$60 to replace the ink in my printer, or about 50 sheets FB paper. I certainly will never get that sort of value (or quality) making prints from my computer.
Look at the property tax rate in Rochester. It's high. I think there's also property taxes on plant and equipment in New York State. That's why Kodak tears down buildings in Kodak Park when they stop using them -- too expensive to pay the property tax.
Some of the sensitizing dyes make silver nitrate look dirt cheap.
Sooooo right John.
And Silver Nitrate will keep. Not so for some of those dyes!
I don't mind being excluded from the conversation. (I once knew what a mole was but forgot most of the high school chem I ever knew.) To me it really doesn't matter how much it costs to make (or package or market) film because all I care about is the retail price I'm paying. Lower is better but it isn't for me to really determine (other than the intellectual curiousity) if the price is justified or not.
In your statement, you used Haist as your source. However, you used the word "film" in place of the original word used by Haist which was "paper". This was a clear statement by a scientist which you altered and then misunderstood. So, even clear statements can be misunderstood by lay people in spite of an effort at clarity by the original scientist.
You equated film with paper. This is not correct.
Therefore, comments about clarity notwithstanding, we had a misunderstanding. You see the problem here? :)
Has anybody considered supply and demand? Dwindling demand and tighter markets, and stocks that need to pay dividends are important, probably more so than the cost of materials and labor. Perhaps the best example is the price now asked for guns and ammunition; doubled in the past few months in the US with no change in the cost for materials and labor.