How much did you pay for film - Then vs Now?

P

paradoxbox

Well-known
Local time
12:33 AM
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
424
When I got into photography digital was already here and film was already gone for most people.

But I'm interested in knowing how much it used to be.

Nowadays for a roll of Tri-X 400 36 frames I pay around $3.80

For a roll of Velvia or Provia slide film is around $7 or $8

For medium format Tri-X I pay around $3.20 a roll.

How does that compare to prices back in the 90's or 70's?
 
I believe I have read that similar film, eg Tri-X or other pan films were the same price as today, and therefore, when adjusted for inflation, the price of film, apples to apples types, is better today.
 
I was in primary school back in the '90s, but the funny thing is that I'm seeing a 28% increase for the price of Fuji Superia 200, in a year. Either film is gaining popularity so they can sell for a higher price, or they are getting harder to come by.
Judging from their prices now, I can't imagine it being lower two decades ago. Although the variety and availability is definitely lower.
 
It's hard to get exact numbers, but the cheapest colour film in First Call (a UK dealer) is £1.69 for a 36 exposure roll. According to an inflation calculator, in 1990, that would have been 86p. My hazy memory says it would be unlikely you'd be able to get get colour film that cheap then, but I could be wrong.

I remember my brother getting prepaid slide film in around 1995, I think that was about £12.99, which would be about £20. You'd have to go to a pricey shop and developer to pay that. In fact, I could easily do it for half that.

In the past couple of years, film prices have gone up, I've noticed that even in my relatively short time in photography. Compared to the nineties though, film appears to be a lot cheaper. But that can be said for just about everything.
 
I owned a Lab and Photoshop in the 1980's.
We Charged £2.99 for a Fuji HR200-24 and £3.49 for 36 exposure film that was in 1989.
In the same time we charged £1.99 for a FP4 20 exposure and £2.99 for a 36exp.

Processing costs were £2 for process only and 13p per print for 2 hour service so £5.12

Film is cheaper now if you think of the basket of goods argument, in 1989 I bought a Golf GTI for under £10k and milk was 28p a pint, petrol for that Golf was about 35p per litre (now £1.39)
 
That, and income is so much higher now than back then. Me and most of those who I still know from school now earn twice as much as around the year 2000.
 
I think film is cheaper now than it was when I was in college in the late 1990s. I remember paying $11 a roll for Kodak's professional slide films and $5 a roll for 36 exp. Tri-X back then. Slide film is actually a bit cheaper now, and Tri-X a little higher priced now...but factoring in inflation, Tri-X is cheaper now, and slide film a lot cheaper.
 
My dad got me my first 35mm SLR in 1975.

I walked over to Rite Aid that was near my house to buy a roll a film. I couldn't decide which roll of film to buy, so I went with the cheapest roll of black and white they had.

I bought a roll of 20 exposure Ilford FP 4 for 66 cents. Kodak film was priced much higher. A roll of 20 exposure Plus-x was priced at 88 cents, which on my allowance, was too rich for my blood.

I was 14 when I bought that first roll, and it's something I will never forget.
 
Interesting Oilman! So I just went to a inflation calculator website (westegg.com) and typed in $0.75 and the year 1975 and adjusted for inflation based on a 2011 dollar, that is $3.09. B&H has a roll of 24 of Tri-x for $3.95. Although that is a roll of 24, presuming Kodak sold 20 frame rolls, I would guess it would cost $3.29 (I divided $3.95 by 24 and then multiplied by 20 and got $3.29). So film, in theory is a little more expensive? But that is name brand film. One could go to Freestyle and get a roll of Arista Premium 400 (aka Tri-x) and it costs $2.24 for a "roll of 20" if they carried 20's (I divided $2.69 by 24 and then multiplied by 20 and got $2.24), and therefore film is cheaper today, in fact I would say 27% cheaper!
 
One simple way to make a subjective now and then comparison is to calculate how long you had to work to earn a roll of film back then versus how long now.

I remember in the 1950s my father had to work many weeks to pay for our new TV nowadays you only have to work hours for a better TV.
 
paradoxbox said:
When I got into photography digital was already here and film was already gone for most people.

But I'm interested in knowing how much it used to be.

Nowadays for a roll of Tri-X 400 36 frames I pay around $3.80...
Click to expand...
Could you share the name of the dealer who sells Tri-x for $3.80?
 
I started shooting with 127 film in the late 70's, and moved to 35mm in the 80's. At those times every shot was precious, every shot was *EXPENSIVE* for the simple fact I had hardly any money. So to me, film is now cheap. OTOH, developing colour film isn't. I have 4 rolls of 120 to drop at the lab, so I'm looking at a nice bill.

Oh, and there is no cheap way to shoot 8x10 or larger. Though 4x5 isn't too bad (not sure about 5x7). With 8x10, even developing your own B&W adds up fast.
 
Can't say if film is cheaper today vs back then but do know the whole process is a lot cheaper today.
Processing and getting enlargements from C41 and E-6 films today vs the 70s and 80s.

Today: Send your film out for development only or development + scanning. Get them back edit and crop crop then upload or take CD/memory stick to Lab. Who will then make a machine print on Kodak Supra Endura or Fuji Paper depending on where you have them done. price about $3.99 per 11x14 print.

C41 back them, Send film out for development plus small prints or contact sheet. Once you get them back take a template with the desired print ratio, say 11x14, then place that over the 4x6 print or contact sheet and draw the desired crop. Next take or mail the negative(s) and prints/contact to the photo lab where someone would make a custom enlargement for you.
*Custom because someone had to prepare, dust off, the negative then physically set the enlarger to the correct position to get the desired crop. Followed by running the exposed paper through the machine for processing or hand processing it depending on the size of the print.
* This was not cheap at around $10+ for an 8x10 and $20 for a 11x14.
The process for getting print from slides was similar but required the extra time/cost of getting an internagative made of your slide (4x5 negative) which was then used for making the actual enlargement or the prints were made using a process called Cibachrome which again wasn't what you'd call inexpensive.

* Been a few year so hope I haven't left anything out.
 
In Japan most major retailers sell boxes of 3 rolls of tri-x for around 1100-1300yen each, depending on the exchange rate that works out to around $3.80 a roll (Fluctuates but I don't live in the US, I just put USD because not many here use yen)

neopan is sold even cheaper
 
Vics said:
Surely in 1959 those were 20 exposure rolls.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Yes, you're right and I got 21 slides from it; just looked a second ago.

Just did the sums and - using average earnings - that's the equivalent of about 71 pounds and using prices about 29 pounds

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom