digital Detox

[Leon C]

In practice, I rarely think about what a roll of film costs .. I only think about it when I'm buying film. 😉

The price of film is what it is, doesn't bother me personally as it's just the cost of my hobby, like any other, of course I want to pay as little as possible but I just pay what I need to and get on with it.

I know there's lots of online commentators saying how film is expensive, dev etc....But I don't think it is considering the state of play.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I'm a pretty low volume shooter. The price of film bothers me a bit every time I have to order some (the price is always higher than the last time I ordered), but then I think about all the money I'm saving by not buying a new digital camera every few years, and I stop worrying.

[Not that there's anything wrong with buying a new (or new-to-you) digital camera every few years if that's what you like.]

 

[bulevardi]

The price of film is what it is, doesn't bother me personally as it's just the cost of my hobby, like any other, of course I want to pay as little as possible but I just pay what I need to and get on with it.

I know there's lots of online commentators saying how film is expensive, dev etc....But I don't think it is considering the state of play.

Hmm, I can say it's not bothering me because now I can pay it...
But in times I wasn't earning that much, I couldn't afford the prices of today and so I wouldn't be doing this hobby...

23 years ago I paid € 3 for a roll that is now € 15 - for the same genre of roll... I still know the rates as I worked in a photo shop for a while back then.
The price is now 5 times higher.

There are lots of comparisons to make with products and services increasing in price over time.
But imagine you once paid € 2 for a coffee or a beer in a bar, and now they charge you € 10 for the same consumption.
This luckily didn't increase with 5 times over 23 years... My salary didn't increasy with 5 times neither.

 

[DownUnder]

The price of film is what it is, doesn't bother me personally as it's just the cost of my hobby, like any other, of course I want to pay as little as possible but I just pay what I need to and get on with it.

I know there's lots of online commentators saying how film is expensive, dev etc....But I don't think it is considering the state of play.

The obvious conclusion we can common-sensically draw here is, you don't buy much film.

And what on earth is "the state of play"?

 

[OmegaB600]

The obvious conclusion we can common-sensically draw here is, you don't buy much film.

And what on earth is "the state of play"?

i believe something called inflation.. or how much the chemicals and film products have changed.

MOST of the big surge in chemicals last few years has been small minded governments banning certain chemicals. Its why a certain japanese film company stopped making specific color films a few years ago.. they couldnt legally use the chemical ingredients in certain countries and making a new version was to expensive, so would have running two seperate film coating lines to have two seperate versions..

Its like in covid times.. Rodinal was hard to get because the key chemicals went up in price and went down in supply.. the suppliers were charging more and shipping more to the pharma market and getting good record profits.

 

[Godfrey]

People who have grown up in their photographic pursuit with digital capture might not realize that in Ye Olde Days, when film was all there was, film and processing were always the expensive part of shooting a lot and trying to learn the art. When I was in my teens and early twenties, the cost of film and chemistry was probably 90% of my weekly discretionary money; I didn't do a lot of other things for lack of money, because to me putting that money into film and processing was what I really enjoyed.

When I reflect on the last 25 years of equipment that I've bought, used, and sold, I realize that in all objective rationality, I could have stopped with the 2003 Olympus E-1 that I acquired in about 2006. Yeah, it's low on pixel resolution and it ain't very fast to write files to the storage card, but it has stunning lenses and make amazing photographs nonetheless. My current equipment is technically better in all respects, but it would not have been difficult to just stay with that ... and I still have it, and still use it (occasionally now).

G

Olympus E-1 + 11-22/2.8-3.5
ISO 100 @ f/5.6 @ 1/80 second @ 22mm​

 

[38Deardorff]

Very nice image Godfrey.... I don't have a digital axe to grind (since i'm writing this on a computer), but seeing this is the Rangefinder Forum
but I do shake my head when the discussion comes around to "but film is so expensive"...... when a Leica M8 was $5800 ($9200 in today's dollars) and an M11 today is $10k. You hit the nail on the head with your comment about the Olympus. Buy something....use it long term.

 

[Coldkennels]

MOST of the big surge in chemicals last few years has been small minded governments banning certain chemicals.

Considering some of those bans are due to things being carcinogenic, pollutants, or heavily toxic... I wouldn't call this "small minded" at all.

I'd rather not shoot certain film stocks and know my little artistic pursuit wasn't actively giving someone cancer, personally.

 

[Leon C]

The obvious conclusion we can common-sensically draw here is, you don't buy much film.

And what on earth is "the state of play"?

Think you need to reassess your conclusions as you know nothing about me and if I have to explain the current Photographic market and industry then....

 

[boojum]

It is partially inflation. But if the percentage gap between costs and wages remains the same it is irrelevant. As the gap widens and disposable income shrinks then the pinch is felt. Additionally film has become expensive as it seems more a luxury item than what we stuffed in cameras for vacation and family pics. Digital has a lot of benefits. I am less generous with my working film camera. OTOH, how much does a latte cost?

So I think part of the problem with film costs is that it has become relatively more expensive and that with digital, after an SD card is bought, the cost is nil. So there is always the comparison, conscious or otherwise.

 

[38Deardorff]

It is partially inflation. But if the percentage gap between costs and wages remains the same it is irrelevant. As the gap widens and disposable income shrinks then the pinch is felt. Additionally film has become expensive as it seems more a luxury item than what we stuffed in cameras for vacation and family pics. Digital has a lot of benefits. I am less generous with my working film camera. OTOH, how much does a latte cost?

So I think part of the problem with film costs is that it has become relatively more expensive and that with digital, after an SD card is bought, the cost is nil. So there is always the comparison, conscious or otherwise.

B, to continue the comparison part.... Back-in-the-day, a family might have one BW TV, a telephone on the wall and a family camera. Today everyone in the family has a $1k iphone, and a laptop or ipad. Digital is the present, but surrounded by the plethora of digital devices in the world pointing fingers at the cost of film is a red herring.
I don't think it can be reduced to once an SD card is bought.....
If you honestly think that's true, why are you taking a Domke loaded to the gills on your upcoming journey?
Once a roll of film is bought, i can still use my 60yr old (Leica, Nikon, Rollei)....& make prints with my '70s Durst 138 or Beseler.
It's a real question & i'm not just trolling.

 

[boojum]

B, to continue the comparison part.... Back-in-the-day, a family might have one BW TV, a telephone on the wall and a family camera. Today everyone in the family has a $1k iphone, and a laptop or ipad. Digital is the present, but surrounded by the plethora of digital devices in the world pointing fingers at the cost of film is a red herring.
I don't think it can be reduced to once an SD card is bought.....
If you honestly think that's true, why are you taking a Domke loaded to the gills on your upcoming journey?
Once a roll of film is bought, i can still use my 60yr old (Leica, Nikon, Rollei)....& make prints with my '70s Durst 138 or Beseler.
It's a real question & i'm not just trolling.

I understand what you say completely. I was way down deep in the comparison, at the simplest level: analog plus film vs digital + SD. Each medium has a lot of ancillary stuff to go along with it. But for me I print very little. I develop no film. No darkroom goodies: paper, chemicals, enlarger, print dryers and so on. If I like it I send it electronically and get it printed. So I am separated from the expense, and fun, of analog.

As for the gear I will be packing, it would be worse with analog. Medium format plus 35mm, lenses, filters and film, lots and lots of film and the hassle of getting the film through airports unspoiled. Additionally I can immediately store images on a carried small (4TB) USB HD and upload to Flickr. And shoot color. Now all that stuff I can store and save may be crap, true. I accept that. But for ease of use, security and practicality I think digital is ahead.

If I were analog I would have a few analog cameras no doubt.

I know those in the analog camp have arguments to support their side of shooting. But remember I started shooting 35mm in '54 and bought bulk Plus-X and Tri-X, shot tons of it and developed every image that came out of that Voigtländer Vito II. And there were lots. Plus I shot Kodachrome. So I know the analog side well and have paid my dues there. For me, and I can only speak for myself here, the analog payback is not worth the effort. I am 85 so I have to spend my time wisely. That darkroom time could be better spent with black cigars, strong drink and loose women! ;o)

 

[Godfrey]

I thought the name of this thread was "digital Detox" not "how to stress out over the cost of film" ...
But then again, "digital Detox" is very nearly just as absurd to discuss on an internet forum as stressing out over the cost of film. 😉

Personally, I couldn't care less what film costs. Or what my digital cameras cost me. If I didn't have the money, I wouldn't buy 'em. As to "digital Detox" ... well, if I'm stressed out over my electronic/digital equipment, I get out of my chair and go for a nice walk. I don't need anything digital ()or analog for that matter) to do that.

G

 

[OmegaB600]

Considering some of those bans are due to things being carcinogenic, pollutants, or heavily toxic... I wouldn't call this "small minded" at all.

I'd rather not shoot certain film stocks and know my little artistic pursuit wasn't actively giving someone cancer, personally.

the sugar industry and high fructose corn syrup industry psonsored a reasearch lab to investigate the only real artificial sweetener on the market.. i cant remember the name of the artifical sweetener, but it was a good one.

The research lab tests concluded taht the lab mice did indeed get cancer after being being fed the artifical sweetener. It was not until AFTER that chemical was banned, that the research lab admitted they were feeding the mice 2-3000 times their body weight every day..

for a human of normal 160 pound weight,, they would have to eat maybe 1,000 pounds a day every day for a year before they MIGHT start being at risk of cancer.


But the current crapload of artifical sweeteners, are proven to increase risk of stroke, heart attack, xlyitol, by about 50%. But no one will do anything about it.

 

[bulevardi]

But the current crapload of artifical sweeteners, are proven to increase risk of stroke, heart attack, xlyitol, by about 50%.
But no one will do anything about it.

No one from the industry, obviously not.

But the customer can, they have all the power to not buy the crap.
At home, we try to eat as natural as possible.
Most stuff you find in supermarkets are industrialized things that look like food, but contain lots of stuff that aren't natural.
The only think you're certain about is fruit and vegetables. (apart from the fact that they have been treated with pesticides)

As a consumer, you are still free to buy or eat whatever you want.
No one forces you to eat crap. No one forces you to smoke or drink... Remember you always have a choice.
You don't fill a petrol car with diesel either. You know it's not good for the car. Same goes for your body if you want to keep it healthy.

So imagine all consumers would choose to live differently, the industry will have to follow. We'd force thém to change.
Alas, if you've seen the movie 'idiocracy', we know it will never happen in this society. ... because there's too much humans in our society.

 

[DownUnder]

the internet photography forums have always told me that a roll of 120 film is roughly DOUBLE the surface area of as tandard roll of 36 exposure 35mm film.

thus a 5 pack of 120 kodak gold at 42.95 is equal to 10 individual rolls of kodak gold selling for 8.49... much cheaper technically. thus the 3 pack at 24.99 is pricey as can be..

Maths, algebra, physics et al, never having been my strong point, I'm still trying to figure this one out.

But as the owner-user of four Rollei TLRs and two 1950s German 6x6 folders, I think I like it...

 

[bulevardi]

🙂 double the surface area... and remember, it has a front AND a back surface ! 😉

 

[boojum]

the sugar industry and high fructose corn syrup industry psonsored a reasearch lab to investigate the only real artificial sweetener on the market.. i cant remember the name of the artifical sweetener, but it was a good one.

The research lab tests concluded taht the lab mice did indeed get cancer after being being fed the artifical sweetener. It was not until AFTER that chemical was banned, that the research lab admitted they were feeding the mice 2-3000 times their body weight every day..

for a human of normal 160 pound weight,, they would have to eat maybe 1,000 pounds a day every day for a year before they MIGHT start being at risk of cancer.


But the current crapload of artifical sweeteners, are proven to increase risk of stroke, heart attack, xlyitol, by about 50%. But no one will do anything about it.

That is a highly unlike;y amount of sweetener or anything to be consumed on a daily basis or even once. I would sure like to see those studies. ;o)

 

[raydm6]

I once heard a nutritionist say this of food:

“If sugar is in the first five list of ingredients, then it’s a dessert”.

It is amazing how sugar is in just about everything.

 

[boojum]

I once heard a nutritionist say this of food:

“If sugar is in the first five list of ingredients, then it’s a dessert”.

It is amazing how sugar is in just about everything.

Sugar is like a lot of things. How much must be considered. It is an old trick to cook vegetables with a little sugar to lift the flavor a bit. I like my first coffee of the day light and sweet. All of us take sugar in some form. When it pushes good food off the menu it is a problem. Until then it is just another flavoring.

I like to start my day with coffee light and sweet. And to be in Viet Name without that great Cafe Sua Da, never. It is just good strong coffee laced with sweetened condensed milk. Hoo boy! It is great. And just another example of the amazing inventiveness of Vietnamese kitchens. Then there is their spin on liver pate, and a nice white sausage, and then, . . . Those guys can cook.