Film Photography - The Real Cost?

My wife see the cost on bank statements and she pissed off.
This is the real cost of film photography in my situation.
And here is no average cost of film in real world.
So, I'll give you some real scenarios and numbers I have done and paid for:

Any working camera for free or next to nothing cost. I have SLRs as gifts, I gave some of them back as gifts or sold for very low price.

Buying and using prestige Leica M and lenses will bring your hardware cost to the level of regular digital rig cost, plus CLA if you are regular user.

Film:

You could by C-41 film for 5$ and use just dozen over one year.
50$ for film and another 150$ for lab developing. Or twice less for DBY.
Scanner, new and good is around 300$.
This is how much I paid for new from BH latest Plustek with i recently.

You could get bulk of bw film. In my heaviest years I needed four per year.
So, it is 200$.
Chemicals even for heavy film use are under 100$.

You could get ECN-2 film in 400-800 ft bulks for under 100$ (if you search and wait)
And this film is OK for BW and lomography like colors.
Another 100$ for chemicals over one year.

Larger, smaller you go, more you'll pay for film.

For printer under enlarger the main cost is darkoom paper. Very little choice left and most available Ilford darkroom paper is grossly overpriced now.
This is where main cost of film photography for me is.
Over 100 for 100 of RC 8x10 and well over 100 for same of FB.
And larger sizes are just insane in price now..
 
When you are not living in North America or in Western Europe, the issue is not primarily about cost. Instead, it's about logistics. Cost is a secondary issue.
 
Early on in the Navy when I was learning to shoot their way, we had a saying: "film is free, time is priceless."
Since then I've shot with that attitude. I budgeted for cameras, enlargers, lenses, trips, camera repair, fuel, tires, whatnot, but never put film into a budget because it felt too constrained. Sometimes I shot almost 20 rolls a day, sometimes I shot a roll in two months. In the end, I came to the conclusion that for me, just having a few rolls of film available was enough. Having the precious time with family or out in nature was what I needed to work on making.

Phil Forrest
 
Like some others wrote before I think the relevant costs for film photography are not the money for film or developing.
I could afford that still just from a small budget.

It is the effort of time and logistics what prevents me from shooting film.
Just three to five pictures per photowalk and the choice of three cameras brings a lot of
organisation and planning to film photography that is not necessary when shooting digital.
This are my subjective, personal circumstances and I have no problem to get the pictures I like from digital equipment.

A roll of 135 slide film, developing in one of our big drugstore-laborations and a few gimmicks like scanning will be around
EUR 15,- or so all in all here in germany.
Around 50 cents for a processed and scanned picture.
 
I am planning to use again film this summer along with digital.
I will take with me a couple film cameras (one rangefinder and one srl) with various lenses each
I left film about ten years ago
What moves me?
No artistic or technical consideration! I am even afraid I lost my film skills.
It is NOSTALGIA, almost 100% Nostalgia.
The price of nostalgia? For now I bought some rolls of Provia 135 at 20 euros each including shipping.
I still don't know whom to send the film for processing and the final price for each roll
 
Cheap or expensive are relative terms. Folks play golf and spend a bundle they don't even blink at. Ditto for skiing, sailing, attending concerts or sporting events...even bowling or drinking at your favorite pub. Priced out a craft beer lately? If your avocation doesn't bring in $'s, then there are costs associated it, but these can be controlled as much by your expectations, your level of activity, and all the rest. In short, too many variables to be definitive.

If your expectations are high, expect to spend some $'s the same way a golfer would spend in greens fees (I know a guy who just paid $600 to play at famed Pebble Beach). "The best" isn't just the enemy of the good, it is also the enemy (or can be) of your bank account. This makes $10 a roll look cheap. Ditto for $3,000 for a new digital whatever. If you can be happy with the gear you have or expect to have without much expense, either film or digital will be do-able. If not, then either you quit or it's about to get more expensive. Dissatisfaction is the best source of rising incomes for other people and falling bank accounts for the dissatisfied. Pushing the envelope will cost until you reach the plane you want to be on. This is even true if alll you do with your non-photography time is go to the gym... 'casue gym fees aren't going down either.

Atlanta is a great place for film lovers! and digital shooters, too.
 
Dave,

Photography can be cheap or expensive. Worse case is to shoot both analog and digital. Currently this is what I do and the costs add up.

In regards to film and B&W in particular, I chose to only make negatives and to minimize costs as much as possible. I learned to love Diafine and make it work for me because I don't pour my developer down the drain as a one shot anymore, Diafine gets reused and has long storage life. The cost of processing for me is a few pennies of fixer, and the Ilford Rapid Fixer I use I buy in bulk.

I use to buy Arista Premium and Aristo Pro which was rebranded Tri-X and Acros for $2.89 and $1.89 (short dated) a roll. Today I can buy Rollie 400S in 70mm bulk and get my cost down to under $3.00 per 120 equiv like in the old days. Nothing wrong with limited film selection to maintain low film cost. Pretty much B&W photography for me is the cost of the film and like I said a few pennies worth of fxer.

So I made an archive, and I am proud to say at one point I was shooting 150 rolls of film a month on average for nearly one complete shooting season pre-digital shooting.

Negatives store easily, and time is the best editor. Now I have a body of work that is of historical interest. I always had the intent of wet printing these negatives at a later date when I have the time, money and space.

Also certain cameras are currently selling for "no money" if you avoid Pentax 67's and Rollieflex. I'm finding that I plan on shooting more 120 and sheet films over 135 films. Use to be the other way around, so if you want to go for quality over quantity join in.

Figure the cost of a roll of 120 with less exposures is about the same for 36 exposures in 135. Just curb your shots accordingly.

Cal
 
Provia 400x retailing at $17 a roll and costing $7 to develop only really hurt, especially since I loved it's color palette. I reserve film for "special occasions", but those have become rare, and I'm worried about color shifts as my discontinued provia and ektachrome stash ages...

B&w is cheap enough that I shoot away

Now to find that perfect camera and lens combo for blowing away film
 
Probably most of us don't WANT to know how much it costs. You seem like a good guy, but were not going to do your homework for you - especially since the first thing you going to say is "but that's not how I would do it." :>)

But ha ha - here's an example. For fun, sometimes I shoot cheap Fuji C41 for which I pay $3.99 per 36 exp. Local processing and scanning is $12.00 - with medium-resolution files delivered on CD. This is a very rudimentary, not-time-intensive process that gives me just decent enough files to post on the web (with a little post). The color is goofy, but this is the age of Instagram filters. $0.44 per image. The cameras don't figure much in the cost because I've had at least one of them for 40 years, many of them for 20 - by the way - I think that was the point KR was making... the cost of the camera is minimal compared to the cost of materials and time. In the digital world - the camera IS the "expendable materials" and time in the darkroom becomes time in front of the computer...

Ok - now you can say it. "But that's not how I would do it" or "that wouldn't work for me." See? It's cool.

I would gently suggest this is something you need to do for yourself. There are many differences in the ways people practice photography that make massive differences in the costs. You haven't really said anything about what you do and how you do it (other than maybe "I like E6" - which is a huge factor). So sit down with a piece of paper and maybe a calculator, document your process, add up the numbers and let us know what you come up with. It will be fun!

I think you will find it's not an expensive hobby - at least compared to some like "vintage car racing" or "hardcore drug addiction" ... that's a joke.

Bonus: People may actually make good suggestions to lower costs - once they know what you are doing and how...
 
dave lackey said:
...This is not a digital comparison discussion, it is merely an attempt to nail down cost analysis of using film in my photography. ..
Click to expand...

If that's the goal, you need to state specifically what film you shoot, how much, and how you process.

But I think once you do that, the formula and values will be pretty obvious.

John
 
Dave,
To keep my cost down for using film, I shoot b&w only in 135 & 120. I have accumulated 200+ rolls of b&w that are refrigerated or frozen. I also use bulk to load 12 exposure rolls. I develop & scan at home. For color, I use digital and not the latest hi tech whiz banger.
 
Dave,

Another way to shoot for no money: Shoot 5222 bought in bulk (about $4.00 a roll) at 400 ISO and develop in Diafine (almost free).

Shoot with a total disregard to scanning or printing.

BTW 5222 and Diafine ISO 400 looks wonderful.

Cal
 
I look on it as amount of budget set aside for hobby/fun/recreation. I'm retired and my monthly income probably puts me in the bottom 20% or retirees. Therefore I must budget carefully. Thus the use of photo paper substituted for film in 4X5 in both lensed and pinhole and 5X7 in pinhole. For 35mm and 120 I just don't shoot much, still there are many negs that will never be printed.


I also have cameras for two subminiature formats, Minolta 16mm and Minox 8X11 format. I'll get on a tear and use them for a bit, slitting bulk and loading carts, all very cheap, less than $1 per roll for raw film cost. But they also sit for many months without being used at all.


I really want to build a 8X10 sliding box camera and use a plus diopter close up lens as an objective and paper as negatives. I've been held back by the huge cost of 8X10 holders. Used prices average $80 to $100 each and I would want 3 holders. So that project is on the back burner for now.
 
For now I'm with Kentmere. It is 2-2.5$ per roll if from the bulk. And IMO it is better than this odd Kodak motion film.
 
At the risk of wandering off thread for a bit....
I've often thought that the complexity (and cost) of digital photography you are holding in your hand, quite incredible the progress made in the last decade. But that with film, the complexity happens remote from your camera.

Making 35mm or 120 film is not a garage project. If a company wanted to start from scratch I wonder how much it would cost to design the equipment to make and coat, and cut and package film. I doubt you could buy equipment 'off the shelf' as it were, but machines would have to be designed and built, even for a basic ISO 100 B&W film.


My guess is about $20 million, give or take, for a factory that could supply 10K 35mm 36exp rolls per month of B&W film.


My estimate could be total fiction, way too low, but I doubt too high. I have a feeling that all the film being made today is produced on machines that are 20~50 years old. When pieces wear out they probably have to make replacement parts themselves. No wonder prices are pushing $6 a roll for some B&W emulsions.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
My wife see the cost on bank statements and she pissed off.
Click to expand...
I know that feeling, when I was a teen film costs seemed disproportionate. I masked the film budgets for that reason.


If my plans to go B&W come to fruition and I do the whole thing including printing, might add to the "paper is expensive" club. +1 vote on bulk rolling for 135.

On online circles, John Sypal of Tokyocamerastyle showcased his totally darkroom based workflow but IG won't make that easy to find.



dave lackey said:
The $30/roll figure mentioned above may be in the ballpark for 135 film., being outsourced. How about 120 film? How about slides? When a purchase of $2k is required to buy a 120 scanner is contemplated, that is not a problem for cost/image but it is a huge problem for purchasing when no funds are available.
Click to expand...
Roughly yes, 120 seems quite similar to 135 except limited to 8-16 exposures depending on the format. The implicit mention of not doing LF sheet... Well yes I took a look and it is quite expensive!


Slides cost more to purchase and develop but you can be a happy camper staring at them backlit, specially on medium format; Or of course projecting.



Scanner wise a V550-600 can be gotten refurbished for $100 (I envied those in US who had this option) or new towards $200-250. However sometimes it feels as if you throw out resolution (MF) and is a bit of a PITA.



I've got a film friend who says no to spending what a good scanner costs nowadays and is doing it instead with a Sony A7R+Macro lens and software. It seems quite interesting. There's a thread in the forum as well.



This discussion might make me think more and do some extra cost calculation, as in EU I saw EM5 mkII (HiRes mode) for 700€ refurbished. In the medium term I may replicate that with a legacy macro lens and a m43 system.


I'm a business grad and have been a bank teller; as much as I didn't want to I think too much about money. :D
 
Here is my estimate for b&w film photography (which definitely does not cost $30/roll).

Imagine instead of buying a $7,000 digital M (body), you get an M2/3/4 and a CLA for $1,000. That leaves you with $6,000. Subtract another $1,000 for lab equipment and a scanner, and you have $5,000 to shoot film to break even. If a roll of film is $5, then you can shoot 1,000 rolls of film. That should last you around 4-5 year, I guess, which is the typical life cycle of a digital camera. In other words, digital and film cost about the same.

135 or 120, no difference. A roll of 120 Ilford FP-4 is actually cheaper than a roll of 135, I use the same development spools, tanks, and chemicals. My flat-bed scanner for 120 cost a few hundred $$, about the same as a dedicated 135 scanner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom