I was pleasantly surprised to hear today that Kodak is introducing a new 120 film choice. Or rather an existing film in 120 format in the guise of it’s consumer grade Kodak Gold. I’ve wished for a lower-cost alternative to Kodak (and Fuji’s) pro-grade films for medium format use so this is great to hear. Of course, here in 2022, Kodak Gold in 120 format is more expensive than Portra or Ektar were just a few years ago, but that seems par for the course at present.
I quite like Kodak Gold in 135 format (although I’ve tended to use Colorplus more), so I’ve splashed out on a pre-order of the 120 format Gold to see how it fares. Hopefully it’ll be in my hands sometime in early April. All things considered though, if colour film maintains its high price point then I’m likely to err even more strongly to my preferred black and white choices purely from an affordability standpoint, with my colour film use limited to where I know it’ll really be worthwhile. I tend to shoot much more black and white anyway so my current stocks of colour film are likely to keep me going for a while yet.
Another colour photo from the Reto Ultrawide & Slim today, and one which exemplifies how much of a scene is omitted when seen through the camera’s viewfinder. In this shot I had composed the scene to include the main arch and the smaller arch to the right. The leftmost arch, the person walking into frame left, and the rear of the car on the right were not present in the viewfinder. I guess I will begin to factor this in as I become more familiar with the camera over time.
Reto Ultrawide & Slim & Agfa Vista Plus 200. Lab developed.
Taken on 6 March 2022
Steel City Snapper photography 
Yeah, that viewfinder! I composed this shot with the school not being completely visible, but when I got it back, it was:
Since I just got into home black and white development, I’ll probably do more of that. But I still like shooting in color. I’m going out to the High Desert later this week, and while I’ll definitely shoot some b&w, I want to get some of those earthy hues and (hopefully) blue skies in color.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve got a load of old Kodachrome (and other brands) slides, some of which feature blue desert skies and they look gorgeous. Black and white can work too, but sometimes colour just looks best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m genuinely excited about Gold in 120. I can’t wait to try some.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likewise. It’s slightly bizarre that, despite having some Portra and Ektar to hand, I’m more excited about the prospect of shooting supposedly lower grade film. I guess it’s because it’s new. I remember feeling similar excitement when Ektachrome came back (although that was more expensive).
LikeLike
The last time I purchased a pack of 120 color negative film was, I believe, in late 2018. I could go find my invoice, but frankly it’s not worth the energy. It was a five roll pro-pack of Kodak Ektar. You know how much I bought it for? $24.75, from either Adorama or B&H. I don’t remember for sure which retailer, but I do very clearly remember the price. Portra 160 and 400 were marginally more expensive at that time, but not by much. So, just a little over three years ago Kodak’s professional 120 films were around $5 per roll. Realistically, this was/is not cheap for a mere 12 exposures in the 6×6 format, but still, I think it was a fair and reasonable price because, again, we are talking about *professional* stocks, marketed at the professional photographer. Now, just a tad over three years later, Ektar and the Portras in 120 have all *at least* doubled in price (the situation is even worse in 35mm).
I’m sorry, but there’s no excuse for this. None. The alleged excuses that are constantly thrown around don’t hold *any* water if one is willing to actually think for themselves, logically and rationally. In fact, many of these excuses are entirely contradictory to prior statements made by the manufacturers themselves. It’s utterly inane that people continue to support this nonsense. All they’re doing is hurting the community at large, the industry long-term, and yes, even themselves.
The point I’m trying to make here is this. More than likely Kodak Gold, an *already existing* consumer/non-professional emulsion, thus requiring zero investment to bring it to the market in a different size/format, will likely be (re)introduced in 120 at somewhere between $8-10 per roll (my best guess), or, in other words, 60-100% more expensive than *professional* stocks were about three years ago. People, this is insanity.
Realistically, in my opinion, Kodak Gold 200 in 120 should be priced at *no more* than $25 for a five roll “pro”-pack (it’s not a pro film, hence the quotations), or $5 per single roll. Period. To reiterate, this is a *consumer* film, not professional, and even at $5 per roll it would still be slightly more expensive than Ektar, a professional film, was just a little over three years ago.
People are going to do what they’re going to do, but for anyone who actually cares about the continued affordability and long-term existence of film as a medium, I’d ask that even if they can afford today’s asinine prices, they strongly consider the long-term ramifications of doing so. In my opinion, pure greed has taken over the major film manufacturers, and it’s destroying everything (arguably, it’s *already* destroyed everything). Also, in my opinion, if people continue to support and defend this greed, as they sadly have been, this destruction will only be expedited.
Here’s another way of saying what I’m trying to say, using once-common idioms:
If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile…
Also,
If you give a mouse a cookie, it’s going to want a glass of milk…
Well, I’d say that even where we are at present, they haven’t only taken a single mile, but several, and they’ve not only had one glass of milk, but rather several gallons. It needs to end. People shouldn’t have ever given them the first inch or the first cookie, but they did, and here we are as a result.
In spite of all of this, I sure hope film survives, and that one day it actually becomes affordable again. Because right now, it most certainly is not affordable — not even in the slightest.
Sorry for the rant. 🙂
P.S. You got some great results with the Reto!
LikeLike
I had a feeling you might have thoughts on this P. 🙂
I came across this article recently whgich compares film prices over the last century (adjusted for inflation) and the current prices are mostly on a level with what they used to be,
https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/
The big difference has come over the last decade or two where prices dropped considerably by compariison, likely as a result of competition for a dwindling market, and also diminishing investment in products that looked to be approachin the end of their life thanks to the takeup of digital cameras and smartphones for photography.
Now we’re in a situation where a resurgent interest in film photography has increased demand for limited stock and capacity, a situation ripe for price increases (not only for film, but also for film cameras, which are not being made at all anymore, pushing sought after models to unrealistically high prices). Investment in new plant, staff and product lines will also increase prices, as will raw material costs increasing.
Whether all this realistically accounts for the considerable increases seen over the past few years, I can’t say, and there will certainly be a desire by the companies involved to maximise their profits to the extent the market will allow, but I don’t personally believe that it’s completely down to greed.
I expect you’ll discgree on this, but that’s fine – differences of opinion help make the world a more rounded place. 🙂
As for me personally, I don’t buy much colour film these days unless I see a bargain or I really want some for some reason. I’d love the prices to fall again but I’m not sure they will, not to what they were a few years ago at least. Thankfully my preferred black and white films (Kodak and Fuji excepted – those are as crazy as colour) can all be had here in the UK for pretty much the same price they were a few years ago. Plus I can easily develop B&W at home to save a bit more.
Thanks for your detailed reply to the post – always good to hear from you – and thanks for the compliment on the RETO pictures. More of those to come in a while…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had already read the article you linked to, as well as pretty much every other such article that’s out there regurgitating the same stuff. At least Mike isn’t actively defending and praising the never-ending price hikes like some are. So, I give him credit for that. I also give him credit for illustrating how within the context of the last few years, the rate at which a lot of film has been increasing in cost has MASSIVELY outpaced inflation rates, something very few others posting such articles ever admit to. Even if I believe a lot of the information he’s providing is severely flawed, at least he’s being somewhat objective. On a side note, even though his article is only a few months old, many stocks he looks at (and alluded the prices for were out of hand) have increased in price substantially even over what they were when he wrote it (e.g. Kodak Gold was $5.99 per roll then; it’s $10.99 now — insanity!). I’m not going to do a breakdown of all the issues I have with the various prices he’s referencing (or the sources), but I will bring up one point regarding those 1995 Popular Photography numbers. They are mostly unrealistic, based on my own memories. I don’t know where they got their values, but contrary to what is put forth there, I can tell you film in the mid 90’s was available pretty cheap in the USA. Consumer stocks were readily available for like a buck or two per roll, if you looked in the right places. Such prices mentioned in the article only existed at certain pro shops who had no issues ripping off their clientele. At least, that’s what I remember, and my family shot quite a lot of film in the 90’s, most of which was put through my mom’s Canon SureShot.
You’re right. We’re probably not going to agree on everything. And, as you said, that’s fine. I’ve already pointed out a lot of the flawed logic regarding the alleged justification for today’s film prices that’s spewed by many in my past comments to you and others. I’ll try not to state what’s already been stated previously. I will say a few quick things, however.
These are my opinions. People are free to agree or disagree.
First, using standard inflation, as people constantly do, to measure whether the cost of a consumer product such as film is warranted is an entirely flawed approach, for a multitude of reasons. I’m not going to dive into all these reasons because I risk writing a book if I do. I don’t understand why people think inflation charts are the end of the argument in terms of what we *should* be happily paying for a thing. Frankly, it’s ridiculous. I can name umpteen million consumer products that don’t follow standard inflation rates at all, and if they did people would rightfully be irate because they would know they were being ripped off. I mean, think about it.
By that measure, as a quick example, we *should* be paying way more for LCD panels than we used to, right? Instead, it’s exactly the opposite. LCD panels, be it VA or IPS or any other type, are all substantially cheaper across the board than they used to be. The same is true for virtually all technology. Prices go down over time, even though material costs go up. And, by the way, material costs going up is guaranteed in every industry. Such is a given, and thus a moot point. Film isn’t some special case in this regard, as everyone seems to believe for some truly ludicrous reason and flaunt it as the primary justification for prices spiraling out of control.
Furthermore, whether people recognize it or not, film is indeed a technology. Also, with the exception of silver (which is used in relatively tiny quantities in film today versus the past), most of the raw materials, namely chemicals, used to manufacture film are actually very inexpensive, all things considered. Again, if people think otherwise, as far as I’m concerned, they’ve been duped.
So, the whole notion that simply adjusting for inflation tells us what we should be happily forking over for a product really is absurd. It’s doubly absurd when we’re talking about any form of technology, or any product which is created through a technological process. Film is both.
Second, resurgent interest in a product, resulting in the manufacturer of said product having difficulty keeping up with demand, should NEVER increase the cost of that product, *unless* the manufacturer is exploiting the consumer (i.e. being greedy) or there is a legitimately finite and highly scarce amount of raw materials in existence to produce that product (absolutely NOT the case with film, regardless of what people have been conned into believing). I don’t mean any offense, but this is one of the most absurd claims of all time. It’s nonsense economics. It’s nothing less than false justification for corporations to screw their customers. This is actually a dream situation for any company, not a nightmare as it’s been sold to us. Realistically, based on *real* economic principles, high demand should actually result in lower prices, not higher, even if it means there’s less on store shelves for some time while the manufacturer sorts out increasing their production. Again, *unless* the creator of said product is being greedy, dishonest, and is actively exploiting the situation. And to reiterate once again, material costs always increase, in every industry, and yet in spite of this most similar industries to film find ways to decrease the final price to the consumer.
For example, let’s look at optical media, such as CD’s and DVD’s. These items share many similarities with film. Just like film, the raw materials used to manufacture them have steadily increased over time (they even share some of the same raw materials as film). Just like film, manufacturing them is a delicate process. Just like film, the heyday of optical media is over. Just like film, optical media is a so-called legacy technology. But, unlike film, optical media is cheaper than ever. This is just one example out of a near infinite list illustrating the same thing. Another good example is vinyl records, which, despite being massively overpriced today because of the ignorance of consumers (sound familiar?), are still cheaper than they used to be. Vinyl, just like film, is a niche market. And guess what? As there has been a resurgent interest in vinyl over the last decade or so, I’ve watched as prices for LP’s have been driven lower, despite raw material costs going up. This makes sense, for the reasons already stated. Are you beginning to see what I’ve been saying all this time?
You said, “Investment in new plant, staff and product lines will also increase prices…” Please, I’m not trying to be rude, but give me one shred of actual evidence, not just marketing propaganda, that any of these things are *actually* occurring at Kodak or Fujifilm in any substantial way, if at all. I’ll wait… And, even if they are, it’s not justification for increasing costs. They should just simply be reinvesting their heightened profits from increased sales into doing what they need to do. It’s not rocket science. If they’re selling more, they’re making more, which means they have more to invest in whatever they need/want to, even without increasing costs to the consumer. If done correctly, this results in more product, more sales, more profit, more ability to invest, and over time, lower costs for the consumer. Up until recently when people were convinced of a load of economic garbage, this is how the world worked. This is how it’s always worked. Anyone who doubts that needs a history lesson.
You also said, “…there will certainly be a desire by the companies involved to maximise their profits to the extent the market will allow…” That’s just another way of saying that, if they can get away with it, they’ll happily screw their customers over and exploit them for huge profits if their customers are too ignorant to realize they’re being unfairly taken advantage of. Surely you can see that? I’d argue that’s exactly what is happening now, and has been for the last several years. It isn’t good business. It isn’t smart business. It’s dishonesty, plain and simple. Such practices used to be seen as utterly despicable, and any company behaving in such a way was rightfully seen as trash undeserving of anyone’s business. Today, this is how colleges/universities teach (brainwash) kids to operate. As a result, we now have several generations of people running companies who think this is “good business.” To be frank, it’s disgusting.
