undies
Member
For those who live in the US PNW, I buy 3-packs of BW400CN at Fred Meyer for $10 all the time. Not sure if every Fred Meyer stocks it, but my local one does.3dfan said:
MartinP
Veteran
So, the reason film is becoming harder to find is that the target market is becoming extinct ? I don't think so.Platinum RF said:
I would really suggest reading some of the manufacturers data-sheets (and the statutory health warnings therein) before coming out with this stuff, and remember that there is no need for direct contact with any of the chemicals involved in the photographic processes.
EDIT: Typos removed, dohhhh.
Last edited:
Andrew Sowerby
Well-known
Film is cheaper than ever, IMHO. I buy packs of Fuji Superia 400 for less than $3 per roll. Kodak 400CN is a bit more, but not too much. I take them to one of the few decent one-hour labs in town and get the film developed, printed and scanned (suitable for up to 5x7) for under $10. The total cost is about $0.36 per picture, printed. No fuss, no muss!
Todd Frederick
Todd Frederick
I haven't read all of the good suggestions above, but I agree that if you go to the drugstores and check their ads you can get both Kodak and Fuji film at great prices. The only big issue is if these stores will continue to sell such film. In my area Walgreens Drugstore is still selling and processing film but the Longs Drugstore chain (in California USA) sells almost no film but still does some processings.
I just ordered a bunch of "Shanghai 120" 100-ISO film from Taiwan for about $2.00 a roll shipped.
I'm quite serious here, and it's based on a recent New York Times article on the future of film that I read. It indicated that in almost all of the 3rd world countries film is readily available and is used by most photographers there since digital has simply not penetrated deeply into those areas.
Film is not going to die soon, but may be more difficult to obtain in developed "Western" countries who have turned to digital. It's an economic issue. If the stores can't sell the film they just won't stock it.
Also, many of these drugstore minilabs are finding that many people are not getting prints made. Either they are just storing them on their camera cards or on their computers. I store all my digital photos on my computer and I have film scanned to a CD at the drugstore lab and transfer them to my hard drive. These mini-labs are really hurting both from the delcline in the use of film and in the decline in the making of prints.
This is all in turmoil right now, and we just need to wait and see what happens.
I would suggest that you look for film available from Asian countries...China, Taiwan, India and such.
I have a contact through eBay to obtain film from Taiwan at great prices.
Check out "film" on eBay. You will find many good sources that are very trustworthy and explore what's available.
Your only other choice is to buy from photo internet stores such as Adorama and B&H and often the cost is more than in local discount stores like Wal*Mart.
If these local stores stop selling consumer film at consumer prices we must then turn to other sources.
I recently tried to find Kodak 400 TCN B/W chromogenic film from the drugstore I had always found it at, and they had no clue what I was talking about!
I just ordered a bunch of "Shanghai 120" 100-ISO film from Taiwan for about $2.00 a roll shipped.
I'm quite serious here, and it's based on a recent New York Times article on the future of film that I read. It indicated that in almost all of the 3rd world countries film is readily available and is used by most photographers there since digital has simply not penetrated deeply into those areas.
Film is not going to die soon, but may be more difficult to obtain in developed "Western" countries who have turned to digital. It's an economic issue. If the stores can't sell the film they just won't stock it.
Also, many of these drugstore minilabs are finding that many people are not getting prints made. Either they are just storing them on their camera cards or on their computers. I store all my digital photos on my computer and I have film scanned to a CD at the drugstore lab and transfer them to my hard drive. These mini-labs are really hurting both from the delcline in the use of film and in the decline in the making of prints.
This is all in turmoil right now, and we just need to wait and see what happens.
I would suggest that you look for film available from Asian countries...China, Taiwan, India and such.
I have a contact through eBay to obtain film from Taiwan at great prices.
Check out "film" on eBay. You will find many good sources that are very trustworthy and explore what's available.
Your only other choice is to buy from photo internet stores such as Adorama and B&H and often the cost is more than in local discount stores like Wal*Mart.
If these local stores stop selling consumer film at consumer prices we must then turn to other sources.
I recently tried to find Kodak 400 TCN B/W chromogenic film from the drugstore I had always found it at, and they had no clue what I was talking about!
Last edited:
Kodak's T400CN was discontinued, a couple years ago anyway as I recall. Might still be some available somewhere, but I haven't seen it for a while. It (and the B&W Portra 400) was replaced by BW400CN, stocked pretty widely, for instance at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/316785-USA/Kodak_1629617_400CN_135_36_400_CN.htmlTodd Frederick said:
We may worry a little about Kodak's continued committment to film manufacture, and hope that Ilford can keep its head above water (and didn't they just reintroduce 200 SFX?), but Fuji seems healthy along with the film market in Japan. Perhaps we needn't worry too much quite yet.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
It is written on the bottle of Agfa Rodinal Special that "in the US and Canada" the developer was found to be slightly carcinogenic. They formulat ein a way that makes clear, that in the US and Canada they are obliged to put this text on the box although there is no clear evidence.
