Kodak to increase film prices again from January 2021

FishyFish

FishyFish

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,792
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
kosmofoto.com

Kodak film prices rising again in January 2021

Kodak Alaris has announced a price rise on all Kodak-branded film with the price of most films rising by between 10% and 20% in the UK. The price rises were announced in a document sent out to phot…
kosmofoto.com kosmofoto.com

Kodak Alaris has announced a price rise on all Kodak-branded film with the price of most films rising by between 10% and 20% in the UK.

The price rises were announced in a document sent out to photographic dealers on Tuesday (3 November) by distributor Tetenal UK. They are due to take effect in January 2021, Kodak Alaris has told Kosmo Foto.
Click to expand...

The document shows, for instance, Portra films rising by an average of 13% across 35mm, 120 and large format, black-and-white films rising by 13% across all formats (excluding bulk loading films) and consumer films – including Kodak Gold and ColorPlus 200 – rising by 17%, which includes higher price rises for multi-packs.

The recently reinstated Ektachrome E100 slide film – which marked Kodak’s return to E6 film-making after a lapse of several years – is due to rise 16% for a roll of 35mm and 10% for a five-pack of 120.
Click to expand...

I suspect my purchases of Kodak film are likely to suffer as a result of this, especially 35mm or colour stuff.
 
Ouch...

:(
 
Unfortunately not a surprise.
 
Where Kodak leads, I suppose others may follow, although I think Ilford film had a price rise recently. I've tried to build up a reasonable stock of film in anticipation of film makers going under with the current situation, or just not being able to produce. Time to start shopping. As far as Kodak goes, I don't think I've bought Kodak film except for the odd cassette of Panatomic X and Verichrome Pan in 120 and 620 apart from my staple Kodachrome.
 
I've taken the decision to beat them to the punch and have just spent quite a significant amount on film for Jan and I. It won't last for that long but it's a buffer.
 
srichards said:
I seem to have a lifetime supply due to shooting nearly b****r all this year.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
#Me too.

If they're not careful they'll kill their own market. Yes, the first lockdown (which coincided with spring/early summer and some unusually good sunny weather in the UK) caused lots of bored, furloughed, people to decide to try film again. I suspect with mixed results and perhaps some dashed expectations.

This time it's different, Christmas (and the expense of that) is looming (together with winter heating bills), the UK weather is most likely going to do its usual trick of being predominantly dull, grey, cold and damp, with flat lighting during winter and early spring. So I predict a difference in film sales potential there.

If Kodak don't realise that, then I think they need to wake up and smell the forthcoming recession; I firmly believe that now is not the time to announce another 15% average price hike, unless they want to cook their golden goose this Christmas.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t bought any Kodak b&w film for a few years, partly because Ilford is so much cheaper. I normally buy from MathersofLancashire who sell 120 Hp5 for £4.29 compared to Tri-x at £7.90

I’m stuck with Kodak for colour film although my bulk roll of Vision 50D, which worked out at £1.77 per 36-exp roll, should last at least a year.
 
I'm considering trying bulk film myself even though my cack-handedness will almost certainly mean I'll mess it up somehow.
 
This sucks. I thought they were supposed to up production and then drop prices. I might have to downgrade from gold to plus!
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
This sucks. I thought they were supposed to up production and then drop prices. I might have to downgrade from gold to plus!
Click to expand...
The way it's going I doubt there'll be much price difference between the two, besides, as the saying goes, the quality is remembered long after the price had been forgotten!
 
Andysnap said:
I'm considering trying bulk film myself even though my cack-handedness will almost certainly mean I'll mess it up somehow.
Click to expand...
I've got a bulk film loader you can borrow if you want to give the concept a try before you buy one?
 
Last edited:
What's the initial investment vs savings per roll with getting a film loader?
 
erm didn't some one here say:-

"Ffs I’m becoming fed up of hearing cost cost cost ...... Either pay and enjoy or pack in and do something less expensive .....,like nothing!! :D:exit:
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
What's the initial investment vs savings per roll with getting a film loader?
Click to expand...
The cost of a bulk film loader, enough 35mm film cassettes to load the film into; a darkroom, changing tent or changing bag (as it has to be installed in the loader in total darkness), and the cost of a roll of bulk film... plus the fact that if you make a pig's ear of installing the bulk roll in the loader you've just lost the cost of that roll. :oops: :$

I used to buy bulk film in the early 80s (Barfen E6 slide film, which has long since been discontinued) and load empty cassettes I'd saved when developing my own black and white film. However, I had a darkroom, with table and chair to sit at to load the bulk roll. Not sure I'd be able to do that using a changing bag these days... but if film prices continue to rise I might have to give it a try! If so, I'd probably buy the smallest and cheapest roll for the first few times until I'd got the hang of it again.

PS, when looking at cost remember that there's some wastage at the beginning and end of each film cassette (film leader and tail end), so don't forget to factor that in when calculating how many shots you get per meter of roll. Also, most of the autofocus 35mm cameras take the film ISO setting from info on the cassette, so you need to match the cassette to the ISO or see if you can override this and set the ISO manually to match the film you're loading (not an issue if using an older camera with fully manual ISO selection). Hope this is useful.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that economics of colour film will eventually kill it off. Though I doubt that Black and white will ever totally succumb.
I find it hard to imagine any any one wanting to invest in new production facilities, for either, on a commercial basis.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
What's the initial investment vs savings per roll with getting a film loader?
Click to expand...

There is a cost saving.... If you include the leaders, you get about 18 rolls of 36xp per bulk. If you're prepared to hunt around you can get some good deals. You can get Double-X in 50ft bulk rolls for £50 which is about £5.50/36xp. HP5 varies in price from £65 if you hunt, to £80. This ends up being £3.60 - £4.40/36xp. Then there are films that *only* come in bulk rolls like Polypan F (£45/100ft = £2.50/36xp). Just be wary of a "low" price actually being for 50ft. I saw some HP5 recently for £50 and almost jumped on it until I saw the seller advertising 25ft!!

I bought a load of spare cans off ebay - I think I got 50 for a fiver and the seller picked out DX coded 400 for me so I can put it in any camera. I just reuse them because I only bulk roll B&W which I dev myself. If you're a lab user, you'd have to keep buying more cans which impacts things. I think the bulk roller was about £50 but I made that back when I got an expired 100ft roll of Tri-X from AW for £50 last year (lol £2.70/36xp). I should have bought all they had :) I tape them up with Gorrila tape because I don't trust sellotape in the freezer, but as I'm evicted now, I'll probably go back to ordinary sellotape.

It's a bit of a faff loading the bulk loader in a dark bag, and more nervy because you've probably got a lot of money in there, but once it's loaded, you're back in daylight to load the cans.

It's also handy for short rolls for testing. I typically roll 24xp cans because that suits me better than 36, but I've rolled 10/12xp rolls just to test develop times or test a camera.

If you like experimenting with different films, it's not so great because obviously you're stuck with a load of the same thing. I'm really happy with HP5 for price vs economy. I do keep an eye out for stuff that's nearing expiry date and going on sale though, and there's always the wierd esoteric stuff that can crop up on eBay. I have 100ft of IR surveillance film in the freezer (hidden!).
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I suspect that economics of colour film will eventually kill it off. Though I doubt that Black and white will ever totally succumb.
I find it hard to imagine any any one wanting to invest in new production facilities, for either, on a commercial basis.
Click to expand...

Another way of looking at is:- when you consider inflation it's about the same price for film bought about 50 years ago..it's amazing that I was paying about £20-£25 for Kodachrome (in todays money) and earning less wages\salary compared to earnings today. Anyway many of us\quite a few (not on holiday) find it difficult to get through 35mm- 24 shots, for me using 645 many times do not get through 15 shots.
So a price increase is not so bad if you agree with above.
 
excalibur2 said:
Another way of looking at is:- when you consider inflation it's about the same price for film bought about 50 years ago..it's amazing that I was paying about £20-£25 for Kodachrome (in todays money) and earning less wages\salary compared to earnings today. Anyway many of us\quite a few (not on holiday) find it difficult to get through 35mm- 24 shots, for me using 645 many times do not get through 15 shots.
So a price increase is not so bad if you agree with above.
Click to expand...

When I started my photography at the end of the war film was near unobtainable at any price.
However by 1948 film was readily available and even as a school boy was affordable, Though decent new cameras were probably not.
vast amounts of film had been used in the war effort, and production was very soon redirected to civilian use.
industrial wages were around the £5 per week level and a film could be bought for one or two shillings.
Amateur photography was largely a middle class activity, and that was easily affordable.
Box camera, family users, probably only bought a film for major events, like a family wedding and to go on holiday.
And even then the film probably lasted till the next major event , probably in a year or two's time.

By the late 50's as a professional Film costs were already so low as to be the lowest of considerations. When shooting roll fil on a Rollie. I would process film per job ... not when the roll was complete. This usually involved winding out the last film with only one or two shots taken on it, and processing them all together.

At the same time we were only a year or two away from the Free film era. when most processing houses returned a free film with your family snaps.

Film costs today do make you stop and think. they compete with many other demands on your disposable income,
and compared with the alternative Digital photography options are decidedly expensive.
It is this comparison with digital, not the actual comparative film cost with the past that is so apparent.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Film costs today do make you stop and think. they compete with many other demands on your disposable income,
and compared with the alternative Digital photography options are decidedly expensive.
It is this comparison with digital, not the actual comparative film cost with the past that is so apparent.
Click to expand...

Well maybe for newbies, but many of us here want to use film and don't compare the alternative to use only digi, and I don't know if filmies here would decide that film was becoming so expensive they would switch to digi...for me, using film for so long can't see myself using digi for everything, but I suppose if ordinary film was say £20 per roll might think about it.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well maybe for newbies, but many of us here want to use film and don't compare the alternative to use only digi, and I don't know if filmies here would decide that film was becoming so expensive they would switch to digi...for me, using film for so long can't see myself using digi for everything, but I suppose if ordinary film was say £20 per roll might think about it.
Click to expand...

Having used film for so long it holds no particular fascination for me. I do not differentiate how images are made. I judge the results equally. No extra brownie points for however they are made.
I can understand how people who have not used film might want to give it a try. But it is a retro move.

My first camera took 120 rollfilm. My third a TP ruby reflex took glass plates. I do not mind retro.
 
excalibur2 said:
for me, using film for so long can't see myself using digi for everything, but I suppose if ordinary film was say £20 per roll might think about it.
Click to expand...
In the 1970s I was using up to 10 rolls of 35mm HP5 each week. At modern prices that's £65. 10 weeks of saving that amount can now buy a much more useable digital camera and lens. It seems reasonable to me that, for most people, the idea of using film is simply silly.
 
I use film for special occasions. I’ve used about 6 rolls of 35mm this year so not breaking the bank.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I use film for special occasions. I’ve used about 6 rolls of 35mm this year so not breaking the bank.
Click to expand...
I think that's about 3 rolls more than I've used this year. :( Lockdown, shielding a vulnerable person and working full time has taken its toll on my hobby. :grumpy: Looking on the bright side, the film I bought when Kodak's first price hike was announced last year is still in my freezer, so I'll have cushioned myself twice by the time I get chance to use it!
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
In the 1970s I was using up to 10 rolls of 35mm HP5 each week. At modern prices that's £65. 10 weeks of saving that amount can now buy a much more useable digital camera and lens. It seems reasonable to me that, for most people, the idea of using film is simply silly.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, this section is blessed with a large complement of exceptional people who find it not to be silly.

(I spent one memorable summer, shooting on a cruise liner, shooting 2 sittings of dinner, 750 covers per sitting - call it around 40 rolls per evening, 6 nights a week... dread to think how much that would have cost, not to mention the wear and tear on the minilab that was back in the photo-team's shop/office. Lets just say we used to get Reala 100 by the pallet-load.)


Moderator Hat ON
I'll take this opportunity to remind people that their participation in the Film and Conventional section is not compulsory. If you don't want to use it anymore, thats fine - but please don't go out of your way to try and insult those people who do - especially if one of those people happens to be someone with the power to ensure that you don't get to post anywhere for a while / indefinitely / permanently - instead of just in this thread.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
I look fwd to seeing your digi shots in 65 years time..oh wait it will be from above o_O
Click to expand...

It was difficult to guess the introduction of the early analogue processes, it was never a logical set of steps.
I suspect what comes after the present digital process, will hold some equal surprises.
So far light and lenses have been a common factor, but the capture process has changed dramatically. But who knows, may be some other way of manipulating and capturing light.
 
Well, I did start shopping (comment in post 4 above), and should be getting 150 sheets of 13x18 shortly. I think the Ilford price rise happened a few weeks ago, so I haven't rushed to stock up on more FP4. If I'm wrong, I see an order for FP4 in 13x18 going in.
 
excalibur2 said:
Another way of looking at is:- when you consider inflation it's about the same price for film bought about 50 years ago..it's amazing that I was paying about £20-£25 for Kodachrome (in todays money) and earning less wages\salary compared to earnings today. Anyway many of us\quite a few (not on holiday) find it difficult to get through 35mm- 24 shots, for me using 645 many times do not get through 15 shots.
So a price increase is not so bad if you agree with above.
Click to expand...
I agree that we have been spoilt by film prices in recent years, Between 1980 and 1995 I used lots of slide film, Kodachrome, GAF 500, Orwo, Fujichrome and Agfa Scala and its successor. Kodachrome was very expensive, but included processing, similarly Agfa Scala, I seem to remember paying £9 a roll for Scala from Boots.

