PDA

View Full Version : Kodak increasing film prices by 15%



Riccis
9-Mar-2012, 12:05
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/price_hikes_hit_surviving_kodak_films__news_311757.html?aff=rss

Scott Walker
9-Mar-2012, 12:11
Guess they truly are the only ones that don't think their prices are already too high

K. Praslowicz
9-Mar-2012, 12:50
Anyone have any old catalogs, or just recall prices for sheet films they paid in say, 1980s-90s? I'm curious to see prices now & then vs inflation.

SW Rick
9-Mar-2012, 13:02
Someone on, I think, APUG said they found a 100-ft roll of 35mm Tri X with a sticker of $17.xx

BarryS
9-Mar-2012, 13:08
Anyone have any old catalogs, or just recall prices for sheet films they paid in say, 1980s-90s? I'm curious to see prices now & then vs inflation.

I have an Shutterbug magazine from Dec 2000 (not that old!) and 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-X were $109. Fifty sheets of TMY were $116--today they're $385. A 25 sheet box of 11x14 FP4+ was only $99.

Richard M. Coda
9-Mar-2012, 13:14
They really are stupid...

Kevin J. Kolosky
9-Mar-2012, 13:26
I would ask anyone on this board if they would like to go back to what they were earning 10-15 years ago?

Scott Walker
9-Mar-2012, 13:29
I would ask anyone on this board if they would like to go back to what they were earning 10-15 years ago?

Absolutely

lenser
9-Mar-2012, 13:32
They aren't alone. My lab just told me that the E-6 Fuji film that they sell is going up by 12% (via Fuji) on the first.

Kimberly Anderson
9-Mar-2012, 13:32
I'd also like my costs to be what they were 10-15 years ago too.

adam satushek
9-Mar-2012, 13:40
Of course I'm not happy to pay more for film. But honestly, if it helps Kodak continue to produce Portra sheet film I'm fine with it. Just have to be more discerning about what is worthy of the film. Seems only natural to me that as the market shrinks prices go up.

vinny
9-Mar-2012, 13:41
I wonder if they're using yellow nails in this coffin?

Daniel Stone
9-Mar-2012, 14:58
Golly, I'd have loved if they'd have just kept (1) E-6 emulsion in the lineup, I mean, they've already done the R+D, they've already got the setup down for it, why not just put it on S/O status? I mean, if they coat (1) run a year of 35mm, (1) of 120, and (1) of 4x5, 8x10, I'd imagine they'd be breaking even at least, and still keeping a slide emulsion in the lineup.

But NOOOOOOO .... they axe the whole thing... I wonder if there were any people who lost their jobs because E-6 got killed... Hopefully not...

-Dan

Vaughn
9-Mar-2012, 15:13
I would ask anyone on this board if they would like to go back to what they were earning 10-15 years ago?

I am earning the same as 10-15 years ago! (darkroom tech for a university).

Ron McElroy
9-Mar-2012, 15:15
I would ask anyone on this board if they would like to go back to what they were earning 10-15 years ago?

Absolutely!!! I took a cut in pay in 2008 during the meltdown and that dropped me to below what I was making in 1997.

sully75
9-Mar-2012, 15:17
Golly, I'd have loved if they'd have just kept (1) E-6 emulsion in the lineup, I mean, they've already done the R+D, they've already got the setup down for it, why not just put it on S/O status? I mean, if they coat (1) run a year of 35mm, (1) of 120, and (1) of 4x5, 8x10, I'd imagine they'd be breaking even at least, and still keeping a slide emulsion in the lineup.

But NOOOOOOO .... they axe the whole thing... I wonder if there were any people who lost their jobs because E-6 got killed... Hopefully not...

-Dan

My understanding is that when they do a run of film, it's an insane amount. Maybe it's more than several years worth for certain films? It sounds like they are really screwed. They are tooled up for 1980's style film production. They can't scale down without investing in a smaller scale facility, which they probably can't afford to due based on the limited future global film market. So they have to raise prices. Seems sort of logical to me. Kind of a good sign in a way. I don't know. I'm shooting Arista.edu! I mean, I'm shooting arista.edu.

Bruce Watson
9-Mar-2012, 15:34
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/price_hikes_hit_surviving_kodak_films__news_311757.html?aff=rss

It's either raise prices now or exit the film business entirely now. Which would you have them do?

As volume goes down, there's less film to carry the fixed costs of the factory and the labor; Kodak's cost to produce the film therefore goes up. They are just passing that cost along to us. You didn't really expect a bankrupt company to sell you film at a loss did you?

vinny
9-Mar-2012, 15:50
Wait, isn't this the second price increase in three months?

Erik Larsen
9-Mar-2012, 15:54
I sure hope the other film manufacturers don't follow suit!

Drew Wiley
9-Mar-2012, 16:28
Oh get real! Looked at a gallon of gas or a can of paint lately? Petrochemical and distribution costs are up all across the board. Film was probably kept artificially low for quite awhile due to direct competition. Now that they're tending to specialize in color neg
vs chrome, each is at liberty to make more profit. Sure it hurts to be spending almost double for a box of 8x10 color film compared to just a couple years ago. But it's gonna
keep happnin'. Look at current prices of even Ilford b&w paper compared to a year ago.
It's called inflation. And in this instance, it's a rubber band that has been too tight for too
long and is suddenly snapping.

William Whitaker
9-Mar-2012, 16:32
You sure the post office isn't running Kodak?

Vaughn
9-Mar-2012, 17:45
You sure the post office isn't running Kodak?

If it was, we'd have all the film we want for a reasonable price. This is based on a Postal Service that handles 1/3 of the world's mail for a mere 44 cents for a letter anywhere in the US...and not much more to anywhere in the world (almost -- can one mail anything to Cuba?)

Quality control might be an issue...:rolleyes:

Vaughn

Ken Lee
9-Mar-2012, 18:15
Brian Kosoff wrote here, a while back, a very compelling list of expenses for a photographic outing.

As I recall, meals, lodging and fuel were far more expensive than film. If we consider car rental and/or air tickets, the price of film dwindles to relative insignificance.

Vaughn
9-Mar-2012, 18:42
Brian Kosoff wrote here, a while back, a very compelling list of expenses for a photographic outing.

As I recall, meals, lodging and fuel were far more expensive than film. If we consider car rental and/or air tickets, the price of film dwindles to relative insignificance.

Also learn to edit before one sets up the camera and when looking at the GG. I spent 6 months photographing it NZ/Australia and exposed 75 sheets of film -- got a solid 20 print portfolio. The cost of the film (it was only 4x5 B&W) was way below the radar compared to any of my other costs! I just bought 50 sheets of 8x10 FP4+ -- okay, a big bite out of the old budget, but paid out of earnings giving a workshop and the film will last me months. I am thankful I could buy it and it was there to buy!

Vaughn

Riccis
9-Mar-2012, 19:27
It's either raise prices now or exit the film business entirely now. Which would you have them do?

As volume goes down, there's less film to carry the fixed costs of the factory and the labor; Kodak's cost to produce the film therefore goes up. They are just passing that cost along to us. You didn't really expect a bankrupt company to sell you film at a loss did you?

Of course not... And I don't mind paying more for film, specially if the additional profits go to the retirees they are trying to screw instead of executives. I also wouldn't think they will sell at a loss but didn't they state that film was one of the few profitable lines of their business?

Cheers!

John Kasaian
10-Mar-2012, 00:57
The price of film is going up, just like groceries. Kodak is already expensive and when they raise prices even higher that is bound to cause grumbling from hobbyists like me. Pros OTOH can pay whatever is neccessary and pass the expense on to their clients and good for them!
For me, complaining about the price of Kodak is like complaining about the price of a new Ferrari or Lagonda. It just isn't an issue. Maybe five or six years ago when I thought I could afford the stuff I'd sure be miffed (and indeed I was,) but not now. Ilford and Foma/Arista.edu Ultra will undoubtedly go up in price too, but i'll bet not as high as Kodak. I'll make up for that by shooting less and shooting more carefully so as not to waste film---but then thats been a part of every 8x10'ers SOP isn't it?

vinny
10-Mar-2012, 05:41
For a hobbyist like myself, it's a big expense. I don't rent cars or book hotels. I prefer to shoot both color and b+w and when I moved up to 8x10, it was expensive but now it's $13/sheet for color plus developing, which I do myself. Man, when I got into 8x10 Arista 125 (ilford fp4) was $37/box. It just won't be doable once my stash of film runs out. It's hard enough justifying (to my wife) how much time/space I take up with this moneypit I call photography. I'd rather not change my methods but we're being forced to.



