dave lackey
Veteran
Has anyone here actually determined the real cost of film photography for one's own situation?
Yes, I know, it is a passion, a calling, an art, self-expression, therapy, and for some, maybe even bordering on a religious experience. I can relate to all of those reasons in one way or another.
However, there is a cost associated with everything in life. Sad but true.
I read a very old article yesterday by KR in his review of the Nikon F80, the inexpensive plastic fantastic camera that I still find fascinating to use. He mentioned that he was not sure of the actual tested shutter life but estimated it to be around 30,000 activations. Then he posed a question based on economics from a decade ago.
He asked if an owner of an F80 would run a thousand rolls of film through the camera and estimated that it would cost approximately $15,000. It appears he was using an average of $15/roll of film, including all costs associated with obtaining the final images. Did that include cost of scanning? Or computer-related costs? Or any of the other many costs related to shooting a roll of 135 film?
The only reason I ask this, is because it is helpful as we get older to know our limits. Passions cost too. How much money will be left at the end of each month after we have captured parts of our lives on film?
Perhaps, just as important, should we be happy with less than the best quality of the limited numbers of our endeavors? I for one, feel that maybe slide film better suits my situation for a myriad of reasons. Yikes, what is the true cost of slide film in 135 or 120 formats? How many rolls of film can I really afford to shoot?
Yes, I know, it is a passion, a calling, an art, self-expression, therapy, and for some, maybe even bordering on a religious experience. I can relate to all of those reasons in one way or another.
However, there is a cost associated with everything in life. Sad but true.
I read a very old article yesterday by KR in his review of the Nikon F80, the inexpensive plastic fantastic camera that I still find fascinating to use. He mentioned that he was not sure of the actual tested shutter life but estimated it to be around 30,000 activations. Then he posed a question based on economics from a decade ago.
He asked if an owner of an F80 would run a thousand rolls of film through the camera and estimated that it would cost approximately $15,000. It appears he was using an average of $15/roll of film, including all costs associated with obtaining the final images. Did that include cost of scanning? Or computer-related costs? Or any of the other many costs related to shooting a roll of 135 film?
The only reason I ask this, is because it is helpful as we get older to know our limits. Passions cost too. How much money will be left at the end of each month after we have captured parts of our lives on film?
Perhaps, just as important, should we be happy with less than the best quality of the limited numbers of our endeavors? I for one, feel that maybe slide film better suits my situation for a myriad of reasons. Yikes, what is the true cost of slide film in 135 or 120 formats? How many rolls of film can I really afford to shoot?
Prest_400
Multiformat
If you set up a nice retirement don't worry much!
Film photography is my indulgence, together with the occasional trip. I'm age wise, in another end of the spectrum. It is a bit dear.
It comes to mind whenever I am on the move. Consider that a trip around Europe on a shoestring (weekend getaway with a LCC fight) can cost $300. 10 rolls of C41 can be $180 to Dev, process and scan (yes, optimistic figures). Quite a hefty ratio of expense!
My last batch of C41 were 10 rolls and was $120 to Develop, covering 200 days of shooting with some care. It used to be worse back a few years ago as a student because $20 IS a lot of money and that's what roughly a roll could cost.
With film it is about care and embracing its aesthetic. I tend to have blocking with the 6x9 because I plug the thoughts about cost and end up "saving" frames, so opportunities are lost.
Gear wise somehow I've gotten quite a bit of diverse and OK workhorses, so GAS isn't much of an issue. Had a F80 for my salt spray duties around town and sadly died, replaced by a F90. Well, gas is an issue considering film is the gas for these vehicles. Should note that 40 rolls could get me a new m43 body with marginal shooting costs et al.
I'm going for a year for a grad programme so the good 'ole days of broke are coming again. I expect to finally do B&W beginning fall and the DIY approach of it makes it more affordable.
Growing up in the recession sort of implemented a "wartime budget" philosophy in me. Actually I do have an OK budget and even my relatives point out how hardcore thrifty I can be.
BTW Dave, the other day in another thread you mentioned those rumors of a recession in 2019-20 and you owe me some sleep.
Actually been hearing them for a while so I guess one should be alert, and as Warren Buffet says b"e greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy".
Also I'd like to paraphrase some words from Cal, who said that photographs have a high potential in the future -- maybe not $ per se but things dissapear, morph and change...
The idealistic lifestyle would break the time-money (& age?) equation. You know, got money but no time; Got time but no money!
Film photography is my indulgence, together with the occasional trip. I'm age wise, in another end of the spectrum. It is a bit dear.
It comes to mind whenever I am on the move. Consider that a trip around Europe on a shoestring (weekend getaway with a LCC fight) can cost $300. 10 rolls of C41 can be $180 to Dev, process and scan (yes, optimistic figures). Quite a hefty ratio of expense!
My last batch of C41 were 10 rolls and was $120 to Develop, covering 200 days of shooting with some care. It used to be worse back a few years ago as a student because $20 IS a lot of money and that's what roughly a roll could cost.
With film it is about care and embracing its aesthetic. I tend to have blocking with the 6x9 because I plug the thoughts about cost and end up "saving" frames, so opportunities are lost.
Gear wise somehow I've gotten quite a bit of diverse and OK workhorses, so GAS isn't much of an issue. Had a F80 for my salt spray duties around town and sadly died, replaced by a F90. Well, gas is an issue considering film is the gas for these vehicles. Should note that 40 rolls could get me a new m43 body with marginal shooting costs et al.
I'm going for a year for a grad programme so the good 'ole days of broke are coming again. I expect to finally do B&W beginning fall and the DIY approach of it makes it more affordable.
Growing up in the recession sort of implemented a "wartime budget" philosophy in me. Actually I do have an OK budget and even my relatives point out how hardcore thrifty I can be.
BTW Dave, the other day in another thread you mentioned those rumors of a recession in 2019-20 and you owe me some sleep.
Also I'd like to paraphrase some words from Cal, who said that photographs have a high potential in the future -- maybe not $ per se but things dissapear, morph and change...
The idealistic lifestyle would break the time-money (& age?) equation. You know, got money but no time; Got time but no money!
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Film costs what it costs. Plug it in your budget. I don't think you need to factor in camera actuations. You wouldn't factor in refrigerator depreciation in your monthly food budget. That's covered in the rainy day fund.
leicapixie
Well-known
I shoot digital, I love film.
You can't really put a price on happiness!
Film is difficult, the cameras so part of me.
Cost? There are many ways to do effectively.
You can't really put a price on happiness!
Film is difficult, the cameras so part of me.
Cost? There are many ways to do effectively.
dave lackey
Veteran
If you set up a nice retirement don't worry much!
Film photography is my indulgence, together with the occasional trip. I'm age wise, in another end of the spectrum. It is a bit dear.
It comes to mind whenever I am on the move. Consider that a trip around Europe on a shoestring (weekend getaway with a LCC fight) can cost $300. 10 rolls of C41 can be $180 to Dev, process and scan (yes, optimistic figures). Quite a hefty ratio of expense!
My last batch of C41 were 10 rolls and was $120 to Develop, covering 200 days of shooting with some care. It used to be worse back a few years ago as a student because $20 IS a lot of money and that's what roughly a roll could cost.
With film it is about care and embracing its aesthetic. I tend to have blocking with the 6x9 because I plug the thoughts about cost and end up "saving" frames, so opportunities are lost.
Gear wise somehow I've gotten quite a bit of diverse and OK workhorses, so GAS isn't much of an issue. Had a F80 for my salt spray duties around town and sadly died, replaced by a F90. Well, gas is an issue considering film is the gas for these vehicles. Should note that 40 rolls could get me a new m43 body with marginal shooting costs et al.
I'm going for a year for a grad programme so the good 'ole days of broke are coming again. I expect to finally do B&W beginning fall and the DIY approach of it makes it more affordable.
Growing up in the recession sort of implemented a "wartime budget" philosophy in me. Actually I do have an OK budget and even my relatives point out how hardcore thrifty I can be.
BTW Dave, the other day in another thread you mentioned those rumors of a recession in 2019-20 and you owe me some sleep.Actually been hearing them for a while so I guess one should be alert, and as Warren Buffet says b"e greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy".
Also I'd like to paraphrase some words from Cal, who said that photographs have a high potential in the future -- maybe not $ per se but things dissapear, morph and change...
The idealistic lifestyle would break the time-money (& age?) equation. You know, got money but no time; Got time but no money!
Sleep... oh what a dear treasure that I do miss. Sorry about that, I guess I do owe you some.
Congratulations on the grad program, it is one of the better things you can do for yourself. If not monetarily, it will enhance "you". The inner self... and you will be a better person for all of the time, energy and money required of you. Wishing you well and please do enjoy the experience!
My grad students, in a former life, probably taught me more than I taught them. Never stop learning!
:: Mark
Well-known
Not really! The price of film varies immensely, depending on type and where you buy it.
I budget around 10€ per film, covering the film, chemicals and distilled water. However, I shoot Ilford, and here shooting more exotic options from Kodak or Fuji add from 2€ to 10€ per film. For a typical project I shoot 50 to 100 films, so the cost differences are meaningfully.
But by far the biggest “cost” is the time needed to do the developing and scanning. A batch of four films run together takes me about three to five hours of active work, from camera to finished image in the computer. Fortunately I do not invoice myself...
I budget around 10€ per film, covering the film, chemicals and distilled water. However, I shoot Ilford, and here shooting more exotic options from Kodak or Fuji add from 2€ to 10€ per film. For a typical project I shoot 50 to 100 films, so the cost differences are meaningfully.
But by far the biggest “cost” is the time needed to do the developing and scanning. A batch of four films run together takes me about three to five hours of active work, from camera to finished image in the computer. Fortunately I do not invoice myself...
John Lawrence
Well-known
dave lackey
Veteran
While I agree and understand the importance of film photography, the cost be damned, it is the purpose of this thread to come to grips with the actual reality of the costs associated with film photography. It is all important because, like most here, all I would like to go is shoot and enjoy the experience one image at a time and always being excited about the next image.
But my reality is cost is all important. I will be making serious decisions soon and I am curious if anyone here has done a detailed cost analysis. Yes, a lot of people do not think about it. I get that because I used to be that way. But given the reality of permanent unemployment, and extreme medical and care costs associated with caring for my wife 24/7, we live on a razor thin existence. Photography has to be planned for...
The question for me (and maybe others) is:
If I am going to shoot 100 rolls of film in a year, what is the total cost I need to budget for using 135 film as an example.
I guess somewhere between $20 - $50/ roll. I may be only able to afford 10-20 rolls per year!
But my reality is cost is all important. I will be making serious decisions soon and I am curious if anyone here has done a detailed cost analysis. Yes, a lot of people do not think about it. I get that because I used to be that way. But given the reality of permanent unemployment, and extreme medical and care costs associated with caring for my wife 24/7, we live on a razor thin existence. Photography has to be planned for...
The question for me (and maybe others) is:
If I am going to shoot 100 rolls of film in a year, what is the total cost I need to budget for using 135 film as an example.
I guess somewhere between $20 - $50/ roll. I may be only able to afford 10-20 rolls per year!
ptpdprinter
Veteran
How much are you paying for processing each roll now? Use that, and if you are doing a multi-year budget, factor in some inflation. This really shouldn't be as difficult as you are making it out to be.
LCSmith
Well-known
The real cost of film is quite low compared to digital, if we are thinking in broader historical terms. How many of your digital photographs will still be around in 50 years? The silver negative, on the other hand, has an estimated lifespan of 500 years.
When it really matters, silver is still the standard.
The historical preservation programs of the U.S. Department of the Interior still use large format film (and employ LF photographers) to document landscapes, buildings, etc. for the National Archives. Why? Because over the long run film is less expensive, less susceptible to obsolescence, and ultimately more accessible than digital options.
From a historical, macro perspective, digital photography, because of its transience, is much more costly and wasteful than film.
When it really matters, silver is still the standard.
The historical preservation programs of the U.S. Department of the Interior still use large format film (and employ LF photographers) to document landscapes, buildings, etc. for the National Archives. Why? Because over the long run film is less expensive, less susceptible to obsolescence, and ultimately more accessible than digital options.
From a historical, macro perspective, digital photography, because of its transience, is much more costly and wasteful than film.
Prest_400
Multiformat
Today I'm learning things about some people I have interacted for long! In a blurry memory I may recall you mentioned somewhere being a professor but don't seem to know you were.My grad students, in a former life, probably taught me more than I taught them. Never stop learning!
Sorry to hear about the difficulties. Also the un/underemployment as BTDT and I know it can eat your sanity.
As I wrote before, more or less seems that $25 would be a good starting point for C41 lab developed and scanned.
I'll do a bit of an excercise too:
- 10x P400 35mm (B&H): $75
- Lab dev & scan 10x (FINDlab): $190
- Shipping to and fro lab: $25
B&W could be much cheaper with DIY workflow, affordable paper (Foma/Kentmere?) and a one shot diluted developer like HC110 or Rodinal. A home scanner can facilitate a lot, or heck, use a digital macro rig to act as one.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Dave, shooting film can be expensive! The film, the process etc...we all know it.
And time. Yes it cost money and / or time. At my age I really feel how much my (left) time is precious ...
So what to do if the budget is limited? In my opinion there is only one solution: privilege quality over quantity. We have millions of images around us, do we really need "that" shot?
Yes and no. No if done just for the pleasure to shoot. Yes if it gives us something important. If it's part of a project, even if maybe only very few friends will see it. And if part of a project we should really evaluate what to shoot, and how.
I shoot digital, film (not so much lately) and Polaroid. Polaroid films are very expensive therefore I'm very careful when using it. In a recent trip I had a fixed number of Polaroid pack available. I knew how many I could shoot at average daily. A few didn't come out as expected. So I had to think and try to work out my idea with a fixed number of shots and accept eventually some imperfections. It worked well for me at the end.
Please do not misunderstand me: when I say quality I do not intend photo qualities (like sharpness etc...) but the weight a shot, a picture can have inside a project, a story. Is it really essential? Do we remember that "less is more"? Can we leave space for imagination between on frame and the next one? How many pictures do we need to tell a story?
This is how I see it, not easy to explain in a foreign language
And yes, I think a lot about these cost, where I live unfortunately the future is very uncertain
robert
PS: by the way this morning I wanted to buy a few film to shoot with my M7 and was surprised by the prices...Kodak Portra 400 iso/ 36 exp = 9.72 EUR...but Kodak Color Plus 200 iso/36exp 3.60...
And time. Yes it cost money and / or time. At my age I really feel how much my (left) time is precious ...
So what to do if the budget is limited? In my opinion there is only one solution: privilege quality over quantity. We have millions of images around us, do we really need "that" shot?
Yes and no. No if done just for the pleasure to shoot. Yes if it gives us something important. If it's part of a project, even if maybe only very few friends will see it. And if part of a project we should really evaluate what to shoot, and how.
I shoot digital, film (not so much lately) and Polaroid. Polaroid films are very expensive therefore I'm very careful when using it. In a recent trip I had a fixed number of Polaroid pack available. I knew how many I could shoot at average daily. A few didn't come out as expected. So I had to think and try to work out my idea with a fixed number of shots and accept eventually some imperfections. It worked well for me at the end.
Please do not misunderstand me: when I say quality I do not intend photo qualities (like sharpness etc...) but the weight a shot, a picture can have inside a project, a story. Is it really essential? Do we remember that "less is more"? Can we leave space for imagination between on frame and the next one? How many pictures do we need to tell a story?
This is how I see it, not easy to explain in a foreign language
And yes, I think a lot about these cost, where I live unfortunately the future is very uncertain
robert
PS: by the way this morning I wanted to buy a few film to shoot with my M7 and was surprised by the prices...Kodak Portra 400 iso/ 36 exp = 9.72 EUR...but Kodak Color Plus 200 iso/36exp 3.60...
Arbitrarium
Well-known
Hmm...
If I average a roll of film to be £5, and a Tetenal kit costing £35 will do me 20 rolls, that's £135. That would probably do me 3 months, so that's £540 per year.
There's the costs for heating the water for development and electricity for scanning but I doubt it's worth factoring in.
I'm not overly shocked at the total for film and dev. Sounds reasonable to me for a year's worth of film photos.
As for gear acquisition, I try to sell when I buy to keep costs at zero and stop myself amassing crap. Doesn't always work out like that...
If I average a roll of film to be £5, and a Tetenal kit costing £35 will do me 20 rolls, that's £135. That would probably do me 3 months, so that's £540 per year.
There's the costs for heating the water for development and electricity for scanning but I doubt it's worth factoring in.
I'm not overly shocked at the total for film and dev. Sounds reasonable to me for a year's worth of film photos.
As for gear acquisition, I try to sell when I buy to keep costs at zero and stop myself amassing crap. Doesn't always work out like that...
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I'm 67 and in semi-retirement, and have lived all of my life on a moderate income. Yet, because of "moderation in all things" I feel as if I am a rich man. I can afford a couple of nice old Leicas because these days they are almost cheap Then film & processing.... yes it can be expensive. Because of moderation, I can shoot as little or as much as I want, depending on the money in my pocket at the time. It is only an enjoyable hobby, nothing more.
lynnb
Veteran
Dave, I'd decide which output I want (e.g. wet print, inkjet print, web gallery, book etc) and then which pathway (film or digital) will get me there while meeting my standards for output quality and volume. Then just live within one's budget.
For me, aesthetic and emotion are more important than cost. I like the look of film images more than digital. I'm prepared to compromise on volume in order to keep on shooting film.
Be aware also of the often substantial indirect costs associated with digital. Software needs updating, computers and peripherals need updating, standards become obsolete, it's a cycle that's hard (and sometimes impossible) to avoid.
For me, aesthetic and emotion are more important than cost. I like the look of film images more than digital. I'm prepared to compromise on volume in order to keep on shooting film.
Be aware also of the often substantial indirect costs associated with digital. Software needs updating, computers and peripherals need updating, standards become obsolete, it's a cycle that's hard (and sometimes impossible) to avoid.
willie_901
Veteran
When one has more time than money, develop the C41 at home. This assumes you already have space to develop B&W film.
A C-41 chemical kit from Amazon does 8, 36 exposure rolls for $38 (including shipping). The only differences between B&W film developing are temperature, timing and safety. There are other start up costs for funnels, storage bottles and graduated cylinders. If you already do B&W, some of your developing kit can be used for C41.
The least expensive way to solve the temperature issue is to use an aquarium heater and an old aquarium.
There are four development timing sequences that should be followed as accurately as possible. There are lab timer smart phone apps for this or you can just use an analog timer.
Personal safety can involve a simple dust mask and gloves. Unfortunately some individuals may be more sensitive to the C41 chemicals than others. The dust when mixing the solutions is typically more of an issue than vapors. Using a space with decent ventilation is preferred.
Disposal of spent solutions is another issue. This will vary from location to location. The most common option in the US is to make occasional trips to a municipal hazardous waste site. Often there is no cost for small amounts. Storing spent solutions in a safe place using proper plastic containers is not inherently dangerous. So trips to waste processing facilities can be minimized.
A C-41 chemical kit from Amazon does 8, 36 exposure rolls for $38 (including shipping). The only differences between B&W film developing are temperature, timing and safety. There are other start up costs for funnels, storage bottles and graduated cylinders. If you already do B&W, some of your developing kit can be used for C41.
The least expensive way to solve the temperature issue is to use an aquarium heater and an old aquarium.
There are four development timing sequences that should be followed as accurately as possible. There are lab timer smart phone apps for this or you can just use an analog timer.
Personal safety can involve a simple dust mask and gloves. Unfortunately some individuals may be more sensitive to the C41 chemicals than others. The dust when mixing the solutions is typically more of an issue than vapors. Using a space with decent ventilation is preferred.
Disposal of spent solutions is another issue. This will vary from location to location. The most common option in the US is to make occasional trips to a municipal hazardous waste site. Often there is no cost for small amounts. Storing spent solutions in a safe place using proper plastic containers is not inherently dangerous. So trips to waste processing facilities can be minimized.
The bottom line is there are cheap ways to do film and cheap ways to do digital. Digital is cheaper if you already have the equipment because you do not have to buy film. BUT if you need to buy a computer and software, film would be cheaper. Quality printing is not cheap with either...
Huss
Veteran
I don't shoot film because it is cheaper (or not) than digital.
I shoot film because it gives me the results that I want. So cost compared to digital is not relevant.
I shoot film because it gives me the results that I want. So cost compared to digital is not relevant.
benlees
Well-known
To keep monetary costs down processing yourself is the way to go. Initial investment in equipment and chemicals can be amortized by using more film!
Hidden costs are time, water, space, disposing of chemicals, and if someone is vegetarian/ vegan, then the whole silver gelatin world might be best avoided!
If you get an enlarger then space and time can become a big "cost". A printing session can last many hours and use up a lot of paper. Uses a lot of water! Enlargers are heavy and it, along with everything else, takes up a lot of space.
Great fun, though.
Hidden costs are time, water, space, disposing of chemicals, and if someone is vegetarian/ vegan, then the whole silver gelatin world might be best avoided!
If you get an enlarger then space and time can become a big "cost". A printing session can last many hours and use up a lot of paper. Uses a lot of water! Enlargers are heavy and it, along with everything else, takes up a lot of space.
Great fun, though.
dave lackey
Veteran
I appreciate all of the comments, some good info there! And yet the question has only been somewhat addressed by one person...($30/roll of 135 film).
So, what does it really cost per roll to buy film, shoot it, process it, scan it, store it/roll based on format and type of film?
There should be more than one answer depending on film, format, out-source processing and scanning, etc.
Has anyone actually done such a detailed analysis? Or even a rule of thumb evaluation?
This is almost, it seems, as big a secret as trying to find what professional photographers charge for services here in Atlanta... LOL..
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.
This is not a digital comparison discussion, it is merely an attempt to nail down cost analysis of using film in my photography. It is no different than any other business decision but it seems that no one has done a current cost analysis for whatever reason... But, if there is a good one, please do share.
So, what does it really cost per roll to buy film, shoot it, process it, scan it, store it/roll based on format and type of film?
There should be more than one answer depending on film, format, out-source processing and scanning, etc.
Has anyone actually done such a detailed analysis? Or even a rule of thumb evaluation?
This is almost, it seems, as big a secret as trying to find what professional photographers charge for services here in Atlanta... LOL..
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.
This is not a digital comparison discussion, it is merely an attempt to nail down cost analysis of using film in my photography. It is no different than any other business decision but it seems that no one has done a current cost analysis for whatever reason... But, if there is a good one, please do share.