Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,760   Posts: 1,516,043   Online: 905
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Curious, can anyone recall when the last price increase was? Seems like it might have been early last year (like around this time or earlier). While I don't care for a price increase anymore than anyone else (we all have limited expendable income I would guess) this does not seem out of place to me. And seems like just today, saw a thread here on a price increase on Efke films. Not picking on Efke, just pointing out that as the $ is weak, and other cost go up the cost of things (including film) could go up as well.

    Also, the price of Ilford here in the US was much below the market price before Ilford had their problems, perhaps this is actually the next stage in adjusting the price to be more in line with actual production cost and we have just been lucky that they did not try to re-coup this cost right out of re-org. This is just speculation in part, but I have read where Ilford USA film prices were below where they should have been and would think that this is just an adjustment and perhaps a way to keep providing us with a product we said we wanted, in formats that we wanted.

    Then again, maybe I'm wrong ...
    Mike C

    Rambles

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Mike you could be right but with this new increase they are now quite a bit more expensive than Kodak if you compare TMax 400 to HP5+ by looking at prices on freestyle. Even before the increase they were more expensive.

    Doesn't make much sense to me as Ilford film is not better. I love HP5 but I can learn to love another.

    LIek I said they are jsut pricing themselves out of the market. Look at Efke you can get 50 sheets for around $101 8x10, Kodak 50 sheets $155 now with the increase Ilford HP5 in 8x10 for 50 sheets will be $166. I realize that Efke does not sell 400 speed film but still if you compare FP4 is the same on HP5 at $166, and Efke is almost $60 cheaper. They need to realize that EKFE is a good film and people will make a switch and leave. You think they had problems before the re-structuring, let them keep raising the prices and they will be out of business in the film market.

    People only have so much expendable income as you say.

    Just my two cents.

  3. #23
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    Mike you could be right but with this new increase they are now quite a bit more expensive than Kodak if you compare TMax 400 to HP5+ by looking at prices on freestyle. Even before the increase they were more expensive.
    Last I checked, customs duties were 5.8% for film. And Kodak could probably compete with Ilford even if Ilford didn't have to pay that.
    If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    We are actually coming from the same place kevin, I really do understand. I shoot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 plus the odd roll of 120. The only Ilford I can afford to shoot is 4x5 and 120 (strange last time I priced Efke 120 vs Ilford they were about the same - go figure). Also, I prefer the 50 sheet box so that I know I can load more than 12 holders (OK, that does not happen that often).

    Plus when testing film, it is much easier on the pocket book to test using Efke than Ilford. All that said....I have had the infrequent quality issue with Efke, that I have not had with Ilford. And Efke does not have a 400 speed film that I am aware of...so it is either Kodak or Ilford (I just haven't gone through the process to pick one for the sheet films - like the idea of using one film for all three formats - 4x5,5x7 and 8x10).

    Let's hope this will be the last increase from anyone for a while.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  5. #25
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Since I only shoot 35 and 120 I am not really hurt by this increase - espescially since by chance I did buy a brick of HP5+ last month.

    My suggestion to all, and espescially the big format folk, would be to stock up now (provided you have good storage capabilities) at the pre-increase prices.

    Of course this helps Ilford dealers clear their shelves of aging inventory and thus helps Ilford book more orders for (higher priced) replenishment. After all, they need we "end users" to complete the pass-through.

    So buy now on the past 2006 price increase. Then we can all get back to shooting off the stull until next year at this time and do this "griping" all over again for the 2008 price boost - and consequent "inventory clearance" by buying at the by then "old" 2007 increase!

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post

    And, yes, this all started with Roger and his unnecessary gratuitous statement that "W" has been responsible for the trading decline of the dollar.
    George,

    Do you EVER read what I said? I knew there would be the usual statements that Ilford were pricing themselves out of the market, etc., so I suggested a very simple, very obvious reason why imported goods (such as Leicas and Ilford film) are going up faster than the US rate of inflation.

    I chose W's arrival in power as a convenient date that most of us remember. Do YOU remember exactly when the dollar started to slide? 'Cos I don't. But I do remember that around then, my dollar income was worth about 35 per cent more than it is now. There were always small fluctuations, a nickel or so, but not 40 cents or more, from about 93 cents at best to about $1.35 at worst.

    If you choose to interpret simple economics as an 'unnecessary gratuitous statement', there's not much that I or anyone else can do about it.

    The dollar IS weak. The real price of oil in euros or sterling has increased very little, if at all. Do the sums. A $75 barrel today is under 60 euros. When Dubbya came to power -- as I say, it's a date we can all remember a lot easier than the exact date the dollar started to slide -- you could have bought a 60 euro barrel of oil for maybe $55...

    So: the US is paying more for oil (= film base, packaging, transport) AND is struggling with a weak dollar which should on its own have accounted for a 30-40 per cent price rise in 6 years or whatever it is. This is why lots of things now cost a lot more than they used to, with price rises way ahead of the US rate of inflation. I'd expect a 50 per cent price rise on imports from hard-currency areas over that period, to accommodate the weak dollar and its side-effects. I even put in the footnote about 'hard' currency so you wouldn't complain at that. So you found something else...

    This is NOT America-bashing. It is, as I said, simple economics. My point was that a manufacturer supplying goods to a legitimate importer will normally hold back price rises for as long as possible, and then keep them to a minimum, whereas a grey importer, at the mercy of currency fluctuations, increased transport costs, etc., will probably have to put up prices faster because they do not and indeed cannot take the same view of brand loyalty and mutual trust between customer and supplier.

    Now do you understand why I made my 'gratuitous' comment?

    R.
    Last edited by Roger Hicks; 01-09-2007 at 01:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24
    7% is hardly profiteering, especially (as has been pointed out) with rising transport and manfacturing costs.

    When Ilford went into administration not very long ago the wails of despair from these forums were loud and long (I know, I was one of the wailers). They restructured to fit the smaller market and came back. Because of that we still have a major high-quality film, paper and chemicals materials producer who is publicly committed to traditional black & white photography and who is both bringing out new products and bringing back old ones (possibly two, I'm genuinely not sure whether Fuji still fit all of the above criteria).

    There have been requests on the forums for more new products, including several threads on "Delta 25". Well, development (no pun intended) of that emulsion and other products will require funding. Where do you think the money for that will come from?

    Ilford operated at a loss before and it drove them into the ground. I for one am not going to criticise their current business model while the product quality is high and the company's future is secure.
    The destination is important, but so is the journey

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by FrankB View Post
    Ilford operated at a loss before and it drove them into the ground. I for one am not going to criticise their current business model while the product quality is high and the company's future is secure.

    A direct, on-the-record quote from Ilford, just after the management buy-out succeeded, concerning their strategy before bankruptcy:

    "We bet the farm on digital, and we very nearly won."

    This is of course a reference to the way they treated silver as a cash cow to fund inkjet paper development. Understandably, they never gave me the exact figures, but equally, they didn't argue when I suggested (under the old regime) that silver provided 120-150 per cent of their profits.

    Cheers,

    R.

  9. #29
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    George,

    Do you EVER read what I said? I knew there would be the usual statements that Ilford were pricing themselves out of the market, etc., so I suggested a very simple, very obvious reason why imported goods (such as Leicas and Ilford film) are going up faster than the US rate of inflation.

    I chose W's arrival in power as a convenient date that most of us remember. Do YOU remember exactly when the dollar started to slide? 'Cos I don't. But I do remember that around then, my dollar income was worth about 35 per cent more than it is now. There were always small fluctuations, a nickel or so, but not 40 cents or more, from about 93 cents at best to about $1.35 at worst.

    If you choose to interpret simple economics as an 'unnecessary gratuitous statement', there's not much that I or anyone else can do about it.

    The dollar IS weak. The real price of oil in euros or sterling has increased very little, if at all. Do the sums. A $75 barrel today is under 60 euros. When Dubbya came to power -- as I say, it's a date we can all remember a lot easier than the exact date the dollar started to slide -- you could have bought a 60 euro barrel of oil for maybe $55...

    So: the US is paying more for oil (= film base, packaging, transport) AND is struggling with a weak dollar which should on its own have accounted for a 30-40 per cent price rise in 6 years or whatever it is. This is why lots of things now cost a lot more than they used to, with price rises way ahead of the US rate of inflation. I'd expect a 50 per cent price rise on imports from hard-currency areas over that period, to accommodate the weak dollar and its side-effects. I even put in the footnote about 'hard' currency so you wouldn't complain at that. So you found something else...

    This is NOT America-bashing. It is, as I said, simple economics. My point was that a manufacturer supplying goods to a legitimate importer will normally hold back price rises for as long as possible, and then keep them to a minimum, whereas a grey importer, at the mercy of currency fluctuations, increased transport costs, etc., will probably have to put up prices faster because they do not and indeed cannot take the same view of brand loyalty and mutual trust between customer and supplier.

    Now do you understand why I made my 'gratuitous' comment?

    R.
    Hmmm...Dollar slide vs. Euro began in 2004. "W" was unelected in 2000. US had strong dollar policy for four years after "W" took office.

    Hmmm...Current dollar price of a barrel of oil is around $55 (not $75 which was the peak price last Summer).

    Hmmm...Fed Reserve sets interest rate policy which directly influences dollar trading value - not W.

    Hmmm...Single largest US trading partner has been for many years and remains Canada. So relative trading value of USD$ vs. CDN$ much more relevant than Euro.

    Hmmm...Other largest trading partners for finished goods (oil, as a commodity. is multi-sourced) are Japan and China both of whom have huge trade surpluses with US.

    Hmmm...China has refused to revalue Renimbi despite repeated requests by US to do so in order to address serious trade imbalance.

    Hmmm...Fed adopts "low interest rate, cheap dollar policy" beginning in 2004 in order to achieve effective revaluation of Renimbi.

    Hmmm...China and other "tiger economies" have now begun to buy Euros vs. Dollars in seeming confirmation of Fed strategy.

    Reality, US trade and economic interests are in Western Hemisphere and Asia - not Europe.

    Reality, Americans do not wake up every day weeping and gnashing their teeth because Europeans don't like us. In fact, with each and every passing day, Europe becomes less and less relevant to America; particularly as the ever rising tide of new American immigrants arrive from Latin America and Asia, not Europe.

    Yes, Roger, simple economics. And perhaps it should begin to dawn on you that America increasingly does not need Europe and will slowly begin to realize it does not care about it either.

  10. #30
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Hmmm...
    Hmmm...
    Hmmm...
    Hmmm...
    Oh, the buzzing of the bees in the cigarette trees ... and the soda water fountains ...

    In fact, with each and every passing day, Europe becomes less and less relevant to America; particularly as the ever rising tide of new American immigrants arrive from Latin America and Asia, not Europe.
    Yes, Roger, simple economics. And perhaps it should begin to dawn on you that America increasingly does not need Europe and will slowly begin to realize it does not care about it either.
    Interesting point of view.

    I can't help but wondering, though ... Is there some sort of attempt to combat perceived "United States Bashing" by "Europe Bashing"? I think I may just go into the Real Estate business - leasing patches of sand for the requisite head burials.

    This implies and interesting Global Relations Philosophy .. "Hooray for everyone who will make money for ME, while I ignore the hell out of everyone else."

    Nothing like brittle isolationism - nothing at all.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin