Film prices don't reflect analogue resurgence

And if you make color images like me, add another $12 a roll for processing and you're talking a serious chunk of dough over the course of a year. When I got out of film about 10 years ago, I calculated that I was spending roughly $2000 a year on film and processing... for using 2 rolls a week. And that doesn't include the additional costs of printing. Now I spend about $800 a year on ink.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
And if you make color images like me, add another $12 a roll for processing and you're talking a serious chunk of dough over the course of a year. When I got out of film about 10 years ago, I calculated that I was spending roughly $2000 a year on film and processing... for using 2 rolls a week. And that doesn't include the additional costs of printing. Now I spend about $800 a year on ink.
Click to expand...

Jamie,

Granted that I stockpile to eventually save money by exploiting sales and buying in bulk, but I have spent $10K in a year for paper and ink to print digitally.

For me neither analog or digital is inexpensive. Know that I'm a B&W shooter to save on costs, and I use Piezography to print B&W. Also I tend to print large.

Cal
 
x-ray said:
I only had a couple of problems over the years. I bought E6 sheet film by the case when catalog season came around. This was in the day when I shot 11x14 for double page spreads and 8x10 for single. We shot everything to the same scale by putting acetates on the ground glass specing type position and image size. These were all to the same scale and were generated by our art department. The reason was for ganging the separations to save money.

Anyway I ordered a case of 4x5 EPP, 50 sheets of 11x14 EPP and a case of 8x10 EPP. A case was 250 sheets which would get me through the job which was slated to start in a few days. It would allow me time to test each batch which I always did.

I shot a couple of sheets of each size and ran them in our Colenta processor. The 4x5 and 11x14 looked on the money but the 8x10 had a serious problem. We had a great TSR who came out immediately. He called Rochester to find the batch had accidentally gotten out to dealers and had not gone through the yellow coating step. The emulsion was only magenta and cyan.

Our rep took that batch and had another "different" batch fedexed to us overnight. When I received it I checked the emulsion number to find it was from the same batch. We got it corrected on the next try.

I've seen 120 VPL spoiled on VPS backing paper and thats about all the issues I can think of right now. That's pretty good considering all the film I shot.

Kodak screwed up in my favor once. When the ready load packets came out my TSR came to my studio to show how they worked. He said he'd loan me a holder and comp me a box to try. Either he or Kodak screwed up the order and sent me a case. I think it was 12 boxes of 10 double packs each. I contacted him and he said not to worry, just keep it. One bit of feedback I was able to provide, our summers are very humid here and in dry conditions the packs worked perfectly but humid conditions the pack covers woukdntvrelease from the licking clip. On humid days they were useless. I wound up removing all the sheets and used them in regular 4x5 holders. Still a great bonus.

All but one of our TSR's were greT, joe Lowery, Jeff McLeod and Jim Much. Then we got another who I won't name who was a bad joke.

I also had regular visits from my Fuji Rep Bill Prudner. He was another fantastic guy with great info and every solution to your problems at his finger tips. He and the Kodak guys also had lots of great goodies they'd leave to try. Every visit was like Christmas. The best part though was the excellent support for the industry.
Click to expand...

Just remembered the bad Kodachrome and maybe Ektachrome in the 70s? There was a serious color shift in all of the stuff coming out of Rochester's coating tunnels as of a specific date. The problem was so wide spread that Kodak couldn't BS their way through it. It took a long time to fix and trace the problem. The problem was unique in that it was attributed to their source of cow's hooves, obtained from one big ranch in Ireland (?). The rancher had changed the brand of clover fed the cows, and this caused the color shift. The hooves are used to make the gelatin used in the film base.
 
mani said:
I see evidence all around me of much more film interest than when I began using film 6 or so years ago: at the tech startup I work at I have two colleagues who've recently started using film; at my kids' school there are parents who've switched (and unfortunately started badgering me with questions about scanners and labs, and so on). One of those dads told me about his friend whose daughter goes to the same gym class as my daughter who's recently bought a film Leica.
Another dad whose kids used to go to the same nursery as my kids has become a fanatical film user - even developing his own film. I met him in the crush of the latest film-camera 'yard sale' I was at in March - there were thousands of people at that event, mostly younger people.
I mentor at one of Sweden's leading tech schools, and I'm amazed at how many students are using film cameras. None of them are using DSLRs (it's either iPhone or film).
When I go to the lab with my film these days, I almost always have to stand in line. That never used to happen 5 years ago.
After my vacation I got my films developed for a lower price, in return for waiting longer than a week - because the workload was just too much for the lab at the time.
New films being released almost all the time at the moment. Looking forward to Ektachrome soon.
Also looking forward to getting my Kickstarter LabBox - have to wait a bit longer, because of delays due to the overwhelming over-subscription.
Been trying to get hold of a couple film cameras that I chose not to buy 3 or 4 years back - but since then the price has spiraled crazily upwards.

Anyways, carry on thinking "there hasn't been an analog resurgence" if the negativity makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

It's just math

industrial film production to keep prices at the historical expectations from 0 years ago would require industrial film consumption.

The latter requires a staggering film resurgence, in the billions of $$$ per year more than what we see now. When an industry has so much oversupply and industrial capacity, all current users have to pay t keep the excess capacity lights on. This is not an industry that can downscale readily.

In North America the decline in labs continues, and the same is said for most of East Asia. The lab market is turning almost exclusively into a salvage market, too, where used machines prevent any new lab processors from being made. Frontier and Fuji have effectively shut their lines down. Without mass production, prices for film stay high. Without mass consumption facilitated by expanding, not contracting lab access, the price of film + processing stays high, and both are likely to climb higher.

Lomo once had a full locale-driven website to get people to buy their film and process at a local lab, but the main feedback they encountered was that film prices + processing were too high. This led to negative publicity to Lomo took that web portal down. Selling a $90 camera and then having your consumer confronted with each roll costing $9 and processing + scanning + printing costing another $17 was a hard sell.

Camera pricing represents a salvage market, not a consumption market. We've seen the exact same in out of production cars, like VW Beetles etc. Film has massive oversupply capacity, the end consumer having tp pick up those hot idle costs, and the camera market is losing product to disrepair at an accelerating rate (lots of academic literature on that phenomenon) leading to rising salvage market (read: "collectible") costs.

Sorry, there is no effective film resurgence. IN the last 2 years in the US and Canada tens of thousands of local labs have been shuttered. That is how you measure demand. By the end use access where the last bit of $$$ crosses the counter. In the last 6 months in my country a 900 store chain quietly eliminated all in-store processing labs. They only do website digital photo printing now. The last 3 remaining store chains that still offer lab processing are about to do the same.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
And if you make color images like me, add another $12 a roll for processing and you're talking a serious chunk of dough over the course of a year. When I got out of film about 10 years ago, I calculated that I was spending roughly $2000 a year on film and processing... for using 2 rolls a week. And that doesn't include the additional costs of printing. Now I spend about $800 a year on ink.
Click to expand...

And how many thousand $$ on a digital camera that you replace how often? Are you sure digital saves you money? :D
 
giganova said:
And how many thousand $$ on a digital camera that you replace how often? Are you sure digital saves you money? :D
Click to expand...


I shoot both but if I`m covering an event I use digital .
Typical 800 + shots a day and that`s single shots.
With HP5 costing £5-7 plus processing in the UK I`ll leave you to do the film maths.

Yes it saves you money and no I don`t change digital cameras that often.
I`ve just ordered ten more rolls of HP5 .... that`s $67.35 and Ilford is only 60 miles down the road from me :) .
 
Calzone said:
Jamie,

Granted that I stockpile to eventually save money by exploiting sales and buying in bulk, but I have spent $10K in a year for paper and ink to print digitally.

For me neither analog or digital is inexpensive. Know that I'm a B&W shooter to save on costs, and I use Piezography to print B&W. Also I tend to print large.

Cal
Click to expand...

WOW! OK... no more complaining on my part! :p
 
Michael Markey said:
I shoot both but if I`m covering an event I use digital .
Typical 800 + shots a day and that`s single shots.
With HP5 costing £5-7 plus processing in the UK I`ll leave you to do the film maths.

Yes it saves you money and no I don`t change digital cameras that often.
I`ve just ordered ten more rolls of HP5 .... that`s $67.35 and Ilford is only 60 miles down the road from me :) .
Click to expand...

The local dealer has HP5 at $5.59 ea for a 135/36 roll + 9% tax.

Seems you are paying more than we are in the states?
 
I went to an old 1960 US camera magazine I have an checked some film prices and ran then through the inflation calculator.

In 1960 Kodachrome was almost always sold with processing mailers from Kodak. 3 rolls of 35mm 36 exp Kodachrome With Kodak processing and mounting ran $4.25/roll if you bought 3 at a time so the total was $12.75. The high end for the same film and processing was just under $15 for 3 36's. Run $4.25 in the inflation calculator and you get a penny shy of $40 per roll with processing. That's certainly no bargain by today's standard.

Fujichrome provia runs about $11-12 per roll and processing about the same.