Brian Kosoff wrote here, a while back, a very compelling list of expenses for a photographic outing.

As I recall, meals, lodging and fuel were far more expensive than film. If we consider car rental and/or air tickets, the price of film dwindles to relative insignificance.

jp
10-Mar-2012, 07:20
Is there any US press release for this? The only source I've seen (and I haven't been looking) is a UK photo rag.

Michael Batchelor
10-Mar-2012, 08:36
You sure the post office isn't running Kodak?

Was Kodak asking Congress for help?

George Richards
10-Mar-2012, 08:45
Anyone have any old catalogs, or just recall prices for sheet films they paid in say, 1980s-90s? I'm curious to see prices now & then vs inflation.

From the Kodak Canada 1983-1984:
Ektachrome 64 4x5 50 sheets $83.55
Tri-X Pan 4x5 100 sheets $43.45

Michael Batchelor
10-Mar-2012, 08:57
For a hobbyist like myself, it's a big expense. I don't rent cars or book hotels. I prefer to shoot both color and b+w and when I moved up to 8x10, it was expensive but now it's $13/sheet for color plus developing, which I do myself. Man, when I got into 8x10 Arista 125 (ilford fp4) was $37/box. It just won't be doable once my stash of film runs out. It's hard enough justifying (to my wife) how much time/space I take up with this moneypit I call photography. I'd rather not change my methods but we're being forced to.

Photography was always - except for a very brief period - a hobby for the wealthy.

Eastman pushed consumer photography to the masses with "special occasion" marketing. The Kodak moment like graduation, baby's first birthday, big deals in people's life to remember and make it worth spending those few extra bucks.

The idea of constant use like a hobbyists was out of reach for the average person.

The golden age in the '80s and '90s was unusual.

John Conway
10-Mar-2012, 09:35
I don't know if price increases are good. I understand the manufacturing end of it, as far as cost, but if sales drop even more because of the increases, that can't be good. I am not a pro so I don't earn a living from photography,but if I did, the last thing I would want is increases in film cost. Even as a hobbyist, my hobby has to fit into the family budget. My film sits next to the bacon in the fridge.

vinny
10-Mar-2012, 09:38
very true. 99% of my equipment is used and wouldn't have been affordable had tons of lf/darkroom gear not been available online.


Photography was always - except for a very brief period - a hobby for the wealthy.

Eastman pushed consumer photography to the masses with "special occasion" marketing. The Kodak moment like graduation, baby's first birthday, big deals in people's life to remember and make it worth spending those few extra bucks.

The idea of constant use like a hobbyists was out of reach for the average person.

The golden age in the '80s and '90s was unusual.

Greg Miller
10-Mar-2012, 10:01
Photography was always - except for a very brief period - a hobby for the wealthy.

Eastman pushed consumer photography to the masses with "special occasion" marketing. The Kodak moment like graduation, baby's first birthday, big deals in people's life to remember and make it worth spending those few extra bucks.

The idea of constant use like a hobbyists was out of reach for the average person.

The golden age in the '80s and '90s was unusual.

There wasn't much of an internet presence in the 80's and for much of the 90's for sharing photos, and sharing for information on forums like this one. Very few hobbyist photos ever got viewed outside of one's immediate circle of friends/family.

There are billions of photos being taken each day, and posted on line each day from cell phones, point and shoots, and D-SLRs. It may not meet your definition of hobbyist, but one can make a very strong case that the golden age of photography is happening this very instant.

SamReeves
10-Mar-2012, 10:04
Inflation, it's here!

vinny
10-Mar-2012, 10:26
yeah, for the second time in three months!

