Fuji film price increase

[KM-25]

Oh boy, here we go, the experts who have amazing ability to sit in on board meetings are on the move!

Firstly, since the purchase, Ilford has not even raised the prices on their products, there is nothing to "continue" from. Kodak has very much improved their coporate image, has outstanding products at still amazingly reasonable prices.

Fuji is what it is, they certainly have made it obvious that they will not be the last man standing in regards to film. Great products though, enjoy them and stock up when you can.

my 2 cents...

fuji raised or will raise prices to keep film margins at a break even or slightly better level. they want to stay in the film business even though its a very small percent of their sales. if they can break even they will produce film. If they wanted to get out, they would have done it already

kodak film is in trouble, because the brand name is in trouble. bad corporate image is going to eventually be the end of them. like fuji, they will continue to produce film but at a profit. it will help them offset other major bad decisions. they are helped out by Hollywood, not us, the film camera shooters. we are are blip on their P/L sheet

Ilford, at least the new ilford will continue to raise prices aggressively until the new owners/investors can get their target cash flow number. knowing many successful VC's and private equity head guys, I saw this coming. prices will go up and up and then they will claim that they can't survive their current debt load, or whatever excuse they decide to give out, abn then we will find out their real motivation behind the buyout.

Foma/Adox/Rollei/Agfa will be the voice of reason in pricing. they will follw the big 3 and see where things go. hopefully they can be the ones who show the other 3 that supplying the film users is about being there, not the need of only making a buck.

call me harsh, but thats the way I see it. I hope I am proven wrong and will be happy to admit I was wrong. but for me the ilford sell out to corporate owner who only cares about return on investment ( that is how i view all the wall street types, having been there for 20+ years) was the sign of doom for me. It will take a few more years, but again, I hope Im wrong.

sorry for the negative post

 

[Mark Wood]

According to the July 1994 issue of Practical Photography magazine, the price per 36 exposure roll of Fujichrome Velvia 50 from Mailshots in the UK was £5.98 if you bought a pack of 10 rolls. If you put that price into the Bank of England's inflation calculator here:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/index1.aspx

that translates to a 2015 equivalent (it won't calculate values for 2016 yet) price of £10.72. The current price that the same company are asking at the 10 rolls or more price is £11.80, so in real terms and taking inflation into account, the price increase has really only been 10% in over 20 years. OK it looks like we now have to add another 10% but is that really so bad for something which now most certainly classifies as a "niche" product in comparison with what it was back then?

 

[Larry Cloetta]

According to the July 1994 issue of Practical Photography magazine, the price per 36 exposure roll of Fujichrome Velvia 50 from Mailshots in the UK was £5.98 if you bought a pack of 10 rolls. If you put that price into the Bank of England's inflation calculator here:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/index1.aspx

that translates to a 2015 equivalent (it won't calculate values for 2016 yet) price of £10.72. The current price that the same company are asking at the 10 rolls or more price is £11.80, so in real terms and taking inflation into account, the price increase has really only been 10% in over 20 years. OK it looks like we now have to add another 10% but is that really so bad for something which now most certainly classifies as a "niche" product in comparison with what it was back then?

Voice of reason, where's the fun in that?

 

[Fotohuis]

and probably InovisCoat

You have mentioned it already .

 

[sevo]

I think that what makes it seem like it's expensive now is that wages are proportionally lower than 50 years ago.

Nope, average income peak in Western Europe and the US was some time in the late nineties, and we still are a fair amount above 1970 levels. What makes it seem expensive is the availability of digital as a at least in naive estimates cheaper (free, considered by frame and omitting all camera and computer cost) alternative.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Nope, average income peak in Western Europe and the US was some time in the late nineties, and we still are a fair amount above 1970 levels. What makes it seem expensive is the availability of digital as a at least in naive estimates cheaper (free, considered by frame and omitting all camera and computer cost) alternative.

With declining economic prospects for most people (both wages and uninterrupted free time), the rise of really good camera phones, and a doubling of the cost of film and related materials over the past five years, it should not be surprising that film sales are down and prices are up.

On your second point, it is not the year 2000 anymore. It is completely fair today to exclude the cost of a computer because almost everyone already has one. And as the lackluster CIPA numbers for compact cameras bear out, the camera phone has taken over the bulk of the market, and that device too is a sunk cost.

The reason why we get hosed on film prices is because for the shooter who does even a roll of film a week or less and does not have a lot of free time or a home darkroom (95% of the populace), there is no economic argument to be made for film. For them, it's a choice between spending $1,040 on film and processing (let's pretend you can get film and competent lab processing/printing for $20 a roll) or commercially printing those same 1,872 frames from a digital camera for $366 (in the U.S., it's 19 cents a frame) and having the rest of the money left over. If you want to pile the cost of a camera and computer onto the cost of digital, that $674 savings annually would pay for an A6000 and a decent laptop in two years. Considering that most pictures are never printed anyway, it would take less than two years for even a from-zero capital investment to pay off.

There are a lot of reasons to shoot film (fun, contemplative, easier to deal with highlights, better b/w, cheaper than psychotherapy), but it's going to be financially unattractive. People may overstate the savings with digital (the overstatement coming from naive calculations), but those savings are indeed present at some level for most.

Dante