Do you expect film prices to ever go down?

[Rob-F]

I'd like to think film prices would go down. It's a nice idea. But I see no basis for it in reality.

 

[JeffS7444]

Film was always kind of expensive, but in the old days we could save some money by buying 35mm film in bulk, loading it into reusable cassettes and developing at home. Figure that a 100' spool of film equals about 18 36-exposure rolls of film. While that same approach didn't work for 120 film, we had (and still do) have the option of modest savings by opting for 5-roll Pro Packs.

 

[CMur12]

I'm amazed and grateful that good color slide film is still being made, though more choices would be nice.

Nostalgia:
Oh for the days (1972 - 1973) when I could get a roll of 20-exp Agfachrome CT-18 (50 ASA), with processing mailer included, for $2.98 (USD)! (This film required Agfa's own proprietary development.) This film was grainier than its Kodak competitors, but I really liked the look it imparted to images.

- Murray

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Film was always kind of expensive, but in the old days we could save some money by buying 35mm film in bulk, loading it into reusable cassettes and developing at home. Figure that a 100' spool of film equals about 18 36-exposure rolls of film.

The motto of one of the film reloaders was “A Penny a Frame”. Which was true at the time.
Adjusted for inflation.......well, it’s not that. But still doable if you enjoy it and want it bad enough.
Way cheaper than golf.

And, no, it’s not going to go down.

 

[Pentode]

...but in the old days we could save some money by buying 35mm film in bulk, loading it into reusable cassettes and developing at home.

And we still have those options. The savings aren't quite as substantial as they were, but there are still savings to be had by bulk loading and developing at home. I just loaded up another 50 cassettes last week.

 

[Gregm61]

Really good, professional film processing and printing was never inexpensive. Cheap labs were everywhere. How good most were was often a crapshoot.

Trying to find good printing has been replaced for many by trying to find the optimal negative scanning option. When I do shoot film, last thing I'm interested in doing is my own scanning, or processing for that matter. I've found a lab I like but it requires mailing the film and waiting 7-10 days for them to upload scans to dng for me to download and make my own adjustment in Adobe Camera raw. The negatives get mailed back a few days later.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

........<snip> When I do shoot film, last thing I'm interested in doing is my own scanning, or processing for that matter. <snip>.....

I get it, completely, but both those things, processing and scanning are places where one can exercise significant creative control over the final result. "What the lab gives you" if you give that up, is but a small sample of what's possible.

But, yeah, it's work.

 

[markjwyatt]

How much more expensive is film now compared to in its heyday?



I was still a child in the 2000s, so I have no idea.

It is actually cheaper today in real (analog) money as I showed here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2935741&postcount=38


In 1957, a roll of 135-36 Tri-X was around $1.15. Money at that time came in 90% silver. Today, 90% silver coin is around $13.20/$1-face, so the TriX actually cost 1.15*13.20 = $15.18.

Try gasoline. Gas was around 25 cents in 1964 (probably the same in 1957).
0.25*$13.20 = $3.30 / gallon equivalent.

In "real" money (still valid today based on gasoline at least), film was MUCH more expensive in the 50s and 60s than today.

 

[dourbalistar]

The motto of one of the film reloaders was “A Penny a Frame”. Which was true at the time.
Adjusted for inflation.......well, it’s not that. But still doable if you enjoy it and want it bad enough.
Way cheaper than golf.

And, no, it’s not going to go down.

It is actually cheaper today in real (analog) money as I showed here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2935741&postcount=38

In 1957, a roll of 135-36 Tri-X was around $1.15. Money at that time came in 90% silver. Today, 90% silver coin is around $13.20/$1-face, so the TriX actually cost 1.15*13.20 = $15.18.

Try gasoline. Gas was around 25 cents in 1964 (probably the same in 1957).
0.25*$13.20 = $3.30 / gallon equivalent.

In "real" money (still valid today based on gasoline at least), film was MUCH more expensive in the 50s and 60s than today.

I bulk load almost all my film these days, and I have one of those "Penny-a-Frame" bulk loaders. I can get about 18 rolls of 36-exposures from a bulk roll. Using Ilford HP5+ as an example:

$79.95 (not including tax from B&H) / 18 rolls / 36 exposures = $0.12 per frame.

If it was truly penny a frame back then, the price as gone up 12x, which is not too far out of line from Mark's calculation.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

It is actually cheaper today in real (analog) money as I showed here:

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2935741&postcount=38


In 1957, a roll of 135-36 Tri-X was around $1.15. Money at that time came in 90% silver. Today, 90% silver coin is around $13.20/$1-face, so the TriX actually cost 1.15*13.20 = $15.18.

Try gasoline. Gas was around 25 cents in 1964 (probably the same in 1957).
0.25*$13.20 = $3.30 / gallon equivalent.

In "real" money (still valid today based on gasoline at least), film was MUCH more expensive in the 50s and 60s than today.

I’m not arguing with you, but I am not following the reasoning here either. Any of the U.S. inflation calculators online which just apply the actual amount of measured inflation to the case at hand, say that the Tri-x would be $10.15 in today’s dollars, not $15.18, and gas would be $2.10 a gallon, not $3.30.
I’m not seeing the validity of tying it to silver prices, or gold or soybean prices for that matter, none of which are really tied to the actual across the board inflation rates, which are known values.

Anyway, either way, film isn’t, in broad terms, any more expensive today than it was back then. I bought it back then, and it never seemed cheap. We’re lucky it’s still here.

 

[markjwyatt]

I’m not arguing with you, but I am not following the reasoning here either. Any of the U.S. inflation calculators online which just apply the actual amount of measured inflation to the case at hand, say that the Tri-x would be $10.15 in today’s dollars, not $15.18, and gas would be $2.10 a gallon, not $3.30.
I’m not seeing the validity of tying it to silver prices, or gold or soybean prices for that matter, none of which are really tied to the actual across the board inflation rates, which are known values.

Anyway, either way, film isn’t, in broad terms, any more expensive today than it was back then. I bought it back then, and it never seemed cheap. We’re lucky it’s still here.

Silver can be somewhat volatile. Recently silver prices are up because of a lot of issues (Covid-19, political strife, etc.), so what I presented may be may be a little inflated. Tri-X, 36 exposures is $6.49 at B&H right now, so your observation fits mine- film is cheaper now then it used to be ($6 vs. $10-$15). Silver prices (smoothed over time) and inflation calculators tend to be pretty consistent. US dollars (until recently where we have seen some deflation) are always losing value. Silver (and gold) tends to maintain its value over time, so to me is a good comparison. I use silver because it is so easy to point out that a silver quarter used to circulate, and is now worth $3-$4. I would also question what "actual" inflation is. I know we have a CPI index, but not sure it truly represents inflation. I agree you could also argue about silver/gold representing value, but when silver/gold were money, other than transient periods, the price of "stuff' was much more stable over time (and transient events, e.g., 2008, happen under fiat money regimes also).

 

[CMur12]

I think color film became more inexpensive in the 1970s and thereafter. (Possibly as early as the mid-to-late 1960s.)

I remember in the 1950s and early 1960s, B&W film (usually Verichrome Pan) was more commonly used for snapshots because color print film was still considered expensive. I think slides were more common at this time for color, too, as was the practice of projecting them.

- Murray

 

[xayraa33]

I think color film became more inexpensive in the 1970s and thereafter. (Possibly as early as the mid-to-late 1960s.)

I remember in the 1950s and early 1960s, B&W film (usually Verichrome Pan) was more commonly used for snapshots because color print film was still considered expensive. I think slides were more common at this time for color, too, as was the practice of projecting them.

- Murray

It seems the big change from B&W to colour prints happened in around the 1966 to the 1967 timeline, at least in the USA and Canada....around that groovy doovy flower power era, same for many TV set owners too.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

How much more expensive is film now compared to in its heyday?



I was still a child in the 2000s, so I have no idea.

When I was in art school in the late 1990s, 36 exposure rolls of Tri-X and Tmax 400 were $3.50 at the local camera store. The store went out of business a few years ago when the owner retired, so I buy my film from B&H now. Tmax 400 is $7.99 a roll now.

 

[raydm6]

I predict we will not see $.99 film anytime soon.

 

[Peter Jennings]

Maybe it's that incomes haven't kept pace with the rise in prices - relative to inflation - that gives the perception that film is much more expensive now. However, I'm just speculating. I haven't crunched the numbers on this.

 

[Horatio]

I wish I could remember what I paid for Tri-X in high school, 45 years ago! I don't recall thinking it was cheap at the time.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I don't understand this preoccupation with 'the cost of film' when the infrastructure surrounding film has collapsed in most, if not all countries.

 

[Horatio]

I don't understand this preoccupation with 'the cost of film' when the infrastructure surrounding film has collapsed in most, if not all countries.

Frankly, having been away from film photography for nearly 20 years, I'm surprised any film is still available. It is definitely a niche market.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Silver can be somewhat volatile. Recently silver prices are up because of a lot of issues (Covid-19, political strife, etc.), so what I presented may be may be a little inflated. Tri-X, 36 exposures is $6.49 at B&H right now, so your observation fits mine- film is cheaper now then it used to be ($6 vs. $10-$15). Silver prices (smoothed over time) and inflation calculators tend to be pretty consistent. US dollars (until recently where we have seen some deflation) are always losing value. Silver (and gold) tends to maintain its value over time, so to me is a good comparison. I use silver because it is so easy to point out that a silver quarter used to circulate, and is now worth $3-$4. I would also question what "actual" inflation is. I know we have a CPI index, but not sure it truly represents inflation. I agree you could also argue about silver/gold representing value, but when silver/gold were money, other than transient periods, the price of "stuff' was much more stable over time (and transient events, e.g., 2008, happen under fiat money regimes also).

Thanks for the explanation. You are right about the possible imperfection of the CPI representing “actual” inflation, it was a quick and dirty explanation on my part, and now I see where you are coming from, even if I am still not sure $15 is exact either.
It’s nice to find someone with a grasp of monetary theory. Nice and rare. The recent and sudden rise of the unfortunate, historically blinkered, irrational and emotion based acceptance of the magic beans school of thought known as Modern Monetary Theory won’t end well.
In the meantime, keep taking photos. As far as the impact of film costs on our lives goes, it is, quoth the Talking Heads, “Same as it ever was.”