Kodak price increase, and reduction, for 2025

albireo said:

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.

Click to expand...

That would be a nice development, but personally I see Fuji as an extremely reluctant participant in film production and wouldn't be surprised if they totally drop out of the market at any time, with short notice. I would hate to see this, but would not be surprised...

Alan Edward Klein said:

You get what you pay for.

Click to expand...

I prefer:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometime you'll find
You get what you need

Milpool said:

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

Click to expand...

You are not alone. I‘m using slide film since many years from Fuji (Velvia 50, Provia, Precisa CT 100) and Ektachrome E100. In formats from 35mm to 8x10. On the light table and with high end projection lenses. I also don‘t see the described superiority of the Fuji material over E100. If all is correct, both brands deliver superb results.

I've shot em all; you name it, Kodachrome 25 to Agfachrome 1000. Every version of Ektachrome and Fujichrome all the way up to 8x10 sheet size, plus specialty tungsten and duplicating versions. Each has its own personality, so to speak. The current E100 product is very high quality, and capable of considerable detail - versatile mid-range contrast and color temp balance for a chrome film.

Since the demise of Cibachrome, I've moved on to color neg film, mostly Kodak Ektar. Any color film in 8x10 size is getting astronomically expensive these days. Glad I still have a stash of it in my freezer which I bought at about a fourth of current pricing.

F4U said:

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.

Click to expand...

yes, this and has been for Many years a very Popular discussion site with Many folks who follow the Film and Photo Industry closely. Including the pros and cons of the remaining makers of real Photo film. Kodak does make a decent product, But they have raised their prices somewhat More than their major UK based competitor, at least in B&W. they seem to be the only major making colour film in any quantity.

some folks have been using Kodak's film intended for Motion Pictures in still cameras to try and get an economic edge, But that seems to be an issue at the moment.

I make it a point to buy at least SOME film from the Brands I can obtain here. that is mostly FOMA and Harman (Ilford) as Kodak is about 20% more expensive for comparable products.

Welcome to the various Discussions. Many of the posters here are Industry experts.

Milpool said:

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

Click to expand...

Beats me, but I'm not alone noticing the subpar performance. Here on Photrio some ended up comparing some scans and coming to similar conclusions.

Let's see if I can find the topic via mobile and post a link here

Here we go. Please note that I'm interested in truth and truth only, no agenda.
If current E100 would be at least as capable as Provia/Velvia, I'd shoot the crap out of it and buy a lot of its respooled cine brother as it can be had for 17€. Alas quality matters...

Ivo Stunga said:

Here we go. Please note that I'm interested in truth and truth only, no agenda.
If current E100 would be at least as capable as Provia/Velvia, I'd shoot the crap out of it and buy a lot of its respooled cine brother as it can be had for 17€. Alas quality matters...

Best B&W Film Reversal Kit: Foma, Adox Scala, or Bellini

I don't know if one can master film reversal without all that heavy chemistry knowledge/being sawwy in it + being a densitometry guru + developing by process control... I'm neither of those. But I can push/pull and have them at box speed with clear highlights and various contrast/density...

www.photrio.com

Best B&W Film Reversal Kit: Foma, Adox Scala, or Bellini

I don't know if one can master film reversal without all that heavy chemistry knowledge/being sawwy in it + being a densitometry guru + developing by process control... I'm neither of those. But I can push/pull and have them at box speed with clear highlights and various contrast/density...

www.photrio.com

Click to expand...

I don’t know anything about the person writing about testing so there isn’t much to say, but I don’t make huge prints so I’d never notice small differences in resolution/sharpness or MTF anyway. AlI I can do is sympathize if you are disappointed with how E100 performs since it is an expensive film and there aren’t a whole lot of options (I don’t know all the ins and outs of which, if any Fuji reversal films are available anymore).

I’ve been pleased with E100, but to be honest the only reason I use it is because I can take an iPhone picture of the chrome to share lol. If I had a scanner and knew how to digitize negatives I’d be using Portra for colour. Those films are incredible. Or, if I had the wherewithal I’d just shoot digital for colour work. For B&W I make my own prints but I don’t do colour darkroom work.

F4U said:

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.

Click to expand...

It is not greed and never was greed. It is called paying ones bills to stay in business. The stress and aggravation inflicted on you is not personal and please do not take it that way.

Sirius Glass said:

It is not greed and never was greed. It is called paying ones bills to stay in business. The stress and aggravation inflicted on you is not personal and please do not take it that way.

Click to expand...

