Kodak raising prices again - in 2021

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

It's amazing how little things done as encouragement can go wrong, I really hadn't intended to start a pissing contest with a camera snob.

Why you are calling me as camera snob? I gave you real world situation and you insulting me in return. 

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Film photography is a creative decision for most of us who use film and that's why we stay with it, despite regular escalation in the costs of photographing with film and making prints .  How do you compare the satisfaction of framing a print that marks the culmination of the creative process and decision making from capture to output based on years of personal experience against the rising cost of materials?

It's an easy one to answer for me, I enjoy the creative process through every stage from selecting my film stock, creating the image and deciding on a processing regime .  It's an immersive approach that digital does not encourage, you either get it or you don't and the cost isn't going to change my chosen route.

Material cost increases in film photography are an irritating inevitability, but the satisfaction of holding the end result compared to the fretting over numbers of Instagram and Facebook 'Likes' that others seem to do will always mitigate that for me.  

I'm certainly not going to offload my Leica, Hasselblad and Fuji film cameras because of the rising cost of film.  I'll just be more mindful whilst making images with them.

Can’t disagree with any of that.  The print has always been my end goal. But that creative process, from picture to matted and framed print, didn’t stop for me when I transitioned from film to digital nine years ago.  I still invest in the tools required to make and display fine prints... a wall mounted custom mat cutter, matting and framing supplies, papers, storage cabinets, lighting, etc, etc.  After building 4 darkrooms, I decided after another house move in ‘09 not to build a fifth, and instead go digital.  I might have saved on film and darkroom supplies in the process, but that was merely replaced with costs related to printers, inks, software purchases (including ImagePrint, which cost as much as a printer), and so on.  If I were still making silver prints, my philosophy would be exactly like yours.  And it’s the same now, in the digital realm, even when costs rise, or for example when Adobe forces subscription payments.  These are merely the costs of the creative process; and they are usually relatively small for those who purchase Leica gear and similar products, or travel extensively, etc.  I’d be more troubled by reduced amount of choices, not rising costs, in the overall scheme of things.

Jeff  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

There's so much bs flying around in this thread it feels like I'm at a rodeo.

Seriously - belly-aching about this price-rise on a Leica forum is beyond ridiculous. The rises are to fund expanding capacity: right now, demand exceeds Kodak's ability to supply. So the only possible and logical way they can invest to expand that capacity is by raising prices. If they are ultimately successful, then film could become cheaper again. I know this is unlikely (it doesn't tend to happen in the world we're living in at the moment), but with ever-increasing demand, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility, and in any case just being able to improve their manufacturing capacity is a worthwhile reason. Get back to me if you know the price increases are just going into higher executive pay or to fund venture capitalists.

Also, the price of a Leica Monochrom in Sweden right now is nearly eleven thousand US dollars. ELEVEN THOUSAND US DOLLARS.
Anyone telling me that around 6 or 7 dollars for a roll of film, and 5 or 6 bucks to get it developed for you is too much, and that they intend to SAVE MONEY by getting a Monochrom is just rationalizing some nice, comforting consumption. 

And as for flushing silver down the drain - every digital camera contains precious metals and minerals that are both rare and often both dangerous to mine and dispose of. Don't fool yourself that a digital camera is nicer to the environment, just because the problems it causes aren't directly observable to you, going down your kitchen drain.

[Herr Barnack]

@plasticman you do make some valid observations. 

For those who want to shoot film, you can develop your own and save some money; not as much as in the past, though.  Chemistry costs money, but in the long run do it yourself developing is still less costly than outsourcing your developing.

$11,000 USD for an M10 Monochrom is beyond insane.  A person could fly coach class to New York, buy an M10M at B&H, fly back home to Sweden and still be money ahead, having gotten to see and shop in the most wonderfulest photographer's shrine in all the world!

Edited November 5, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Steve Ricoh]

39 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

@plasticman you do make some valid observations. 

For those who want to shoot film, you can develop your own and save some money; not as much as in the past, though.  Chemistry costs money, but in the long run do it yourself developing is still less costly than outsourcing your developing.