Or maybe only in US and Canada it is causing cancer. Dunno.
Or maybe only in US and Canada it is causing cancer. Dunno.
dmr
Registered Abuser
A few observations on this discussions and a few factoids which seem to be consistently true, at least at this time in history.
1. Film is readily available, all kinds, all price ranges, at least in larger cities here in the States, and by mail/web order from anywhere.
2. Commonly-used film is readily available at very reasonable prices, again, here in the States, with the one caveat that you may have to settle for the opposite color (Yellow or Green) if "your brand" is not stocked by that particular shop.
3. "Real" camera shops seem to refuse to be competitive with film prices! This may be adding to the perception that film prices are high. They are, high that is, when you go to the "real" camera shops, of all places!
As an example, I recently (finally) visited Central Camera in Chicago, and found their film prices to be well on the high side, higher than Rockbrook in Omaha, which is higher than B&H, which is higher than Target' for what is stocked in common.
Even B&H, for a simple product as Fuji Super HQ 200, is higher than local department stores. It's currently $2.50 on their web site, but readily available at Target' for around $8 for 4 rolls, often in "buy 4 get one free" 5-packs.
Of course the absolute highest prices for film seem to be the gift shops in tourist areas.
1. Film is readily available, all kinds, all price ranges, at least in larger cities here in the States, and by mail/web order from anywhere.
2. Commonly-used film is readily available at very reasonable prices, again, here in the States, with the one caveat that you may have to settle for the opposite color (Yellow or Green) if "your brand" is not stocked by that particular shop.
3. "Real" camera shops seem to refuse to be competitive with film prices! This may be adding to the perception that film prices are high. They are, high that is, when you go to the "real" camera shops, of all places!
As an example, I recently (finally) visited Central Camera in Chicago, and found their film prices to be well on the high side, higher than Rockbrook in Omaha, which is higher than B&H, which is higher than Target' for what is stocked in common.
Even B&H, for a simple product as Fuji Super HQ 200, is higher than local department stores. It's currently $2.50 on their web site, but readily available at Target' for around $8 for 4 rolls, often in "buy 4 get one free" 5-packs.
Of course the absolute highest prices for film seem to be the gift shops in tourist areas.
Platinum RF
Well-known
I used to go to a shooting rampage with my Leica and Ilfold, develop film myself the this combination cost not much still affordable even I only get 1% usable image. Now I am no longer mess up with these chemicals. My option is go for C41 color and BW. Now the Fuji’s price has increased, Kodak 400Cn is gone; Ilford is so expensive out of my affordable range for just hobby. Minilab for film processing will gone soon if they can not make profits. I think that's life. Someday all our expensive Leicas will be paper weight or door stopper, unless some one invent affordable digital back ( another twenty years?)
40oz
...
excuse me, but someone shooting a Leica just sounds incredibly silly complaining about the cost of materials, IMHO. That's kind of like buying an expensive sportscar and complaining you are going to have to park it in the garage because premium gas is getting more expensive, or "tires aren't so cheap anymore."
If the price of film is a problem, sell the Leica and buy a cheaper camera and spend the balance on film. If putting the camera on a shelf is an option, taking pictures was never that much of a thing for you, IMHO.
If the price of film is a problem, sell the Leica and buy a cheaper camera and spend the balance on film. If putting the camera on a shelf is an option, taking pictures was never that much of a thing for you, IMHO.
Not everyone who shoots Leica is buying $4000 Noctilux lenses. and such..many buy used bodies and CV lenses, which puts the cost of entry no more than other brands.
Having blown one's budget on the body and lens, one may then struggle to pay for film/processing and/or darkroom gear!
To put it in some proportion, when I was much younger and within my first few years in a technical drawing/drafting job I bought a 9-year-old Leica M body and a new 35 Summicron for about 3 weeks' pay. I had few other obligations at the time but it was a significant expense. I suppose today the costs might still be in the same proportions...
I'm glad I made the purchase, as the camera has justified its expense through fine performance over the years, and its sale value now is still very respectable. Good stuff then is good stuff now.
They say "film is cheap" to prevent over-restraint from losing good photos, which is the whole point of the exercise, but it makes sense to keep costs down through searching out bargain prices and processing one's own etc.
To put it in some proportion, when I was much younger and within my first few years in a technical drawing/drafting job I bought a 9-year-old Leica M body and a new 35 Summicron for about 3 weeks' pay. I had few other obligations at the time but it was a significant expense. I suppose today the costs might still be in the same proportions...
I'm glad I made the purchase, as the camera has justified its expense through fine performance over the years, and its sale value now is still very respectable. Good stuff then is good stuff now.
They say "film is cheap" to prevent over-restraint from losing good photos, which is the whole point of the exercise, but it makes sense to keep costs down through searching out bargain prices and processing one's own etc.
jbf
||||||
Take this into consideration... with a good dedicated 35mm camera body you honestly do not need to update. The resolution and ability you get out of it will remain the same for as long as you keep the camera in good condition.
A digital camera will be obsolete within twelve (sometimes much less) to twenty four months. As soon as a new camera is released, its resolution and image quality is updated (and still not up to par with 35mm in my mind).
So, if your updating, say... a digital SLR ever three or so years... your spending just as much as you would on film+processing (and then some).
A digital camera will be obsolete within twelve (sometimes much less) to twenty four months. As soon as a new camera is released, its resolution and image quality is updated (and still not up to par with 35mm in my mind).
So, if your updating, say... a digital SLR ever three or so years... your spending just as much as you would on film+processing (and then some).
Last edited:
Platinum RF
Well-known
jbf said:
For most people amature like me, a 10M or 16M Digital camera will be usable for many years. The Epson RF digital with its absoleted technology still demanding a lots of money. We need affordable digital RF. Even we use film, the minilab will scan it for you and print out as regular digital picture. If we want to get all of the detail from the film we have to go to optical enlargement, but in the digital era, can we still afford it?
amateriat
We're all light!
The screwy thing about the digital market right now (or maybe it's just me) is that, as the megapixel count goes up (although it appears to be reaching a plateau on the sub-"prosumer" front), the pervasiveness of digital photography is altering the habits and attitudes of the very market it's penetrating: fewer people are bothering to make prints, preferring to e-mail snaps back and forth to friends and family, and prints, when they are made, aren't regarded as highly as before, since, well, if one gets trashed, one can whip out another one (provided one remembers where that file is...wait, wasn't it on the hard disk that flamed out on us in July?). And how about those cute digital picture-frames? Yes, by our standards they look awful, but people are buying them, and it's not too big a stretch to imagine bigger versions adorning walls throughout peoples' homes, like Buffalo Billion's teched-out dream house. In this scenario, even a 5-megapixel camera is approaching overkill. Put that 5mp in a cheap camera phone, and the p/s digicam market starts melting faster than Greenland's ice shelf.Platinum RF said:
Me? I'm going out to buy more film.
- Barrett
BigSteveG
Well-known
One of this site's adevertisers is offering the M8 new for $5,500.00 Can we still afford digital?
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Platinum RF said:
Huh? I use a film scanner (which pays for itself really quickly if you use it regularly) and produces up to 22Mpixel equivalent pictures. My total cost for developing the film is 1.50 USD per roll.
What do you mean by optical enlargement?
Riccis
Well-known
IMHO, film is very affordable...
From the personal point of view, you can either develop at home or develop only and scan (YMMV)... BTW, I just saw Ilford XP2 for $1.99/roll at Unique Photo in NJ (minimum 20 rolls purchase)... You can't beat that price...
From the professional point of view, it is still very affordable. I use Richard Phot Lab in L.A. (http://www.richardphotolab.com/) and they are amazing.
After working with digital for the past few years, I just returned to shooting 100% film for all my wedding work. The reason for this was because I was spending too much time in front of the computer that I can better use for networking with other high end vendors in the industry, marketing or just hanging with my family. My hectic travel schedule also contributed to this decision since sometimes I am out of the office for weeks at a time which translates into delays in post processing since I don't like working from a laptop on the road.
Cheers,
Riccis
From the personal point of view, you can either develop at home or develop only and scan (YMMV)... BTW, I just saw Ilford XP2 for $1.99/roll at Unique Photo in NJ (minimum 20 rolls purchase)... You can't beat that price...
From the professional point of view, it is still very affordable. I use Richard Phot Lab in L.A. (http://www.richardphotolab.com/) and they are amazing.
After working with digital for the past few years, I just returned to shooting 100% film for all my wedding work. The reason for this was because I was spending too much time in front of the computer that I can better use for networking with other high end vendors in the industry, marketing or just hanging with my family. My hectic travel schedule also contributed to this decision since sometimes I am out of the office for weeks at a time which translates into delays in post processing since I don't like working from a laptop on the road.
Cheers,
Riccis
40oz
...
digitalintrigue said:
the point is, cameras are expensive, not the film.
And sorry, but a cheap used Leica M is still at least 14 100' rolls of something like Tri-X. Let's not pretend that $700 is inexpensive and yet $3.50 is somehow beyond our means.
40oz said:
i did a stupid calculation some time ago, and found out that for the cost of processing and scanning (no prints) of 232 films, i could buy a leica m8. not including film price.
that's not a lot of films processed, if you ask me.. can't figure out why i didn't switch already.
R
rich815
Guest
thorirv said:
The M8 results do not look like film's results perhaps?