As a professional photographer who uses film & only film for the past 25 years, I would have to disagree with the film bubble bursting. Here is the reason why: There is this over excitement that the media guides when it comes to "film resurgences" when veteran film photographers such as myself have always dealt with film & its trajectory. I think we live in this popular culture where hashtags have defined something to be everything or else it does not exist. If you know about film, the same speeds that were available 10 years ago are still here, 800, 400, 200, 100 & 50. If you know how to push or pull film, then there is the ability to get to discontinued film speeds. So no, the bubble won't burst because I do not know if there was ever a bubble to start off with, what we had was a trend of hashtags bringing Kodak, ILford & CineStill to cross promote film photographs in their feeds & if you are a Blue Checkmark photographer, these companies ran up to your Page! Therefore if you are a true film photographer, you will keep using film & the only bubbles we are concerned with is those developer bubbles that appear when you do not tap your tank when one is processing & developing their film.
I thnk the main intention rn is to give them headroom and safety in case this surge just stops and be in a fine place. I think the prices will come down slightly, when their "expansion" to manufacture more film is complete and it is smooth sailing (this also includes either them matching demand or the demand decreasing)
Yeah I do think that once the company is steadily and comfortably manufacturing 24/7 they may well be able to match demand and pricing could reflect that
Good chance Fujifilm will eat their lunch! I was able to get a new roll of Superia 400 for $9.99 today while Kodak's nearest equivalent is more like $15.99.
@Threetails no, fuji is pretty much done with film other than instax. They're just selling off what they have in their freezer. Fuji have ilford making acrossii, and kodak making fuji 200.
I think ‘Kodak is trying to price people out’ is an excessively cynical way of seeing it. Kodak is between a rock and a hard place: they clearly need to increase production somehow, which means investment, but they’re less than 10 years out of bankruptcy proceedings and, even if the market for film is growing again, I can definitely see the cautiousness of banks and investors to loan to them, especially when this recent growth in a technology previously widely thought to be dead might actually just turn out to be a short-term fad. I don’t think Kodak is trying to stop people buying film, but to draw in as much capital as they can from the film that they’re still selling. If they do, *and* the market for film survives this price squeeze, they’ll probably be in a much stronger position to look at what it might take to open more production and to take investment to make that happen. Also: Kodak is not the entire film market. You don’t have to shoot Kodak. Provia and Velvia are still brilliant colour positive films. Small format shooters can avail themselves of Fuji’s remaining colour negative stocks, and now Color Mission 200 as well. Ilford, Foma, and Adox continue to consistently deliver excellent black and white film at consistently good prices in all formats. Just because one company puts its prices up doesn’t spell doom for the entire market.
You definitely make some valid points Daphne and I couldn’t agree more that Kodak is not the entire film market but when it comes to colour emulsions they definitely hold the monopoly. Fuji make beautiful film stocks but they have vastly reduced the options available and the majority of Fuji emulsions are at the higher end of the market. I also see you point about Kodak needing to raise capital but 5 years of increased year-on-year sales absolutely shows that the customer base is there. Thanks so much for the input Daphne and happy shooting!
Some fair points. Re Kodak raising capital: interest rates are through the roof right now. Loaning money from banks is simply too expensive at the moment. Re Kodak not being the entire film market: I somewhat disagree with you on that one. If you want to shoot C41 color, Kodak is pretty much your only option. Fuji doesn't seem to manufacture any C41 color stocks at the moment, they merely resell Kodak Gold 200 under the Fujicolor 200 brand. That film goes to retailers for USD15.99 per 135-36 3-pack and is being sold at USD 30 by retailers. There are no other C41 color films in stock sold through Fuji with the exception of small quantities of Superia X-tra 400. There is no available inventory for Provia and Velvia at the moment. And even if there were inventory, it's outrageously expensive. A 135 roll of Provia costs USD26 (30% more expensive than Kodak Ektachrome 100), a 135 roll of Velvia costs a whopping USD34!! That's 70% more expensive than Kodak Ektachrome 100. Ironically, both Provia and Velvia are either equally priced or cheaper compared to Ektachrome when buying in 120 format. To me, it seems that at scale - and we need scale for economies of scale benefits - Kodak is the only remaining manufacturer of color negative films.
@@weisserth Interesting. Provia and Velvia seem to have a fairly steady supply here in Europe, and cost easily half the prices you quoted. (And both are easily cheaper than Ektachrome.) I don’t personally like shooting colour negative film very much so, while I knew 400H was gone, I didn’t realize their other colour negative films were also being cut back.
Film was always expensive. The last time I shot film which was 30 years ago, a roll would set you back around £5. Add to that the cost of developing (another £5) and paper, photography was always going to be a hobby that kept you poor. Thank God for digital.
They definitely priced me out. The problem is,the less I shoot, the more I forget about shooting film. I think there will be a lot of people like me who won’t be coming back. I’m not rich,so even though shooting film is really enjoyable,I just can’t afford it.
Film was cheap in the 1990’s because it was so mass produced. If you look at the price of film in the 1950’s and 1960’s, it was relatively the same price as it is now. Photography was a wealthy man’s hobby. Use digital for colour and film for black and white. ADOX HR-50 costs £6 a roll and has excellent resolution.
That’s interesting about the 50’s and 60’s! Do you think that film is heading back in the same direction now? Completely agree about B&W being much more desirable due to the price points of the majority of B&W stocks. Thanks for watching!
While film was expensive in the 1950s and 60s, there wasn't a cheap digital alternative then, unlike now. The price of colour film will prevent many young people from trying it for the first time. It's a pity Fujifilm seems no longer interested, and there are no serious alternatives to Kodak. If we get more competitors making colour film, then the situation will probably improve. The current black and white film situation is relatively good. The decision by Pentax to make new film cameras could turn out to be a commercial disaster, but hopefully not.
Prices of the film went down when digital was introduced, and there were a lot of film that no one was buying anymore so they were seriously underprices, and the prices of the film today are similar to those before digital, but with this new raises they will be even more expensive then in 50s and 60s
To me ive always considered shooting film as a "Luxury" I dont do it cause its cheap, but because its a very deliberate way to "Capture" a moment on a physical medium. I find my little M-50 is more then good enough for my day to day pictures, failing my iPhone.
Yeah that makes sense, it’s all pretty subjective anyway and some may still view it as affordable, others like yourself have always seen it as expensive. Thanks for watching!
You are spot on with Kodak's policy of governing demand by 'moderating' production and thus pushing up prices. This will likely come back and bite them. Many converts to film are young, and who previously didn't have the experience of using film. They have no need of loyalty to a brand that alienates them, and likely will be the new users and influencers of an increasing range of colour films from other manufacturers. Kodak shouldn't expect them to return..
It’s like owning a vintage car, they don’t make economic sense, fuel prices have tripled, but we still desire and drive them. Film cameras give you that sense of nostalgia and let’s face it, they are Visually hand held works of Art. If you see someone using a Pentax Spotmatic or a Nikon F are you not going to feel some envy ? My Spotmatic is not even worth much, but using it is priceless for me.
Just be a smart consumer. I buy the new Fujifilm Fujicolor 200 3-packs for USD17 retail. Yes, you read that right. My local camera store sells them at that price for walk-in customers only. I had a chat with them how they can sell at that price point - they sell at cost. They buy these 3-packs at 17USD and they just pass on that price to walk-in customers. They do it to lure people into the store, feed film into their lab for C41 processing (at a great price for development too) and to sell their analog used gear. Why am I telling you this? To illustrate the retail margin of USD13 on three rolls for Kodak Gold 200 (yes, Fujicolor 200 and Kodak Gold 200 are the same thing). Kodak's margin is not even included in this. There are HUGE margins on film. Which is great. It means the industry can be healthy. Demand is massive. Even with 40% price increases, there will still be huge demand. This is great for the industry. I stocked up hundreds of rolls of Fujicolor 200 (=Kodak Gold 200) at that low price. I can shoot for two years straight without having to stock up). My dedicated fridge is full to the brim with film at a great price. So, what bubble?!
@@AndrewMclean I actually dropped off C41 films for development today with that store and picked up another 3 3-packs, I was giving you the wrong price, it's actually USD15.99 + tax, not USD17 + tax. They charge USD4.99 + tax for C41 development.
I just got into film a few months ago and I feel really sad for this news. I love the whole process of shooting on film, but damn... I can't justify the cost either, it's just too much for my humble salary. Hopefully one day I can afford it more easily or the prices drop.
Thanks for this insightful video! As for me, I probably shoot about four rolls a month using either 35mm, 110, or the occasional 120. I've been doing this for the last three years, and while film prices have increased, I don't see myself slowing down as a result. I own a solid collection of cameras, so I won't need another for the foreseeable future, and as far as buying and developing film is concerned, I've found that by drinking the coffee at home and office, thereby ordering 4-6 fewer coffees per month, combined with eating out just one time less per month it comes to about $100 per month savings. A roll of Kodak Gold (35mm) is about $15 here, Portra about $20 to $23 per roll. With the simple economizing I've done I cover about 75% of my total monthly film shooting costs, which is more than worth it so I can do something I love. Lastly, my personal opinion is that I don't mind paying more for film when knowing thatl people at Kodak, and other firms are able to obtain quality employment opportunities as a result of us buying the products they so proudly produce for us. Each time I shoot a roll of film, I find myself quietly thanking the skilled people who come together to produce this wonderful product...
Here's what I thought, High value ingredients makes high value result. In the high price of film stocks, it also increases in value. It directly rises the value of your shots. In other perspective, with the rise of film stock price you won't just go out, take a walk, and burn 2-3 rolls of film. You'll want to shoot purposefully. So, every time you shot, it's a project. Every time you go out, you think of making projects. Thus, every shot you take have a greater value. Despite that, you still can use expired films and bulk loaded rolls for daily shots and training. Or, invest in Fujifilm digital cameras for your daily gear.
@@AndrewMclean same for me! I plan to get X-T20 this year, and use it with my analog lenses. It will be my first digital camera, for jobs and content creation.
i shoot film since the 80s, why i should stop, i love it, of course i started shooting digital also. one guy here wrote about the hype, or yt photographers...i don't see this, film is just another way to make my own art...i hope other companies will jump in and producing more and more film....the only thing what could be interesting is, will film-cameras prices going down?.. can be logical... less people shooting film, less people want cameras.... crazy enough, i bought the last few month nearly 200 kodak films, where the price was ok..for me thats 4- 5 years shooting film...:)
I couldn’t agree more, I see choosing film as just an artistic choice, just like an artist choosing to use oils or watercolours. There could definitely be the possibility of the used film camera market easing back if there is less demand!
The price is indeed expensive. Once, I shoot about 6 roll in a trip, using kodak gold 200, ultramax 400, and vibe 800 film roll. After dev+scan, for the total cost I could get a used canon 1100D.. Realizing it won't be getting any cheaper soon, I bought a secondhand nikon D300 for my nikon lenses and an used X-T10 + pancake lens for my everyday camera that I take everywhere. I still shoot film and always have a few film stock around, but I only use it when I really sure about the situation (like proper lighting) will support it. I can't waste any film that I love haha..
But also those prices are going thru the roof. 4 years ago I pays 1.5 euro for a rol, now I have to pay 6 - 10 euro a rol (uncontrolled storage). Luckely i have a big stack of old rolls, but those prices are simply to much.
With the way corporations are run these days, Kodak will just stop making films that don't sell. The days of market correction, in terms of price reduction, are over.
I have invested in half frame cameras, and recently have taken possession of a Olympus PEN FT SLR, twice as many prints per roll, with acceptable quality still being achieved.
When you are shooting on film, sending it for processing, then scanning it (converting it to digital), manipulating the files in lightroom or other application, and then printing on an Epson or Canon printer- most of your process is digital anyway. What's the point? If you are shooting on film, processing that film and printing directly onto photographic paper. Then it does make more sense - but that seems more likely for people mostly shooting black and white.
I run a Fujifilm lab and we have over the last 3 years been processing films, but they are in such short supply and I have noticed a big drop off in demand for buying film and processing it due to the ridiculous prices. On a personal level I have a few roles left and I think that will be it for me. I will keep my film cameras and wait and see how the dust settles in the future, but I will be sticking with my Fujifilm mirrorless camera’s from now on I’m sad to say.
I’ll definitely be shooting way less film in 2023. I think for me it’s always been more about the lenses and the way I shoot than the ‘film look’, so I just need to find the best adapter to get those RB lenses on the GFX 😅😅
Totally! I bought a GFX a bit ago to adapt my favorite 35mm, 6x4.5 and 6x7 lenses on. It’s been a blast, possibly more fun than shooting film dare I say. Reminded me that the glass might matter more than I wanted to admit. I personally shoot film pretty intensionally, I’ve never been one to snap a whole roll quickly on random stuff. So I’ll continue to be choosy with my frames and probably end up shooting a lot on the GFX.
@@AaronAnalog1 yeah I bought the GFX with the hope it’d help me shoot less film and it definitely has! In fact I’m concerned it’s making me want to not shoot film at all…
As someone who’s getting back into photography and specifically film, i find that typically looking at 10-20 websites in the UK has helped me find better 35mm pricing. Gold for £6, portra for £12-14. Ektar and ProImage have been the hardest to find in stock or instock at “normal” pricing. I’ve bought probably 25 rolls of 35mm at the moment. Probably won’t buy any more unless it’s a particularly good deal. I’ve got a 645j that I’m not sure how well it works since it’s not been used in 15 years since I was at college, but if a test roll works out then I’m gonna have to hunt for 120 💀😂 I recon pricing will stabilise but as has been said already, I imagine Kodak needs the money because it’ll be harder to get people to lend to them. Shame about fuji backing out more and more but the instax stuff is just too damn profitable for them to care
It was 1971, I was 16 and had just discovered photography. My first Nikon was a used Nikon F Photomic FTN. Even with my after school part time job, film was affordable. I learned a lot with that camera. I still keep hundreds of slides. I'm much older today, still into photography (now digital). My daily shooter is a Z6ii. Is there a difference? You bet! This is 2023, I still own a couple of older 35mm film cameras. They are fun to play with, I shoot a couple of rolls per year. That's my limit. I liked your post, THANKS.
@@AndrewMclean I purchased a Z6 upon release. I had to try it. A week later I knew mirrorless was the future and the way to go. Most of my F stable was gone a month later. I started buying every Z prime I could, along with a couple of Z zooms and a Z6ii. You gotta try it, mirrorless is a different World. You won't regret it. I know Nikon is not the best, we'll see what the Z8 or Z6iii bring?
@@AndrewMclean There is a huge range of cheaper B&W film on the market - and the choice is getting bigger. We have Shanghai GP3 (even in in 220) which has improved immeasurably over previous incarnations, we have Ilford/Harman 100 and 400 emulsions and yes, Fomapan, Bergger (which I'm in danger of getting hooked on) and of course Adox and Ilford. Black and white is flourishing. If Kodak doesn't invest in more staff and refurbishing plant then we will have more of the film shortages that have characterised the last year or so. I think that's absolutely certain. Kodak aren't a charity, they have to turn a profit in order to plough money back into expanding production, so it's not clear how they would finance this apart from putting prices up. It's painful, but it's empty shelves or higher prices with colour films at least. For me it comes down to this - Twenty quid isn't going to get you an evening down the pub (certainly not in London where I live) yet it will get you the pleasure of creating images. So personally I tale the liver-friendly option and shoot film 🙂 Oh, and developing colour yourself then DSLR scanning is a much cheaper option - my second hand DSLR plus macro lens I use for the job cost way less than a top of the line Epson scanner!
I shoot film only when I'm shooting for projects which require film. All other of my photography is digital. Thus I can afford to shoot film when film is an asset to my photography, and at the same time can shoot as much as I want.
I live in Serbia and with our standards spending 25-30e for one 35mm film with all expenses was already too much, after this raise it will be unsustainable for me and most people I know. I love shooting color but I don't think I will anymore, good thing is tho I can still buy awesome black and white film for 9e and develop it mysel
you can look at it this way it's cheaper than smoking two packs of cigarettes a day or even one pack. I shoot kentmere pan 400 black-and-white film and enjoy it very much and I look for good deals on color film. also you can colorize black and white film. I develop my own film and have a darkroom to print so I save quite a bit of money :)
I think for some people they will see the prices & decide it would be better to move into retro digital cameras from Fuji, as well as DSLR's which are so cheap in comparison to their more modern mirrorless versions. You can get a Nikon D800 for around £500 and the older F mount glass is also still good & relatively cheap. Fuji's X-Pro 2 is also a very good choice with it's retro range-finder design as well as being able to adapt vintage lenses.
The Fuji X-Pro’s look like really fun cameras, if I hadn’t had the opportunity to get an X100V at a silly price I would have gone for one of those undoubtedly
It's what I did. I have picked up so called vintage legendary Nikkor glass for peanuts, when once an AF Nikkor 85 1.4D was a couple grand, you can pick one up for $300 if you don't mind cosmetics. I'm a film wedding photographer, and I have found the combo that gives me the film look has been jpg's with VSCO filters applied from my Panasonic Lumix G100 w/ Olympus 25mm 1.8
You think Kodak, who has customers banging down their doors for film, wants to chase those customers away? Have you ever heard of a thing called 'the law of supply and demand'? Simply put, if there's limited supply of a thing, and high demand, prices rise. Nuff said. 🤔
they aren't pricing people out of film, they have to raise prices due to inflation costs on chemicals, and all the components that go in to making a film stock, they also have to re invest in new manufacturing equipment and employees to run the manufacturing. The more people you have working, the more film you can put out meeting the demands of the consumers. Most likely they are also going to hire more employees for research and development to start putting out new films etc. The last thing they want to do as a company that once was filed for bankruptcy is drive their main consumers away from the product. If we want new film photography products then we will have to pay more so the company can afford to put out new stuff and innovate.
I've been using Fujifilm presets and Dehancer plug-in as you've said. It is just not the same, far from it. My film photos even when I didn't know what I was doing were much greater than any of my digital photos with all that simulation gimmicks. By the way, I've communicated a lot with Dehancer devs and even they've admitted it's pretty hard to get close to film look, in fact Dehancer add even more complexity to RAW processing (like we didn't already have complicated process of editing). I don't think it's ever going to reproduce film close enough, especially if you're not a pro color grader.
Being of an age that was brought on film, the actual price of film, not the hiked up price you have shown (there is plenty of sellers half that price with fresh stock) is on par to when you take the cost of film from 30-40 years ago is pretty much the same. Avoid amazon they charge up to 3 times the price of actual film sellers like Analogue Wonderland. They sell portra 400 in 120 for £15 a roll 800 is £23 a roll.
I don’t know if the start-up costs for manufacturing would be seen as a worthwhile investment unless it was an already-established brand that know they have a market ready from day one.
so in todays market, not 3 weeks ago. Kodak is still yet to create availability on a wholesale level. I think they will wait a little more till old stock on the market is consumed, then start sending out new stock at new prices to the wholesalers. Which will then sell it at a higher price to the shops then higher price to the public. HOWEVER in the interim while this is happening as shops do not know when their wholesaler will have stock again from Kodak they unfortunately have to increase prices. As they also anticipate a price rise but not a net figure of how much. Think of it this way, you've bought an item at 4 then sold an item at 6, there is no stock but when it arrives it will be 7 for you to buy again, your not going to keep selling at 6. You would want to place yourself at 9, all hypothetical numbers. So you have enough room to rebuy the goods and margin to cover expenses. Its just how it goes. Also in the process if there is still demand for film which there clearly is, you buy retail stock like the average public at a much higher cost to keep your shelves full and to not decline customers or allow them to drift elsewhere. You will naturally be adding a margin on top of the price you paid for the product, again super normal. Obviously this leads to inconsistency of pricing across the board and drives prices even higher.
