Film Photography - The Real Cost?

[Bill Clark]

Cost not much. Investment is a better definition for me.

All my equipment lasts a long time. They’re like the Duracell battery commercial. Still have a working Canon 20D I bought in 2004 and it still works just fine but has been relegated to a backup in case my full frame Canon hickups. Hasn’t yet though. I exercised, over the weekend, a Rolleiflex Automat. It’s about a 1953 vintage. I used it to make some photographs all with black and white film, TMax 100 and Acros. I’m developing them now using ID-11.

I’ve invested a fair amount into education as I consider that more important for me than gear. And what is your or my time worth?

I find I made a very good investment into a large waste paper basket I sometimes use in my darkroom! Trouble is RC paper isn’t recycled here.

 

[jsrockit]

I shoot film because it gives me the results that I want. So cost compared to digital is not relevant.

I believe I was talking about Dave's situation...but since he said he is not interested in that discussion, I will concede.

 

[farlymac]

Lets see, film is anywhere from $6 to $10 a roll, so we'll give that a medium of $8. I've switched labs, and haven't gotten any color processed yet, but the b&w cost me $22 for development and scans. So that's $30 a roll.


I budget anywhere between $100 to $200 a month for photography expenses (film, processing, travel), not counting equipment expenditures, though some months the film account gets used on equipment instead.


If I had a different living space, I could bring down the cost per roll by doing my own processing, but this place doesn't have the room, or the pipes to handle it.


PF

 

[Franko]

Dave, I only shoot Tri-X so this only pertains to that film. I find my direct cost to buy and process one roll to be $9.76. A reasonable cost to own and use my scanner brings the cost to $12.26. A reserve for camera service is estimated to be about $5.00 per month but that only adds about .75 per roll. Not as cheap as when a roll of Tri-X used to cost .60 at the post exchange but not unreasonable for the enjoyment it brings.I use digital for color, copy, close up and what used to be known as "process photography" but the keepers are all black and white.

I'm retired and live a very streamlined life so my old cameras take the place of boats, planes, cars or other toys. It's money well spent for it's entertainment value.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Dave,


What kind of film do you (intend to) shoot? How many rolls do you expect to shoot per year? Do you do your own black and white and/or color processing? Do you have a scanner? I assume you do not have a darkroom so that part of the equation is out of the picture.

 

[retinax]

I don't shoot much at all these days and while I'm on a tight budget, the motivation/time/effort constraint is the real bottleneck. Only when traveling I can overcome this and figure some film and processing into the budget as well. If I was interested in street photography that means large volume, I would feel very constrained by the cost. Same for formats larger than 645.
My black and white shooting is with the aim of darkroom printing when I will have one (which should also give me a motivation boost), hopefully very soon. Developing costs me hardly over one € per roll and could be brought down a bit more. Foma film is 3 something, T-Max 6 something. So monetary cost is 5–8 € per roll, be it 135 or 120. Printing is simply a different matter, at a different time. Either it's an enjoyable thing in itself that has its cost, or you see the cost as that for artwork for your wall, then it's cheaper than almost anything else (original artwork). I don't want to think about framing, that cost hurts because it doesn't feel like it adds to the creative part. Maybe that's the solution, making framing somehow part of the creative process to find enjoyment in it… ?
I think the „send out for dev and scan“-route is the least cost-effective it gets. I'm not very interested in colour currently and would be tempted to use digital if I were because display and printing would be digital anyway. But if I were to shoot color film, I think I'd home process or perhaps send out for developing, and do some low res scans with a cheap, crappy old scanner just as a contact sheet. Then select very, very few to have scanned in high resolution and printed. Same considerations as above apply, printing can be seen as a separate matter and postponed until there's money/wallspace/a gift needed/an exhibition planned or whatever you do.

 

[Keith]

If you're judicious and shop around for your black and white film and can develop it at home shooting a roll of film will cost you about the same as a cup of coffee these days. Even on a limited income there are choices.

Of course if you want a print you can hang on your wall it's a different scenario and I guess that's where the real cost is. Fortunately for a lot of us shooting film is largely about using some of the beautiful analog cameras we own and involving ourselves in a process that has a level of satisfaction attached to it that we don't get from digital.

 

[seany65]

Don't forget to include the cost of travel to wherever you go. It may only be a bus ride there and back, (which would cost about £5.60 for a day ticket in my area) or a trip to Thailand, which is far beyond my pocket.