PDA

View Full Version : A krummy deal from Kodak?



John Kasaian
13-Apr-2008, 20:27
I just checked Badger Graphic's site to buy some 8x10 TXP, which has been my predominant emulsion for quite a few years now. The cost for five ten sheet boxes now totals $209.75 without shipping:eek: .
Now I kind of expect prices to gradually go up over time, but this is insane! IIRC 50-sheet boxes were around $148. Thats over a 1/3rd increase and I've got to wonder how much of it is going to pay for all those boxes?:confused:

I have no complaint with Badger Graphic btw---they are still my first choice for Ilford and Kodak film (probably more Ilford and much less Kodak in the future!)

Has the cost of TXP roll film gone whacky as well? If not then I can only assume that the Great Yellow Father in Rochester is gouging us on packaging.:mad:

That can't be a good business plan.

What do you think?

lenser
13-Apr-2008, 20:41
John, I don't know how long you've been in the photo business, but, if you go back to when Nelson and Bunker Hunt tried to corner the silver market in the late seventies or early eighties; you might remember that VPS film went from about $1.30 a roll to about $3. something a roll in just a few weeks. Kodak, of course, claimed that the increase was due to the silver market.

A few weeks or months later, when silver went in the tank (after the FTC got the Hunts by the balls), dropping from about $55.00 per ounce to about $5.00 per ounce, Kodak claimed that the price reflected some sort of R&D factors and did not lower it one cent.

This is nothing more than the same 'who gives a f... about the customer' attitude that they've had for at least those four decades!!!! Business as usual. And, don't even begin to get me started about the great Kodak/Polaroid debacle over instant film technology. Guess who got to pay for that multi billion dollar settlement.

I expect that George and Edmund are embarrassed beyond belief at how their companies have devolved in customer regard.

Two of the worst managed companies in American history. Too bad they're also two of the best at technology and we need that technology!

Sorry to rant, but I expect NOTHING but trouble from either one of them.

Tim

Pete Roody
14-Apr-2008, 05:19
$5 a sheet for TMY 8x10 at B&H! 8x10 just became ULF.

David A. Goldfarb
14-Apr-2008, 05:25
Maybe that's the strategy--make people think: "well, if I'm paying this much per sheet for 8x10 and buying it in 10-sheet boxes, I might as well shoot 11x14!" Even though 11x14" is about twice the price of 8x10" with the new pricing scheme, I have to admit, I just had that thought myself.

Joseph O'Neil
14-Apr-2008, 05:53
Take a look here

http://www.kitcosilver.com/charts.html

Look at the one year chart alone. The 5 and 10 year charts how you what's the real, long term trend.

The issue is this - the US dollar is taking a beating against other world currencies. That's reflected in the rise of precious metals like silver, gold, etc.

On the other hand, we heard about the new T-max - what, at least 6 months ago? I still cannot find it or buy it up here in Canada, despite the fact I live only a 4 hour drive from Rochester, NY. Just checked the other day at my local photo store again - nada. They still haven't gotten anything about it yet.
*sigh*

Pete Roody
14-Apr-2008, 06:06
For 50 sheets of 8x10, Ilford (HP5/FP4+) costs $80 less than Kodak (TMY/Tri-x) with nyc sales tax factored in. Hopefully Ilford keeps their price point to grab a bigger market share.

George Stewart
14-Apr-2008, 06:31
I just bought some 8x10 B&W film yesterday, for an upcoming trip, and was floored by the price increases. It now costs what chrome cost just a year or two ago. Last year's 200-sheet 8x10 photo trip was a bargain compared to the $1000+ it would cost for a similar trip (including DIY processing) this year. Ouch. Where's that 39mp 'blad?

Capocheny
14-Apr-2008, 06:50
Hi John,

Gads, this sounds like a discussion about the price per gallon of gasoline!!!

I've now gone the Ilford route personally. Fingers crossed on what Pete said about the market share. :)

Joseph,

The new T-Max in 4x5 has been on sale here in Vancouver for the past month and a half. Contact Beau Photo and I'm sure they'd be happy to send you out whatever you need (in 4x5.) Don't know about larger formats though.

Cheers

Jan Pedersen
14-Apr-2008, 06:51
Freestyle still have the old TMY in 50 sheet boxes. Stock up while it last.

jan

John Kasaian
14-Apr-2008, 08:46
Silver prices and dollar devaluation not withstanding, the price spread for 8x10 works out (and I'm not a math whiz by any means) to around $2.00/sheet for Eastern European stuff, $3.60/sheet for Ilford and $4.00/sheet for Kodak TXP.

As much as I've always liked Kodak TXP I can't say that it is worth that much difference to me as I can get supurb results with Foma-oid, Efke and Ilford. For professional 'togs who require Kodak's QA I guess $4/sheet might be worth it but for an amateur/hobbyist/student I just can't see a .40 cents (much less $2) a sheet difference as being anything other than a encouragement to switch horses.

It would be interesting to know what the price spread is between Acros, TMY and Delta 400.

Sal Santamaura
14-Apr-2008, 09:21
John, I suspect that if you spent the amount of time you expend posting on the Internet about this subject working an extra job at Starbucks, you'd have sufficient cash to purchase whatever sheet film you desire in whatever size boxes it's sold in.

John O'Connell
14-Apr-2008, 09:47
It would be interesting to know what the price spread is between Acros, TMY and Delta 400.

As has been said here and will be said elsewhere, TMY is the real problem. Kodak’s other 8x10 films aren’t that unique. And yes, the price difference for the new TMY in 8x10 size may render it unsuitable as a do-everything film for people like me.

But someone at Kodak has a brain, because the price increase, combined with the recent change to 50-sheet packages, would have been the death of the product. With the 10-sheet packages, people can adjust their film orders to their budget—or at least I can.

Nick_3536
14-Apr-2008, 09:49
Sal he didn't say he couldn't afford it. He said it's not WORTH it. Some how I don't think your comment is going to lead to an increase in Kodak sales.

10 sheet trial packs is just one more reason to look at other options.

I've liked being able to buy 4x5 in 100s. 5x7 and 8x10s in 50 sheet boxes.

I don't need to pay extra for 10 sheet boxes. Pay extra for shipping the extra packaging. Or even deal with the extra pollution the extra packaging causes.

John Kasaian
14-Apr-2008, 10:18
John, I suspect that if you spent the amount of time you expend posting on the Internet about this subject working an extra job at Starbucks, you'd have sufficient cash to purchase whatever sheet film you desire in whatever size boxes it's sold in.

Sal,

'tis indeed sad to see this sort of shenannigans from a company that makes outstanding products....and the local Starbucks ain't hiring:(

For quite awhile now the difference between 8x10 films was nickel and dime stuff (well, dime and quarter stuff) and a nominal expense to use a favored emulsion is justifiable to my twisted psyche anyway. This 10 sheet box issue can only compound the current nearly $1 sheet difference and is just plain insulting.

Shooting 8x10 for me simply dosen't "burn" a great deal of film and if I were economically forced to be limited to an obscenely priced 10 sheet box per month I could deal with that, but Kodak isn't going to sell much film that way---I doubt if they'll sell enough to justify it to the stockholders.

Perhaps Kodak would find it even more profitable to sell their excellent empty boxes so we can put our Foma-oid in more familiar and conventional packaging?

FWIW, The last package of Topps I bought for my son has omitted that little wafer of stale bubblegum and now contains only baseball trading cards. Will Rochester will pick up on this earth shaking marketing innovation? :rolleyes:

Brian Ellis
14-Apr-2008, 11:41
I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by rapid price increases. People have been predicting for years that as usage declines, one of two things will happen with the prices of traditional materials - either the products will disappear or the prices will go up. It only makes sense - as a product's sales volume declines the seller has to decide whether to just drop the product entirely or increase the price in order to maintain the level of profitability it wants. Some companies have chosen to drop the product - e.g. Agfa. Others have chosen to increase the price - e.g. Kodak. I'm not suggesting that profitability is the only reason for price increases - certainly the weak dollar hurts in the U.S. as do rising fuel costs, etc. etc. But it's one of the principal reasons IMHO.

Frankly I'm happy (and a little surprised) that some of Kodak's films are still around, at any price. Not that I use any of them (except Readyloads) - I've always preferred Ilford products - but at least it provides a little competition. If you think Kodak's prices are bad now, wait until there's only one company left that makes quality traditional products.

