Film prices don't reflect analogue resurgence

[giganova]

Film prices don't seem to reflect the "resurgence" of analogue photography. An example are Ilford FP4 prices, which went up 30% over the past six months!

Should we be happy that there is film at all and accept the fact that it will be outrageously expensive very soon?

Each data point is a date I ordered 40 rolls of FP4 from B&H. Prices are in US-$

 

[giganova]

Here is a plot I found on the Internet. Tri-X went up 500% over the past 6 years!

 

[Huss]

Still worth it.

 

[Rob-F]

Those positive and negative instantaneous spikes in Tri-X prices are unreal! I wonder how they are to be explained.

 

[giganova]

Rob -- these data from camelcamelcamel.com are collected by robots that grab online prices; I guess they are errors in the way these data are collected.

 

[michaelwj]

It might be 30% in 6 months, but take away the $4.99 data point it's only 5% in 18 months. Statistics are like bikinis. They might reveal a lot, but they conceal more.

 

[SaveKodak]

There were bound to be increases but I think we've reached a stabilization point. I'd still rather have 12 real photographs vs a theoretical infinite number of etherial files.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

What might (or perhaps, might not) be informative would be to see the prices of film adjusted for movements in the price of silver. Ilford were on record a couple of years or so ago as informing their customers that they were forced to lift prices a bit as a result of increases in silver value. Ostensibly, one of the reasons their Kentmere films are less expensive is because they contain a lower percentage of silver, so it seems relevant.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[roscoetuff]

Not sure which FP4 price this reflects (35mm?), but a bulk reel of it will cut costs substantially back to below the opening price: 59.95/18= $ 3.33 plus cost of reloadable cartridges. The 50 roll pre-packaged bundle is the same price as the single roll. My sense is that it ain't the silver, but the packaging cost and labor that are driving up film end prices. Note that Kodak TMAX 100 is substantially cheaper! by over $1.10. Something to think about. I love FP4 but I think I'm beginning to love TMAX even more.

 

[giganova]

I did a few calculations and found out that film photography is actually cheaper than digital! 😀

• Digital: If you buy an M10, you haver to spend around $7k (body and memory cards). How long do you think you'll keep it?
• Analogue: If you buy an M3 and film development tank and accessories, you have an initial investment of around $1k. If you shoot 100 rolls of film/year @ $7/roll (film plus development costs), then you break even with an M10 at around 8-9 years. If you shoot 200 rolls of film per year, you spend the equivalent of an M10 in 4 year.

 

[ellisson]

That TriX 400 plot can't be real world retailer pricing. I've been buying that film for the past 10 years and never recall retail prices below 3-4 USD per roll. There may be some 'bargains" on eBay and various parties seeking to unload their supplies, but the average retailer price has not shown those extreme lows.

 

[giganova]

Note that Kodak TMAX 100 is substantially cheaper! by over $1.10. Something to think about. I love FP4 but I think I'm beginning to love TMAX even more.

True! I might switch to another brand at some point to offset the price increase of film. But I don't think I'll ever switch to bulk reels.

 

[zuiko85]

It might be 30% in 6 months, but take away the $4.99 data point it's only 5% in 18 months. Statistics are like bikinis. They might reveal a lot, but they conceal more.

As has been said, There are three degrees of lies.
Lies
Dammed lies.
And then there's statistics

 

[zuiko85]

It's really bad for us old timers. I very well remember in the early 70's handing over a $10 bill for a 100 ft. roll of Tri-X and getting enough change to buy a box of 10 Kodak snap caps to load half of it into. Now at B&H it's regular price is $128.77, but just now slightly cheaper at $109.75
Must have the stuff not selling at $130 and need to discount that silly price.

 

[PRJ]

Considering inflation, film pricing really hasn't changed.

 

[giganova]

You get that from the above plots?? The increase is more than 3x the inflation rate!

 

[michaelwj]

It's really bad for us old timers. I very well remember in the early 70's handing over a $10 bill for a 100 ft. roll of Tri-X and getting enough change to buy a box of 10 Kodak snap caps to load half of it into. Now at B&H it's regular price is $128.77, but just now slightly cheaper at $109.75
Must have the stuff not selling at $130 and need to discount that silly price.

Of course since we're not adjusting for inflation and the like, median salaries have grown by the same amount sine 1970. So much so that at $70/100ft of HP5+ could be considered cheap compared to the $10/100ft you were paying in 1970.

[I'm not using Tri-X and instead using HP5+ as an example here because it's pretty clear Kodak don't want to sell bulk rolls anymore (it's cheaper to by the 20 36 exposure rolls of tri-x in Australia)]

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why not to benefit on hipsters who buys not in bulks. 🙂

 

[winzenbourg]

Let us know when that $0.40/roll Tri-X is back on the market, yeah?

 

[Huss]

Let us know when the that $0.40/roll Tri-X is back on the market, yeah?

I don't like to buy cheap film, my photography is worth more to me than that. So I'm glad Tri-X is much more than $0.40/roll.

😀