ILFORD increased its Film Prices Again- at B&H, a %10 increase

I don't understand why Ilford increased its prices again. Now the 120 roll

HP5+ costs $3.19 a roll and Pan F+ and FP4+ cost $2.99/roll. Ridiculously

expensive!

 

I guess it's time to shoot more Fuji Acros 100 - $2.39/roll and Kodak Tri-X -

$2.79/roll. Sometimes, I just wonder why manufacturers self-destruct itself

by making its products unreachable for consumers. Sigh!

Do you know the prices in France?

3,10euros for PanF

3,20euros for HP5

3,40euros for FP4

and they are the price of discount internet shop.

 

In a traditional shop FP4 and HP5 are 4euros; and PanF 5euros.

 

Make the conversion in $ and you'll understand I would buy it the price you anounce.

I think it reflects the silver price. Citing Wikipedia: <i>"By December 2001 the price had fallen to $4.15 per ounce, and in May 2006 it had risen to as high as $15.16 per ounce and is currently $10.77 per ounce."</i>

I think that is the price we have to pay that Ilford may survive!

Perhaps would make me a better photographer and slow my process a bit more and be more selective....but love b/w and will go with the flow.

Ilford tried selling their film at bargain basement prices and they went bankrupt remember? Also, if you haven't noticed, lots of things are becoming more expensive due to increased cost of energy and raw materials. I'd bet that Kodak and Fuji will be making similar announcements in the near future and this trend will continue as resources become more expensive and the demand for film continues to fall. In the grand scheme of things, an extra 20 cents or so per roll is nothing considering what most people spend their money on. Everyone has their own shooting style but lets say you shoot 4-5 rolls per week as an amateur. Your spending a grand total of one dollar extra due to price increases. I'm certainly not wealthy by a long shot, but if it gets to the point where I can't afford to buy a roll of film at 3.19, photography will be the last of my concerns.

I am glad I have about 6 bulk loaders full. The only Ilford film I use is Pan-F+ but I got 200 feet in the freezer and about 10 meters left in a loader. Whith the price of silver going up it may be the time to freeze more bulk rolls of any film. Ilford is the first the rest will follow.

 

Larry

I was reading a 1935 book titled "Modern Miniature Photography" on early 35mm photography last week -- converting to modern dollarettes, film in England cost about $40 per 35 exposure roll. The book raved about how cheap it was.

I understand that no one wants to pay more but we are talking about a small amount of money here. Ilford has made a commitment to support B&W photography with quality products. They need to remain profitable to stay in business. If you shoot 60 rolls a year you are talking about another 20 bucks. This is worth getting upset about? Life is too short. Buy quality products, enjoy your hobby and have fun.

hey binyuan,

 

how many rolls a year do you shoot? 10? 100? 1000? more?

 

Does the increase crush your bank account?

 

Did you buy a latte at Starbucks today?

 

Don't be ridiculous.

All manufactuers have Quality Productes. Since Efke became Adox Their's have become better; though not that the old were that bad ..." "I never processed a pinhole roll." I love Ilfords Pan-F+. I have a bunch of frozen 120 and 135 APX 25-100 and 400 because I like them... Forte is great for my Street shoots and it pushes real bad...My 200 feet rolls of Double-x are for another situation.... They are beautiful in Diafine at 500. Suck it up my friend.... It is not like it is a Gallon of Gasoline.

 

Larry

<i>"I guess it's time to shoot more Fuji Acros 100 - $2.39/roll and Kodak Tri-X - $2.79/roll. Sometimes, I just wonder why manufacturers self-destruct itself by making its products unreachable for consumers."</i>

<p>I think the problem for Ilford is that they can't subsidise b&w products with sales from other product lines, which Kodak and Fuji can. They have to charge a realistic price and could get squeezed out of the market because of this. It's not much of a case of 'self-destruct', is it?

Quite a discussion so far. I don't mean to say a $0.30/roll increase is unaffordable but everything is relative. While energy price is becoming ridiculous, I suspect somebody just took advantage of the situation by increasing the film prices and got above-normal profits.