I found an off brand 4x5 300 asa B&W film in 100 sh boxes for $7.49. That figures up to just shy of $70 today.

Edit: checking freestyle for Arista 400 ISO 4x5 in 50 sheet boxes it runs $39 so basically $78 for 100 sheets. Really not that different.
 
I remember as a kid, shooting only B&W because color was so expensive. Then, it seems, color became less expensive and processing through Photo-Mats became less expensive, so we started shooting color. I don't think it was ever cheap; it was just an accepted expense. Film and processing were probably at their lowest, price-wise, just before digital, but still not cheap by today's digital standards.

- Murray
 
Jamie Pillers said:
WOW! OK... no more complaining on my part! :p
Click to expand...

Jamie,

I did not take your post as a complaint. I made my specific remark because everyone is different.

I admire large format, and I try to emulate the resolution, detail, and tonality. While Piezography inks are less costly than Epson OEM I likely lay down about twice the amount of ink. The tonality has to come from somewhere.

Also I tend to print a lot and mucho big. My 7800 has these oversized carts that hold perhaps 300-350 ml, and when I'm printing 20x30's on 24x36 I have to top off and refill my carts every two weeks. Basically I removed the doors that cover the carts because they just dangle open and are useless. A 50 foot roll of paper is only 16 prints.

It is kinda crazy. LOL.

Mark Cuban says, "Go big; or don't go." LOL.

Everybody is different.

Cal
 
I'm in the process of loading up the truck with Rollie 400S. This is a modern film under current production. In 120 the cost is kinda high, but in 70mm for some unknown reason it is remarkably inexpensive; under $3.00 a roll of 120 equiv.

So why does Rollie 400S cost about $8.00 a roll of 120 at B&H, when I can buy bulk from MacroDirect in 70 mm for under $3.00 per 120 equive? Perhaps lack of packaging and backing???

So Rollie 400S is said to be rebranded Agfapan Super 200. My film testing in 120 suggests that the real film speed is really a 125-160 ISO film.

So now I'm back to Freestyle like pricing, but I'm shooting 6x7 and 645 in Baby Linhof's utilizing Linhof CINE's that allow loading 15 feet of film so I can shoot medium format like a Leica, but have over 60 6x7's or over 120 645's without having to reload.

So what the rig weighs 7 to 7 1/2 pounds. The firepower and the low cost of film is worth it to me. With every Linhof sold you get a free gym membership. LOL.

For me this is the best deal in town if you shoot B&W.

Cal
 
Cal,
Given that you have a too Linhof to arms&handa ratio, I volunteer for carrying and shooting one whenever I show up in NY. 😂

On the topic, I'm having a few days out and decided (well my 35mms kicked the bucket) to carry my Fuji GW to Malta.
Realised that I haven't travelled abroad with it yet. MF I think is more suited to more controlled conditions than travel snapshooting. 6x9 does make rolls short and the film & processing is interesting cost wise in color.
Gotta move to analog b&w whenever I finally move out of my town.

The cost analysis is funny comparing how a 2h return flight in a LCC costs about a propack of 120 film, without processing (or checked in baggage).

With the thoughts of shooting film and travel I was surprised that my bank account hadn't empied as I expected! Nice surprise when I thought I had 200 less.
Just thoughts making me feel poor!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Prest_400 said:
Cal,

....On the topic, I'm having a few days out and decided (well my 35mms kicked the bucket) to carry my Fuji GW to Malta.
Realised that I haven't travelled abroad with it yet. MF I think is more suited to more controlled conditions than travel snapshooting. 6x9 does make rolls short and the film & processing is interesting cost wise in color.
Gotta move to analog b&w whenever I finally move out of my town.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I hear you there. I made a day trip to the ancient bristle cone pine forest and did the 4.5 mile Methuselah trail hike, at 10,000 feet ( realized after the fact that you should apply facial sunscreen every hour at that altitude!). I brought along my fuji gsw680 for black and white. Maybe I shot like I had a 35mm camera because of the rare location for me, but I wound up shooting over 17 rolls of B&W film on that walk along with 5 rolls of 220 velvia in my mamiya 6. I was a hassle to change rolls every 9 shots, but there were so many awesome shots to be had. I'm sure I would have shot more had I brought more film with ,e, but my shorts were overflowing with film. Boy do I miss 220 B&W

I'm sure there are going to be shots that maybe I should not have taken, and yes ut was a lot of film, but when i get home from yosemite Im sure the results will justify what I did, and to me thats all that matters
 
Prest_400 said:
Cal,
Given that you have a too Linhof to arms&handa ratio, I volunteer for carrying and shooting one whenever I show up in NY. 😂

On the topic, I'm having a few days out and decided (well my 35mms kicked the bucket) to carry my Fuji GW to Malta.
Realised that I haven't travelled abroad with it yet. MF I think is more suited to more controlled conditions than travel snapshooting. 6x9 does make rolls short and the film & processing is interesting cost wise in color.
Gotta move to analog b&w whenever I finally move out of my town.

The cost analysis is funny comparing how a 2h return flight in a LCC costs about a propack of 120 film, without processing (or checked in baggage).

With the thoughts of shooting film and travel I was surprised that my bank account hadn't empied as I expected! Nice surprise when I thought I had 200 less.
Just thoughts making me feel poor!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Jorde,

I've been paying the around $8.00 a roll for Rollie 400S to do my testing. I will likely secure a JOBO 3063 Expert tank and cut it down to fit at least 2 if not the three 15 foot slainless steel reels. In 6x7 15 feet is at least 63 6x7's plus a few bonus frames. It takes 1 1/2 liters of developer to cover just one reel, so basically it will be a big inversion tank.

Understand that a JOBO 3063 is the processing drum for up to a 20x24 inch print.

I have been using my Plaubel 69W proshift with a 47/5.6 Super Augulon that has a 21mm FOV to do my eight shots for testing. The Plaubel at least is easy to load.

Diane Arbus use to carry three Rollies in a knapsack to avoid missing shots due to reloading. The Rollie 400S has a IR sensitivity so loading in the shade is highly important. Tends to light-pipe.

My neck is thick and oversized for an otherwise skinny guy. In a way it makes me look like a monster. My right arm is accually deformed and is about an inch longer than my left from carrying cameras. The Linhof's have a left handed grip so now I'll be adding a further deformity to my left arm.

I somehow recently jammed a shutter on a F5, but I still have many other 35mm SLR's and of course multiple M-bodies.

For others who do not have "Linhof Disease" the cheap way to go 70mm is with a Blad. 70 mm backs are $40.00-$50.00. Check out Dan's thread for more info.

Cal
 
J enea said:
I hear you there. I made a day trip to the ancient bristle cone pine forest and did the 4.5 mile Methuselah trail hike, at 10,000 feet ( realized after the fact that you should apply facial sunscreen every hour at that altitude!). I brought along my fuji gsw680 for black and white. Maybe I shot like I had a 35mm camera because of the rare location for me, but I wound up shooting over 17 rolls of B&W film on that walk along with 5 rolls of 220 velvia in my mamiya 6. I was a hassle to change rolls every 9 shots, but there were so many awesome shots to be had. I'm sure I would have shot more had I brought more film with ,e, but my shorts were overflowing with film. Boy do I miss 220 B&W

I'm sure there are going to be shots that maybe I should not have taken, and yes ut was a lot of film, but when i get home from yosemite Im sure the results will justify what I did, and to me thats all that matters
Click to expand...

J,

You did the right thing. I only have one roll of Velvia 50 left in 220 that someone had gifted me. I shot the other 4 rolls of Velvia when here in NYC they had "Fashion Night Out." The idea was to set up my Pentax 67 II with the AE prism and grip with my 75/2.8 AL and use the AFZ-500 the most powerful dedicated flash to exploit the TTL from the AE prism.

Basically I assembled a stun gun and went out to blind people out on Fifth Avenue when it got dark. LOL.

All the guys from the NYC Meet-Up told me to shoot Tri-X and warned me that Velvia was the most difficult film to shoot because it is so unforgiving, but at the next Meet-Up I showed them all the perfectly exposed slides. LOL. Boy am I a jerk. LOL.

I was across the street from Berdof's when I saw Nellie the bar maid from Puck Fair, where we had our Meet-Ups. I learned that she also was a model, and she was with four of her model friends. So I think to myself, "Is this my dream come true?"

So of course I shot them. I ended up giving those shots to Nellie at the next Meet-Up. What a pretty girl.

Across the street the live model in the Berdof window gave me a snotty look. It seems she took exception that another photographer was more interested in photographing me and my rig than her. LOL.

You can't make this stuff up. BTW I'm kinda famous for annoying people. Why do I have so many friends? LOL.

Way back there was a rumor on RFF that Kodak 320 was going to be discontinued. I ran down to B&H after work to try and hoard all the Tri-X 320 in 220, but someone beat me to it.

I raced down to Adorama and basically pulled out the plastic card with the magic numbers to buy the entire stock of Tri-X 320 in 220. It was one of the smartest things I ever did.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom