Jump to content


Photo

Kodak to Raise Film Prices 20%


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:42 AM

Just saw this link. . .

http://www.bloomberg...6...&refer=home

While I know that prices are rising for silver and oil and other raw materials, I think 20% increases are excessive. For those of us that have to pay for our own rawstock, this really hurts. Any comments anyone?

And since when is film a "niche" market? I know Kodak's CEO is a former ink-cartridge salesman, but surely he realizes that this industry consumed around 9 BILLION feet of film from his company last year.
  • 0

#2 Andrew Brinkhaus

Andrew Brinkhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 176 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:50 AM

It certainly doesn't help their fight against digital imaging systems. Just a little more leverage against them when a project is deciding to shoot film or not.

Edited by Andrew Brinkhaus, 02 June 2008 - 09:51 AM.

  • 0

#3 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 02 June 2008 - 10:13 AM

Every damn thing is skyrocketing in price. They probably have no other option.

Also, they could be trying to get these price corrections out of the way before the next breed of digital cinema cameras come along. The current crop (Genesis, Red One, F23, Viper, D20) don't pose that much of an existential threat to film, but the next generation of digital cinema cameras will likely start to take large chunks out of the cinema chemical film industry.
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:25 PM

Oh great.

Film goes from "murderously difficult to afford" to "fugheddaboudit."

Great move, Big K.

P
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:35 PM

Oh great.

Film goes from "murderously difficult to afford" to "fugheddaboudit."

Great move, Big K.

P


Well, I agree that 20% is a big jump, but silver is trading at over $20/troy oz. It used to be dirt cheap, osmething like $6 or 8 I think.
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:44 PM

The artical i read in "The Gaurdian" today didnt mention film stock as in Motion Picture but consumer products , printers paper digital cameras [that Kodak Moment]
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:01 PM

The artical i read in "The Gaurdian" today didnt mention film stock as in Motion Picture but consumer products , printers paper digital cameras [that Kodak Moment]


I understood it to mean all film products. Maybe I am wrong, but it would make sense. I know you're a Fuji fan John, so expect them to follow suit. Damned oligarchies.
  • 0

#8 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:03 PM

I really hope this is not true!! I'm constantly standing up for film but sometimes feel like the current is too strong......
  • 0

#9 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:07 PM

I know Kodak's CEO is a former ink-cartridge salesman...

...with an obvious aversion to red ink...
  • 0

#10 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:37 PM

...with an obvious aversion to red ink...


Well, that goes without saying. He has a funny way of trying to remedy the situation, first selling off one of Kodak's core businesses, the X-ray & Medical Imaging Division, and then using the money to invest heavily in inkjet printers with affordable ink, which haven't been doing well.

The article also notes that Kodak's stock has devalued anouther 25% since the start of the year. While this makes it easier and easier for me to buy stock solely for the purpose of attending shareholder meetings, it's ridiculous for investors. That stock was trading for five times as much in the late '90s.
  • 0

#11 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:44 PM

Well every cloud has a silver lining. If this means that fewer indie people will be shooting on film I see that as a plus for me. Fewer films shot on 35mm to compete with.

If a buyer walks into a booth at AFM or Cannes and the only film out of 30 on offer that is shot on 35mm is my film, I see that as a plus.

It will make my product even more unique in an insanely competitive business. If people perceive that film is getting more expensive to shoot on, that adds value to a production.

No it's not the only thing, there is still script, direction, acting, etc, but it sure can't hurt!!

R,
  • 0

#12 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:58 PM

Karl,
I've been reading a few of your old posts over at photo.net

What did you do with the F4 250 Back?

Thought most modern stocks got away from high silver content years ago to keep costs down?
  • 0

#13 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 02 June 2008 - 02:16 PM

Thought most modern stocks got away from high silver content years ago to keep costs down?

It comes out in the wash. The labs reclaim nearly all the silver from color film, and much of it from B&W. It's an important amount of money for them. Economically, it's sort of like the few pennies deposit on an old fashioned coke bottle. ;-)



-- J.S.
  • 0

#14 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 04 June 2008 - 07:56 AM

well, there is always 2-perf, Super 16 and Fuji to keep costs down. At the end of it all, the cost of making a movie will not go down. Whether you shoot film, digital or whatever the next thing will be, it is still going to be expensive.
  • 0

#15 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2008 - 08:49 AM

well, there is always 2-perf, Super 16 and Fuji to keep costs down. At the end of it all, the cost of making a movie will not go down. Whether you shoot film, digital or whatever the next thing will be, it is still going to be expensive.



I find the contrasts interesting film is so expensive to shoot and process, that you really need to have that 'vision' beforehand, while dig there seems to be a tendency to 'shoot everything' and sort it out in post.

Edited by Glen Alexander, 04 June 2008 - 08:50 AM.

  • 0

#16 Hampus Bystrom

Hampus Bystrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts
  • Student
  • Stocktown

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:10 AM

Just before I make a fool out of myself; what is the difference between Super16 and 16mm?
  • 0

#17 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 June 2008 - 10:26 AM

Just before I make a fool out of myself; what is the difference between Super16 and 16mm?


Film stock wise...nothing. Super 16 is just a widened gate that exposes film in the space that used to be used for 16mm sound. However, the camera issue is more complex...ideally the lens needs to be recentered and the viewfinder should be adjusted.
  • 0

#18 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 04 June 2008 - 10:59 AM

I think he means film for still photography.
  • 0

#19 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 04 June 2008 - 11:22 AM

[think he means film for still photography]. Who means that sorry lost that one ?
  • 0

#20 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 04 June 2008 - 01:27 PM

I think he means film for still photography.


When the Hunt Bros. were cornering the silver market inthe late70s, the cost of Kodak MP stock doubled over six months. The cost of still films didn't rise that drastically. Probably because of the cost of packaging didn't go up. The metal cassettes and plastic cartridges & the labor for loading the short lengths of film into them are a big part of the cost.
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Technodolly

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post