Kodak Alaris is increasing prices

H

HHPhoto

Well-known
Local time
11:00 AM
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
1,864
Hi,

I've got an announcement via email newsletter from one of the biggest European film distributors:
Kodak Alaris is again increasing prices for their photo films. Looks like on average by about 8 %. Official reason: Because of increasing personal and raw material costs.

So far here the situation is that lots of / most films from Fujifilm, AgfaPhoto, Ilford, Adox, Foma, Bergger, Rollei are already cheaper compared to Kodak Alaris.
After this Kodak price increase the gap between Kodak prices and the competition will be even bigger.

I hope Kodak will be able to solve its quality control problems soon. The backing paper issue is still not solved.
TMX 120 is not available for more than a year now because of that problem.
Recent batches of TMY-2 120 (No 153 and 154) have also again been affected by this problem. In such a severe way that even the most "hardcore Kodak fan lab" in Germany has warned their customers and recommended them to stop buying Kodak roll film.
And there is still unfortunately the dust issue with all 135 films.

Cheers, Jan
 
FujiLove said:
Thanks for the heads-up.

Out of curiosity, what's the dust issue with 35mm film?
Click to expand...

All Kodak 135 films have lots of very small black dust particles both onto the film cassette, and unfortunately also inside the cassette.
These paritcles are from the black velvet in cassette mouth. Kodak is using cheap, inferior material.
If you wipe with your finger above the cassette surface (on and in) you will have these particles on your finger.
Of course I don't want to have this dirt in my camera, therefore before loading I am cleaning every Kodak film cassette.
Nerve wracking, of course.

Other manufacturers don't have that problem.
I've contacted Kodak Alaris via email long ago, and they have said they are aware of this problem (=confirmation). But so far nothing has changed. My last bought batch of Portra 160 was again affected.

Fortunately there are enough excellent alternatives on the market.

Cheers, Jan
 
My guess is it will take some time for Alaris to find the right balance. Kodak owned their now supply chain for many years. It avoided problems like paper backing. After Fallon Kodak had finance people at the helm. Often QA and engineering folks are ignored over the risk/reward dice role.

I doubt what they are paying people increased that much, but is sound nice.

B2 (;->
 
Hadn't known about the dust issue on 35mm, so far luckily I haven't encountered it.
Ordered another pack of Portra 120 to have stock. Price is about equivalent compared to fuji or cheaper; I get it from UK, which must be the cheapest and on par with US price.
Ilford is great because has a certain consistency of price along its line over different distributors and retailers.

I guess it's more overhead and less economies of scale encountered.
 
Is the backing paper issue the one of the numbers transferring to the emulsion, or of not being able to see the numbers through the red window of most old cameras?

I honestly never experienced the former problem, only the latter.
 
Prest_400 said:
Ordered another pack of Portra 120 to have stock. Price is about equivalent compared to fuji or cheaper; I get it from UK, which must be the cheapest and on par with US price.
Click to expand...

Here in Germany Fujifilm Pro 400H 135 is already cheaper than Portra 400 135.
And Superia 400 is significantly cheaper compared to Ultramax 400.
After the Kodak price increase the difference will be even bigger.

In 120 currently Kodak is a bit cheaper here. But after the price increase that will have changed.

Cheers, Jan
 
tunalegs said:
Is the backing paper issue the one of the numbers transferring to the emulsion, or of not being able to see the numbers through the red window of most old cameras?

I honestly never experienced the former problem, only the latter.
Click to expand...

It's the former problem: The numbers on the backing paper are transferring to the emulsion, and are then visible on the negative.

Cheers, Jan
 
Kodak has not lost its arrogance!
Prices inflated for a lousy film,
Tri-X. dust and dirt supplied at no extra charge!
The curl problem remains.
It costs way more than Ilford's choice.
Decades ago, I only used Tri-X and Kodachrome.
Support other Film companies.
 
And Fuji had just cut down its film lineup again.

Film renaissance? I'd say just the renaissance of fashion accessories.
 
I shoot Kodak color film and Ilford B&W. An 8% price increase is not so substantial, it has been worse before. I'd still rather shoot my Rolleiflex with Portra or Ektar than an M10 or D850.
 
tunalegs said:
Is the backing paper issue the one of the numbers transferring to the emulsion, or of not being able to see the numbers through the red window of most old cameras?
Click to expand...

Anything written on the backing transfers to the negative. My last pro pack of Tmax 400 had this. Threw out the last two rolls. I'm off Kodak 120 films until I can count on it.
 
Still waiting on new TMX 120 film. I ended up ordering a couple bricks of Acros. Kodak is rapidly losing business with these problems and now a price increase? I will be sad if I have to move on from TMX but so be it.
 
Try Foma 200 in place of Tmax100.
The film is great for hybrid work.
Very supple and limp backing stays nice and flat for scanning.
Sort of a T-grain Hybrid... It's good stuff.
 
I tried a roll of that, it was interesting but not a film I would call a replacement for TMX. Much more grain, flatter tones, a bit of 'old world' look. Acros and Delta are okay alternatives...but not the same still of course. Mostly it sucks because I have shot a LOT of TMX so I am well acquainted with it.
 
As far as replacement for tmax, acros is probably closest for tiny grain and clean look.

I was developing tmax 100 with Rodinal to get a bit of bite and grain to return.
I started usig tmax100 in Tmax Developer (1:4)... it's so sharp and clean and wanted a bit more grit... Foma200 gives that.

"Old world" maybe sometimes. Run it through tmax dev and it becomes pretty clean (although never as "tight" as tmax100.)

Maybe I'm just so happy with flat negatives I see what I want :eek: :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom