Price of Film Going Up

[paulbarden]

Have you looked at the actual prices? I don't regard an increase in the price of 10 sheets of 8x10 T-Max 400 from US$100 to $170 as "just the way it works". At the moment, at least, HP5+ is $10/sheet less. That may be spare change to you, but I daresay that some people, indeed most, would have a different view.

I happen to be making that decision now. I guess that I'm one of the people that you've branded as moaners. What I think is that you don't even know what the prices are, despite the fact that I put them right in front of you.

Yes, I looked at the prices in your spreadsheets. Why would I be commenting if I hadn’t reviewed what you presented??

And no, I don’t buy TMY in sheets anymore. Certainly not spending $17 per 8x10 of the stuff! Why would I, when FP4 is so much less costly?! Looking at your profile, it appears FP4 and HP5 are your chosen films, so why you’re worried about the price of TMY, I don’t know.

[Hugo Zhang]

People could buy Tmax 400 8x10 at $119 plus 10% discount with a code a few days ago. Midmest sometimes has deals too for Ilford. $139 for FP4 8x10 for example.

[paulbarden]

I'm sure Kodak considered the competition. But for whatever the reasons, increased cost of materials, labor or other reasons, they raised their prices. They understand higher prices means less demand and fewer sales especially when competition is so much cheaper. No company wants to price itself out of the market. My concern is that inflation is raising the prices of everything. So it's all being compounded.

In 2020 there came a warning that silver prices were going to jump dramatically, and in early August, prices that had been $16 and $17 per ounce suddenly spiked at just over $29! It’s closer to $24 right now, and seems to be trending downward. But the price if silver is certainly going to have a direct effect on the cost of film manufacture.

[Steve Sherman]

I personally only support those who support our tiny community, so the great Yellow Father doesn't exist in my world. Of course film is going to rise in price given the shutdown in '20. I'm just thankful that the Ilford found a way, and commitment to stay solvent.

[r.e.]

You're assuming that the other manufacturers won't raise their prices soon.

I've already said three times in this thread, including in the post that you quoted, that the question is how Ilford will respond From post #3: "One question is how Ilford will respond. Will it see the Kodak price increases as a green light to hike its own prices?"

[r.e.]

People could buy Tmax 400 8x10 at $119 plus 10% discount with a code a few days ago. Midmest sometimes has deals too for Ilford. $139 for FP4 8x10 for example.

Thanks Hugo for a rather helpful post.

[paulbarden]

What I would find helpful and potentially enlightening would be hearing from others how they’ve strategized their techniques to optimize film usage, and reduce waste. I do fairly well in this regard after 5 years practice with 8x10, but it is still my habit to expose two (sometimes three) sheets of film for each scene. If I could be certain of getting things exactly right (or close enough) with a single sheet of film, then I’d be doubling the number of images obtained per box of film. Do any of you expose one sheet of film for any given image? If so, how have you finessed your process in order to achieve a good negative nearly every time?

I’m not unhappy with my technical ability as it impacts film usage. I don’t think two sheets per image is unreasonable. But then I’m not using Kodak sheet films - I’ve been more than satisfied with FP4 and Delta 100, so I’m not burning $17 for every 8x10 negative I make. If I had no choice but to pay that much per sheet, I’d find a cheaper option (I can make an 8x10 wet plate glass negative for about $1.00, and paper negatives would start to look very appealing too. And hand-coating dry plates with Foma liquid emulsion is far less costly also), but for now, Ilford’s offerings are both exceptional in quality and I can still afford them, but I’m starting to be less cavalier in my use of these materials.

I see no point in sowing unhappiness when viewing the costs of making analog photographs. Considering how badly things went 10-15 years back, I’m just glad I can still buy these materials at ANY price.

[Bernice Loui]

Sheet film image making has never. been low cost. As the sheet film size goes up, the cost per sheet goes up faster than the "X" factor of image size due to the area of of sheet film. Or there are effectively four sheets of 4x5 per one sheet of 8x10 or almost two sheets of 4x5 per sheet of 5x7.

Not just the cost of film there is the cost of processing, and most valuable of all your time (not replaceable once used) and all related resources required to make images.

This why so much TooTing about staring the view camera journey at 4x5 as it is the lowest cost with easiest access to view camera stuff and offers all that needs to be learned for how to view camera.

Once the image maker is to the point where few if any sheets of film is wasted per image, then larger sheet film formats can or should be considered. This is much about being efficient and effective and economical as possible making sheet film images. Curious side effect of this wisdom, it often carries over to image making with any image recording device from phone to view camera.


Bernice

[Kiwi7475]

I am happy E100 hasn’t gone up and I enjoy it very much in 8x10. Particularly in the context of Fuji’s current doings (undoings?).

Obviously if you want to save money , buy as much as you can as soon as possible, and freeze it. Take the plunge now or pay some factor if you sprinkle over time and only consume as you need.

[Monty McCutchen]

View cameras and sheet film make me happy every time I’m lucky enough to scratch out time to immerse myself in it. I’ve had more moments of grace and sublimity there than many areas of my life combined.

It’s absence? Now that would be expensive.