Kodak has been adding people and shifts. They have gone from one shift 5 days a weeks to three full shifts. They have been dusting off and repairing film making equipment that has been idle for 20+ yrs and looking into maybe new equipment for making film. All this takes money. Companies like Ilford have never stopped making BW film and even they are scaling up. There are also dozens of companies respooling old films and movie films. Several are looking into even making their own film again. Again all this costs money but as you pointed out the prices while higher aren’t all that different with inflation and all than if they never stopped. Companies like Leica have never really stopped making film cameras as they say the film community never really died off completely. There have always been the hobbyists, they are indeed the backbone of this hobby, and they have always been willing to pay the price for their hobby. So film isn’t going away and while I don’t expect to see prices really come down I also think that the increases will level off and even stop.
Kodak will definitely be mindful of the recent announcement by Pentax, who plan to make a new series of film cameras. If Pentax get it right, then it may give the film manufacturing market a massive confidence boost, and prices may drop (or at least stabilize).
In 1965 I was but a nipper and film was bloody expensive to me. As you say, the low prices of film in the 70s 80s and 90s left us feeling hard done-by when prices went up. In real terms, it's still affordable, but no more rattling off rolls on a whim, I fear.
Paying for film today can be a bit painful because it is made in reference to some serious price increases over the last few years, where there appears no justification for such increases. However, I got into photography at 13 years old, 1959. I used to buy grey market "who knows" B&W roll film for my 127 snapshot camera for about 35 cents a roll. Prime name 120 roll film was around 1.00 - 1.50. That $1.50 in 1965, adjusted for inflation only, is $14.85 today. I was shooting 35mm Ektachrome 64 in 1965. I am sure that I paid at least $2 a roll for it. Accordingly, I cannot say that film "costs more" today than in 1965.
I totally agree Randall I think all in all we are about the same. The problem is that many other things cost relatively more, so film prices seem worse. . Oh and 1959 was an auspicious year ... it's when I was born! 🙂
If you look at prices try looking at the cost of slide film which currently have gone to the roof. in the 70'ties to the mid 90'ties usage peeked and the prices was accordingly. BW films is the ones more aligned with the cost back in the golden age of film but variations across the globe tends to differ. From my experience it seems that prices are generally lower in the EU compared to the US and UK. In US the reason is that Americans tends to prefer film from Kodak while people from Europe and UK prefer film from Ilford and Central European countries more.
something that may interest you Michael - my father worked for British rocket research from the 50s to the 70s when he was part of the team to launch the only British made satellite on a British made rocket. He used to bring loads of 'surplus' film home for the family to shoot ... mostly Ansco GAF 500 and Ektachrome. That's what I started shooting with as a kid.
Photography never was really cheap matter with the exception of the late 1990ies where things got really cheap, film, development and so on (the going price on Ebay for a Helios 44M was 5 Euros/£/$) and that's the period even older photogs remember.
That's interesting - amazingly the 1965 Bluebook has no developer prices - I think Wallace Heaton was dead set on processing your films for you - so I can't look up Perceptol in the past. It's running about £8.00 for a 1ltr kit from most outlets in the UK at the moment, so if it's 1ltr kits you are buying, then someone in the middle is making a truck load!
Wallace Heaton was bought by Dixons in the mid 70's it continued trading right up till the early 90 I worked for them from 1980 through to when they closed the 129 New Bond Street store, they then relocated it to inside the Dixons of New Bond Street and when that store closed in the early 2000
7 shillings and five pence - which I think comes out to about £5.60 a roll adjusted for inflation. So actually it's nearly double that now. It's gone up much more than Ilford B&W film of the time has. Perhaps because Ilford's whole business is B&W based, and they have far more B&W emulsions than Kodak does today.
If you compare it to the time only some strange "arty" freaks (about 10 years ago) where using film, it is getting expensive. The prices of film have almost tripled.
Sorry - I would have tried to work in Dollars, but the complexity of using both a inflation calculator and an exchange rate one would have fried my brain! I'd love to get my hands on a US dealer version of the 'Blue Book' to see if there was a big difference back in the 60s between UK and US film prices. Yep the price of film sucks - but then all sorts of prices are going mad - the milk I have in my coffee in my workshop has gone up from the equivalent of about 60 cents a pint to 90 cents a pint in 10 months. 😞 Black coffee for me now!
Kodak has been adding people and shifts. They have gone from one shift 5 days a weeks to three full shifts. They have been dusting off and repairing film making equipment that has been idle for 20+ yrs and looking into maybe new equipment for making film. All this takes money. Companies like Ilford have never stopped making BW film and even they are scaling up. There are also dozens of companies respooling old films and movie films. Several are looking into even making their own film again. Again all this costs money but as you pointed out the prices while higher aren’t all that different with inflation and all than if they never stopped. Companies like Leica have never really stopped making film cameras as they say the film community never really died off completely. There have always been the hobbyists, they are indeed the backbone of this hobby, and they have always been willing to pay the price for their hobby. So film isn’t going away and while I don’t expect to see prices really come down I also think that the increases will level off and even stop.
Totally agree Sophie. I'm very hopeful for the future of film!
I would like to see the price of film come down as would all who shoot it.
@@RickMahoney2013 I would too ... but realistically I don't think it will
@@RickMahoney2013 Absolutely🙂
Kodak will definitely be mindful of the recent announcement by Pentax, who plan to make a new series of film cameras.
If Pentax get it right, then it may give the film manufacturing market a massive confidence boost, and prices may drop (or at least stabilize).
Thanks for the comment :-) Indeed I discuss that in an earlier thread - the possibility of a new film Pentax may be game changer.
In 1965 I was but a nipper and film was bloody expensive to me.
As you say, the low prices of film in the 70s 80s and 90s left us feeling hard done-by when prices went up.
In real terms, it's still affordable, but no more rattling off rolls on a whim, I fear.
Less motor drives I feel 🙂
Paying for film today can be a bit painful because it is made in reference to some serious price increases over the last few years, where there appears no justification for such increases. However, I got into photography at 13 years old, 1959. I used to buy grey market "who knows" B&W roll film for my 127 snapshot camera for about 35 cents a roll. Prime name 120 roll film was around 1.00 - 1.50. That $1.50 in 1965, adjusted for inflation only, is $14.85 today. I was shooting 35mm Ektachrome 64 in 1965. I am sure that I paid at least $2 a roll for it. Accordingly, I cannot say that film "costs more" today than in 1965.
I totally agree Randall I think all in all we are about the same. The problem is that many other things cost relatively more, so film prices seem worse. . Oh and 1959 was an auspicious year ... it's when I was born! 🙂
If you look at prices try looking at the cost of slide film which currently have gone to the roof. in the 70'ties to the mid 90'ties usage peeked and the prices was accordingly. BW films is the ones more aligned with the cost back in the golden age of film but variations across the globe tends to differ. From my experience it seems that prices are generally lower in the EU compared to the US and UK. In US the reason is that Americans tends to prefer film from Kodak while people from Europe and UK prefer film from Ilford and Central European countries more.
something that may interest you Michael - my father worked for British rocket research from the 50s to the 70s when he was part of the team to launch the only British made satellite on a British made rocket. He used to bring loads of 'surplus' film home for the family to shoot ... mostly Ansco GAF 500 and Ektachrome. That's what I started shooting with as a kid.
Photography never was really cheap matter with the exception of the late 1990ies where things got really cheap, film, development and so on (the going price on Ebay for a Helios 44M was 5 Euros/£/$) and that's the period even older photogs remember.
Perceptol was $7 a few years ago. I just paid $16.
That's interesting - amazingly the 1965 Bluebook has no developer prices - I think Wallace Heaton was dead set on processing your films for you - so I can't look up Perceptol in the past. It's running about £8.00 for a 1ltr kit from most outlets in the UK at the moment, so if it's 1ltr kits you are buying, then someone in the middle is making a truck load!
Wallace Heaton was bought by Dixons in the mid 70's it continued trading right up till the early 90 I worked for them from 1980 through to when they closed the 129 New Bond Street store, they then relocated it to inside the Dixons of New Bond Street and when that store closed in the early 2000
That's fascinating Alexander! Thanks for sharing.
How much was a 36 shot roll of Tri-X, please?
7 shillings and five pence - which I think comes out to about £5.60 a roll adjusted for inflation. So actually it's nearly double that now. It's gone up much more than Ilford B&W film of the time has. Perhaps because Ilford's whole business is B&W based, and they have far more B&W emulsions than Kodak does today.
If you compare it to the time only some strange "arty" freaks (about 10 years ago) where using film, it is getting expensive. The prices of film have almost tripled.
Thanks for the comment Pabras.
Sorry Ash, I deal with dollars and cents. the price today for film sucks! only way I can say it.
Sorry - I would have tried to work in Dollars, but the complexity of using both a inflation calculator and an exchange rate one would have fried my brain! I'd love to get my hands on a US dealer version of the 'Blue Book' to see if there was a big difference back in the 60s between UK and US film prices. Yep the price of film sucks - but then all sorts of prices are going mad - the milk I have in my coffee in my workshop has gone up from the equivalent of about 60 cents a pint to 90 cents a pint in 10 months. 😞
Black coffee for me now!