Film prices don't reflect analogue resurgence

[valdas]

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.

😀

Oh, that reminds be a joke about two ex-Soviet oligarchs. One bought an expensive tie and is telling to his friend - I paid 500$ for this one. And the friend replies - you were cheated, I saw in another boutique the same tie was 1000$.

 

[Michael Markey]

It`s sad because I know a number of people who would like to go back to using film in some degree but are put off by the prices.

It needs to be more accessible but I guess some enjoy the perceived exclusiveness of the material and the market responds accordingly.

I think that there is a element of profiteering in all this .

 

[presspass]

One of the great and now gone benefits for film photographers was the private Freestyle branding of Tri-X. Ilford film prices have risen considerably - no chart, just experience. That led me to try Kentmere, another Harman product. So far, with 20+ rolls shot, I'm content with the change and it's about $1 a roll cheaper than HP 5+, at least when bought through B&H. I shoot digital for work and film for myself. At two to four rolls a week, the price increase won't even buy a designer coffee from Starbucks, so it's still a bargain.

 

[PRJ]

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

I've been buying lots of film for 25 years now and I can tell you from my experience that it hasn't changed that much. There was a bit of a glut in prices a decade ago when overproduction increased supply. Other than that, not a lot of change really.

 

[brbo]

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!

What do you mean?

You think that increased demand would lead to lower prices?!

If there actually is a "resurgence" the prices of film will only go up in short term and most probably long term also. Since I really doubt that the miniscule (compared to what film consumption was 20 years ago) increase in demand will bring back huge production lines of the past...

 

[css9450]

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

• Digital: If you buy an M10, you have to spend around $7k ...

An M10? If they get any cheaper I'll pave my driveway with them!

 

[css9450]

Since I really doubt that the miniscule (compared to what film consumption was 20 years ago) increase in demand will bring back huge production lines of the past...

I've quipped before here on the forum that the "resurgance" might be due to someone just restocking their fridge with fresh film. Look, film sales have doubled this year! No, that's just me... I bought a brick of Tri-X.

 

[Dogman]

Despite the increase in film sales, don't expect prices to decline. Film is now a niche product. As such, it will be priced higher. It's never going to return to the sales volume it once had when it was essentially a common commodity.

 

[FujiLove]

What do you mean?

You think that increased demand would lead to lower prices?!

If there actually is a "resurgence" the prices of film will only go up in short term and most probably long term also. Since I really doubt that the miniscule (compared to what film consumption was 20 years ago) increase in demand will bring back huge production lines of the past...

Exactly. In the UK the supplies of Portra 400 135 seemed to dry up a few months ago. The price rocketed and although its dropped back a touch, it's still around £9 ($12) a roll online and often £11 in the brick and mortar stores.

 

[Prest_400]

As per title:
Wages don't reflect recession resurgence.

At least here (Southern Europe) where wages currently could well sit below levels of 20 years ago without inflation adjustment. Still carrying wreckage from recession times.

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.

True, and so is my perception of it. There were some outliers like the Arista rebrands and if you go to B&H in 2010/11 through archive.org time machine it's a bit weep inducing... 220 at current 120 prices of bygone products (Ektachrome), Acros 120 at $2.95/roll, etc.

Exactly. In the UK the supplies of Portra 400 135 seemed to dry up a few months ago. The price rocketed and although its dropped back a touch, it's still around £9 ($12) a roll online and often £11 in the brick and mortar stores.

More demand should decrease prices only if supply increases to meet it!

I've been buying from a retailer in Jersey which has about the cheapest prices in Europe, looking at retail and other online shops surprised me because prices are expensive. Portra 400 has abit of a premium on it indeed. (I mainly think price per 120 roll nowadays).

BTW, I seen from some labs on the US that were saying Portra was increasing prices (maybe wholesale as they offered 100 roll bricks). It's on Findlab, Photovision and some other lab Instagram.

 

[John Lawrence]

I've been buying lots of film for 25 years now and I can tell you from my experience that it hasn't changed that much. There was a bit of a glut in prices a decade ago when overproduction increased supply. Other than that, not a lot of change really.

This has been my experience too.

John

 

[benmacphoto]

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

Seriously, and I thought Kentmere was the best priced film.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Film demand could go up and prices would still rise due to inelastic manufacturing capacity. I have no illusion that prices will ever come down. The only question is how fast they will rise either through demand or lack of demand.

 

[PRJ]

I think manufacturers realize that higher prices for a product such as film will lead to a disproportionate drop in demand. That is why Ilford for example tries like the Dickens to keep film prices stable. That is also why we have seen certain films go the way of the dodo. They could keep making the films that have low demand, but at higher prices the demand would drop even more causing higher prices still. Film is not like gasoline. You do not have to buy it. There are alternatives, and we all own them already.

 

[x-ray]

Don't think for a second that we're in a big upswing in film use. At the peak of my business in the 90's it was routine to shoot 500-600 rolls of 120 E6 and B&W a month plus 4x5, 8x10 and 35mm. Probably in total I shot the equivalent of 1000 rolls a month. At one point when most of my work was 4x5 and 8x10 Ektachrome I'd shoot 250 sheets of 8x10 a week plus smaller amounts of 4x5.

This is a lot of film but one studio I was acquainted with bought entire emulsion batches of film. It was Alderman Studio in Highpoint NC and they were the largest in the US and latest customer of Kodak. I remember reading but can't recall how many emulsion runs a year they used. It was mostly 8x10 and the volume was beyond imagination.

Alderman was just one of many. Eventually they expanded into Chicago and Dallas with even more film usage. Multiply even my volume by thousands and then throw in the amateur, motion picture and x-ray market.

Virtually all of us are digital now including much of the motion picture and almost all of the X-ray. The remaining usage is only a fraction of the amateur market which is pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the golden era of the 50-90's.

Sorry but I think we're lucky that we even have film at any price.

 

[zuiko85]

[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)]

Same here Michael, Kodak pricing is nuts for bulk. I don't use enough 35mm to buy in bulk anyway. I pay an average of $5 per roll but only expose 15~20 rolls a year now, mostly through Olympus half frame cameras.

 

[zuiko85]

Don't think for a second that we're in a big upswing in film use.

Virtually all of us are digital now including much of the motion picture and almost all of the X-ray. The remaining usage is only a fraction of the amateur market which is pretty much a drop in the bucket compared to the golden era of the 50-90's.

Sorry but I think we're lucky that we even have film at any price.

A sober, and probably quite accurate assessment. I would not call it 'doom and gloom', but just the facts of the matter.

 

[farlymac]

Another thing to think about is if Ilford is back in distribution here in the US. If not, it will remain high for quite a while.

PF

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Film is expensive when someone tries to use it as it was used up to the 90's for commercial work if we talk about constant sessions with hundreds of images per session, unless you're a very well paid photographer and nothing matters...
For amateur and beginner's use, and even for serious work with quality above quantity, film is not that much more expensive now, just a bit...
A few rolls a month give a few hundreds of images a month: IMO it's about getting some of them well done, and not about shooting more...
100 ft. rolls by Ilford are a lot cheaper than Kodak's, so thank you Ilford!, and Kentmere films, made by Harmann Ilford, cost even less, and they're great films...
I admire recent years Ilford's public commitment in relation to film photography, and I support them happily.

 

[Spanik]

Now plot the price of provia for me....