the important segments, and with ilford competing well, this B&H today:

178028

TMX was also developed a couple of decades ago, with minor changes since then... so both are in competition in a very mature product that declined to a narrow niche.

Most of the sells are rolls, sheet market is very small, compared. With rolls ilford is in tight competition vs kodak. The anomaly happens with sheets...

IMHO it is true that kodak BW film is a bit more industrially advanced than ilford's, as kodak had an insane amount of technology coming/paid from a massive film business, but photographers may not notice that, as it is more important adjusting the process for the used film.

IMHO the kodak technical advantage is way less noticeable in LF than in rolls, as fine grain and film resolving power is way more important in 35mm, if one want that.

Also we have to consider that sheet market has shifted to amateurs and artists.

[Michael Kadillak]

I'd suggest it's rather the opposite - if Ilford could raise prices to Kodak's level they would. They'd be more profitable if they did. They can't, because they have a lower level of brand recognition & have to rely on competitive pricing to keep up. They have the major cost advantage that apart from minor tweaks to deal with component availability, FP4+ & HP5+ have not changed in 25+ years, thus the R&D was paid off long ago.

Absolutely agree with Interneg. Clearly Pere you are entitled to your opinion but factually this is nothing more than two company management decisions as to how they perceive this market and the deployment of independent strategies on how they price their product. To attempt to draw a conclusion that attempts to portray Kodak / Aleris as a greedy nasty mean spirited player in this arena and Ilford as the sensible more reasonable company is ludicrous. Fortunately we live in a capitalist competitive business market and the choice of product sales price and the decision to be the lower priced entity targeting making up less margin with higher volume over higher margin / lower sales volume is what the market will bear and what meets the internal objectives of the corporation - nothing more complicated than that. And the fact that Kodak / Aleris has any number of years of maintaining these film price points at a market premium conveys the chosen tactics are working. I firmly believe that T Max 400 is without question the best B&W film that has ever been produced for any number of reasons and could continue in their business sector for decades because one would suspect they are garnering a decent margin which is a good thing not a bad thing. And if Ilford were to stumble in their capabilities to produce sheet film Kodak prices would jump even higher and like it or not, I would then be a Kodak TMY customer again because I chose to expose sheet film. This may not be an appealing proposition for you and some film consumers but it is very good for the business.

Case in point. Ferrari has been in business over 80 years as a excessively higher priced automobile manufacturer. They announced that they have sold all of their manufacturing capability through 2018 and a good portion of 2019 at a price point that is at least 6 times the average automobile sales price and I tip my hat to their well executed business plan because clearly they have carved a unique market niche in a highly competitive business sector.

[Pere Casals]

Michael, as the screenshot points, we see very close prices for BW kodak and Ilford rolls, the sheet market is much smaller, so principal competition is in the roll realm.

One question.... Why TMY is better than TMX ?? I find that TMX is a way better film than TMY, if not needing speed.

Just consider that in the principal market (rolls) TMY is sold at same price than HP5 or Delta. This challenges a bit the analysis you and interneg do.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, as the screenshot points, we see very close prices for BW kodak and Ilford rolls, the sheet market is much smaller, so principal competition is in the roll realm.

One question.... Why TMY is better than TMX ?? I find that TMX is a way better film than TMY, if not needing speed.

Just consider that in the principal market (rolls) TMY is sold at same price than HP5 or Delta. This challenges a bit the analysis you and interneg do.

No it does not change the analysis one bit. All it does is convey that the roll film market has a set of different set of market dynamics for which Kodak elects to compete in. Clearly sheet film is a horse of a different color.

I primarily shoot sheets and in this regard the difference between TMY over TMX is quite simple. Both TMY and TMX exhibit stellar straight line density booking character so here is my observations as to why TMY is a superior emulsion over TMX.

1) Film Speed advantage TMY over TMX. While you claim speed is not a concern for you, for others it is a huge deal.

2) TMX is a very fickle film to process where rotary techniques since its inception have been considered optimal. TMY exhibits enormously greater latitude when it comes to processing this emulsion.

3) TMY does not have a UV coating whereby TMX does which is a disqualifying component for UV processes.

4) TMY has the greatest resolution of any higher speed B&W film which is a desirable component for roll and sheet film consumers.

[Pere Casals]

No it does not change the analysis one bit.


IMHO it does, a theory should explain the general case.





1) Film Speed advantage TMY over TMX. While you claim speed is not a concern for you, for others it is a huge deal.



If we simply have an IQ requirement, TMX has the same "effective" speed than TMY. If you see the graphs MTF for TMX falls from beyond 50 Lp/mm, while for TMY it falls beyond 20 Lp/mm.

The meaning of this is that I can obtain same IQ with TMX in MF than you with TMY in 4x5. Then with MF I can open two stops more than you, so we have same shutter speed. And my cost will be $0.62 per shot.

The rationale is that if there is no creative OOF/movements in the shot, say plain landscape with all in focus, if you shot TMY 4x5 then you can obtain just the same with TMX MF.

My view is that if I want IQ to shot a landscape then I use TMX, if I had to use TMY because film speed then MF TMX it's a better choice, and same shutter speed because the faster lens.

Well, true, the UV blocking TMX base, a sound pitfall.

178033

... We buy a Sironar S because it sports 70 Lp/mm... then we use TMY with an MTF that falls beyond 20 Lp/mm ?

Note this is for practical photography conditions, both films can reach much higher Lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast, but there are no textures with that microcontrast...

[Michael Kadillak]

When you are shooting 8x10 wind continues to be an operating variable particularly in the high mountains that one needs to properly manage. Chose a colored filter and things get more challenging. For me the extra film speed is a God Send. Other times I may want to have more options when it comes to stopping moving water. Again, more options are better for me than fewer options. But if TMX works for you then have at it.

[Pere Casals]

TMY is excellent, but I find that using instead TXP or HP5 does not impose limitations, and if there is LIRF, then the RIP Acros was the best.

TMY is great, right, but it has a drawback in the resolving power vs TMX, perhaps a lot of times this is not critical, but if we cite speed advantage then we also have to cite the resolving power disadvantage.

[Michael Kadillak]

TMY is excellent, but I find that using instead TXP or HP5 does not impose limitations, and if there is LIRF, then the RIP Acros was the best.

TMY is great, right, but it has a drawback in the resolving power vs TMX, perhaps a lot of times this is not critical, but if we cite speed advantage then we also have to cite the resolving power disadvantage.

Photography is the pinnacle of giving something up to gain something else. But when you contact print any resolving issues disappear and what you get is delicious tonality and that is fine with me. Unintentionally we have deviated from the original post objectives and we have collectively made our point. Onward!

[Pere Casals]

Unintentionally we have deviated from the original post objectives and we have collectively made our point. Onward!

Yes, Michael, sometimes the off sides are also very interesting !