What Happened to Film Prices? - Got Ridiculously High!

[flying_tiger]

Haven't bought any films in the past 6 months. Just surfed on B&H site and saw

Ilford B&W sells for $3.69/roll - HP5+, FP+ and Pan F. When I stocked mine

(mainly Agfa APX 100 at $1.99/roll) one year ago, the Ilford sold for $2.69 per

roll.

 

It's a $1.00/roll jump - or 35% within one year. Are we being taking

advantaged by the film manufactures because film shooters are becoming

a 'niche'? Do they want to force themselves out-of-business? In my

dictionary, it's a rip-off. Kodak and Fuji also increased their prices for

color slide/C-41.

 

Any future for reasonally priced films? Not much hope?

[ann_clancy6]

prices increase as materials increase along with taxes, utilites, etc.

 

everything is higher these days.

 

for many years we have ridden the coat tails of business that used huge amounts of film; those days are gone and now we have to assume the cost.

[25asa]

No I don't think they are trying to gouge us. It all comes down to how much it costs manufactures to make film in todays world of digital. We all know the more a product is made, the cheaper it will get. Since films is only a shadow of what it was 10 or so years ago, it costs them more now to make it. Don'f forget inflation has hit us in the past 3 years, and I've seen everything go up by drastic amounts. Im not sure how much of that is due to oil prices or not, but I'm sure even that can effect the bottom line. If you want to use film today, you are going to have to pony up.

[bruce_watson1]

Just look at one component - uncoated film stock. Film stock is plastic. Plastics come from oil. Oil went to nearly $90.00 USD / barrel last summer and is currently well over $60.00 USD / barrel.

 

A company such as Ilford might have a six months supply of various film stocks in inventory. As they make film coating runs they have to buy more film stock. Eventually, they have to pass the cost of said film stock on to the consumer.

 

You think it's a rip-off? I'm just amazed that they keep making film available at any price. But I'll keep using it as long as it's available and I can afford it.

[jeffery_pool]

$10.49 for a roll of Provia 400x seems excessive to me.

[jeffery_pool]

"Film stock is plastic. Plastics come from oil."

 

How come the price of my tupperware hasn't gone up 35% in the last year? Its convenient to

blame the price of film on oil going up. When Silver shot up film prices also shot up. So how

come film prices don't decrease when silver goes down? Same thing with gas...

[david_henderson]

Presumably you guys complaining about the price would also be a little inconvenienced if all the films were discontinued because the manufacturers didn't make enough money to keep them interested and committed. I'd rather pay more and have it there to buy for longer. I don't have a concept of what the "right" price is. I just know it has to be high enough to make it worthwhile for people to keep making and selling it.

[jacob_brown]

Lower volume = higher cost.

[john_shriver]

Ilford pays their employees in UK Pounds. One UK Pound cost US $1.82 a year ago, now that same pound costs $2.00. The same thing is going on with the US Dollar and almost every major currency, such as the Euro. The important exception is China, who has locked their Renminbi against the dollar at an artificially low level to keep their exports up. Because the Chinese do this, we have artificially low inflation, even though we're printing money like mad to pay for the Iraq war. (Well, floating Treasury Bonds that we sell to the Chinese so we can print more money.)

 

Ilford went into bankruptcy because they had a trade union contract that forbade layoffs, but sales were falling 25% a year. Now they have a right-size labor force, but they have a lot of debt to pay off from their management buyout. The interest on that debt has to be distributed over all the film they sell, and if they sell less they have to charge more.

 

Also, comparing the price of film from a going concern like Ilford to film from a bankruptcy fire sale like Agfa is not fair at all.

[william_john_smith1]

<I>$10.49 for a roll of Provia 400x seems excessive to me.</I><P>According to the

Cost-

of-Living Calculator used by the American Institute for Economic Research, $10.49 in

2007

equates to $2.00 in 1970, which just about what I was paying for color film when I was a

poor student. <BR>Here is a true story from the time. A student in a class in Color

transparencies

complained to the teacher that she couldn't afford the two rolls that were required each

week

in the class. The teacher replied, and not in a sarcastic way, photography is not a cheap

field

so maybe she should think about doing something else until she can afford the cost. He

wouldn't change the film requirements for the course. Now days he would no doubt be

sued by

the poor student.

<P>One

could buy from B&H, $8.99 USA or $7.35 imported.<P>BTW, I have yet to see/hear anyone

complain about their wages going up.