 

I didn't see Ilford declared a price increase anywhere. Anyhow, it's a natural move for someone to find an more affordable alternative when the original choice is becoming 'ridiculously" more and more expensive. Long live B&W films and color slide/negative films!

Binyuan, I think you nailed it! Most everything has risen in price "due to energy price increases." Even if not true, companies are using current concerns to cover their costs and stay alive, even if it's speculative. I would argue the "self-destructive" part of your comments. If one chooses cheaper film, one has voted for that seller. B&H prices are more frequently adjusted to meet their needs & inventory costs compared to other retailers perhaps. I've always found their film prices nearly as high as many other retailers, but I still shoot film. You may have also noticed that B&H ads for film used to be 1-2 full pages, back in the old days, and are much smaller now.

My money goes to the company that has the best product and the best chance of staying in business in the long run.

 

So my money goes to Ilford. I truly believe when all is said and done, they will be the last one around.

That's how much I've been paying at my local camera shop.

 

...Don't complain.

I think energy prices are playing more of a role than silver prices are.

 

But another point of view is that the remaining B&W product manufacturers figure that the present customer base is a relatively "captive" customer base and that a price increase won't lose them sales.

 

I don't see Ilford as necessarily more likely to remain in the business than any other manufacturer. What can be taken as commitment can also be interpreted as an absence of alternatives.

Ilfords costs have increased a lot over the last few years too: Energy prices are up (they are gas powered), silver prices are up, and other raw materials are up too. With the demise of Agfa they are now the largest user in Europe of some chemicals, where they used to use 1% of what Agfa did. Producing (relatively) small amounts of a chemical drives the price up relative to making it by the tonne!

 

From where I sit the prices have actually gone down. But that's due to the exchange rate, not to Ilford pricing...

It's just going to continue going up until the manufacturers find a comfortable spot for the new demographics of film users to their manufacturing costs. The digital cam usage ain't done yet. You constantly see people announcing on Pnet that they just bought their first digital. So, get use to it for a while to come. I can't say for sure that the film manufacturers are not taking advantage of the situation.....they might be.......but between the lower quantities of film production (which DOES cost more per roll), energy prices (their electric and the shippers added energy expenses), price of silver..........I'm actually amazed it ain't higher per roll of film. And I do thank the manufacturers for conitnuing film production, especially B&W. They could just say screw it. I imagine even having to figure out new prices every 6 months to make sure they still are making a profit of some kind, costs a pretty penny by itself.

 

Probably the best thing one could do, and I recently did it, is buy bulk film and roll your own loads. I did this back in the 70's because I didn't have much income I could set aside to photography and it worked really good. Now, the price of film per 36 exp roll has gone high enough again to make buying bulk film a good idea.

It's funny to me that people will complain about the price of film but they don't about the

price of Starbucks coffee. If film companies (not many left) have to rise prices to stay alive,

well let them. I'll still pay the price so they DON'T discontinue FILM. B&H photo stills bets

ANYBODY with prices.

BINYUAN if film is too expensive then why don't you go digital?

Photography has always been an expensive hobby. Pros today almost all shoot digital, and us amatures have that option if buying and developing film is too expensive. I think we all can understand the economics of scale in manufacturing well enough to realize that film manufacturers can't possibly make a profit at 10% of their former volume unless they raise prices. For those determined to shoot film, this is only the beginning of a steep climb in prices.

<i>My 200 feet rolls of Double-x are for another situation.... </i> <p>--Larry Dressler</p>

 

<p>Stop rubbing it in my face! ;)</p>

Kirk

 

I have been known to share. I will send you a few rolls if you smile real big and remember all the times I had to try on EvilBay to get this reel.

 

Larry

I am impressed and appreciative of Ilford's commitment to B&W film. Consequently, I will staunchly support Ilford by exclusively buying their products (unless they get crazy-stupid with their prices).

 

I just look at it as part of the implied "mutual survival agreement" between B&W film users and manufacturer.

 

--Randall<div></div>

From about 40 years ago when I announced to my mother that I was hooked on photography . . .she replied, "I guess I should be happy that you didn't choose race horses!" :-) Ironically, the area Amish horses & buggies are beginning to look like more attractive investments! :-)