Sal Santamaura
14-Apr-2008, 11:49
Sal he didn't say he couldn't afford it...I didn't say he said he couldn't afford it.


...'tis indeed sad to see this sort of shenannigans from a company that makes outstanding products...This 10 sheet box issue can only compound the current nearly $1 sheet difference and is just plain insulting...Kodak isn't going to sell much film that way---I doubt if they'll sell enough to justify it to the stockholders...John, I don't usually respond the way I did above, but the ongoing whining and emotional responses to Kodak's decisions is most tiring.

Kodak, like all large, publicly held corporations, makes decisions for whatever reasons it does. As of right now, except for remaining old stock, one can purchase black and white 8x10 Kodak film in 10-sheet boxes at the current asking prices. Period. Live with it. If the packaging and price changes were huge mistakes, and Kodak gets out of the film business, so be it. If those were instead wise choices which, as Michael Kadillak has posted, achieve Kodak's aim of rebuilding its presence in this market, so be that. Whatever. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that those who shoot 8x10 spend their time shooting the 8x10 film of their choice rather than filling forums with complaints about one of multiple film suppliers in the world.

Dave Wooten
14-Apr-2008, 12:02
4 buck a sheet is definately too much for a point and shoot.

roteague
14-Apr-2008, 12:52
I don't think it is Kodak's fault. The US dollar is sinking like a rock, inflation is up, the price of precious metals is up, and sales are down.

Pete Roody
14-Apr-2008, 14:15
John, I don't usually respond the way I did above, but the ongoing whining and emotional responses to Kodak's decisions is most tiring.



We're not whining. We are comparing costs between similar products and voting with our wallets. I use both FP4+ and TMY and could get by with either. Buying 200 sheets of FP4+ instead of TMY saves me over $380. These are both quality products, from quality manufacturers, who pay fair wages to their employees. The price difference between their products is now large enough to make a difference for me.

I want both Kodak and Ilford to survive and prosper. My gut tells me that there will be more price increases from both Kodak and Ilford in the near future to cover costs and dwindling sales. It's the nature of the beast. To be fair to Kodak, we have to wait and see if the prices equalize between them and Ilford. Buying FP4+ now instead of TMY is not unfare. The timing is just bad for Kodak since I (and probably others) am making long term choices on what film I will use. These choices will effect what is available in the future.

John Kasaian
14-Apr-2008, 15:07
Sal,
I'm not whining, I'm P.O.'ed---now if you are tired of hearing Kodak customers (this one, anyway) being P.O.'ed why not take it up with Kodak? Having a major player in the traditional photo industry like Kodak screw up it's business is an issue if the continued health of the pursuit is important, is it not? If the issue is an emotional one or not depends on the consumer.

EW was capable of making great photographs using bargain materials and when we get away from the making of photographs and into brand worship I think we are loosing something. If anything the emotional response comes from those who either hate Kodak's guts or who are of the opinion the Kodak is doing a valiant job of marketing.

I find myself in niether camp---I really like Kodak 8x10 TXP and I am of the opinion that Kodak is doing a moronic job of marketing the stuff.

A thread entitled "A krummy deal from Kodak?" kind of says it all doesn't it?
If you're tired of the noise why turn up the volume?

If you're sick of the games you can jump ship (and drive another nail into Kodak's coffin while you're at it.) Or if you're not convinced that Kodak means to pull it's own plug then let Kodak know about this debacle through the internet and hope someone with a brain in Rochester can steer Old Yellow back on course.

I'd simply like to know how much those 10-sheet boxes cost Kodak and how much it adds to the cost per sheet?

Terence McDonagh
14-Apr-2008, 15:07
Not to say Ilford's prices won't increase drastically, but the dollar has been in decline for a while now, and Kodak's making their product in the U.S. and paying it's work force in dollars. If anything, Kodak should have a labor cost advantage over a company paying its workers in British pounds. The weak dollar should be HELPING them, relatively.

I am assuming fuel, silver, etc. costs are roughly equal as they are world commodities.

Michael Kadillak
14-Apr-2008, 15:30
The title of this post is terribly misleading. Every manufacturer in a free market economy prices their product at a cost that they arrive at considering a myriad of external and internal components. Nobody has a legal contract to purchase any Kodak product with minimium volume requirements.

If you are not happy with the price, quality control, packaging or just hate the company please - go purchase Ilford or Efke and go make some photographs. Complaining about it does not help the situation.

tim atherton
14-Apr-2008, 15:32
It's not really anything to do with the dollar or silver prices. It's to do with Kodak's pricing strategy.

8x10 has always been quit a bit more expensive per sheet when bought in 10 sht boxes as opposed to 50 sht boxes.

Kodak decided to do away with 50s ht boxes - and, in the process, done away with the cheaper 50 sht pricing.

So they took the 10sht price, added a bit more (a sort of "normal" price increase such as we have seen with lford etc) et voila - the cost per sheet of any 8x10 b&w film from them has jumped significantly (because 50sht boxes are no longer available) - but as far as Kodak is concerned, it's just a "normal", smallish price increase - because the price per sheet of only 10 was always higher...

Michael Kadillak
14-Apr-2008, 21:38
It's not really anything to do with the dollar or silver prices. It's to do with Kodak's pricing strategy.

8x10 has always been quit a bit more expensive per sheet when bought in 10 sht boxes as opposed to 50 sht boxes.

Kodak decided to do away with 50s ht boxes - and, in the process, done away with the cheaper 50 sht pricing.

So they took the 10sht price, added a bit more (a sort of "normal" price increase such as we have seen with lford etc) et voila - the cost per sheet of any 8x10 b&w film from them has jumped significantly (because 50sht boxes are no longer available) - but as far as Kodak is concerned, it's just a "normal", smallish price increase - because the price per sheet of only 10 was always higher...

I consider the ability to acquire Kodak film at literaly whatever the price is to be an answer to a prayer. The quality control is still the best in the business and I am floating on cloud nine every time I get to load holders. About five years ago many were telling me that we would not have any Kodak film to put in my holders at this point. Not only do we have it BUT it has been re-formulated to be even BETTER. I actually hustled a few new customers this year just so I could buy it till the cows come home. Everything costs more these days from auto fuel to metals to food. We just need to deal with it, buy lesser quality at a cheaper price or change to a smaller format.

I like things just like they are thank you.....

Cheers!

sanking
14-Apr-2008, 21:48
To put things in perspective, I just priced today 20X24" Ilford FP4+ in 25 sheet boxes.

Cost is $610, or about $25 a sheet. Just a few years ago I was able to buy this film for about $5 per sheet.


Sandy King

Frank Petronio
14-Apr-2008, 22:26
When you look at the massive scale of the reorganization that Kodak was forced to do, that they are still making large format film products is quite remarkable. At least in the USA Kodak sells the widest range of film-related products, as opposed to our friends at Fuji who only choose to sell a limited range of the highest volume, most profitable products (ie cherry picking the best sellers, which cuts into the full range supplier's profits and hastens both companies' exit from film manufacturing.)

I tried Ilford for a year but four 50-sheet boxes of HP-5 with quality control issues nipped that in the bud.

All film and photo industry marketing sucks John. They just don't get it.

dsphotog
14-Apr-2008, 23:08
My method is bring MORE CAMERAS!!!
I shoot with 120 (pentax 67II), 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10- depending on what subject is most-as Elaine on Seinfeld might say "film-worthy".
Really though, Kodak has stopped making b&w paper, film in general can't be too far behind, I would like to see 8x10 & 5x7 film in 100, or at least 50 sheet boxes.
Lf people are committed enough to buy larger volume than 10 sheets.
Seems to me Kodak could pay for all that r&d faster by selling bigger boxes!

David Silva

Real cameras are measured in inches...
Not pixels!

Greg Lockrey
14-Apr-2008, 23:51
I see a lot of you all getting into alternative type processes anyway so how expensive is it to coat your own glass negatives?

