Kodak to raise prices

Please bend this conversation back to the topic of Kodak price increases and avoid the capitalist/communist/socialist politics. Interesting though some may be, some posts may be "disappeared"...
 
Yes Bob, I have. One of the saddest places I've been to. Reminds me of Bucharest in 1978 but with palm trees and better music.

But alas, we must listen to Commandanté Doug.


If Kodak's idea is to par the cost of a roll of Ektachrome or Ektar to that of Velvia 50, the film renaissance is all but cooked.
 
benlees said:
Interesting. At the local: Tri X 24 exposure is $11.40, and HP5+ in 24 exposure is $7.20 CDN...
Click to expand...

at Downtown Camera in Toronto, they're basically the same price.However, if one is a member of their loyalty program, Kodak products are 25% off. sooo Tri X is cheaper than Ilford.

I'd call and ask if they have free shipping for orders over a certain threshold. even with CanPost, might still be worthwhile.
 
I have never seen any type film for sale in Cuba in ten years. But there is a reasonably well stocked Leica store in the Kempinski Manzana hotel in Habana Vieja.

Cuba has some excellent photographers but all shoot digital.
 
Glad to have it stocked here in Vancouver at Beau Photo , but a roll of Tri-x is $11.00 and HP5+ is $8.00 . So, if one adds 15 percent sales taxes to that and takes taxes from a minimum pay employee income of $13.85/hr , you basically get a roll of Kodak for an hours work . Hows that compare to other countries ?
Peter
 
Moto-Uno said:
Glad to have it stocked here in Vancouver at Beau Photo , but a roll of Tri-x is $11.00 and HP5+ is $8.00 . So, if one adds 15 percent sales taxes to that and takes taxes from a minimum pay employee income of $13.85/hr , you basically get a roll of Kodak for an hours work . Hows that compare to other countries ?
Peter
Click to expand...
It's about the same as an hour's minimum wage here in Pennsylvania.
Phil Forrest
 
Ilford has been cheaper than TriX at B&H for the last couple years. It also dries flatter than TriX which makes it easier to scan. Don't really find the cost of a roll of film to be much of a factor since equipment costs (especially for equipment fanatics like those here) are so much more.

Digital cameras and computers depreciate and film cameras cost to load. You pays your money and makes your choices or find another hobby.
 
I perceived Color films, specially E6 have taken a very large hike. Velvia 50 is quite expensive and for some reason doesn't seem to be as largely distributed as Provia despite the colorful reputation of it.

I'm shooting color much less due to the hassle of sending out processing. E6 a bit lately as a group of us in a camera club have bought kits and shared the chemistry.

B&W Ilford is well distributed and priced in Europe. Another good and quite economic option here is Foma.

Bob Michaels said:
I have never seen any type film for sale in Cuba in ten years. But there is a reasonably well stocked Leica store in the Kempinski Manzana hotel in Habana Vieja.

Cuba has some excellent photographers but all shoot digital.
Click to expand...
There is at least one film photographer I recall from being around a Spanish film forum, and on an occasion a forumer that travelled to Cuba brought him Ilford material to use. IIRC he was also a university professor and I think RFF'er Hogarth Ferguson met him -- I recall him documenting the encounter in his website report on a Cuba trip.
 
The total cost per frame of Kodak 35mm films I use will still be under 25¢ to about 50¢, even after the price increase.
If that allows Kodak to keep making films I like I can live with that.

Chris
 
Doug said:
Please bend this conversation back to the topic of Kodak price increases and avoid the capitalist/communist/socialist politics. Interesting though some may be, some posts may be "disappeared"...
Click to expand...

I fully agree. Since it was my mention of the word "capitalist" that seems to have sparked the change of topic, let me make an attempt at getting back on track.

The video posted by Kamerastore mentions that the price increases will most likely hit the the lower cost films. My question is, is that only speculation or is there any evidence that that is the case? Is it just wishful thinking on the part of the Kamerastore guy?

Currently I can get a 3-pack of Kodak Gold 200 (36exp.) for just short of €8 (about $9) at a drug store so that's about $3/roll which is dirt cheap. If they raised the price on that film it still wouldn't be very expensive. However, I fear that the price increase will apply to Portra moreso than films like Gold or ColorPlus. It seems that Portra 400 sells out quite frequently at a local analog photography store and they've had to wait for extended periods of time for their backorders to be filled. It would follow that Kodak would then invest in the infrastructure of the products that are in high demand so that means Portra.

Also, can anyone speculate whether or not it will also apply to something like Kodak's Super 8 Vision film stock?
 
And?

And?

So's a meal at mcDonalds? that's gone faster than a roll of Tri-X

Moto-Uno said:
Glad to have it stocked here in Vancouver at Beau Photo , but a roll of Tri-x is $11.00 and HP5+ is $8.00 . So, if one adds 15 percent sales taxes to that and takes taxes from a minimum pay employee income of $13.85/hr , you basically get a roll of Kodak for an hours work . Hows that compare to other countries ?
Peter
Click to expand...
 
ktmrider said:
Ilford has been cheaper than TriX at B&H for the last couple years. It also dries flatter than TriX which makes it easier to scan. Don't really find the cost of a roll of film to be much of a factor since equipment costs (especially for equipment fanatics like those here) are so much more.

Digital cameras and computers depreciate and film cameras cost to load. You pays your money and makes your choices or find another hobby.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip on Ilford - flatness really matters for me. Lacking a darkroom I scan my (self developed) negatives these days.
 
As much as I like T-Max 400, I have switched to HP5+ for the last couple of years. For £50 I get 10 Ilford and only 7 T-Max (that's 100 shots more for my money). And the Ilford is a good film. If they were priced the same I would have jumped on the Kodak but they are not.
 
I'm gonna do my black Friday film purchase today, which I do every year to stock up on what I used most in the current year. Funny, at the main place I buy 120 film, my 2 most used films, Tmax 400 and Ektar are the cheapest. Too bad 4x5 Kodak can't price the same.

Film is not cheap, but it is affordable. If you really do appreciate film, how it works, the process and the end results, then a little hike to keep it available is not that big of a deal. You can't have something for nothing a wise man once wrote in lyrics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom