Kodak price increase, and reduction, for 2025

[DREW WILEY]

I still have a pretty good stash of full sized 32 X 40 4-ply museum board; but I plan to reserve most of that, just in case. If a major show were to come up, and I still happened to be sufficiently ambitious and energetic to accommodate that, I'd simply start up a fresh account with a framing supplies wholesaler, and buy it in bulk again, and the price would instantly drop in half. There were once three major supply houses within easy driving distance of me; but urban "gentrification" redevelopment has chased a lot of warehousing businesses out of the area, and all that kind of product now has to be trucked up from LA, despite the significant ongoing demand of the many frame shops in the SF Bay Area.

For 20x24's, I'm down to a stack of EMaks graded - lovely stuff for the right image, but not ideally versatile. I'll cut a little more of it down to 16X20 this week, and reserve the scraps for printing small from 35mm negs. I have multiple 20X24 easels, including pin registered vacuum style, which are essential for my color work, and nice masking-bladed easels clear up to 30X40 inch capacity in fact. But I don't print color during the colder months - didn't print color at all this past year.

I did reasonably catch up on my marathon project of black and white dry mounting. I figure that whatever I leave behind as having potential estate value to my heirs won't be worth much unless it's highly presentable, drymounted n' all, ready for framing. Besides, precise image trimming and the manner of mounting itself are all part of personal composition as far as I'm concerned.

Alternatives to Iford paper?? I'm down to my last sheets of Bergger VC NT - nice product. I also have a few sheets left of Foma Variant Neutral, which I was frankly disappointed in due to its lack of toning flexibility. But those were the only 25-sheet box options. Any cheapo "student paper" would simply be a waste of my time.

 

[bfilm]

I have never tried it, so I don't know what the quality is like, but one additional black and white paper option that is still available is the baryta paper from Slavich in Russia.

Slavich Unibrom 160 BP

The distributor in Lithuania, Geola, has an English-language informational website and web shop from which they will deliver the paper worldwide. Although, I don't know what shipping costs, as they quote it for each order. It is also available in some larger sizes on request.

Geola website for Slavich Unibrom photographic paper

Geola web shop for Slavich Unibrom photographic paper

 

[GregY]

I have never tried it, so I don't know what the quality is like, but one additional black and white paper option that is still available is the baryta paper from Slavich in Russia.

Slavich Unibrom 160 BP

The distributor in Lithuania, Geola, has an English-language informational website and web shop from which they will deliver the paper worldwide. Although, I don't know what shipping costs, as they quote it for each order. It is also available in some larger sizes on request.

Geola website for Slavich Unibrom photographic paper

Geola web shop for Slavich Unibrom photographic paper

I used the paper & liked it when it was available in N America. Unfortunately shipping half way round the world is prohibitively expensive for the larger sizes......
as a side note.....from a political viewpoint, given the war on Ukraine, i wouldn't buy Russian paper....
of course you can redact that if you like....

 

[F4U]

I just put into my keyboard the question of film price nowadays, not having bought any new film in ages, And up came all sorts of horrific listings about Kodak "raising prices", including this site. Apparently this website manages to pop up in many searches about photography. These internet links date back years now, as if I'm supposed to be appalled and enraged at the Kodak Co for "greed". Being an American who remembers Kodak as a leading film, I concentrated on that. I figured it was, and is, a quality product. Going out in the field to shoot pictures and coming back home to do all that darkroom work with angst about having used sketchy film, is not inspiring. Kodak is not "raising prices". They're just doing what they have to do in an economy with an ongoing tidal wave of dollars. Ships either rise, or are swamped and founder. It's not Kodak. Although I know the reason, that is a topic for another day. Considering all, perhaps Kodak film may still be fine choice.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Ilford makes quality film and asks for about 30% less at my local stores. Others quote 20-25% so this is a widespread pricing.

Simply put - all those grandfather stories of Kodak quality aren't worth a 30% margin. Especially when many film comparisons exist showing that Kodak film ≠ alien tech and that Ilford (and even repackaged film) is on-par, but with different look.

That said - Foma films often suffer from emulsion problems so I avoid it. And it's the only film I'd objectively could worry about to give me problems.
Ilford Photo - zero problems over the years. Kentmere - solid! Aviphot - solid AF! Adox - solid and reliable films whilst that unicorn stock exists...

I wouldn't mind paying extra 6.66% for Kodak quality stories, but 30% is just ridiculous - as is 20 and 25%
So I don't buy Kodak, but buy plenty of Aviphot from Adox and Rollei, and some Ilford/Kentmere.

Fanboyism clouds judgement and is cancerous. It's better to operate with current data not memories, stories and brand loyalty. Loyalty which one could argue is getting really abused nowadays.

 

[brbo]

You are so blessed with the ability to get colours from BW films. Most of us are not. So we remain in the fanboy bubble*.

It's not that hard, though. Kodak C-41 is still the cheapest option. It's just a bit unfortunate that it's basically still more or less the only option.



* I've tried probably every non-Kodak C-41 film on the market in the past 10 years and will sing praises to their attempts, but they are not cheaper nor better (not even close).

 

[halfaman]

Ilford Photo - zero problems over the years.

The only films I ever experienced problems with was Ilford's and their well known and acknowledge problem of spots/mottling in 120 film. Unlike Kodak with the backing paper problem, Harman was not able to identify affected batches or manufacturing dates. You didn't know if the roll that was on the camera was Ok or not. I know a professional photographer that this problems ruined him a portrait session and he swear that he will never buy Ilford again in 120 (promise probably not fullfilled).

 

[koraks]

Kodak C-41 is still the cheapest option.

Well...ECN-2/Vision3 actually. Insofar as one can still get it, of course.
There'll be Lucky, soon (well, judging by what they say), but I think matching Kodak's technical product quality will be a very tall order for them. And the price point is still undecided.

 

[brbo]

Well...ECN-2/Vision3 actually. Insofar as one can still get it, of course.

I should've formulated my thoughts better, yes. For C-41, Kodak is the cheapest option.

So, for 90% of the film users, Kodak is the best and cheapest option. Hardly surprising that Kodak is what people associate with film.

I can create ten more posts about Color Mission. Nobody will care. It will still be called an "odd" film. Or Lomography Color '92. And Ivo Stungas (notning personal, of course) of Photrio will care the least.

 

[koraks]

I agree that if you want to shoot "straight" (as opposed to funky in some way) color negative, then there's really no alternative to Kodak.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

The only films I ever experienced problems with was Ilford's and their well known and acknowledge problem of spots in 120 film.

Never thought of this as I'm locked into 135 Slides where it looks as described above - we should remember the particular sandbox we each play in as the situation outside it can be (and often is) dramatically different. In the world of 135 I can pretty much interchange my BW films and not be threatened by manufacturing problems... Except Foma films that are risky. Some batches are fine, some are quite an adventure.

For color I'm locked to Fuji slides and hopefully all turns out great. I tried Ektachrome E 100 and its Cine brother E100D and both are inferior to Fuji slides, especially when it comes to resolving power and detail rendition. 50x projection magnification tells all the story: not the sharpest tool around. Far from it so I just cannot agree to the Kodak statement below, found in E100 spec sheet:

What I got over 7 films was muddy details and a film that doesn't hold up to decent enlargements. Especially obvious next to Aviphot 80 slide and even Fujichrome slide, but to a tad lesser degree. And is on-par with Fomapan R 100 - one of the less resolving BW films around!

 

[albireo]

Ilford makes quality film and asks for about 30% less at my local stores. Others quote 20-25% so this is a widespread pricing.

Simply put - all those grandfather stories of Kodak quality aren't worth a 30% margin. Especially when many film comparisons exist showing that Kodak film ≠ alien tech and that Ilford (and even repackaged film) is on-par, but with different look.

That said - Foma films often suffer from emulsion problems so I avoid it. And it's the only film I'd objectively could worry about to give me problems.
Ilford Photo - zero problems over the years. Kentmere - solid! Aviphot - solid AF! Adox - solid and reliable films whilst that unicorn stock exists...

I wouldn't mind paying extra 6.66% for Kodak quality stories, but 30% is just ridiculous - as is 20 and 25%
So I don't buy Kodak, but buy plenty of Aviphot from Adox and Rollei, and some Ilford/Kentmere.

Fanboyism clouds judgement and is cancerous. It's better to operate with current data not memories, stories and brand loyalty. Loyalty which one could argue is getting really abused nowadays.

The one that really hurts for me is colour slide film.

I was contributing to a thread in the scanning section the other day in which people were discussing real or imagined artefacts in scanned slide film, which reminded me of the times when I had just started with film photography and used Fuji Sensia, and Ektachrome in very large quantities. The way today many of us would mindlessly fire through a roll of (beautiful, as you say) Kentmere 100, in the early 2000s it was slide film for me.

So I went and searched for a couple of mounted slides from that time and scanned them. Beautiful. The colours right out of the scan, the texture.

So I headed over to Fotoimpex...29 euros for a roll of 35mm Ektachrome. 25 for a roll of Velvia or Provia, but they're not in stock. I would be ready to get the Adox E6 kit and do my own processing, but I can't get over these prices per roll.

The relative unaffordability of E6 material is a huge shame imo. Will the Chinese be able to offer an alternative at some point? Would it be financially viable? Will Fuji show renewed interest in a business they were once the leader of? No idea.