In closing, let me pose a question to anyone who happens to read this. Can you name one other consumer product that has increased in cost at the rate film has over the past few years (specifically Kodak and Fujifilm products)? I can’t. I honestly can’t even name one that has increased at half the rate. I think that says all there is to say.
Well, I wrote a book anyway. Sorry. 🙂
I definitely look forward to seeing more of your work with the Reto! Despite its plastic nature, some of my favorite work of yours of late was made with it. Between the Reto and your recent Foma 400 shots with the GW690, you’ve been hitting it out of the park. Keep it up!
Take care!
LikeLike
You sure can write at length P. 🙂
I can’t respond at similar length I’m afraid, my fingers will give out(!), but my thoughts on a few points…
With regards LCD panels, these are currently a mass-market item. There is no competing technology and the product is mature so economies of scale and manufacturing efficiencies have come to be. LCD panels are (in a very loose analogy) like the film market in the 90s. Lots of choice, lots of manufactures charging what the market will bear. New LCD technology is expensive, but the specs for today’s £3k sets will be available for a fraction of that in a relatively short time.
Optical media on the other hand is a market in decline. It’s facing overwhelming competition from digital downloads and online streaming, and even it’s use for storage is vanishing – most PCs don’t tend to offer DVD drives as standard any more for instance because the demand isn’t there. As a result manufacturers will reduce output and cut costs in order to compete for the remaining shrinking market. Continuing my flimsy analogy, this is akin to the film market in the noughties.
I do stand by what I say around businesses seeking to maximise income. Their reason for existance is to sell products and services for profit. Most will seek to get as much profit as they can, limited only by demand, competition, regulation, and what the market will stand. There are exceptions, or course, especially new businesses seeking to gain a foothold, but unfortunately where there is profit, so there is a human tendency to make more if possible. I don’t like this any more than you do BTW – there is too much greed and inequality in the world by far – but it is the way of the world it seems. We can vote with our wallets but that only works if enough of us do the same, although it can and does happen that companies are forced to “re-think” their plans from time to time.
You’re correct, I can’t actually think of a product that has increased in price as much as film (or at least *some* film), but I expect that there will be some. I know about film increases because of my interest, but maybe there are similar compaints about soaring prices in the world of cross-stich or other pastimes that I’m unfamilair with.
I’ve actually written more than I expected! 🙂
I’m currently scanning more Reto shots in between typing this, so you’ll get to see those in a bit (although I’ve a bunch of other stuff that’ll get published first). I hope to get out with the GW690 again soon too. although that *is* an expensive camera to use!
All the best and thanks again for your responses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I know, I “sure can write at length.” Haha, sorry! I’ll try to keep this one brief (**coming to you from several minutes into the future — I failed miserably**). I just want to wrap up a few ideas, and clarify a few things that I think were perceived slightly out of context.
Regarding LCD’s, my point was not to make a direct comparison to film in terms of their market lifecycles. Obviously, they’re at very different places in their lifecycles. My point was simply to illustrate how inflation isn’t a valid indicator of what a product should cost. LCD panels illustrate such beautifully. Also, I think you’d be surprised to learn there are actually far fewer manufacturers of LCD panels than you probably believe. But let’s not get off topic.
Regarding CD’s and DVD’s, I really wasn’t referring so much to pre-recorded music or movies, but rather just blank media. But it doesn’t matter either way as this, too, was not intended to be a direct comparison, but to likewise illustrate that inflation-based arguments *and* rising raw material cost arguments are largely bogus. And just like LCD panels, it does this with ease.
By the way, I mostly agree with your assessments of where LCD panels and optical media exist in their respective lifecycles.
Now, with regards to vinyl records, which you didn’t comment on, I *did* deliberately bring that up as a more direct comparison to film, as the lifecycles of the two are actually very similar to one another, and they both exist today in relatively niche markets after losing their former market dominance. And yet, as stated, vinyl is *still* cheaper than it used to be, and has actually steadily (albeit very slightly) decreased in price as its popularity has increased again in the last decade or so. This is true despite the resurgent interest, despite being niche, despite rising raw material costs, despite being an outdated technology, despite inflation, despite supply chain issues, etcetera, etcetera. Basically, despite every excuse ever given for the absurdly high cost of film today, even though vinyl realistically faces the exact same sorts of “challenges” and exists within a very similar market space.