[flying_tiger]

It's easier for the price to go up than come down. The same thing happend to gas price. When the crude oil price goes up, the gas price goes up immediately. But when the crude oil comes down price, it takes forever for the gas station to lower their prices.

 

They argue decreasing crude oil price is for future delivery. Hey, it should be true to the increasing crude oil. Why do they always practice double-standard and rip off consumers. As consumers, we have no choice but to pump gas into our cars. But films could be a different story. It's a necessity good like gas.

 

I can sense some politics and greed in gas pricing game and some greed in film price game.

 

I think if they keep doing these and think they could get away with it, many of film shooters will be forced to convert to digital. As a result, these film manufactures will be put out of business by themselves. Sigh!

[jtk]

Kodak, in a recent report to analysts, said it was making a tremendous profit margin in film, much more than any other line of business (eg graphic arts imaging). They clearly believe their future is with graphics and their huge market share in imaging chips (ie Nikon and 4/3) as well as their new printers (which are presently a sink hole).

 

I understood them to indicate that they'd keep making film as long as they could make that huge margin, but also that they'd sell or otherwise dump film when, at some *inevitable* point, sales started to sharply decline from here.

 

Their main errors in 2006 was outsourcing of camera manufacture in a badly timed way...they didn't make as much last Christmas as they'd have if they'd waited till Christmas marketing was finished before completing the outsourcing. Their main performance problem recently has been failure to sell off assets as quickly as they'd hoped or promised...they were very clear about that point.

 

In other words, stop whining about prices, we're near the end of the road.

[flying_tiger]

Kodak has made a few critical decisions that drag them into such a difficult situation. Gettting into digital is one of their bad decision.

 

Abandoning films/papers (a cash cow) is the biggest 'misktake' it made so far. If they keep going away from films/paper, they put the nail on their own xxxxx. If Fuji can and will survive the digital tide, why cannot Kodak? Something must be wrong with their strategy.

 

Whining could be a good thing. I hope Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford people will read thsi forum. We're trying to help not blame them.

[bob_the_builder1]

Not noticing any price increases in 120 film over here in Europe, although I can get hold of

Ilford films cheaper than Kodak....

[don_mckeith]

if ever there was a time to look into bulk loading---

 

 

APX 100 is $24.99 --100 ft roll,----you do the math.

[chris_waller]

Ilford are British and the pound is now worth nearly two dollars.

[tripanfal]

I don't understand why everyone is not bulk loading.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Kodak has been "getting into digital" since the late 1970's. They have dabbled with digital recording via film in the early 1980's. They were gung ho into APS when others were deeply commited to digital. With digital there is no "lets capture the film profits" thru a weird film size launch; that helped Kodak since its beginning. In the 1960's a 100ft roll of tri-x went for 4 to 7 bucks; gasoline usually was 20 to 25 cents; with say 16 being a cheapie low/non ethel offering. As film volumecs contract prices must rise to cover fixed costs. 4 years ago at walmart a 4 back of fuji superia 800 24exp was about 6.75 bucks; now its about 3 bucks more. 3 years ago walmart had many dozens of 4packs of superia 800 in stock. Now the film area in the store is 1/6 the size, and only 4 to 6 packs are stocked. The worlds largest seller of film must have some pulse on films sales; if volumes are less and prices are more.

[richard_ullakko]

I think as sales have fallen the production runs are smaller. Smaller runs result in higher cost per unit.

 

Cheers

[kelly_flanigan1]

In process camera graphic arts B&W films the prices went skyhigh as volumes tanked; due to the introduction of digital. Engineering copiers that would enlarge and reduce; print on mylar/film; paper or vellum came out in the late 1980's. Process cameras died off as prices of materials rose; thruput of film processing tanked. At the end we were paying 10 times the rate for films; buying up old stock of films discontinued. In local colleges the photo programs scrapped out their chemical based darkroom gear 4 years ago. With the local newspaper this was over a decade ago. <BR><BR>The base stock of film tracks oil prices; film went up with the oil problem in 1973 and 1979 too. <BR><BR>Basic supply and demand should be studied; film demand is dropping. Making film is a deeply capitial intensive product; a product that has a limited shelf life; one that rots with time. Its not a product like making 16oz claw hammers, nails, or coffee cups. A dealer who buys too many hammers doesnt worry about date codes on hammers, but does so on films. Hammers are not sealed up in lightproof boxes; hoarded in freezers. Hammers are not made in weird versions; so one needs a 120 version hammer for a 120 version nail. In air nailers then there IS a mapping of some XXX type of nails for YYY type nailers; and the pricing is abit more wonky if one has a weird non-common power nailer.<BR><BR>Go to a grocery store; ethnic items common in Los Angeles might be more expensive in Mayberry NC. Oddball films in Oddball formats with low volumes have alway disappeared first in the history of film and plates.

[alan_rockwood]

A word about costs.

 

First, in most businesses the cost of raw materials is a relatively small part of the cost of doing business. Employment costs are by far the largest factor. I suspect that this is the same in the film business.

 

Second, the cost of the crude oil that goes into the film base must be a very small fraction fraction of the cost of the film. Assume that oil is at $60 per barrel. Assume that a roll of film costs $4. How many rolls of film could you make with a barrel? I don't know, but I would guess it would probably be measured in the thousands.

 

Third, I assert that there is negligible content of crude oil products in film anyway. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that most film base is made from cellulose acetate. Cellulose is the main feedstock for making cellulose acetate. Cellulose is not a product made from crude oil. It comes from biological sources.

 

The other part of cellulose acetate comes from acetic acid, or related products, such as acetic anhydried. 75% of industrial acetic acid and acetic anhydride are made from the reaction of methanol with carbon monoxide. Methanol itself is mostly made from natural gas feedstocks, not oil. Of course, natural gas prices are influenced my oil prices, but since acetate is the smaller component of cellulose acetate the influence of oil prices on film base is an indirect influence over the more minor component of the material.

 

The other key parts of film are gelatin, silver halides, and dyes.

 

Gelatin is a biological product. Therefore, its price would be little influenced by oil prices.

 

Silver halides are derived mainly from mineral sources, and oil prices would have some effect on these materials, but not the major effect.

 

Dyes are highly dependent on hydrocarbon feedstocks, but being fine chemicals their cost is less dependent on hydrocarbon prices than other factors related to manufacturing costs.

 

Film boxes are cardboard, and therefore only indirectly dependent on hydrocarbon prices.

 

35mm cassettes are mostly made of steel. Iron ore costs are probably not much dependent on oild prices. Coal is a major factor in steel manufacture, and coal prices are influenced by oil prices, but I doubt if coal costs are a major part of the cost of the cassette. After all, coal is very cheap.

 

35mm cans are mostly plastic these days, and therefore highly dependent on hydrocarbon feedstocks, but I would hazard a guess that these little cans are not a large fraction of the cost of the product.

 

Transportation costs for shipping product are highly dependent on hydrocarbon feedstocks, but I believe that transportation costs are a small part of the total product cost.

 

Here's the bottom line: I assert that hydrocarbon prices are only a very minor fraction of the cost of making film.

 

Please correct any errors in the analysis above.

 

Alan

[bobmichaels]

Alan, good analysis but it only relates to raw material costs. Most of a final product cost comes from labor and related benefits, not the raw materials.

 

Remember that GM spends more for health care costs than it does buying steel.

 

So you are right that hydrocarbon cost are a very minor part of the cost of film. I suspect that all the materials and related costs are a minor part of the total cost of manufacturing film.

[jeffery_pool]

"I don't understand why everyone is not bulk loading."

 

With Ilford films it is slightly more cost efficient, but it isn't worth it for me cleaning cartridges and trying to avoid scratches. I'd rather spend the 30-50 cents more on a fresh cartridge and know that I won't risk a scratched roll.

[jeffery_pool]

"Kodak, in a recent report to analysts, said it was making a tremendous profit margin in film"

 

I don't like the idea of subsidizing Kodak's digital dept (I never liked any of their digital offerings) with my film purchases. I'd rather give my money to Ilford and Fuji, who, in most cases, offer a comparable and some of the times better product. I wonder if and when Kodak shuts down their Tri-x line, if a company like Ilford or Fuji will be able to exactly emualte it? It'd be a shame for something like that to dissapear forever.

[25asa]

When Kodak shuts down the Tri-X line, there WILL be HELL to pay! Its probably Kodaks most sold B&W film. And people use this film like diehards. I do. When I can no longer buy Tri-X, I'll probably stop using Kodak by then. But they still have Plus X too, which is another good film.