Scott Walker
10-Mar-2012, 11:23
Brian Kosoff wrote here, a while back, a very compelling list of expenses for a photographic outing.

As I recall, meals, lodging and fuel were far more expensive than film. If we consider car rental and/or air tickets, the price of film dwindles to relative insignificance.

This is very true Ken and as much fun as it is to grumble about Kodak raising prices, film really is cheap in the grand scheme of things.

I have been an employer rather than an employee most of my life so it is somewhat second nature to keep a fairly close eye on costs and contributory values of things.
I use my truck for business and know almost to the penny what it will costs me to put every mile on it. In fuel alone I'm looking at $125.00 +/- worth every 5 1/2 hours of driving.
If I go on a 5 day photo trip to say the Kootenays (which I do fairly regularly) I will incur costs directly related to the trip of about $1,980.00 plus whatever film I use.

I do tend to use up way more film than most people and have been made aware of this by anyone I have ever gone out photographing with, so I may not be a good example.

If the light is good and the weather cooperates I will use 50 sheets of Ilford 8x10 in the 3 days I have to shoot (the other 2 being travel days).
So my film cost is about 11.2% of the total cost of the trip, it would be about 18.5% if I was using Kodak film and if I was normal and didn't use 5 times as much film as most people my numbers would be 2.46% using Ilford film and 4.34% using Kodak film. This amount is hardly significant as far as I am concerned for a photo specific trip.

Bob Salomon
10-Mar-2012, 12:13
"Photography was always - except for a very brief period - a hobby for the wealthy. "

Maybe for advanced hobbiests but it was definately for the masses. Apparently you never shot with a Kodak Brownie 127 or 620 during the 50s and 60s or a disk or Instamatic later on. When I started in retail in the 1957 we charged $0.99 for developing color roll film. If we had had to rely on the wealthy then the store would never had survived and been sold to the May Co.

Bruce Pollock
10-Mar-2012, 12:36
We should all remember that silver (sort of an important ingredient) has probably quadrupled in price recently, so comparisons to the 1990s are probably not fair. I'm not defending Kodak, I'm just sayin'..........

John Bowen
10-Mar-2012, 12:45
THAT'S IT!!!! Kodak has finally pushed me over the edge. In order to ensure Kodak gets the message as to just how upset I am, I will absolutely, positively, never, ever, ever, ever again buy any Kodachrome. There Kodak, I hope you've learned your lesson!

turtle
10-Mar-2012, 12:56
OK, so for some perspective:


Ilford put up their prices by more than this when they went belly up about ten years ago.
Ilford's price hikes over the last few years (in the UK) have been substantial. I cannot quantify them but I am confident they are as large as anyone's.
Ilford film might be cheaper in the US, but in the UK Kodak film is significantly cheaper. Go figure. It seems that you get screwed buying film in its home market. I do not understand this and it make me mad that reimporting Ilford sheet film from the US and paying for overseas postage... and paying the UK's high import duties is still cheaper than buying it next to the factory that makes it (once you buy a few boxes).



Personally, a 15% hike would seem much more reasonable if one was confident they are committed to film, but I sense the problem is that most people dont believe they are. When Ilford restructured and put prices up across the board, there were clear press releases and a strategy for making film sustainable. While Kodak has introduced new emulsions (e.g. TMY-2) which is commendable, they are not filling anyone with confidence that these increased prices will mean an assured future supply.

I am so glad Ilford is doing well as a result of their initiatives, but I can buy TriX for over £1 less per roll in the UK, compared to HP5+ and the gap is even larger with TMY-2 and D400 (almost £2). If I buy 50 rolls the savings are obvious. Kodak sheet films (esp 10x8) are obscene in the UK and Ilford prices double those in the US. Foma sheet films, or Adox, are less than HALF the price of Ilford in the UK and far cheaper still compared to Kodak.

Brits get screwed with both Kodak and Ilford sheet film. It seems that only Ilford sheet film users in the US and British users of 35mm/120 Kodak get a good deal. The result of this pricing mayhem is that I used various films from different manufacturers in different formats because it quite literally saves me hundreds of pounds a year.

Dave Langendonk
10-Mar-2012, 13:14
If it was, we'd have all the film we want for a reasonable price. This is based on a Postal Service that handles 1/3 of the world's mail for a mere 44 cents for a letter anywhere in the US...and not much more to anywhere in the world (almost -- can one mail anything to Cuba?)


Except that the USPS lost $5 Billion last year. Probably not a good reference.

Michael Batchelor
10-Mar-2012, 15:38
"Photography was always - except for a very brief period - a hobby for the wealthy. "

Maybe for advanced hobbiests but it was definately for the masses. Apparently you never shot with a Kodak Brownie 127 or 620 during the 50s and 60s or a disk or Instamatic later on. When I started in retail in the 1957 we charged $0.99 for developing color roll film. If we had had to rely on the wealthy then the store would never had survived and been sold to the May Co.

Well, I bought my first Kodak 127 from the back of a Nestles Quick box in 1962 with dimes I saved from my daily school lunch money by skipping ice cream. So I'm a bit younger than you, but we're both gray.

The way Kodak survived on the masses was because it was the masses. The aim was to get millions of people shooting several rolls a year, not thousands of people shooting several rolls a week. The people who had a spare $2/wk in 1957 to get film developed were few and far between. But most folks were happy to spend that 99 cents on special occasions.

Everybody here complaining about the cost of film is an advanced hobbyists. As some else has already noted above, aside from us dinosaurs most people think the golden age of photography is now. So my statement really should have been about the golden age of film photography.

Drew Wiley
11-Mar-2012, 16:37
Adjusted for inflation and film photography is probably no more expensive
than it ever was. Quite a few commodities were kept artificially stable for
over a decade and now the rubber band is finally snapping. Plus there's a
lot of gaming in the petrochemical supply chain going on due to the usual
suspects and associated opportunism. Don't like it? Neither do I. But that
just made me disciplined yesterday to shoot one shot rather than two.

Frank Petronio
11-Mar-2012, 17:35
All you guys who kept up the pipe dream that Medium Format Digital Backs would eventually become affordable have finally gotten your wish. Except instead of the MFDB's prices falling, it's the film prices that have risen.

onnect17
11-Mar-2012, 21:03
Still is the gas the big expense :(

Roger Cole
12-Mar-2012, 03:37
For a hobbyist like myself, it's a big expense. I don't rent cars or book hotels. I prefer to shoot both color and b+w and when I moved up to 8x10, it was expensive but now it's $13/sheet for color plus developing, which I do myself. Man, when I got into 8x10 Arista 125 (ilford fp4) was $37/box. It just won't be doable once my stash of film runs out. It's hard enough justifying (to my wife) how much time/space I take up with this moneypit I call photography. I'd rather not change my methods but we're being forced to.

For color your point is very valid. If I shot 8x10 color I'd - well, I'd drop back to 4x5. It's a lot more available as well as cheaper.

But for black and white Arista, which is now re-packaged Foma not Ilford, is $2.40 a sheet (100) to $2.80 (200 and 400.) Efke is available for $2.80 a sheet from B&H but with a lead time for shipping (it's a bit over $3 at Freestyle.)

If I were shooting 8x10, which I very well may in the future, I'd go with Ilford, with maybe some re-branded Foma from time to time. I've shot a tiny amount of "Arista brand Foma," one roll of 120 and maybe ten sheets of 4x5, and so far had no problems with it, but I certainly trust Ilford's quality control a lot more.

Kodak 8x10 is ridiculous, even in black and white, when compared to the excellent Ilford films. (At least, in the US - maybe it's cheaper in the UK.) But considering how slow 8x10 is to shoot anyway, it's not prohibitive for someone who can afford the gear.


Adjusted for inflation and film photography is probably no more expensive
than it ever was. Quite a few commodities were kept artificially stable for
over a decade and now the rubber band is finally snapping. Plus there's a
lot of gaming in the petrochemical supply chain going on due to the usual
suspects and associated opportunism. Don't like it? Neither do I. But that
just made me disciplined yesterday to shoot one shot rather than two.

+1 to gaming of oil prices and the idea that photography, as hobbies go, is still not really that expensive.

