Break down: Why film costs what it does

[heterolysis]

I can buy and shoot a half dozen rolls of film and print 8x10's of ALL of it (which I wouldn't) for less than it costs to re-ink the the inkjet printer and buy one box of a decent quality photo paper to print upon

This is great... and very true.

$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.

[lxdude]

Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

I don't gopher it either...

[John Shriver]

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.

[Photo Engineer]

Sooooo right John.

And Silver Nitrate will keep. Not so for some of those dyes!

PE

[silvergrahm]

Exactly most people do not know what mole means. This effectively isolates them from the discussion. Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

Which argument? The one about film prices or the one about scientists.

[BrianShaw]

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.

Exactly most people do not know what mole means. This effectively isolates them from the discussion. Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

[lxdude]

(I once knew what a mole was but forgot most of the high school chem I ever knew.)

How about some SoCal home kitchen chemistry? I love mole. Especially guacamole.

[Photo Engineer]

Which argument? The one about film prices or the one about scientists.

Well, as a scientist, and in an effort to be clearer............

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?

PE

[mts]

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.

[StoneNYC]

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.

what demand, and where? last I checked there was a surplus of film and not enough buyers haha, still, some film prices remain higher, like Kodak, who's LF sheets are so ridiculously high compared to it's competitors I can't see anyone buying them, really it's just stupid to sell a film of equal quality at twice the price of your competitor and think many will buy it out of "loyalty" well that only goes so far...