Still it's sad that we might now have to pay a realistic price, in economic terms. You can't argue with cheap!

Ever since film photography took a dive I've been stocking up on film. Talk about panic buying! It seems a bit senseless now, given that there is actually lots of film about, but I've been a film photographer since I were but a lad and can't imagine the majority of my photography without it.

I also take your point about film consumption. We cancelled a holiday in Scotland recently for obvious reasons. I was all wound up to do my different camera different day thing, quite a change from my usual. I even bought a couple of extra mf cameras to try out. If fact, we cancelled so close to the holiday that I had started to load the cameras to take. These week long holiday breaks are a big part of my photographic experience and I'm hoping that we can go to Wales in February as planned.
 
From Wallace Eaton blue book 1961\62 and converted from old to new money
Kodak tri-x 35mm 36 exp was 34p
Kodachrome 35mm-36 exp £1.75 :eek:
and :eek: Kodacolor 35mm -20 exp was 78p :eek:

with inflation £1 in 1961 is £22.41 now (bank of England inflation calculator)
Colour film is cheap compared to 1961 with better quality results but Kodacolor in 1967 had dropped in price to 57p but still :eek:
 
PeterSpencer said:
from my usual. I even bought a couple of extra mf cameras to try out
Click to expand...

Buying about 40 cameras when they were going for peanuts used quite a lot of film testing them, but I don't need any more cameras..so that has cut down my use of film.
And same as you in that when rumours that Poundland were stopping selling Vista bought up all the stocks in my area (about 60 rolls) in a way annoying as my true love is for MF and waiting to see the 120 film hidden by all the rolls of Vista in the freezer. o_O:rolleyes::)
 
excalibur2 said:
Buying about 40 cameras when they were going for peanuts used quite a lot of film testing them, but I don't need any more cameras..so that has cut down my use of film.
And same as you in that when rumours that Poundland were stopping selling Vista bought up all the stocks in my area (about 60 rolls) in a way annoying as my true love is for MF and waiting to see the 120 film hidden by all the rolls of Vista in the freezer. o_O:rolleyes::)
Click to expand...

If it's Vista 400 I might be able to help you with that problem :)
 
This is a big shame, I know it’s not necessarily much in the grand scheme of things but...

I made a thread on here about a year ago explaining how much I love film and couldn’t see myself using digital much, if at all. But I’ve been using my digital Fuji more and more recently simply because I am struggling to justify the cost of my beloved portra. I’m sure there are cheaper colour films available, but not any I’ve found that I like as much.

I realise the economics involved etc, but that doesn’t make this any easier to swallow.

This isn’t a film vs digital thing, just one casual photographers thoughts on this going forward, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
 
Craigus said:
This is a big shame, I know it’s not necessarily much in the grand scheme of things but...

I made a thread on here about a year ago explaining how much I love film and couldn’t see myself using digital much, if at all. But I’ve been using my digital Fuji more and more recently simply because I am struggling to justify the cost of my beloved portra. I’m sure there are cheaper colour films available, but not any I’ve found that I like as much.

I realise the economics involved etc, but that doesn’t make this any easier to swallow.

This isn’t a film vs digital thing, just one casual photographers thoughts on this going forward, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
Click to expand...

Well you are probably in a position to choose film or a very nice digi camera..for me to get a VG DSLR with a good set of lenses would cost about £700 plus. Anyway for my use, I haven't yet found a reason to go to digi as I would have changed.
 
Craigus said:
This is a big shame, I know it’s not necessarily much in the grand scheme of things but...

I made a thread on here about a year ago explaining how much I love film and couldn’t see myself using digital much, if at all. But I’ve been using my digital Fuji more and more recently simply because I am struggling to justify the cost of my beloved portra. I’m sure there are cheaper colour films available, but not any I’ve found that I like as much.

I realise the economics involved etc, but that doesn’t make this any easier to swallow.

This isn’t a film vs digital thing, just one casual photographers thoughts on this going forward, and I’m sure I’m not alone.
Click to expand...
To be honest (and at the risk of being called a heretic!) I'm not all that struck with Portra 400. It's a bit muted and prone to 'meh' for my tastes. However, I do rate Portra 800 (a lovely but expensive film that's good in low light, but gives nicely saturated and vibrant colours in sunlit conditions in winter and early spring/late autumn) and Portra 160 (which I don't think is all that pricey for what you actually get). When I need to re-stock, I suspect the price of Portra 160 will compensate for the small amount of P 800, while bypassing any P 400. With my 400 ISO colour order going to Fuji Pro 400H, if I can still buy it without selling someone else's kidney!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top