I won't even talk about the actual figures for what I pay to rent Cessna 172s and Piper Cherokee 180s and how much of that renting it took to get my pilot certificate. People think private pilots are rich but most of us are middle class professionals and blue collar folks who just have a passion for flying and are willing to make some sacrifices to be able to do it. Do that for a while then all your other hobbies will seem cheap. Giving up a night at the pub with a large burger and two pints once a week for more film doesn't seem to enter in to the thinking for photography.

nolindan
12-Mar-2012, 08:16
I would ask anyone on this board if they would like to go back to what they were earning 10-15 years ago?

Absolutely
And so would Kodak...

Tobias Key
12-Mar-2012, 10:34
I guess the other thing that puts it into perspective is that the 5d MkIII and the D800 are both much more expensive than than the outgoing models. I think I paid £2000 for my 5d mark II three years ago and the new one is starting off at £3000. So that's a 50% increase for early adopters probably coming down to 25-30% in a few months.

Just as well day rates aren't in the toilet and there's plenty of work around :p

How long do you think it'll be before you can spot a pro by the fact his equipment is a lot cheaper than an amateur's?

Ron McElroy
12-Mar-2012, 16:10
Except that the USPS lost $5 Billion last year. Probably not a good reference.

The USPS has to ask permission from Congress every time it wants to change its business structure. One major reason its has lost so much money is that Congress has made them prefund future medical and retirement benefits. No other government entity or private company works within these restraints.

Dave Langendonk
12-Mar-2012, 19:45
The USPS has to ask permission from Congress every time it wants to change its business structure. One major reason its has lost so much money is that Congress has made them prefund future medical and retirement benefits. No other government entity or private company works within these restraints.

Understood. But if the USPS were allowed to raise prices to offset that $5 Billion loss, postage would be more than 44 cents.

Also, private companies do have to fund their pension obligations. That's why so many are trying to get out from under that and discontinue them. Kodak being a prime example.

Michael Kadillak
12-Mar-2012, 20:46
As consumers we are fortunate to still have choices. It seems to me that many LF and ULF photographers are willing ready and able to shift gears from what they really want to what they can get at the right price point. It was not always that way.

From the Nov/Dec 1990 View Camera Magazine page 19. Super XX in 8x20 was advertised as available in 10 sheet boxes for $123/box with a 45 box minimum. That is $12.30 per sheet 22 years ago.

All I know is that without sheet film my LF and ULF cameras are nothing more than expensive room decor that I could do without. I have absolutely no control over who and how sheet film is priced so I can't worry about it.

Roger Cole
12-Mar-2012, 21:12
We could use rollfilm backs on them.

Of course, while I'd miss the ground glass and movements, in that case I'd be more likely to just buy a nice RB67 and some lenses and be done with it. Sometimes (don't tell anyone) I'm tempted to do that anyway, most often when I find dust in a sheet film sky. :(

Brian Ellis
13-Mar-2012, 07:31
Understood. But if the USPS were allowed to raise prices to offset that $5 Billion loss, postage would be more than 44 cents.

Also, private companies do have to fund their pension obligations. That's why so many are trying to get out from under that and discontinue them. Kodak being a prime example.

Private companies fund traditional pensions over a long period of time based on actuarial computations, employee ages, assumed fund earnings, and other factors. The previous poster said the Post Office has to "pre-fund." I don't know exactly what that means but I assumed it meant fund in full up front, something much different than what private companies do. And finally, Kodak isn't AFAIK trying to get out of funding pension benefits. They're trying to modify or eliminate some health benefits for retired employees.

cdholden
13-Mar-2012, 07:46
From the Nov/Dec 1990 View Camera Magazine page 19. Super XX in 8x20 was advertised as available in 10 sheet boxes for $123/box with a 45 box minimum. That is $12.30 per sheet 22 years ago.

If its costs rose in proportion to other films, Super-XX would be outrageous if it was still available. I've got a couple of 50 sheet boxes of it in 8x10. Maybe I should consider selling it so I can afford some of the new stuff. :)
Naaaahhhhh!!!

jnantz
13-Mar-2012, 08:54
kodak has been increasing their prices by 15% for a long long time.
i remember having a conversation with someone i worked for in the 1980s
and she said at least once a year their prices go up ( and that was 30 years ago )

2001, i bought tmy sheets, 100 sheet 4x5 boxes, they were 65$
2010, i bought tmy sheets, 50 sheet 4x5 boxes, .. 75$ea

its getting to be less expensive to make dry plates

Ken Lee
13-Mar-2012, 09:05
Private companies fund traditional pensions over a long period of time based on actuarial computations, employee ages, assumed fund earnings, and other factors. The previous poster said the Post Office has to "pre-fund." I don't know exactly what that means but I assumed it meant fund in full up front, something much different than what private companies do. And finally, Kodak isn't AFAIK trying to get out of funding pension benefits. They're trying to modify or eliminate some health benefits for retired employees.

I have heard this reported several times on the radio. The US Post Office has lately been profitable, quite profitable, but legislation was enacted which forces it to provide in advance for the pensions of employees, even those not yet hired.

As we are obliged to steer clear of political discussion, I can only suggest that perhaps there are a variety of forces at play.

jnantz
13-Mar-2012, 09:06
The USPS has to ask permission from Congress every time it wants to change its business structure. One major reason its has lost so much money is that Congress has made them prefund future medical and retirement benefits. No other government entity or private company works within these restraints.

hard to believe it is written into the constitution ... and the future benefits ---- 70 years into the future ! ---

Tim Gray
13-Mar-2012, 09:40
Someone on, I think, APUG said they found a 100-ft roll of 35mm Tri X with a sticker of $17.xx

That was me. It expired in 1982, so it's over 30 years old. For reference, about 5 years ago, you could get the same thing for $45-50. Now it's $65.

Tim Gray
13-Mar-2012, 09:42
Understood. But if the USPS were allowed to raise prices to offset that $5 Billion loss, postage would be more than 44 cents.

Also, private companies do have to fund their pension obligations. That's why so many are trying to get out from under that and discontinue them. Kodak being a prime example.

Don't want to get in a political argument, but I'd be shocked if private companies had to pre fund their pension obligations 75 years into the future like the USPS is required to.

Frank Petronio
14-Mar-2012, 12:40
I haven't seen the prices go up at B&H yet, I just bought another load of Portra 400.

I actually don't want to buy so much that wouldn't be able to shoot it should they discontinue their color negative films and C41 processing becomes harder to find/much more expensive. A year makes sense, a five years' supply doesn't.

This is kind of like the discussion of $10 per gallon gasoline (avoiding politics, lol) - at what point do you quit driving? I see used 2007-era medium format digital systems in the $6000 range now, and those would be good at lower ISOs, just like film. So frankly in 2-4 years I bet a lot of us will be converting, especially for color work. If you can get a 39mp Hasselblad HD3 for $5K then that's a sweet spot for many.

I don't doubt that B&W film will be available indefinitely and home processing isn't hard so my cameras won't be obsolete. It's just nice to have color options.

Roger Cole
14-Mar-2012, 15:17
I quit driving when it's impossible, not when it's expensive. Pretty much anything else, including photography, would be sacrificed first. There is no other way to get from my house to my job, for example.

I didn't even cut down when gas went from a buck a gallon to four bucks a gallon, I just spent less on other stuff.

Frank Petronio
14-Mar-2012, 15:27
A lot of telecommuting will happen as gas prices increase....

Greg Miller
14-Mar-2012, 16:26
I guess the other thing that puts it into perspective is that the 5d MkIII and the D800 are both much more expensive than than the outgoing models. I think I paid £2000 for my 5d mark II three years ago and the new one is starting off at £3000. So that's a 50% increase for early adopters probably coming down to 25-30% in a few months.

I can't speak about the Canon, but the D800, at 36 megapixels, doesn't really replace any existing Nikon camera. It is publicly commonly linked to the D700 (12 megapixels). The D700 and D800 were both introduced at $3,000. Given a small amount of inflation, the D800 is slightly less expensive than the D700.

Regarding film prices, it is just like the weather. Everyone complains about it but nobody does anything about it ;)