I find it odd that many people assume that because Kodak sets its prices the way it does, that it is done solely to torment and abuse their customers. Maybe - just maybe it's to "future proof" their business, after seeing how things could collapse in the past? Would it be so hard to believe that Kodak learned something after the first "film depression"?

retina_restoration said:

I find it odd that many people assume that because Kodak sets its prices the way it does, that it is done solely to torment and abuse their customers. Maybe - just maybe it's to "future proof" their business, after seeing how things could collapse in the past? Would it be so hard to believe that Kodak learned something after the first "film depression"?

Click to expand...

We are on the same page. As a matter of fact: It is one of my pet peeves. One should always take care of their pet peeves and keep it in good shape and health. Otherwise PETA will come after you for neglecting a pet.

I concur with Ivo's assessment of E100. But it's only noticeable for me at 4800 dpi, not at 2400. I have compared it to Sensia and all the speeds of Sensia have higher resolution than E100, and that's Fuji's budget slide film. Unless you're doing a lot of enlargement you may not notice.

On the topic of Tri-X, I think it was always very close in price to its competitor, HP5+. At various times over the years I have preferred one, or the other, for a 400 speed B&W. At the current time I prefer Tri-X. I never got enamored to T-Max 400 or Delta 400. I see HP5+ as having an older tonality than Tri-X. More nostalgic feeling. Sometimes that's nice, other times it's laying it on too thick.

Sanug said:

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.

Click to expand...

I bought some Bergger awhile back when Blue Moon Camera had a special on it. I shot a roll of 35 and a roll of 120, and had them processed by a reliable online lab. The results were shockingly awful. Maybe someday I will shoot another roll and send it to Blue Moon, in the hopes that maybe they will do better with it since they were promoting it.

ChrisLA said:

I bought some Bergger awhile back when Blue Moon Camera had a special on it. I shot a roll of 35 and a roll of 120, and had them processed by a reliable online lab. The results were shockingly awful. Maybe someday I will shoot another roll and send it to Blue Moon, in the hopes that maybe they will do better with it since they were promoting it.

Click to expand...

Awful in what way? Any idea what developer they used?

Very muddy, low contrast, and grainy. A couple of times I've shot ancient (circa 20 year old) T-Max 3200 at 400 for the effect, and it looked like that or worse. Old School Photo Lab's FAQ says they use "Clayton F76+ developer; we adjust our processing for the specific film type and speed".

ChrisLA said:

Very muddy, low contrast, and grainy. A couple of times I've shot ancient (circa 20 year old) T-Max 3200 at 400 for the effect, and it looked like that or worse. Old School Photo Lab's FAQ says they use "Clayton F76+ developer; we adjust our processing for the specific film type and speed".

Click to expand...

Well, Pancro 400 has more coarse grain than pretty much any other 400 speed film on the market, so you have to be aware of that going in. But the choice of developer matters in determining the final result as well. I used to develop it in PMK, but the last time I bought 20 rolls, PMK gave me unusable negatives: a base density like sunglasses. I was shocked. Something had changed since I last bought it.
I used the 35mm version twice, and then never again: it's just too coarse for a tiny negative like 35mm. Downright ugly grain in 35mm. It's ok in 120, but I tend to use it only for 6x9 negatives, because of their extra area. Here, for example, is an image made with Pancro 400 developed in Pyrocat HD, using the Medalist II. The middle values are a joy to behold, IMO.
That said, I wonder what that lab did to "adjust" for that film type. Without seeing your negatives, it's impossible to guess. Maybe they messed up your negs. Maybe you didn't give the film enough exposure? It's not a true 400 speed film. Most of us have concluded that its real speed is closer to 160 ASA and should be exposed as such.

Ivo - I suspect your disappointment in E100 has far more to do with some idiosyncrasy in your own scanning protocol than the actual characteristics of the film itself. Get a serious professional drum or Creo scan and you might be surprised. I print color optically, which alleviates that whole dilemma.

retina_restoration said:

Well, Pancro 400 has more coarse grain than pretty much any other 400 speed film on the market, so you have to be aware of that going in. But the choice of developer matters in determining the final result as well. I used to develop it in PMK, but the last time I bought 20 rolls, PMK gave me unusable negatives: a base density like sunglasses. I was shocked. Something had changed since I last bought it.
I used the 35mm version twice, and then never again: it's just too coarse for a tiny negative like 35mm. Downright ugly grain in 35mm. It's ok in 120, but I tend to use it only for 6x9 negatives, because of their extra area. Here, for example, is an image made with Pancro 400 developed in Pyrocat HD, using the Medalist II. The middle values are a joy to behold, IMO.
That said, I wonder what that lab did to "adjust" for that film type. Without seeing your negatives, it's impossible to guess. Maybe they messed up your negs. Maybe you didn't give the film enough exposure? It's not a true 400 speed film. Most of us have concluded that its real speed is closer to 160 ASA and should be exposed as such.