How much rolls of film does one shoot a month where it becomes unaffordable? I shoot two rolls of 35 and 2 rolls of 120 a month. That’s about $152 with cost of lab development. If I want to shoot more 35 I’ll just buy cheap B&W. I think the point of film for me is to slow down, be in the moment and work on my framing, lighting, story, etc. if you want to shoot hundreds/thousands photos then just use a digital camera, it will never make sense for high volume shooters. Slow down and enjoy the process. I rather see one image that you worked on thoughtfully.
I definitely love to shoot film for personal projects because of exactly that reason, slowing down, giving more thought and planning to each frame, but if I’m shooting fashion/editorial content, one shoot or campaign can easily be 5-8 rolls which soon sees the costs add up which can go over clients budgets, which in turn can lead them to only request digital. That’s of course just one example but I do agree that on a personal level, it’s as much about the process as the outcome.
@@AndrewMclean I never thought of how much it would cost for someone to use film professionally, I can see how High cost can make you one dimensional. Hopefully cost will even out one day or can be more affordable so others who need to use more rolls such as in your case can do so.
Considering that I bought my film camera for 1/4th the price of my mid-range phone, I'm not too concerned about the price of film. If I shoot 3 rolls a year, that'll be about 2x as many artistic photos as I took before getting into film. If you're slaying 5 rolls a day, several days a week, then yeah it's going to be expensive. But I'm just not interested enough in sidewalks and road signs to take that many photos.
The bubble will not pop, it will become even bigger because film is becoming a luxury and getting photos taken of you on film is becoming a status symbol
Why not shoot ‘both’ film and digital? I shoot film when enjoying the process of photography but do so only on an occasional day. I shoot digital when trying to make a lot of good photos in a short time period, like during a walk about, or at a birthday party or during a weekend trip. This is just like the rich people (which I am not) who eat caviar and drink $500 bottles of wine occasionally, but usually eat pizza and burgers with soda!!
I hope you are right, but it will take visionaries like Henry Strong and his partner George Eastman, who both favored the amateur photographer and did everything they could to provide simple, inexpensive materials so the public could capture their favorite moments. Subsequent to the founder's departures I think Kodak lost the connection to those passionate about photography and turned more to business and the bottom line. The founders also cared deeply about their employees, which later Kodak leaders lost sight of.
it would be better for each city to have a ECN proccess in labs. It's way more affortable to buy cine film. 250d is dope, as for me it's way better (if the develop is good) than 400d by overpriced cinestill
As someone who has invested a significant amount of time and money into a film shooting workflow - I’m in too deep to stop now. So I might as well just enjoy the price ride 🎢
I can't see any company trying to 'price people out' of their product (unless they see themselves as a luxury brand). This is just economics. Kodak brought their film production back out of Mexico, but didn't bring most of the manufacturing equipment with them. Then along comes Covid followed by an increase in the price of raw materials. This leaves Kodak with not enough facilities, not enough resources and not enough staff, which they can't be totally blamed for; although some executive really should have their backside kicked. So the simple law of supply and demand comes into play. If they can't produce enough film to keep up with the market then they can afford to put up the price until they reach a point where they can't put it up any more without effecting the bottom line figure. If they can increase production cheaply then they can afford to drop the price, that ain't going to happen soon. Colour film is difficult to make so there ain't going to be any other manufacturers suddenly filling up the price gap that Kodak has suddenly created ... not quite a monopoly, but near as damnit. Personally, I ain't paying that price for colour film, I can't justify it as a hobby and with the advent of AI lots of photographer's business models (digital or film) are going to come crashing down. I'll keep shooting B&W, developing it myself and probably get all arty by colourising the shots in PS.
It's economic 101: if you are the only producer of an item, and people are buying more than you can produce, raise the selling price of you item to restore an equilibriums - otherwise you leaf money on the table. In the meantime you invest your bigger earning in more production capacity. So from a company standpoint it is the right move. The only problem I see is: there is no need to shoot film. It's just people want to shoot film. That's a big different. In the first case people need to pay what ever the asking price is. But in the later case there is the risk of a burning a lot of bridges and people losing interest in film again. If that happens your bigger production capacity is worthless: you running out of business ... again...
I've heard part of the issue is the new people coming in are just buying Portra and thats pulling production efforts towards Portra and away from everything else, especially the cheaper colour film. It would probably help a bit to get people to stop using Portra all the time. Also Cinestill is still just Kodak film.
Well glad Kodak isn’t going to be the only one for long. ORWO is back in business and once again starting production and I hope many other companies will follow. As for Super 8 Kodak is the only one for now but I hope that changes as well. More film means better for us
I like to think I am lucky I am a hobby photographer and shoot mainly B&W but I been able to stock up on film before prices went through the roof there are bargains to be had out there kentmere etc . Kodak need some competition in the colour market I have rolls of ektar and pro 400h in both 35mm and 120 in my freezer I won’t pay there prices now I can’t justify it but ilford and other brands are filling that void for my B&W needs
I don't agree, it dosnt seem logical for a company to actively pursue a strategy of shedding a customer base. A high demand is no impediment to producing just an impediment to customers acquiring its product. I agree with previous comment that this may reflect kodak taking this very seriously but being cautious that they are not left in a poor position if the resurgence of film wanes in the short term. If they are going to meet a sudden demand they would to to make investments raising prices but helps secure that and also provide a test as to whether or not the demand is serious and solid.
As you will know, coming from Sheffield. The main lab Peak has closed down and left a gapping void in the processing world. As a result I have had to find other smaller labs, of which there are plenty, to send my film to. My dilema is that where I used to pay £50 for 5 Fuji 120 E6 films and d&p was only £5 a roll everything was peachy. Now I am expected to pay £10 to buy B/W film and then £15 to have it developed. I have yet to find someone who will dev. E6 film. If anyone knows of anyone please let me know, Thanks.
@@AndrewMclean I agree the frequency of price increases might well slow, in the meantime I might sell my 2 remaining rolls of Portra 400 & book an all inclusive holiday to Iceland 🤣
I have never purchased Kodak film, and I really have no intention to, especially now. They really don't offer anything I care about and I have no problem simply buying film from cheaper and smaller businesses. By making their film prohibitively expensive while not really having much more to offer than competitors, they're kind of just shooting themselves in the foot imo. Kodak just isn't the monolith it once was, and I don't really feel like they're as needed as they might think they are. They at least aren't to me. Then again, I mostly shoot B&W because I do all my development myself and it's a lot easier and cheaper, so maybe it's different for people who almost always shoot C-41. Fomopan 400 costs me $9 CAD at the local camera store, and slightly higher quality Ilford is only a few bucks more, with many of the C-41 options being ~$15. $25 Kodak film just has no place in my life. One thing is for certain, I chose a bad time to double down on film photography.
Shooting mainly black and white is definitely far more affordable than shooting mainly or solely colour. I love using smaller businesses and have really enjoyed shooting Lomography’s Color Negative emulsions but they have also increased in price more than once in the last 12 months.
It just occurred to me that maybe Kodak will keep their current film stocks in the same price range as we see them today and probably (fingers crossed) release new consumer films in the future to fill in the gap for those of us in tight budgets. Let's see what happens!
That would be amazing but as it stands I can’t see it happening even though it would make sense given the success of the release of Kodak Gold on medium format
Andrew! Didn't you know that being 'assimilated' truly means _no more film for me_ ...... going to be consumed by the digital age in every aspect! (must be nice to be independently wealthy :)
Portra is always going to be more expensive. Kodak 200 120 is my choice for colour and Kodak Tri x for black and white. For 5x4 I use Fomapan 200 black and white at just over a pound a sheet. A bargain film from the Chec Republic.
The video audio is really Low ! , the best filmic cameras are the Nikon D50,D70 , D100 & D200 as their CCD single layer sensor contains silver oxide properties , back in the day these cameras was made to compete with film cameras ,hence their filmic images , it's essentially shooting onto silver oxide single layer CCD sensor , it's more or less the same as film photography & these cameras at the moment are as cheap as chips ! , at present not a lot of people know about these filmic vintage silver oxide digital cameras , it's only a matter of time when the world is educated about these amazing filmic vintage cameras & the price will rocket up , especially the D 50, D70 & D 100 as their 6.1 mega pixel is the equivalent to 400 asa 35mm film grain , it's far better then any Fuji CMOS sensor I have a good range of Nikon cameras up to the D 800 & the D50 is my go to camera , I won't buy 35mm film cameras as I have the D 50 , the D 50 was made to be more or less a digital film camera , as time went on film grain disappeared & everything is now pin sharp , long gone the days of the filmic images , it's the imperfections & colour tone film offers , artistic effect . It's not every day we get a good heads up on photography , buy a Nikon D 50 , you wont look back & you'll bless the day rest assured , buy one whilst there still really cheap .
I don't get any of the shooting film craziness by YT photographers. None of the "living legends" use film anymore. If you know some of them, please tell me. These new film photographers just think they get a film camera, mostly Leica and they think they are at the same level as the "old legends" of Magnum photographers, trying to imitate them. Well, if you know someone, please tell me. Garry Winogrand shot more than 1 million shots and had more than 1200 undeveloped rolls, can you imagine how much it would cost nowadays? By the way, around 150 of his images are well known.
So a couple of points in relation to your comment: Firstly, the term “living legends” is subjective. Also, how do you know whether any particular photographer shoots film for themselves or not? I personally shoot only a small amount of film for commercial clients but quite a lot more for personal projects. Secondly, the term “YT photographers” is incredibly patronising and also a sweeping generalisation. Thirdly, I had never heard of Garry Winogrand prior to your comment and after a quick research, whilst I do recognise some of his images, the point you made actually proves what I was saying. He may not have been able to actually afford all of those rolls depending on their cost and his financial situation at that time. Thank you for your input, whilst I don’t particularly agree with the points made, I’m always happy to learn and understand other peoples viewpoints.
Winogrand was shooting black and white film, which even today is much cheaper than colour film (especificaly Ilford or Foma..).. and when someone bulkloading black and white, its very economical way of film-photography.
Absolutely. B&W seems to have always been a more affordable option however unless that is your sole artistic choice, it can be quite limiting. As mentioned in the video, I don’t think that this is the beginning of the end for film, just that it may soon be out of reach for many financially.
@@AndrewMclean Everything is subjective in life and art. None of the "living legends" are "YT photographers". They called "living legends" for a reason, not by me, but photographers who actually appreciate meaningful and lasting images and know about photography a lot. If you never heard about Garry Winogrand, look like you don't know about photography a lot, even most of YT people heard about him, because he was a "legend" in photography circles. Thanks anyway your input too.
Judging someone’s knowledge of an entire craft and field based purely on whether or not they know of one major player in an entirely different genre to their own work is laughable. Whilst there is plenty I don’t know about photography, there’s also plenty that I do know. Also, I’m more than capable of appreciating meaningful and lasting images, regardless of the format they were taken on. As a fashion photographer I class Peter Lindbergh as an iconic photographer, but I wouldn’t judge a sports photographer or a wildlife photographer for not knowing his name.
No, big guy, it's not some brilliant strategy where they intentionally destroy their customer base; capital investment is actually a thing. Never run a business.
Eastman Kodak raised $225M through capital investment with the option of an additional $50M. The fact that these price increases are coming less than 2 years later was why I was concerned. I also never stated that they are intentionally destroying their customer base, simply that some customers may not return if they stop buying film now. Also, I run a business already, big guy.
There will always be a market for film, just like vinyl record they still are produce and sold. I like my life simple so I stay away from anything analog.
I agree that there will always be the market there it’s whether or not it shrinks if prices continue to increase. Staying clear of film is definitely simpler and cheaper haha
Film camera prices are actually coming down a little recently. I tried selling a beautiful 4x5 Toyo recently and it wouldn't budge, even dropping the price down considerably.
In my opinion people should realize that all prices are rising, and complex materials like film will be affected by the global chaos. The blame should be directed at our politicians and business leaders.
These days I find myself shooting a lot of Kodak Vision 3 film, nice cheap, a bit cinematic, and always readily available. Maybe spoil myself once a month with a roll of portra lol