$11,000 USD for an M10 Monochrom is beyond insane.  A person could fly coach class to New York, buy an M10M at B&H, fly back home to Sweden and still be money ahead, having gotten to see and shop in the most wonderfulest photographer's shrine in all the world!

Or a shorter flight to the U.K., with the monetary saving going into airline shares. They’re going to bounce back, right, as long as they don’t bounce too much trying to land.
Regarding the comment about waste materials. Electronic equipment is subject to WEE regulations. Are there any regulations stopping me flushing nasty chemicals and precious metals down the drain. I mean regulations that can be enforced.

If Kodak subsequently reduce costs once the production line is set up, I’ll declare myself a Dutchman.

[fsb]

First Impression of the new Prices: North-German Dealer with store and internet-shop.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

57 minutes ago, fsb said:

First Impression of the new Prices: North-German Dealer with store and internet-shop.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

That’s an insane price, if true. 
 

[plasticman]

1 hour ago, fsb said:

First Impression of the new Prices: North-German Dealer with store and internet-shop.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

7 hours ago, plasticman said:

There's so much bs flying around in this thread it feels like I'm at a rodeo.

Seriously - belly-aching about this price-rise on a Leica forum is beyond ridiculous. 

Also, the price of a Leica Monochrom in Sweden right now is nearly eleven thousand US dollars. ELEVEN THOUSAND US DOLLARS.
Anyone telling me that around 6 or 7 dollars for a roll of film, and 5 or 6 bucks to get it developed for you is too much, and that they intend to SAVE MONEY by getting a Monochrom is just rationalizing some nice, comforting consumption. 

Howdy Cowboy?  I must have been missing saving for Monochrome statement. Sorry.

In case if you miss it, where are LUFs sub-forums for digital Leica cameras which are not very expensive. Even if new.  

The reason why you have to pay more for it in Sweden is because you have one of the best social systems in the World. With adequate return in taxes on health, education and so on. 

Also, please note, it is film sub-forum.  It is still legal at LUF to  be a member of this forum and own nothing, but LTM Leica. Those are in 200-500 USD price range. And because it is film sub-forum it makes sense for members to complain. Even M3 is ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS and within active film use, it is going to cost the same per year on film, chemicals and darkroom paper.

[250swb]

16 hours ago, plasticman said:

There's so much bs flying around in this thread it feels like I'm at a rodeo.

Seriously - belly-aching about this price-rise on a Leica forum is beyond ridiculous. The rises are to fund expanding capacity: right now, demand exceeds Kodak's ability to supply. So the only possible and logical way they can invest to expand that capacity is by raising prices.

I seriously doubt this is the way a large company pays for it's expansion plans. How many years will it take for a 13% rise on each roll of film to fill the piggy-bank? It's kind of like the handy-man who fixes your dripping tap asking for twice as much as last time, and asked why he says 'well I'm planning to go on holiday'. 

[250swb]

16 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Why you are calling me as camera snob? I gave you real world situation and you insulting me in return. 

No, the 'reality check' you gave me was delivered as a lesson but was purely self-referential.

It was also littered with mis-information, for example saying "Also, another reality check, darkroom chemicals ain’t really cheap anymore. C-41 adds to the cost substantially...." I don't know when you last processed your own colour film but a Tetenal C41 kit that can do 16 35mm films (easily stretchable to 20 in practice) costs £42, so based on 16 films that's £2.52 per film, whereas a lab price is in the £5.60 - £6.00 region. And you say it adds to the costs 'substantially'? That's processing your C41 for half the lab price!

[Steve Ricoh]

Time will tell, as it’s said... but I can’t see a sensible business model for Kodak to increase the price to customers to fund expansion.
Imagine BMW, VW, Ford, or any other car manufacturer announcing the same intention to raise ex-works costs to fund expansion because too many people want to purchase.

Madness, and I think it’ll end in misery.

Q? Would I purchase Kodak film at the increased price? Certainly not!

[Gibbo]

Twenty years ago or thereabouts, grumpy old guys were moaning away on the equivalent of forums that film was dead and that very soon you wouldn't be able to buy it anymore.

 

Here we are moaning about price rises instead 😂

[Torontoamateur]

when I shoot Ektachrome 100 in my Hasselblad then put it in a Gepe mount andp roject it from my Hasselbald PCP80 projector to be 7'x7' I know I made the right choice.   Same with that Velvia 50 in my M6 projected from my Kodak carousel projector..

