Kodak to Raise Film Prices 20%

[Phil Rhodes]

On reflection, I have to say Kodak's attitude to this is mind-boggling.

 

They have a product which has cachet simply for being what it is - a circumstance earnestly sought after by anyone who makes any product. They have a large group of, effectively, startup businesses (that is, independent production) desperate to use this product. They have a product which is under very and increasingly severe attack from alternative technologies and they can easily afford to absorb far more than a 20% rise. What on earth are they doing?

 

Assuming this interpretation is correct, I think the answer may be simple, and has already been mentioned - they're being run by an ink cart salesman. He's looking at the big players, the huge studio features turning hundreds of thousands of feet and making thousands of prints, and probably quite correctly concluding that they have no need to give the slightest care to the cost of stock. Several reasonably high-level camera people frequent this very website and I'm sure they'd agree that the last thing on their minds is what the stuff costs - they have no reason to care.

 

But what happens when they do actually manage to piss off all the small players, the UCLA film school people who will eventually become those top end types? I never considered myself a member of that group, or in fact any group which had a realistic chance of becoming a fulltime 35mm shooter, so this isn't sour grapes - but the point remains. Has Mr. Ink Cart thought about this?

 

P

[Matthew W. Phillips]

On reflection, I have to say Kodak's attitude to this is mind-boggling.

 

They have a product which has cachet simply for being what it is - a circumstance earnestly sought after by anyone who makes any product. They have a large group of, effectively, startup businesses (that is, independent production) desperate to use this product. They have a product which is under very and increasingly severe attack from alternative technologies and they can easily afford to absorb far more than a 20% rise. What on earth are they doing?

 

Assuming this interpretation is correct, I think the answer may be simple, and has already been mentioned - they're being run by an ink cart salesman. He's looking at the big players, the huge studio features turning hundreds of thousands of feet and making thousands of prints, and probably quite correctly concluding that they have no need to give the slightest care to the cost of stock. Several reasonably high-level camera people frequent this very website and I'm sure they'd agree that the last thing on their minds is what the stuff costs - they have no reason to care.

 

But what happens when they do actually manage to piss off all the small players, the UCLA film school people who will eventually become those top end types? I never considered myself a member of that group, or in fact any group which had a realistic chance of becoming a fulltime 35mm shooter, so this isn't sour grapes - but the point remains. Has Mr. Ink Cart thought about this?

 

P

 

Phil truly puts us all to shame when it comes to forums. Most of us write simple posts but Phil writes essays. And as usual, I barely understood a word of it. No offense.

[Serge Teulon]

Phil truly puts us all to shame when it comes to forums. Most of us write simple posts but Phil writes essays. And as usual, I barely understood a word of it. No offense.

 

 

Really?? I thought it was as plain as day......

1. He's pointing out that the ppl at the top of our food chain don't need to worry about costs - hence Kodak's hike in price, but a blinkered view!

2. They're not really thinking about tomorrow's ppl.

 

Is it possible that mr 'ink cartridge salesman' is probably thinking that digital is inevitably going to completely take over the film industry and he's just trying to make as much money whilst he can? I wonder.....

Edited June 5, 2008 by Serge Teulon

[Dominic Case]

Phil writes:

They have a product which is under very and increasingly severe attack from alternative technologies and they can easily afford to absorb far more than a 20% rise.

It is clear where Kodak's mistake lies. They should offer Phil Rhodes the position of Chief Financial Officer at Kodak immediately. Obviously the fool who is there at the moment has no idea of profit and loss (or maybe has the columns the wrong way round like everything else in America ;) ). OF COURSE a company that has laid off 28,000 staff in the last few years can absorb increased costs left right and centre. Go visit Kodak Park in Rochester, Phil. See the number of Kodak buildings that they have demolished because their photochemical business is shrinking. Try absorbing those.

 

The article says that photochemical products (that's film and paper) constituted 19% of Kodak's sales last year, and 13% in the most recent quarter. What is the rest? It's digital. So THAT is what will happen when all those start-up people Phil mentions, graduate to the big time. If they have been put off film by a price hike in 2008 and joined the 87% majority, they will continue to shoot digital, and Kodak will have products for them.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Really?? I thought it was as plain as day......

 

I was tired yesterday so maybe that has something to do with it. Also, Phil uses a lot of subordinate clauses and excessive adjectives and adverbs so i have to try to cut through the fanciness to get to the point. :lol:

[John Holland]

Kodak can stop making motion picture film tomorrow as far as iam concerned just as long as Fuji dont follow suite which they wont i am glad to say they have an open goal .

[Tim Carroll]

Just ordered some MP stock from Kodak.

 

Price hasn't gone up yet.

 

Asked them about it, they said they were unaware that the price was going up.

 

Get it now, while it's "cheap". :rolleyes:

 

Best,

-Tim

[Serge Teulon]

John, why do you prefer Fuji over Kodak stock?

[Stephen Williams]

John, why do you prefer Fuji over Kodak stock?

 

Hi,

 

Probably because the Fuji emulsions have some character & better skin tones, nothing serious :lol:

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

Serge , Stephen just answered your question for me.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Hi,

 

Probably because the Fuji emulsions have some character & better skin tones, nothing serious :lol:

 

Stephen

 

Stephen, when you say "better" do you mean more aesthetically pleasing or more accurate?

[Matthew Buick]

These are probably rubbish ideas for reducing manufacturing expenses, but this cost rise is beginning to make me seriously contemplate abandoning Super 8 altogether, but, here goes:

 

1. Use slowers stock whenever possible.

 

2. Kodak or other could introduce discount for those processing film through them (they get their silver back).

 

3. Perhaps selling Super 8 film minus the cartridge, allowing people to use reloadable ones, and lowering manufacturing and postage costs.

 

4. Chinese or Indian manufacture.

 

5. Biofuel powered trucks for transporting film, or additions to existing vehicles such as low-rolling-resistance tyres, aerodynamic improvements, turbo diesel engines.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

3. Perhaps selling Super 8 film minus the cartridge, allowing people to use reloadable ones, and lowering manufacturing and postage costs.

 

Yeah, I can see myself fumbling around in my pitch black bathroom trying to load my "environmentally friendly" Super8 cartridge.

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, when you say "better" do you mean more aesthetically pleasing or more accurate?

 

Hi Matthew,

 

Better as in less boring & aesthetically pleasing, rather than try to make film look like perfect sterile video.

 

Stephen

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Hi Matthew,

 

Better as in less boring & aesthetically pleasing, rather than try to make film look like perfect sterile video.

 

Stephen

 

Skin tones do look nice on Fuji but it seems to me that the greens are a bit over done. I wouldn't use it to film in a forest.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I anecdotally recall the bias (for still film) was the color of the packaging, hence Fuji's green and Kodak's gold. And the packaging (for the 16mm loads) is the only complaint I've had with Fuji. Definitely my choice stock for mixed tungsten/floro use.

[John Sprung]

Except that Kodak have to buy the silver to put into the emulsion, while the labs reclaim it and sell it after processing.

Do you sell it on the open market, or do you sell it back directly to Kodak?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

> rather than try to make film look like perfect sterile video.

 

Am I the only person here who feels that the modern stocks overlook the fact that "really big dynamic range" actually just means "flat"?

 

P

[Chris Burke]

> rather than try to make film look like perfect sterile video.

 

Am I the only person here who feels that the modern stocks overlook the fact that "really big dynamic range" actually just means "flat"?

 

P

 

 

No, not the only person, but I guess in the "fix it in post" world we live in, flat is best.

[Michael Lehnert]

> rather than try to make film look like perfect sterile video.

 

Am I the only person here who feels that the modern stocks overlook the fact that "really big dynamic range" actually just means "flat"?

 

P

 

Not at all. I second you in that, and that's a first, as we are normally at odds when it comes to "island living".

 

I think the best exemplification of this is the recent catastrophic aesthetic failure that is Indy IV, which was postulated to be not only reminiscent, but actually "like-for-like" to the Indy Trilogy. I was intrigued to find out how they would achieve to make Vision2 look like 5247 - and obviously, they failed - if they ever truly attempted to do that, which I personally very much doubt.

 

What is of course really flabbergasting is the missed success from Spielberg and Kaminski to at least show some familiary to Slocombe's style, as they wanted and put to the media like a clockwork orange. But that's another topic here.

 

 

As regards the supposed 20% increase in film prices. I take Stephen and John's view here that things normally aren't eaten as hot as they are served. Don't forget that in MPs, the change-over from Vision2 to 3 would have seen a significant price increase anyhow, as we saw from ECN to EXR, and then to V and V2 etc.

 

Sure that independent filmmakers will see their budgets squeezed, but I still think that investing in a film equipment and shooting on feets of cine-film (let alone renting the gear which as financial dynamics of its own) is a much more solid long-term investment than throwing money into the abyss that is digital video.

 

Sure, too, will digital media increase their market share. But outside those prosumer/self-declared "big-time" filmproducer circles that think that their XL-1 od HD-ViXen or RED beats 65mm in every respect, I think that cine-film is now not only much better debated and regarded and more widely aspirationally adopted amongst a very diverse group than at any time over the past 10 years. I would personally be shocked if the Genesis II would not eat into the percentage of 35 origination, but then again, the same manufacturer brings out the 416, and I doubt they made that decision because they "just felt like it" or finally realised after a quarter of a century how bad their 16SR-family truly was. "Germans" aren't that self-indulgend...

 

I am a bit astonished that no-one is also taking into consideration that in the next quarter, the digital divisions of Kodak will have to proclaim their next financial year strategies to the executive, as photochemical imagings did now. I am sure these will also be marked by a price increase.

After all, prices of silicone used in memory and other storage media, as well as componentry used for camera bodies and circuitry is depending on raw material commodities that are either truly more highly demanded now (the china & india scare), but are also actually just an attractive channel for speculative banking money that has moved out of now deflating investment areas into the area of commodity futures and derivates... (with oil and food just the most prominent due to media exposure and their visible consequences).

 

Sorry Matthew W. in respect to your previous post; my PhD shines through here. I atone for an as convoluted writing style as Phil is supposedly showcasing. I hope you are fitter now to read posts here.

 

And Matthew B: NOOOO, don't abandon Super 8?! What would be do without you?! Don't forget, there is still plenty of Single 8 offerings from Fuji around!

[Serge Teulon]

I agree that it is superior on skin tones but I really don't like the green in it and also the pastel tendency of Fuji.

In regards to Kodak reproducing the video look I have to disagree. I think its all about how you shoot with it!

[Michael Lehnert]

The gain in latitude or dynamic range and the slight desaturation of the colours that gained traction as the Vision family matures is great especially if you are required to shoot with practical light. When shooting direct cinema documentaries, you really can't put up a reflector, let alone various Arrilights whereever you shoot if your subject runs in and out of the premises and you have to follow... your main concern is the management of your magazine exchange/refill chain and to "feel" the f-stop. I am still in awe how Pennebaker was able to shoot what he did without high-sens stock in the 1960s...

 

However, in order to emulate the more classical film look with steep contrasts, a what-I-call "involved grain" where the grain is part of the cinematic texture and not a debating matter for video noise generation/avoidance (ooh, those RED threads... :wacko: ), you now have to set an insanely amount of light in an extremely sophisticated way that frankly is beyond a craftperson's ability without years and years of top-level experience with alot of gear or a very good film school education under the belt. David here is able to do so due to his abilities, but with lesser experience and financial and hence lighting means, your cine-film can easily look like stuff out of a F900... many takes out of "The L-Word" look more cine-film-like than film-originated ware today. And for someone like myself who maintains that video manufacturers should be cultivating the video look rather than emulating the film look, those sentences don't come easy over my lips, believe me!

 

Frankly, Indy IV is a good case in point where the film almost looks like shot with a video system on auto exposure (the "camcorder" highlights) and a white balance a bit too off on the yellow side. They had - at least in theory - every imaginable means at their disposal to recreate a moody and contrasty look that signatured the Indy trilogy. But it looks more like "Taken" or other Spielberg "1950s-looked-like-this" style cinematography based on a false understanding of 1950s Sci-Fi B-movies aesthetics (unfortunately moving away from the noir 1930s adventure serials) . I still think, however, that the lack of a family resemblance to the Indy trilogy was with a purpose (in light of a second trilogy project), and not an erroneous outcome, despite what the makers put to the media and above all the worried fanbase while producing Indy IV.

 

But nevertheless, the depth and texture that cine-film was able to achieve out of the box due to its imponderable characteristics is now more difficult to create then ever, demanding more knowledge and experience from the DoP and crew than just 15 years ago where you could still make a cinematic-looking film on an exploitation movie budget and knowledge base.

 

-Michael

 

 

EDIT: Obviously, I am not talking here about cine-film vs HDV or other prosumer gear that is lightyears away from even coming aesthetically close to film... a look at "Torchwood" says all on that.

[K Borowski]

One more word on silver: Dominic sums it up pretty well, but from what I've heard, Kodak basically dissolves troy pound bars of the stuff in vats to make film emulsion. It'd be difficult/expensive to use reclaimed silver as you'd have to melt it down and recast it into bars, which would seemingly be more expensive than extracting it from ore.

 

It still disgusts me how much silver most B&W photographers and schools here waste throwing it down the drain or throwing prints in the trash. There must be a million troy ounces of silver that go to a landfill every year.

 

Also, it is incorrect that still film usage was greater than MP, even in the heydeys of C-41 consumption in the 1990s. They sold 4 billion feet per year, tops, of 35mm and equivalent 70mm 4x5 etc then. It's probably under a billion feet a year now.

 

Cine film was in the high 8 billions at that time, so it was at least double the sales every year. The reason it's probably still considered a "niche" is that the number of people shooting it are so miniscule. There's no 16mm newsreel shooters anymore, nor are there many documentarians. Even when these groups DID exist, the prohibitive expense of shooting 24fps made it a very tiny segment because people just couldn't afford to shoot that much. They used to have 400 feet per day to shoot the 10 o'clock news, about 10 minutes!

[Matthew Buick]

Yeah, I can see myself fumbling around in my pitch black bathroom trying to load my "environmentally friendly" Super8 cartridge.

 

Heck, I dunno! I was only trying make suggestions that no-one else had made.

 

Perhaps if Kodak introduced a recycling program for it's cartridges, or made the cartridges from recycled or renewable material, or perhaps powered it's factories and offices from solar or wind energy people would be more inclined to stomach the higher purchase costs.

[Paul Bruening]

20%? That means 35mm short ends might go up to $0.08 per foot. Damnit!