Jason Miguel
15-Apr-2008, 04:43
For me, switching to wet plate has been worth while. I was a devoted 8x10, TMY-400 user. However, since coating my first plate about 5 month ago I have not touched film. Start up coast was about a little over $200.00. The nice thing is, I can get 12 sheets, 10x12, single strength glass for $30.00, but un-like any film out there, If I mess up a shot, I can just clean up the glass plate and try again. If only we could do that with conventional film. I have reused a sheet as many as three times to good effect. I Can’t complain about that.

cyrus
15-Apr-2008, 09:38
For me, switching to wet plate has been worth while. I was a devoted 8x10, TMY-400 user. However, since coating my first plate about 5 month ago I have not touched film. Start up coast was about a little over $200.00. The nice thing is, I can get 12 sheets, 10x12, single strength glass for $30.00, but un-like any film out there, If I mess up a shot, I can just clean up the glass plate and try again. If only we could do that with conventional film. I have reused a sheet as many as three times to good effect. I Can’t complain about that.

There's a lot to be said for learning how to coat your own glass . . . I know that I've been stocking up on plateholders for my 4x5 and 8x10, and I even bought a Rollei with a plateholder back and some plateholders to go with it, so I've go the formats covered..

Jorge Gasteazoro
15-Apr-2008, 10:44
If you're sick of the games you can jump ship (and drive another nail into Kodak's coffin while you're at it.)

John, I used to think this way up until the recent change. But there comes a time when one has to ask, "how much loyalty should I have for a company that keeps screwing me over?"

8x10 is not a format people jump into lightly. I can understand the 10 sheet pack for 4x5. Buy a cheap crown 4x5, try it and see how you like LF. But 8x10 is mostly for those of us who are dedicated to the format and picture making. Even people who decide to try 8x10 and buy a cheap B&J or Korona, will be quickly discouraged by the price of the film.

There are also many of us who are outside the US for which the increase in price represents 25% of the old price and greater shipping charges.

I have been a loyal TMX user since TMX was introduced, but I am getting tired of Kodak thinking I am made out of money or stupid. Do I love TMX 400? you bet, can I replace it with other film? You bet! IMO Kodak is laying down in the coffin and pulling the nails from the inside with this kind of descisions, they are driving away loyal customers which will not be replaced by the eventual new commer who wants to "try" 8x10 for grins.

sanking
15-Apr-2008, 11:21
There's a lot to be said for learning how to coat your own glass . . . I know that I've been stocking up on plateholders for my 4x5 and 8x10, and I even bought a Rollei with a plateholder back and some plateholders to go with it, so I've go the formats covered..


I am glad that there are people keeping the wet plate method of coating film alive.

As an alternative to wet plate some people may want to consider ortho lith film. It is slow, but useful outdoors in the right conditions, and there are special developing techniques that allow one to get negatives with a full range of tones. Jim Galli has used lith film and posted results from time to time. I find this to be a more practical alternative to the wet plate for what I want to do.

A quick cost comparison. Current price of 20X24" pan sheet film in 7 mil thickness is about $25 per sheet. Ortho lith film in this size and thickness is $4 a sheet.

Sandy King

Jim Galli
15-Apr-2008, 16:50
The price of a sheet of 8X10 TMY and a gallon of gasoline have been about the same for a while.

I bought 10 rolls (1000 feet) of Efke 100 10" Cirkut film when John at J&C was blowing it out at $85 a roll. That's about 55¢ a sheet for 8X10. I did the math at the time and I could have recovered the raw silver and made money. I'm about half way through it :D I never could afford TMY for the way I like to shoot.

Dirk Rösler
15-Apr-2008, 17:42
Time to move Kodak to China... :cool: .. and call the film Tri-Chamonix Pan

cyrus
15-Apr-2008, 18:28
I am glad that there are people keeping the wet plate method of coating film alive.


Well, dry plate at least...
Wet plate is a bridge too far.

John Berry
16-Apr-2008, 23:05
I just bought 150 8x10 sheets of Ektapan last week for $5.00. I didn't think that was to bad. Oh, by the way it's good enough to develop in pyrocat. I'm not buying a lottery ticket this week as I feel I have used up this months quota of luck.

Michael Kadillak
17-Apr-2008, 06:29
I am also glad that some people are gaining experience with wet plate, but we need to continue to purchase sheet film from any manufacturer and promote its use to anyone that shows an interest in learning how to use it.

If you feel that Kodak is staying in business specifically to make your life miserable just think what sheet film prices would be if there were only one manufacturer?

"Who cares?" is not a good response because we need to own this situation if we ever hope to remain in the favorable condition we are currently in let alone make it better.

Cheers!