Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome Film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 9th May 2017, 12:08 PM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,319
Default A mistake or creative accounting?

Silverprint are selling 30.5 metre rolls of Kodak Tri X at £184. 32 each.

From a 30.5m roll you should be able to get just under 20 full 36 exp cassettes. They are also selling 36 exp cassettes of the same film at £5.95. Multiply that by 20 and you will be paying just £119.00.

I always thought bulk film was going to be cheaper, but clearly with these prices it isn't.

Their prices for Kentmere 100 and Ilford FP4+ 30.5m bulk rolls from the same company is £45.00 and £61.92 respectively, so what is special about Kodak TriX to be over 2/5ths more expensive?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 9th May 2017, 04:41 PM
Richard Gould Richard Gould is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jersey Channel Islands
Posts: 5,433
Default

That would seem to be correct, just had a quick look at AG, who do not list Kodak bulk rolls of tri x, and process supplies, who have the no same film at the same price, no one else seems to list kodak bulk in fact RK only seem to stock TRI x 35mm 36
Richard
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 9th May 2017, 08:15 PM
EdmundH EdmundH is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 394
Default

It seems to be general, you can save quite a lot by importing from B&H, but its still twice the price of FP4+ for example.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 9th May 2017, 08:45 PM
JohnX JohnX is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 134
Default

So its £119 for 20 rolls
or £184 for enough film to roll 20 rolls yourself


hmm......I'll take the £184 deal, £65 is just more bits of paper to tidy up....right ?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 9th May 2017, 09:07 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

John, this has been one of my "crusades" on APUG. I cannot see how it costs Kodak more to produce and sell bulk rolls than it does to produce the same amount of film as cassettes. Some others on APUG give what the think may be answers. One school believes that there may costs involved in the production of Kodak bulk rolls than do not apply to cassettes despite the fact that all other film manufacturers are able to sell bulk cheaper than the same amount of film in the form of cassettes.

The other school believes that Kodak wants to stop selling bulk film and is pricing bulk film accordingly to bring that about. If that is the case then why not simply announce its discontinuation due to the greater cost of selling bulk film.

I have seen no explanation from Kodak. All I can say is that at the kind of difference in price The good news for Kodak is that it has worked for me and Kodak can rest assured that I will not be buying any Kodak bulk film.

The bad news is that my scepticism towards this price differential having any economic validity has meant that I am not now well-disposed towards Kodak whereas previously I was not a "Kodak basher" as many on the other site appear to have become.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 9th May 2017, 10:11 PM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

Mike, all the big film companies have been selling 30m (originally 100ft) rolls at what I'd deem uneconomic in terms of re-loading cassettes for many years (well over a decade).

At one time late 1960's onwards I almost exclusively bought 30mm rolls initially FP3 & HP£ (ex MOD) later FP4 and Barfen E6 - actually Fuji 100D and the savings were substantial. I guess I stopped mid 1980's.the last colour film was Fuji 50D. The reason for stopping was a switch to Agfa AP100 later APX100 which wasn't available here in bulk rolls.

By the time I looked again there were no real advantages. My guess is sales of bulk rolls are now quite low and it's costlier to cut and pack. The days of 35mm cameras with motorised 30m backs is long gone.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 9th May 2017, 10:18 PM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default

This has probably come about as a result of seperate departments within the business having responsibility for each product. It may possibly be to do with the fact that Tri-X is also used in the motion picture industry. It would seem that the people who dictate pricing for the sale of individual cassettes are perhaps not responsible for bulk, or perhaps they are young people who don't understand the relationship between the two products. Their sheet film is also way overpriced.
Alex
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10th May 2017, 07:46 PM
Mike O'Pray Mike O'Pray is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Daventry, Northants
Posts: 8,969
Default

Ian I am sure you are right about the deteriorating trend of bulk roll prices versus cassette prices over the years but I just checked Harman Express prices.

If you buy 10 cassettes of 36 frame( the cheapest way of doing it ) HP5+ it works out at £5.21 per cassette. If we assume 100ft to give 18 films of 36 frames this is £93.78. The same 100ft bulk roll will give 18 cassettes for £58.85.

OK you need to buy a bulk loader and some re-usable cassettes but that kind of saving is still substantial and means that the Kodak relationship between bulk and cassettes prices has been stood on its head by comparison.

I remain sceptical that Ilford can sell bulk at about 60% of its equivalent cassette price whereas Kodak's prices are almost the reverse.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11th May 2017, 02:38 AM
MattKing MattKing is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Delta, BC, Canada
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike O'Pray View Post
John, this has been one of my "crusades" on APUG. I cannot see how it costs Kodak more to produce and sell bulk rolls than it does to produce the same amount of film as cassettes. Some others on APUG give what the think may be answers. One school believes that there may costs involved in the production of Kodak bulk rolls than do not apply to cassettes despite the fact that all other film manufacturers are able to sell bulk cheaper than the same amount of film in the form of cassettes.

The other school believes that Kodak wants to stop selling bulk film and is pricing bulk film accordingly to bring that about. If that is the case then why not simply announce its discontinuation due to the greater cost of selling bulk film.

I have seen no explanation from Kodak. All I can say is that at the kind of difference in price The good news for Kodak is that it has worked for me and Kodak can rest assured that I will not be buying any Kodak bulk film.

The bad news is that my scepticism towards this price differential having any economic validity has meant that I am not now well-disposed towards Kodak whereas previously I was not a "Kodak basher" as many on the other site appear to have become.

Mike
Hi Mike:
First post here. I hope this doesn't give the impression I'm stalking, but I do have some appreciation about the likely reasons for the very high Kodak bulk roll pricing.
It is true that Kodak hasn't said much about this, other than one comment that bulk roll costs are high (see the Emulsive interview with Kodak Alaris).
The difference between the production capacities is probably the reason.
Ilford/Harman has much lower production capacity, but much better production flexibility. So it costs Ilford/Harman much less to change from product to product when they are producing, but costs incrementally a bit more to produce individual items.
For small runs of product, Ilford can be relatively inexpensive. Thus programs like the annual ULF run.
For Kodak, the cost of producing the film itself is relatively really low, because of the huge capacity, but the costs of set-up and take-down for each product are relatively huge. So when volumes are high, the price is competitive, but when volumes shrink, the price becomes unreasonable.
Switching from the automated machinery which edge prints, cuts, loads into cassettes and packages individual rolls to the much slower machinery that edge prints, cuts, loads on to a different core and practically manually packages the bulk rolls is probably very labour intensive as well.
Who knows how much Eastman Kodak charges Kodak Alaris each time to switch back and forth between individual roll production and bulk roll production.
There is such a large amount of difference between how the two manufacturers work, it doesn't surprise me at all that there are similar products that differ a lot in price point.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
stupid mistake. TommySeagrave Darkroom 9 27th August 2012 09:54 PM
Rollei Creative Series SerenaWong Colour film 7 27th April 2010 10:39 AM
Spot the deliberate mistake Trevor Crone Contact printing 1 11th September 2009 09:18 PM
Creative Monochrome StanW Photography in general 8 22nd July 2009 06:47 PM
Creative Exposure Control Dave miller Books 4 14th September 2008 07:30 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.