Click to expand...

Thank you. My 120 roll did look rather better than the 35. I will try your suggestion of using a lower EI.

DREW WILEY said:

Ivo - I suspect your disappointment in E100 has far more to do with some idiosyncrasy in your own scanning protocol than the actual characteristics of the film itself.

Click to expand...

I think you overlooked the fact that @Ivo Stunga appears to be primarily interested in projection:

Ivo Stunga said:

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.

Click to expand...

Same story : projected how?, hypothetically. Even slide shows were a sliding scale when it came to equipment and standards. That also depends on the subject contrast involved. Still, an entirely wrong conclusion. E100 is right up there with Velvia and even Kodachrome in terms of detail capacity, for all practical purposes. The finest grain chrome film ever made was Astia 100F. But no taking film ever invented is going to be anything but mush at 50X, unless one factors a ridiculous "normal viewing distance" of quite a distance away, which is in fact normal for a slide show.

We can nitpick over resolving power and the MTF charts. But for today, I'll just compare some of the granularity specs, which should at least dispel certain myths. Old time Ektachrome 64 was rated at 11, while contemporaneous Kodachrome 64 was 10, and Kodachrome 25 was 9. Fuji's second generation Provia was 10, and their third generation (100F) was 8.
Velvia 50 was 9. The later "fine" Velvia 100F was 8. Ektachrome E100G and current E100 are also 8, right in there with the finest Velvia product. Only the last of the Fuji Astia series, 100F, was 7.

I've printed all of these chrome films, and numerous others, onto the finest of capture surfaces when it comes to detail capacity, namely, Cibachrome, using very precise equipment. (The only exception is current E100, which is a post-Ciba product, but otherwise just a tweak of earlier E100G). And I can attest that the amount of detail in print corresponds quite closely with the RMS granularity specs, at least, apples to apples in terms of original image contrast.

But if you were to ask me what my favorite slide show film was, it happened to be something way more grainy and contrasty than any of the above : old pre-E6 Agfachrome 50. My second favorite was Kodachrome 25. Just the look, in each case. I also preferred a very light neutral gray projection surface over a white one. Anything serious - AN glass mounts of course.
Moving up to 6X7 MF glass mounted slides, it was Kodachrome 64 during its brief lifespan; the 25 speed product wasn't
made in that size.

DREW WILEY said:

Same story : projected how?, hypothetically. Even slide shows were a sliding scale when it came to equipment and standards. That also depends on the subject contrast involved. Still, an entirely wrong conclusion. E100 is right up there with Velvia and even Kodachrome in terms of detail capacity, for all practical purposes.

Click to expand...

Projected how? Via a Slide Projector on a pull-down, ~1.8m wide vinyl screen of course:
- Light-controlled room;
- seating distance about 2-3 meters, full screen
- Meridian PC 45mm 2.8 lens.

This setup is sufficient to have a discussion what slide film is what - to tell boys apart from men.

DREW WILEY said:

That also depends on the subject contrast involved.

Click to expand...

Tested in landscapes, abandoned interior photography, some street and some portraits of friends - the usual stuff I shoot, tripod too. So - a wide range of subjects and lighting situations.

DREW WILEY said:

E100 is right up there with Velvia and even Kodachrome in terms of detail capacity, for all practical purposes.

Click to expand...

Can't agree, no comparison in my application and experience, and I'm not going to see things differently with my eye only because a stat on a sheet says something else.
And I use the same lab for my rare E-6 needs.

A recent example:
I did return to my childhood home to take some nostalgic pictures of times gone: was shooting Delta 100 and then Ektachrome E100D, then projected slides chronologically. No competition between Delta and E100D whatsoever - same subject, same light.

I have more of E100D left and just don't want to use it - what's the point in having mushy slides? I'll keep it for additional testing. Maybe side-by-side with Provia 100F I have...

DREW WILEY said:

But no taking film ever invented is going to be anything but mush at 50X, unless one factors a ridiculous "normal viewing distance" of quite a distance away, which is in fact normal for a slide show.

Click to expand...

Is this from experience or just something repeated and taken out of a dark and wet place?
Because I have no complaints against Fuji slides and many BW films. The strongest (and remaining practical) is Aviphot 80 which I like the best from Adox as HR-50 and Scala 50.
Weakest - Fomapan R100 and Ektachrome E100.
Delta is solid reversed, so is FP4+ 125, so is Ferrania P30 - good films can take 50x projection magnification. Poor films - not so much.

Cinema used 135 film and a vertical pulldown the most, meaning that we went to cinema that projected a half-frame image on a grand, wall-sized screen, not mere 1.8m wide. 1/2 the "sensor" area and God knows what factor larger screen sizes, with respective seating distances involved.
Was our cinema going experience marred by mushy movies?

And if there's no difference - if all films should fail to take 50x - how can I see differences and poor E100 performance, not just me?
And how come this shows up in scans too, with hyperfocal scanner, meaning that focusing issues aren't at play here?

Ivo Stunga said:

DREW WILEY said:

E100 is right up there with Velvia and even Kodachrome in terms of detail capacity, for all practical purposes.

Click to expand...

Can't agree, no comparison in my application and experience, and I'm not going to see things differently with my eye only because a stat on a sheet says something else.
And I use the same lab for my rare E-6 needs.

A recent example:
I did return to my childhood home to take some nostalgic pictures of times gone: was shooting Delta 100 and then Ektachrome E100D, then projected slides chronologically. No competition between Delta and E100D whatsoever - same subject, same light.

I have more of E100D left and just don't want to use it - what's the point in having mushy slides? I'll keep it for additional testing. Maybe side-by-side with Provia 100F I have...

Click to expand...

What Drew said relating to Velvia is very much correct — E100 is, in a few proven respects, significantly sharper than Velvia, with especially crisp, clear whites and lush, deep blacks. It is not mushy. Not by any stretch. Is your technique with equalised exposures (high/lows/mid-tones) up to scratch? What else is missing? And why the reference to 100D?? If anything is very different, it is the palette of RVP50 vs E100: RVP50, aka 'Disneychrome', if left untethered will create a dog's breakfast of a beautiful scene; E100 on the other hand can be dark and moody, with a natural palette that is is distinctly Kodak-y — a bit like Ektar in some respects.

Of the film formats for bang-on equalised exposure with e.g. Velvia and Ektachrome 100, 35mm is least favoured because of its very small size squashing all that contrast in. Open it up with medium- or large format.
I am very suspicious of your claims regarding E100. Below, is this fine art print 'mushy'? Of E100, it has been printed to almost a metre in height (and foamcore mounted pending client's decision on framing). I do not project slides and have not since 1985; my specialisation is printing from sides — a carry-on/get on with it, from the distant, halcyon days of Ilfochrome Classic, of which I might mention honourable member Mr Wiley is also equally well read and practised.

I think there is more to the pot of ingredients rattled off in the foregoing posts — exposure particularly.

Taylor Nankervis said:

E100 is, in a few proven respects, significantly sharper than Velvia, with especially crisp, clear whites and lush, deep blacks. It is not mushy. Not by any stretch. Is your technique with equalised exposures (high/lows/mid-tones) up to scratch? What else is missing? And why the reference to 100D

Click to expand...

You are talking color rendition, I'm talking sheer resolution and detail rendition. Note my statements that I have no complaints about Fuji stock which holds up really nicely regardless what Fuji slides I've tried, and I have no complaints about majority of BW film performance.

Of course, there could be something amiss from my side, but I don't shoot Fuji differently than I shoot Kodak or Ilford, Ferrania, Aviphot, Foma... And keeping methodology the same across the board - if any discrepancies arise, I attribute that to film properties. And Kodak performs not so great - as described. Similarly and lackluster as Fomapan R100.

"Equalised Exposures"?
What do you mean by this? You can't ask too much from the reduced latitude of a Slide Film.
What I do however - center-weighted Average metering (Olympus OM-1n TTL) and keep my highlights in check. And I use tripod and mirror lock if shutter speeds approach focal length number. Because I understand that I must do everything I can to have nice slides.

"E100D" - because I tried Ektachrome in regular 135/36 cassette and Ektachrome 100D cine film, purchased respooled from Analog Amsterdam if I recall the reseller correctly. Wasn't too happy by either.

Taylor Nankervis said:

E100 on the other hand can be dark and moody, with a natural palette that is is distinctly Kodak-y — a bit like Ektar in some respects.

Click to expand...

That's an entirely subjective preference, not a resolving power discussion. My subjective preference lies in warmer rendition - Provia. Possibly psychologically, because where I live half of a year is dark, bland and gray and northerners tend to prefer warmer colors and light. Ektachrome is too cold for me, but E100 via warming filter... it's not the same at all, let's just say that. Blues get punished and skies lose impact, green suffers too. Not a fan of color -corrected E100 if Provia exists and does balancing to my liking naturally.


I'm open to do some additional tests to provide additional material for discussion. If you have a solid layman testing methodology in mind, do share!

I'm thinking a following test:

1. Take a roll of Provia 100F, cut about 1/3 from the roll and respool it in a blank cassette, leaving the rest of the roll intact.
2. Take a roll of Ektachrome E 100, cut about 1/3 from the roll and respool it...
3. Take a roll of HR-50 (Aviphot 80), cut about 1/3 from the roll... For control.
4. Find a scene with detailed subjects at various distances/depths, plant my tripod there and not move it during testing.
5. Test these films with Zuiko 50mm 1.4 @f/5.6 and @f/8, Mirror Lock and bracketing +- one stop*. That'll give 3 exposures per given aperture and 6 exposures per scene.
6. Rotate camera on tripod say 90 degrees and repeat the test with the now different scene - preferably at different distance/complexity too. That'd be 2 scenes and 12 test frames per film. Plenty.
7. Perform the test in overcast, wind-free day. Overcast will reduce the contrast and lighting variations, but lack of wind will leave distant details undisturbed. Important.
8. Change the film, repeat.

Scene could be a challenge!
Say diagonally moving forest path or a Street with detailed, receding facades taken at similar angle. Excluding skies to give the reduced Slide latitude a decent chance. Will have to think about this some more as E6 films are very expensive and I don't want to waste any more film than absolutely necessary. Practical shooting could be done in about half an hour and given the overcast day - light won't change like at all.
I expect Aviphot 80 to shine here - especially regarding distant microdetails.

Then I could scan the resulting slides with the same scanner and scanning parameters, and upload the results here.
My scanner is Plustek 7600i and I scan everything with double exposure and every automation that can be turned off - turned off! In scanner I just adjust my levels or black/white points - no sharpening in scanner, idea being to provide flat-ish archival scan with max possible resolution which in the case of Plustek means scanning at 7200 then deflating the file down to 3600.
Deflation and post-processing is done solely in LR Classic.
Plustek scanners scan hyperfocally and quite decently, so my detail rendering won't be impacted by focusing issues and film flatness. This should make a fair game.


Any additional ideas to improve said test?

________________
*There's no need to do +2 or -2 as the reduced latitude of a E-6 film will show dramatic differences just with +-1 stop and therein lies the challenge shooting slides: metering must be quite impeccable.

Ivo Stunga said:

Any additional ideas to improve said test?

Click to expand...

Just use a resolution test chart under controlled conditions and strobes so you can quantify the results. The whole setup with a natural, outdoor setup is doomed to fail if you're trying to make an honest comparison.

Or just shoot whichever film you prefer because it works for you. Frankly, I don't get this whole discussion about which film is (supposedly) technically superior, given the fact that the differences in objective quality are marginal at best and the whole discussion is fraught with subjective & qualitative evaluations. One guy prefers his Fuji slides while another prefers his Kodak slides -what's the news? If a (quasi) objective test would have been able to settle this, it would have happened back in 1990. Yet, the preferences stuck around, so apparently it's still a matter of "to each their own".

Now, if you talk about color palette/rendition, I can get behind a distinct preference. But it'll be that, still - a subjective, individual preference. One guy likes his greens leaning towards teal a little while the other likes them to go a little lime. Neither is necessarily best, and I bet you'll find if you do an objective assessment where colors are measured with a photospectrometer and then the slides are compared against that standard, you'll find that 9 times out of 10 people prefer a film that renders colors 'artistically' over one that gets them as close to reality as possible.

Besides, whatever test you whip up, there'll be no end to the fussing about methodology. If you scan the slides, people will complain that the scanner favors one film over another or that scanning settings are "all wrong" etc. If you project them, you're "obviously" using a light source of an incorrect color temperature "and don't get me started on the projection screen of yours." And on and on and on. Even if you were to somehow successfully navigate the stormy seas of methodology, you'd end up having a quasi-intellectual fist-fight on the relevant performance criteria ("this whole experiment is totally meaningless since you never thought to include acutance and failed to properly operationalize it, rubbish!!")

There's just no way you can set up a test that will succeed in getting people to agree on the actual performance of different slide films, if only for the sobering fact that amateur photographers for the most part are so pre-occupied with a strong desire to disagree with one another that any attempt to bridge gaps is doomed to fail right from the get-go. So wisdom, IMO, would be to shoot Fuji if you like Fuji, and shoot Kodak if you like that. And enjoy the images. Nobody ever rejected a good image because "how could you shoot it on the WRONG FILM." And conversely, no mediocre image in history has ever been 'saved' because it was made with superior materials.