[Herr Barnack]

On 11/4/2020 at 4:46 PM, Charles Morgan said:

It's so dreary, I love Tmax 100 and 400, but they have ceased to be a default choice and now become a luxury. I'm beginning to think a Monochrom would pay for itself in film savings. I've given up on colour film mostly, it's just too much money per photo.

Relentlessly climbing film (and developing chemistry) prices are making an even stronger case for both the Q2 and Q2 Monochrom. 

JMHO but it seems that the Q2 and/or Q2 Mono could represent the proverbial middle way for those who cannot abide film prices or the asking price of the M10R or M10M and lens (or two) to go with it.

I have not crunched the numbers, but I would think that a reasonably active photographer who shoots 5-10 rolls of film per week would spend as much or more on film and processing in a 3-4 year time frame as a new Q2 or Q2M would cost up front.  Then we have to consider the fact that film and chemistry will probably be 50-100% higher in price 3-4 years down the road. 

How ironic that a $5000 USD Q2 or a $6000 USD Q2M can actually make economic sense and pay for itself in the long run. 

When this news gets out, it will strike fear into the hearts of Leica wives around the world.   😎

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Mr.Prime]

Another option, improve your own photography and just increase the number of ‘keeper’ shots you make, then it’s break even on cost per keeper. 

 

I too wonder if history will show that Kodak are shooting themselves in the foot here and not with a camera.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[Charles Morgan]

7 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Relentlessly climbing film (and developing chemistry) prices are making an even stronger case for both the Q2 and Q2 Monochrom. 

JMHO but it seems that the Q2 and/or Q2 Mono could represent the proverbial middle way for those who cannot abide film prices or the asking price of the M10R or M10M and lens (or two) to go with it.

I have not crunched the numbers, but I would think that a reasonably active photographer who shoots 5-10 rolls of film per week would spend as much or more on film and processing in a 3-4 year time frame as a new Q2 or Q2M would cost up front.  Then we have to consider the fact that film and chemistry will probably be 50-100% higher in price 3-4 years down the road. 

How ironic that a $5000 USD Q2 or a $6000 USD Q2M can actually make economic sense and pay for itself in the long run. 

When this news gets out, it will strike fear into the hearts of Leica wives around the world.   😎

 

On my current 35mm black and white film consumption the M246 pays for itself, without assuming any further film price increases. I'm not planning on any purchases any time soon, as my flat roofs need replacing, but when that is done and paid for, who knows (probably my classic car...)

[Herr Barnack]

15 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I too wonder if history will show that Kodak are shooting themselves in the foot here and not with a camera.

History has already recorded the monumental corporate closed mindedness and irrational inflexibility that resulted in Kodak's self-inflicted disemboweling:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2012/01/18/how-kodak-failed/?sh=74939ec16f27

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[Reciprocity]

It's definitely getting to the point in pricing that a fair number of those who use Kodak will go elsewhere although Ilford is not exactly dirt cheap either. I'll keep buying it though, love the film and besides, the real money pit is Ilford Warmtone Fiber. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ouroboros]

On 12/11/2020 at 11:11 PM, Herr Barnack said:

Relentlessly climbing film (and developing chemistry) prices are making an even stronger case for both the Q2 and Q2 Monochrom. 

JMHO but it seems that the Q2 and/or Q2 Mono could represent the proverbial middle way for those who cannot abide film prices or the asking price of the M10R or M10M and lens (or two) to go with it.

I have not crunched the numbers, but I would think that a reasonably active photographer who shoots 5-10 rolls of film per week would spend as much or more on film and processing in a 3-4 year time frame as a new Q2 or Q2M would cost up front.  Then we have to consider the fact that film and chemistry will probably be 50-100% higher in price 3-4 years down the road. 

How ironic that a $5000 USD Q2 or a $6000 USD Q2M can actually make economic sense and pay for itself in the long run. 

When this news gets out, it will strike fear into the hearts of Leica wives around the world.   😎

 

It's an irrelevant comparison and the flaw in your 'theory' is the depreciation factor of a new digital camera over a similar 3-4 year period.