stunsworth Posted March 9, 2012 Share #1 Posted March 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Price hikes hit surviving Kodak films news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Good news for Ilford I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here Kodak to raise film prices by 15%. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
}{B Posted March 9, 2012 Share #2 Posted March 9, 2012 Price hikes hit surviving Kodak films news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Good news for Ilford I suppose. Thanks for the news. I've just switched to Kodak Ektar and if this increase is passed on in full my usual supplier will charge £4.25 per roll rather than the present £3.67. Add on the cost of processing and it means paying just over £10.00 for every 36 frame film. I doubt that buying Ilford black and white film and processing it myself would work out any cheaper. To add to the cost I believe that the price of first class mail is to be de-regulated and it could increase by as much as 70%. I'd like to stick to film so long as my scanner continues to work but with the seemingly endless bad news regarding film in general it makes me wonder whether I ought to think again about an M9 even though, at £5000, I cannot justify the purchase as anything but a luxury. I suppose that the film market will stabilize at some point and perhaps that will be the time to look around at the surviving manufacturers and the films they offer and decide if film is still for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 9, 2012 Author Share #3 Posted March 9, 2012 Processing b&w from Ilford (or anyone else) would work out far cheaper than £10. Less than £1 for processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted March 9, 2012 Share #4 Posted March 9, 2012 Processing B&W films yourself is in between Eur. 0,30 - Eur. 1,50 depending a bit of type developer etc. About film prices: Fuji raised already 15% last year and the Ilford prices went up 20%-30% last year. It must be already clear to everybody that film is going to be in a niche market which means much higher prices. Next film to be killed into the Kodak program: Tmax 3200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messsucherkamera Posted March 9, 2012 Share #5 Posted March 9, 2012 IMHO, A price increase of 15% is a small price to pay in order to keep Kodak alive and producing film. Given the prices of M cameras and lenses these days, Kodak's increase is a non-issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted March 9, 2012 Share #6 Posted March 9, 2012 15% price increase is far not enough to keep Kodak film division alive. They have to take measurements to downsize their whole film production before it's really too late. Hopefully somebody is then interested to take it over before Kodak Eastman is falling completely apart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted March 9, 2012 Share #7 Posted March 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess one needs to take the good with the bad. A lot of us were pretty worried about Kodak filing for bankruptcy protection. On the other hand, if they can continue to produce media for 15% more -and that means the company will survive- then it's a small price to pay. Having said that, locally, the shops really stick it to us with over and above premiums. The only way to do it is to commit to it and buy in bulk from New York. So, it's not $5-6 per unit, retail (from a big bulk seller), it's $14-16 per, add 15%. Or, $45-50 per 5 unit is nearing 60, or more... from a local reseller. To be honest, I am "emotionless" about the premium. If you're shooting film, chances are, you're not turning those images out professionally (magazines, media, etc). In this day-and-age of produce and bash it out, you'd never have the time to fiddle around with film. The film shooter is a print seller. It's not the same kind of market, at all. I sell prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #8 Posted March 9, 2012 Price hikes hit surviving Kodak films news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Good news for Ilford I suppose. Silver now sells for what gold used to sell for. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted March 9, 2012 Share #9 Posted March 9, 2012 Probably following the others, E100G I bought six weeks ago was 1 pound a roll cheaper than Provia. Fuji at Focus ex. said their film went up 20% not long ago, price of silver was the reason Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 9, 2012 Share #10 Posted March 9, 2012 Actually find it hard to stomach any moaning about a dollar here or there, when I'm reading posts on the Leica forum. Buying just one Leica lens would cover the cost of film for the rest of one's life, in all probability. Let's not forget how privileged we actually are - it's all too easy to become penny-pinching about these tiny, incremental price-rises. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jneilt Posted March 9, 2012 Share #11 Posted March 9, 2012 Actually find it hard to stomach any moaning about a dollar here or there, when I'm reading posts on the Leica forum. Buying just one Leica lens would cover the cost of film for the rest of one's life, in all probability. Let's not forget how privileged we actually are - it's all too easy to become penny-pinching about these tiny, incremental price-rises. yep, my thoughts exactly, for the cost of your MP and 50/1.4 you could buy and process 324,000 photos:p. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull40 Posted March 9, 2012 Share #12 Posted March 9, 2012 I can't really complain about a minor price increase in light of the recent materials price increases, including petrol for transportation. They're not running a charity, after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2012 Share #13 Posted March 9, 2012 yep, my thoughts exactly, for the cost of your MP and 50/1.4 you could buy and process 324,000 photos:p. That math is off by a bit I'm afraid. If an MP and 50 1.4 cost $9000 US, that would work out to $1 per 36 images. It is more like 10 or 20 times that cost not counting any travel time or cost to get to the store or lab and before you get into printing or scanning costs. Color slide shooting is about $20 per 36 frames with processing and mounting so it only takes 450 rolls of slides to hit $9000. Of course bulk loaded b/w home processed film will be the cheapest at maybe $4 per roll if you don't count any cost for your time. "Buying just one Leica lens would cover the cost of film for the rest of one's life, in all probability. " Well if the lens is $4000 that would cover about 7200 35mm slide exposures assuming that the price of film and processing stays the same the rest of one's life... however long or short that may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucklik Posted March 9, 2012 Share #14 Posted March 9, 2012 Next film to be killed into the Kodak program: Tmax 3200. I hope not, I use it a lot. But I suppose I can always switch to Ilford Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 9, 2012 Share #15 Posted March 9, 2012 I can't really complain about a minor price increase in light of the recent materials price increases, including petrol for transportation. They're not running a charity, after all. Exactly. And prices will be going up on a lot of things now that oil is skyrocketing. 36 exposures on a roll of negative film is less then 20 cents a frame. And film users tend to be more calculated exposing each frame (I personally find 36 exposures to be quite a lot.) Even when adding processing costs, I think it's still a bargain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #16 Posted March 9, 2012 Exactly. And prices will be going up on a lot of things now that oil is skyrocketing. 36 exposures on a roll of negative film is less then 20 cents a frame. And film users tend to be more calculated exposing each frame (I personally find 36 exposures to be quite a lot.) Even when adding processing costs, I think it's still a bargain. I saw on e-bay a roll of Kodachrome II with a price tag on it of $2.09 for 36 exposures. Allowing for inflation from 1962, how much is that in today's dollars? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted March 9, 2012 Share #17 Posted March 9, 2012 yep, my thoughts exactly, for the cost of your MP and 50/1.4 you could buy and process 324,000 photos:p. Well, if you buy used, at the right time, my M6ttl and 1.4/50 cost me 135 rolls of Provia and processing, which would last me about 4 years. Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted March 9, 2012 Share #18 Posted March 9, 2012 Calculating the cost of each shot on film versus digital is futile and only serves the purpose to give digital shooters somekind relief. Film shooters tend to put a lot of time and energy (also known as Love) on a lot of theor shots. Many of those shots get to be printed (a real world thing) while about 99% of digital shots don't get a second thought and never get printed. They end up on a hard drive by the millions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 9, 2012 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2012 Film is, still is, the cheapest element in our hobby. Some here will happily pay hundreds of euros/pounds/dollars for a case or a strap or a different colour of hot shoe. Film is bloody cheap!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 9, 2012 Share #20 Posted March 9, 2012 Calculating the cost of each shot on film versus digital is futile and only serves the purpose to give digital shooters somekind relief.Film shooters tend to put a lot of time and energy (also known as Love) on a lot of theor shots. Many of those shots get to be printed (a real world thing) while about 99% of digital shots don't get a second thought and never get printed. They end up on a hard drive by the millions. Without getting into a digital/film thing, I'm trying to understand what you are getting at. Why wouldn't I put "Love" into any photo that I cared about? I have thousands of slides and negatives for every one that was ever printed. And I sure wish a lot more of them had been scanned. I have more digital prints on hand - from scans or from digital capture than I have on silver based printing material. Since I tightly edit my digital files, what I have retained of them on hard drives and DVDs is not out of proportion with the percentage of slides and negatives that I also saved vs. the total number that was shot on film. As a matter of fact, I have so many slides and negatives on file (on sleeves, in boxes, on pages) that I can't even face going through them to look for any overlooked "gems.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.