 

[brbo]

The relative unaffordability of E6 material is a huge shame imo. Will the Chinese be able to offer an alternative at some point? Would it be financially viable? No idea.

Well, you can look at Lucky BW film prices, compare it to Ilford and see how much hope you are prepared to put into "Kodak quality at half the price" C-41/E-6 wishful thinking. If Lucky 200 is 10-15% cheaper than Kodak Gold 200 (9.50 - 10.50 EUR) it will be a LOT.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I don't think that beating current E100 is much of a problem. Fuji slides already are head above and give Chinese some time... who knows?! But it would be nice to have some competition to benefit from.

The one that really hurts for me is colour slide film.

I was hurt too - Fuji stock started to dwindle and suddenly I could afford just a single roll per month, then quarter.
But then I moved to BW slides for this very same reason and I don't feel hurt at all - can just ignore the color and let Fuji decide to unfuji itself or to step down from the throne. I have bigger things to worry about in my life and DIY BW Slide development opens up portals to many dimensions.

 

[albireo]

Well, you can look at Lucky BW film prices, compare it to Ilford and see how much hope you are prepared to put into "Kodak quality at half the price" C-41/E-6 wishful thinking. If Lucky 200 is 10-15% cheaper than Kodak Gold 200 (9.50 - 10.50 EUR) it will be a LOT.

then again Fuji might not be completely out of business yet. Imagine a 'budget' E6 product line, a '2026' Sensia for 15 Euro/roll. I would be all over it.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Sensia was my bread and butter, "Agfaphoto CT Precisa 100" later, at the end of it all. With occasional Velvia or Provia 400 for dessert!

If I recall correctly, Agfaphoto CT Precisa 100 was in fact Provia 100 and I loved it very, very much.

 

[albireo]

Sensia was my bread and butter, "Agfa CT Precisa 100" later, at the end of it all. With occasional Velvia or Provia for dessert!

I still remember the utter shock of looking at my first correctly exposed* Velvia 50 mounted slide. I was in shock.

*'correctly exposed' because it took me a while and lot of binned rolls to "crack" that film. And cracking it involved a lot of Matrix metering shenanigans in my then new F100

 

[koraks]

I don't think that beating current E100 is much of a problem.

The complexity of making a high-quality (on par with E100 or Sensia 100) color slide film should not be underestimated. It's a different ballgame from color negative. I'm not sure whether Lucky will ever try, and if they will, I really doubt they'll get to comparable levels of Kodak & Fuji quality.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Agreed, it's hard. But was achieved decades ago.

 

[koraks]

Agreed, it's hard. But was achieved decades ago.

That's right, of course. Well, let's see how the color negative goes; that would be a good acid test.

 

[Milpool]

I admit to being a Kodak fanboi but I do have some (what I consider to be) sensible reasons for continuing to pay the price, particularly when it comes to sheet film. On the other hand I’m only able to do it because I’m a very low volume shooter whether 4x5 or 35mm and things are coming perilously close to unaffordable for me. It’s not only Kodak films, but Ilford paper.

I’m puzzled by Ivo’s experience with E100. In my experience the current E100 is superb, although very expensive.

 

[retina_restoration]

I will point out that I recently bought a few 5 roll packs of TMX 120 for $7.23 per roll. That's a very competitive price, in my experience - quite a bit less than Ilford's Delta 100, and many others. I don't think Kodak films are "better than" similar Ilford offerings, but they have some unique qualities. I am especially appreciative of the fact that Tmax films lie absolutely flat once processed. I have enjoyed Bergger's Pancro 400, but my gawd that sh*t is curly.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I just put into my keyboard the question of film price nowadays, not having bought any new film in ages, And up came all sorts of horrific listings about Kodak "raising prices", including this site. Apparently this website manages to pop up in many searches about photography. These internet links date back years now, as if I'm supposed to be appalled and enraged at the Kodak Co for "greed". Being an American who remembers Kodak as a leading film, I concentrated on that. I figured it was, and is, a quality product. Going out in the field to shoot pictures and coming back home to do all that darkroom work with angst about having used sketchy film, is not inspiring. Kodak is not "raising prices". They're just doing what they have to do in an economy with an ongoing tidal wave of dollars. Ships either rise, or are swamped and founder. It's not Kodak. Although I know the reason, that is a topic for another day. Considering all, perhaps Kodak film may still be fine choice.

You get what you pay for.

 

[Sanug]

My main problem with Bergger Pancro is not the curlyness, but the grain and the high base fog.

In Germany, Ilford and Kentmere Films are a great alternative to Kodak.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

You get what you pay for.

Not necessarily. However, one always pays for what one gets.