Ralph's woln't process T64 either

[Angus]

It just seems to make more sense with the days of K40 behind us.

Seems to depend on where you are. As of today Wittner lists prices for 64T including mailers for E6 processing and they are actually less then what I paid for my last carts of K40. If turnaround times and quality are ok. (and I'd bet it's Andec doing the processing) very little changed for customers in Europe with respect to service and handling if they buy their film from them.

Stefan

Ahem.

I cannot go to my local Jessops and buy a cart (or 10) of super 8 film over the counter. Even Luton Camera Repairs has stopped stocking super 8 film!! I used to be able to buy K40 process paid for £12 from them, and both are conveniently located for me.

And then, using regular stamps and a letterbox I could post the film to a London address and just sit & wait for it to be returned.


Now Wittner and other retailers are doing a great job...but super 8 can NEVER be as cheap, convenient or well-suited to us amateurs as it was in the days of K40.

Those days are gone when the last K40 is gone.

[Evan Kubota]

"We'll see what competition'll do to do E6 processing prices."

Probably nothing ;) People were predicting that this would in the end be reasonable, but I've yet to see any E6 processing for S8 cheaper than $9 through Dwayne's. Other labs are more like $12.50.

[audadvnc]

"I mean, are we talking about homeless people trying to shoot film or what?"

So a roll of E64T costs $10 to process. Where I come from a tank of gas costs $35 (of course it's worse in Euroland) and it's gone in a week. Tha's how the cookie crumbles.

Pick your tools and use them appropriately as your projects dictate. If you want to shoot for free, use video. If you need a small, inconspicuous camera, or you like the look, shoot S8. If you got the cash or a paying project, shoot 16/S16/35/HD/IMAX as the circumstances warrant.

Or waste your life on Intenet forums complaining that they don't make VW Beetles, DC-3 airplanes and Kodachrome anymore. Your choice.

[skahde]

24.90 Euros? Oh well...*sighs* Glad I got my Z600 in time.

I knew I would regret to not put a higher bid on it even if I know it is in good hands now. ;)

Kino Technik Rinser offers the same service for 23,50. Ten carts are 22,90 each at Wittner which sounds a bit better. Considering the cost for shipping and my own habbits (fill the fridge once or twice a year) I didn't expect someone would think about buying single carts.

when they'd caught up on that in late 2003, pre-paid K40 was 18 Euros.

There is little point in discussing where the price for K40 would have gone if Kodak hadn't discontinued it. We will never know.

What can be told for sure is that the increase in total cost for 64T is rather small compared to K40 when it was still available off the shell rather than off ebay. Someone was obviously willing to pay the prices asked for the last batches of K40 because stocks are exhausted to the last cart and one could draw the conclusion K40 even in 2003 wasn't priced according to the changed market (left by the homevideo-shooters). Current prices for the stocks available may be less insane than it seems.

I will be the first one to admit, though, that 16mm (and single8 ) became a lot more attractive compared to Super 8 than it has been some time ago. But I don't think there is reason to blame Kodaks decision to discontinue a single product for the increase in price. Super 8 filming is evolving into a niche market after the homevideo-shooters left it.

The demise of K40 is not the cause it's just another symptome for the decline in sales volume of amateur film products which also means increased prices irrespective of what remains in the catalogue.

Stefan

[tlatosmd]

24.90 Euros? Oh well...*sighs* Glad I got my Z600 in time.

I knew I would regret to not put a higher bid on it even if I know it is in good hands now. ;)

Not yet, not yet, still waiting for it in the mail.

when they'd caught up on that in late 2003, pre-paid K40 was 18 Euros.

There is little point in discussing where the price for K40 would have gone if Kodak hadn't discontinued it. We will never know.

K40 wasn't discontinued in or before late 2003.

What can be told for sure is that the increase in total cost for 64T is rather small compared to K40 when it was still available off the shell rather than off ebay.

From all we can tell, it should actually be less for Kodak. Cheaper manufacturing (maybe they're even just slicing and packaging their shelf warming 35mm supplies as they did with Ektachrome VNF 7240), absolutely no processing costs for 64T.

Someone was obviously willing to pay the prices asked for the last batches of K40 because stocks are exhausted to the last cart and one could draw the conclusion K40 even in 2003 wasn't priced according to the changed market (left by the homevideo-shooters).

Both statements exclude each other. That K40 supplies were exhausted didn't affect prices before May 2005. And we're not talking about the price of exhausted thus more valuable K40 after all, but 64T that's currently in production and excellent supply.

Super 8 filming is evolving into a niche market after the homevideo-shooters left it.

That's what happened a quarter of a century ago. This niche has been constantly growing since the late 90s, which would logically facilitate for lower prices. But instead, Kodak just discontinued their best-selling, most-compatible, and well-established S8 stock by far, causing an inevitable shrinking of the market, at least for Kodak. Maybe so for S8 itself. What we can be sure of, however, is it wasn't an economically healthy move for Kodak's S8 department. Whether it's smaller S8 companies, Single8, or neither of them who'll benefit the most from it is a matter upon which only time will tell.

The demise of K40 is not the cause it's just another symptome for the decline in sales volume of amateur film products which also means increased prices irrespective of what remains in the catalogue.

See last statement above.

[skahde]

Ahem.
I cannot go to my local Jessops and buy a cart (or 10) of super 8 film over the counter. [snip] Those days are gone when the last K40 is gone.

Tempi passati. I also can no longer go to the shop next door and buy photographic paper and developer and have to mailorder everything for my darkroom and I'm experiencinging better service and have a bigger range of products available than ever. Only thing you have to ddo is plan aheed a bit which is not a bad thing in film making.

Stefan

[skahde]

when they'd caught up on that in late 2003, pre-paid K40 was 18 Euros.

There is little point in discussing where the price for K40 would have gone if Kodak hadn't discontinued it. We will never know.

K40 wasn't discontinued in or before late 2003.

I know. But aren't you trying to say the rise in price after this point was based on its discontinuance?

From all we can tell, it should actually be less for Kodak. Cheaper manufacturing (maybe they're even just slicing and packaging their shelf warming 35mm supplies as they did with Ektachrome VNF 7240), absolutely no processing costs for 64T.

Unprocessed 64T starts a lot less (14,87 EUR single cart, 12,20 ), hand processing E6 is always about this price, even in 35mm. I'm afraid we won't see it getting much cheaper.

Both statements exclude each other. That K40 supplies were exhausted didn't affect prices before May 2005.

I obviously wasn't clear enough that supplies includes the stock on dealers shelfs, everyhting still available to the customer through the sales channel.

And we're not talking about the price of exhausted thus more valuable K40 after all, but 64T that's currently in production and excellent supply.

Were talking about two low speed tungsten reversals, filling the same niche. If people are willing to pay an increased price for one of them there is little reason they would not pay a comparable price for the other as long as the quality is decent.

Super 8 filming is evolving into a niche market after the homevideo-shooters left it.

That's what happened a quarter of a century ago.

Not entirely. According to Kodaks statement for there reasons to discontinue K40 the DV-era also took its toll and K40 saw a remarkable drop in demand during the last few years.

This niche has been constantly growing since the late 90s, which would logically facilitate for lower prices.

It depends on where you see a bigger potential, in selling increased volume or in increased income from the same or even a smaller volume. If the latter seems preferable you can as well increase prices. The latter may be a smart move if you are sitting on a limited load of K40, 64T or whatever or if you don't expect the market to grow any further or not being influenced much by price of stock. I'm quite sure they know that now 16mm draws the line.

But instead, Kodak just discontinued their best-selling, most-compatible, and well-established S8 stock by far, causing an inevitable shrinking of the market, at least for Kodak.

The best selling S8 means a low volume product and with Kodachrome there is next to no synergism with other products. Kodak sold off all Labs in Europe but kept Lausanne as they had to support Kodachrome at that time which noone else could do. Kodachrome is a dead horse. Sales are shrinking (try to get K64 in Germany it's next to extinct) and Kodak would be more than happy to get their last Lab in Europe off their back.

Stefan

[tlatosmd]

There is little point in discussing where the price for K40 would have gone if Kodak hadn't discontinued it. We will never know.

K40 wasn't discontinued in or before late 2003.

I know. But aren't you trying to say the rise in price after this point was based on its discontinuance?

Exactly. Customers went on a run on last available K40 carts as soon as the news was out, and larger vendors started to buy all remaining supplies to alternatingly sell them in smaller quantities and hold'em back, all that raising prices. We saw the same in the late 90s when soundfilms were discontinued, ask Angus. By acknowledging that, I'm not saying anything about potential price of a definitely non-available product.

Both statements exclude each other. That K40 supplies were exhausted didn't affect prices before May 2005.

I obviously wasn't clear enough that supllies includes the stock on dealers shelfs, everyhting still available to the customer through the sales channel.

That's not how economy works. The prices were raised by increased demand which were driven by panic due to Kodak's announcement of discontinuation. Larger vendors even artificially increased this panic demand by getting hold of all supplies left and partly holding them back.

From all we can tell, it should actually be less for Kodak. Cheaper manufacturing (maybe they're even just slicing and packaging their shelf warming 35mm supplies as they did with Ektachrome VNF 7240), absolutely no processing costs for 64T.

Unprocessed 64T starts a lot less (14,87 EUR single cart, 12,20 ), hand processing E6 is always about this price, even in 35mm. I'm afraid we won't see it getting much cheaper.

What happened to the price of K40 after May 2005 was exclusively driven by Kodak's announcement, also customer and vendor reaction to that, as described above. So again, why is pre-paid 64T 7 Euros more than K40 when its price had been updated to market situation up to late 2003 from which on it remained stable at least until May 2005, for at least one and a half years, when all of a sudden, prices climbed higher and higher? On top of that there's still the issue of cheaper manufacturing and processing costs.

Super 8 filming is evolving into a niche market after the homevideo-shooters left it.

That's what happened a quarter of a century ago.

Not exactly, according to Kodaks statements for there reasons to discontinue K40. The DV-era also took its toll tand this was it for K40.

We know that press announcement. I don't know anyone who believed in that part of it before you. There were people who'd said that video had killed S8 in the 80s and that it was Kodak's fault not to realize it but I disagree with that. Those resistant to Video8 when people didn't know it holds up far worse than film over time also don't care that much more about DV. Those that resisted didn't trade remaining superiority of image quality for convenience, which is still the same issue with DV.

This niche has been constantly growing since the late 90s, which would logically facilitate for lower prices.

It depends on where you see a bigger potential, in selling increased volume or in increased income from the same or even a smaller volume.

I'd potentially agree with your reasoning there if we wouldn't be talking about 64T as replacement for K40:

And we're not talking about the price of exhausted thus more valuable K40 after all, but 64T that's currently in production and excellent supply.

Were talking about two low speed tungsten reversals, filling the same niche. If people are willing to pay an increased price for one of them there is little reason they would not pay a comparable price for the other as long as the qualityt is decent.

We're talking about a replacement more expensive, far rarer to find in stores if at all as K40 was, far less compatible, and even after exposing far more inconvenient to have processed, for which you even have to pay extra.

But instead, Kodak just discontinued their best-selling, most-compatible, and well-established S8 stock by far, causing an inevitable shrinking of the market, at least for Kodak.

Kodachrome is a dead horse. Sales are shrinking

That's not the information we have been exchanging on this forum for months. There has been a constant influx to S8 of music video and commercial spot directors since about 1997, and K40 has been the most convenient film to use, especially for the 'home-movie look' they often-times aspire.

[marc]

"
Or waste your life on Intenet forums complaining that they don't make VW Beetles, DC-3 airplanes and Kodachrome anymore. Your choice.

The other two I can live without, but those DC-3's will be sorely missed! :lol:

[marc]

Super 8 filming is evolving into a niche market after the homevideo-shooters left it.

That's what happened a quarter of a century ago. This niche has been constantly growing since the late 90s, which would logically facilitate for lower prices. But instead, Kodak just discontinued their best-selling, most-compatible, and well-established S8 stock by far, causing an inevitable shrinking of the market, at least for Kodak. Maybe so for S8 itself. What we can be sure of, however, is it wasn't an economically healthy move for Kodak's S8 department. Whether it's smaller S8 companies, Single8, or neither of them who'll benefit the most from it is a matter upon which only time will tell.

What is really funny is what Lenny Lipton says in his book on Super 8 filmmaking. He points out that sometime in the 70's the price of the stock was raised becasue the price of sliver had gone up. He found it interesting that the price of stock was not lowered again when the price of silver fell back down. I guess the same goes for E 64T. Obviously the actual cost of processing is cheaper than the K14 process. But labs are not going to reflect that in the service price. They must be making a killing.

[skahde]

That's what happened a quarter of a century ago.

Not exactly, according to Kodaks statements for there reasons to discontinue K40. The DV-era also took its toll tand this was it for K40.

We know that press announcement. I don't know anyone who believed in that part of it before you.

If there are any reliable figures rather than guesswork which I didn't know about and proof Kodaks publications wrong I'd like to see them.

Kodachrome is a dead horse. Sales are shrinking

That's not the information we have been exchanging on this forum for months. There has been a constant influx to S8 of music video and commercial spot directors since about 1997, and K40 has been the most convenient film to use, especially for the 'home-movie look' they often-times aspire.

I also deeply wish the S8 market had such an influence on marketing decisions but unfortunately S8 is not the center of the world. It's a small obscure niche market with little if any influence on the future of a whole line of product as big as Kodachrome. Kodachrome was *the* technology in colour reversal 20+ years ago but try to find any important publication after about 1990 shot on Kodachrome. S8 must have been the only format where Kodak saw any increase in demand after this point in time if the above projects made up for as much demand at all.

Stefan

[tlatosmd]

Angus, didn't you say that Kodachrome still photography is still extensively used by professional photographers, such as those working for National Geographic?

[skahde]

Angus, didn't you say that Kodachrome still photography is still extensively used by professional photographers, such as those working for National Geographic?

If this was the case they must be about the last nature photographers using it. You will even have hard time to find anyone making a living on nature photography and still using non-digital equipment.

Just walk into the next bookstore and take the latest issue of "Naturfoto" which lists the equipment used with every printed picture. A friend gave me about twenty some time ago from about 1998 untill about 2003. I remember one picture which was shot on Kodachrome 200, about 70-80% where shot on Fuji, the rest Kodak E6.

Stefan