I knew that specifically in terms of product lifecycles I was comparing apples to oranges with LCD panels and optical media, versus film. That’s why I chose to also include vinyl records, as a more apples to apples comparison in that regard. It doesn’t change the fact that all three of these examples obliterate the whole “we should be happy to pay $$$ because inflation charts say so” argument, as well as the “raw materials costs are forcing it” argument. Vinyl as a comparison just additionally blows pretty much all the rest of the arguments/excuses out of the water, too. And these were just three random examples. I could go on forever with examples (though some might argue I already have 😉 …). However, I can’t provide a single example which illustrates what’s happening with film is warranted or justified — not one (and I pay close attention to the prices of things, whether I’m interested in them or not). Think about that…
I fully understand that businesses exist to make money and have to be profitable to survive, and that’s fine. I take no issue with that. But there’s a *very* big difference between being profitable in a fair way to your customers and screwing your customers to death just so you can achieve insane profits. The latter is pure greed. You can be profitable and *still* be fair to your customers. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, people were brainwashed into believing “greed is good” and that they (or their business/corporation) *deserved* to not just make a decent profit, but rather 100%, 500%, 1000%, or more pure profit on everything, all the time. “Charge whatever you can con your customers into paying!” Or, as people like to say it in a way that sounds more acceptable (even though it’s not), “charge what the market will bear.” This is insanity. Not only that, it’s absolutely destroying the economy.
I’m glad you agree that greed *isn’t* good. Sadly, you’re right, though; it does seem to be the way of the world *today*. But it didn’t used to be. I remember a time not that long ago when being fair to your customers and honest was the name of the game, and greedy businesses weren’t supported by *most* consumers, forcing them to either end their greed or tank.
Finally, this brings us full circle. You said we can vote with our wallets, but for that to be effective enough of us have to do it. I’ve said the same thing, repeatedly. This is the *whole* reason I’ve written about these topics so extensively, in an effort to get people within the film community to do just that. Unfortunately, it seems most would rather allow prices to continue to spiral out of hand until things become unaffordable for 99.9% of the community and eventually the market self-destructs (virtually guaranteed, in my opinion).
Ultimately, even though it may seem like it to many, my writing about this stuff is *not* to rant about my irritation with being ripped off — yes, seriously 🙂 — but rather my desire to see film survive in the long-term and be accessible to anyone who wants to engage in this art form, not just pros and the insanely well-off (this was George Eastman’s vision, too, best I can tell). The reality, though, is that the solutions to the latter also solve the former issue and almost all the other issues currently plaguing the film community/industry. However, as things presently stand, and with the direction they’re rapidly heading, I don’t think the future of film looks good at all, which is an unnecessary travesty. I hope it can be prevented, but I believe the only chance of that is if people quit supporting the price-gouging and other associated nonsense.
Again, all of this is my opinion. People don’t have to agree with me. But I guess we’ll all see how things pan out in a year, five years, or a decade, won’t we? I truly wish I wasn’t, but so far I’ve been correct about what direction things in the film world would take, if allowed. I’ve been watching and writing about this for several years now (since the exploitation really kicked into overdrive), and sadly we’re exactly where I predicted we’d be if people kept going along with what they had been (which they did). The writing was on the wall. I just hope my future predictions don’t also come to pass, because if they do film is finished as an art the everyday Joe can partake in (arguably, it already is). Again, we’ll just have to wait and see.
Great, I wrote *another* book.
Please don’t feel obligated to reply. You really don’t have to.
All the best to you as well!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I left another (yes, overly long 😉 ) reply to you yesterday, but it appears something went wrong. It never posted. Either the submission form glitched, or it was filtered into spam for some reason, or maybe it was so long it was beyond the allowed character limit (although I’m pretty sure it was shorter than my other replies here).
Anyway, I don’t know what happened. But it’s a bit disappointing because I wanted to add some clarity to a few things. Hopefully it’s in your spam and you’ll come across it eventually. Just wanted to let you know.
Take care!
LikeLike