Tariffs and Film and Paper prices

[GregY]

I haven't side-stepped anything. I was simply stating that the current situation doesn't have anything to do with outsourcing manufacturing to countries with little or no environmental regulations and low wages. This is one of the few fields where that is true. Analog photography equipment, film, paper, and chemicals are still made by the same companies in the same places as they have been for many decades or even longer.

that's one declarative statement.....but it has nothing to do with the original question of how any newly imposed tariffs will affect the price of supplies not made in the USA? To paraphrase what Sal said.... the world is no longer one big happy free-trading community.

 

[miha]

So can we also talk about Canada being a 51st state of the USA?

This was unnecessary. I never had an ignore list, but you made the cut.

 

[bfilm]

that's one declarative statement.....but it has nothing to do with the original question of how any newly imposed tariffs will affect the price of supplies not made in the USA? To paraphrase what Sal said.... the world is no longer one big happy free-trading community.

I actually think the current situation has very much to do with outsourcing manufacturing to countries with little or no environmental regulations and low wages. I just mean that it is not appropriate to include analog photography as a field that has contributed to this, because it is one of the rare fields that has maintained its longtime practices in countries that could be said to be more strict in these regards.

This was a separate point to what does or doesn't end up being affected by tarrifs.

 

[Don_ih]

outsourcing manufacturing to countries with little or no environmental regulations and low wages

Photographic supplies (film, paper, chemicals) rely on materials from who-knows-how-many places. There's no guarantee that any particular raw material needed for the manufacture of the finished product comes from any particular location. They get it from the best and probably least expensive source (for the quality). And raw materials are just as subject to tariffs as finished products.

 

[bfilm]

Photographic supplies (film, paper, chemicals) rely on materials from who-knows-how-many places. There's no guarantee that any particular raw material needed for the manufacture of the finished product comes from any particular location. They get it from the best and probably least expensive source (for the quality). And raw materials are just as subject to tariffs as finished products.

Right. That is why I mentioned raw materials for Kodak in an earlier post. That being the main one that might be directly affected by the US tariffs in this regard. As the makers in other countries might not have new tariffs on their raw materials.

 

[bfilm]

For the time being, it looks like:

GB 10%
EU 20%
JP 24%

I guess it remains to be seen if there are any exempt categories.

As far as the US $800 de minimis rule, I think it is only goods from China (and possibly Canada and Mexico) and certain categories that are disqualified. So, there may still be potential for small orders to not be subject to significant duty.

 

[Don_ih]

As the makers in other countries might not have new tariffs on their raw materials.

The other countries may impose retaliatory tariffs that may impact some supply cost for those manufacturers.

Stuff comes from everywhere.

Everyone loses in this scenario.

 

[GregY]

The other countries may impose retaliatory tariffs that may impact some supply cost for those manufacturers.

Stuff comes from everywhere.

Everyone loses in this scenario.

Thank you Don!

 

[FotoD]

I would be surprised if the rest of the world wouldn't be able to source a component needed for film and paper production from each other, if they had earlier relied on any US components.

 

[bfilm]

Most of the references I can find for the tariffs are about goods. It is possible a number of raw material categories will be exempt, as if the proposed purpose is to increase US manufacturing, there are some raw materials that would still have to be imported.

It would seem counterintuitive to tell Kodak you want to encourage them to increase their US manufacturing, but then make their raw material costs increase. Of course, some of the materials needed by Kodak might not be considered raw materials, like the cellulose triacetate base. Maybe they want to encourage Kodak to make cellulose triacetate base again.

 

[GregY]

For the time being, it looks like:

GB 10%
EU 20%
JP 24%

I guess it remains to be seen if there are any exempt categories.

As far as the US $800 de minimis rule, I think it is only goods from China (and possibly Canada and Mexico) and certain categories that are disqualified. So, there may still be potential for small orders to not be subject to significant duty.

So Canon, Nikon, Sony goods are going to see significant price increases in the USA.....given that $800 USD won't get you through the door for a digital camera......?

 

[bfilm]

So Canon, Nikon, Sony goods are going to see significant price increases in the USA.....given that $800 USD won't get you through the door for a digital camera......?

And if it is based upon country of manufacture, the tariff could be:

Japan 24%
China 34%
Thailand 36%
Vietnam 46%

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tariffs are basically factored into the cost of goods, and then that itself is going to factor into the markup once or twice by the time it reaches the end retail customer. So you can take those alleged tarriff percents and multiply them by 50% or so. And if middlemen decide to game the system and simply blame the tariffs in return, it could be even higher.

The only recourse dealers are going to have is to make little or zero profit on the cameras and gouge us like hell on everything else. Lots of auto dealers have long made essentially no profit on their new cars at all, and more than made up the difference in charges for parts and shop services, along with flagrantly dishonest service dept practices. That's only going to get worse. But people who can afford a Porsche or BMW probably don't care about an increase anyway; spending a lot is almost a status symbol to some. But if you want an affordable Kia? Camera equip is analogous. Some just care about status purchases, regardless of whether they're going to get better pictures or not.

What concerns me about film is how dependent the coating lines might be for particular film bases from different countries. Kodak specializes in PET base manufacture, others in acetate. With fewer sources for the special types needed, how much trans-Atlantic cost increase might be involved, especially if demand winds-down even more due to tariff complications? The last tariff round, which was far less drastic, I witnessed a lot of US startups and smaller manufacturers (some relatively big ones too) simply crash because they couldn't affordably source necessary supplies any longer. Then the pandemic hit. Now this too? !!!

 

[Don_ih]

Most of the references I can find for the tariffs are about goods. It is possible a number of raw material categories will be exempt, as if the proposed purpose is to increase US manufacturing, there are some raw materials that would still have to be imported.

The US has imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel.

Next time you are in an urban centre, look at the buildings and see exactly what they're made of. Almost none of that stuff is made in the United States.

 

[bfilm]

The US has imposed 25% tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel.

Next time you are in an urban centre, look at the buildings and see exactly what they're made of. Almost none of that stuff is made in the United States.

Right, but as you have noticed, those have gotten their own tariff. Those are not raw materials, but processed materials that are among those they are trying to encourage to be manufactured in the US. I am not saying that this is a good or bad idea, just that it is how I understand the approach they are proposing.

 

[ic-racer]

Most Kodak films are made in the USA.

So, in that case, I'll go back to Kodak to avoid the tarrif. That is the whole idea.

 

[Don_ih]

Those are not raw materials

Tell me in what way aluminum is not a raw material. Yes, it comes in a sheet or in blocks. But if you can't get any out of the ground, where will it come from?

Most Americans no longer want strip mines or runoff pits next to their suburbs, anymore.

 

[bfilm]

Tell me in what way aluminum is not a raw material. Yes, it comes in a sheet or in blocks. But if you can't get any out of the ground, where will it come from?

Most Americans no longer want strip mines or runoff pits next to their suburbs, anymore.

There is extensive processing to manufacture industrial aluminum from bauxite. Again, I am not saying that the tariff approach is a good or bad idea, just that this is what the approach seems to be. For example, maybe they would allow a US company to import bauxite to manufacture the aluminum, with little or no duty on the bauxite.

 

[bfilm]

To expand the above to an analog photography example. Kodak needs cellulose triacetate base to manufacture their film. This is a processed material that they have to import from Germany or Japan, and so maybe there is a duty on this, unless the US decides to make it an exempt category. But maybe some of the materials that Kodak imports in more raw form to make their emulsion and coat the film base would not have duty. I am just theorizing.

 

[Don_ih]

There is extensive processing to manufacture industrial aluminum from bauxite. Again, I am not saying that the tariff approach is a good or bad idea, just that this is what the approach seems to be. For example, maybe they would allow a US company to import bauxite to manufacture the aluminum, with little or no duty on the bauxite.

Yes, but what makes you think a sovereign nation will allow a raw material to go to the US without an export tax? Is there any reason a country should reward the US for importing the actual dirt instead of the processed material? The US will see any such supply become prohibitively expensive.

No one wins.

 

[Don_ih]

I think that it might be a lot clearer to people if they thought of tariff as "25% federal sales tax that will also be taxed by the state sales tax so, by the time you end up paying for your stuff, you've paid at least 30% more than you should have".

 

[GregY]

So, in that case, I'll go back to Kodak to avoid the tarrif. That is the whole idea.

& north of the border...i'll avoid Kodak..... easy enough to do with good alternates....
& most film & paper developing formulae are published.....I'll be able to get close to LPD & Ansco 130.

 

[bfilm]

& north of the border...i'll avoid Kodak..... easy enough to do with good alternates....

But now you are talking about collective punishment. It seems to me that is when everyone loses.

It could be that no one at Kodak personally supports the tariffs. Just that you would be punishing one of the most important companies left in analog photography.

Of course, there are other film stocks, and you are free to choose those if you prefer, and support your favorites.

 

[mshchem]

So for color professional films, will Fujifilm bring anything back for Global markets? (And for USA customers willing to pay the tariffs?)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

& north of the border...i'll avoid Kodak.....

But now you are talking about collective punishment.

I don't think he is. He said avoiding, not boycotting. The latter is what you do when you want to punish, the former, what you do when prices have become too high and you can find a product as good for a lower price.

That's what I've been doing. I'd love to shoot Kodak T-Max 100 in 4x5, but it has gotten too expensive for my budget. Delta 100 gives me the same quality for a lower price.