Fuji film prices to rise
- Thread starter Dana B.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 93
- Views 8K
thegman
Veteran
Interesting to get some exact prices, £3.49 in 1986 works out at £8.31 in todays money according to an inflation calculator, which would be more expensive than any colour negative film I can think of today. The FP4 would be almost exactly the same price as FP4 is now at AG Photographic, except you get 36 shots now, not 20.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
The true cost of digital vs. film would have to take into account the short life cycle of digi cams, and the cost of computers, software, peripherals and equipment purchased to store and read files going frward as medai keeps evolving, as well as the time spent managing this whole process. Film may cost more up front, but in the long term, it cost almost nothing to store and retrieve. You can still scan film to get it into the digital workflow, and those files have the potential to be even better over time as the techbology to scan them keeps improving, while digital capture files will always remain as they are.
I ran into a similar situation when I considered buyng a hybrid vehicle instead of a traditional car. I found that I would save a lot of money on gassoline, but because the vehicle itself cost so much more than the traditional car I was considering, i would end uo financing the gassoline. I shoot digital when I want to save time, but I still prefer film.
I ran into a similar situation when I considered buyng a hybrid vehicle instead of a traditional car. I found that I would save a lot of money on gassoline, but because the vehicle itself cost so much more than the traditional car I was considering, i would end uo financing the gassoline. I shoot digital when I want to save time, but I still prefer film.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
To say nothing of the lifetime of the batteries, and the financial and environmental cost of new ones...
Cheers,
R.
cosmonaut
Well-known
I have quit buying color film altogether due to cost. I have a fridge packed with B&W.
L Collins
Well-known
Excellent points. And particularly the Price difference between a top of the line digital ( say a Leica M) and film camera ( say an M4). That $6000 will buy about 2500 rolls of 36 exposure B&W. And in 5 years, when tou're done shooting all that film, you'll have an M4 still worth at least what you paid for it, while the M will have depreciated by half (if it's still working).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Something of an overstatement.
First, you're comparing new (and very expensive, at that) and second-hand: always a dubious activity. At that point why not postulate an even cheaper medium format camera?
Second, $2.40 a roll is cheap film: more realistically, it's twice that for good, fresh B+W film in the manufacturers' cassettes.
Third, you have to process it. This is not free.
Fourth, you can also shoot colour with an M.
Fifth, 'depreciated by half' still leaves you with quite a valuable camera, wiping out a lot of your so-called $6000 saving.
Sixth, why shouldn't an M still be working in 5 years? My M8 (7 years old) is still fine.
Using similar biased mathematics to yours, but in the opposite direction, then with slide film at $10/roll, processed, a $6500 M9 pays for itself completely in 650 rolls: 130 rolls a year for 5 years. And at the end, you still have a camera worth several thousand dollars...
Cheers,
R.
L Collins
Well-known
1) True. You can postulate an even greater price differential. I chose an M4 just to be fair. but You could choose an Nikon F for $200.
2) Not here in the States. I can pick up rebadged Tri-X for $2.49 a roll in the manufacturers cassette.
3) True. Though fairly marginal if, like me, you do it in bulk. And, if like me, you view developing film as part of the creative process, it's a bonus not given in digital.
4) You can shoot color with an M4.
5) True. obvious point I missed, but counterbalance somewhat by #1.
6) Electronics and silicon dependent mechanisms.
I guess the ultimate point is that you can justify either with reference to cost, depending on how you set the criteria considered. The popular consensus is that digital is "cheaper" than film. A more thoughtful consideration of the subject might lead reasonable people to a different conclusion.
2) Not here in the States. I can pick up rebadged Tri-X for $2.49 a roll in the manufacturers cassette.
3) True. Though fairly marginal if, like me, you do it in bulk. And, if like me, you view developing film as part of the creative process, it's a bonus not given in digital.
4) You can shoot color with an M4.
5) True. obvious point I missed, but counterbalance somewhat by #1.
6) Electronics and silicon dependent mechanisms.
I guess the ultimate point is that you can justify either with reference to cost, depending on how you set the criteria considered. The popular consensus is that digital is "cheaper" than film. A more thoughtful consideration of the subject might lead reasonable people to a different conclusion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Which was exactly my point.
Highlight 2: Or it might not.
What you are presenting is a mixture of genuine argument, half-truths and pure rationalization. How is an M4 (no meter, second hand) more 'fair' than a Nikon F? And how do you compare either second-hand camera to a new camera with a meter? You are also (as I was) carefully choosing your terms: e.g. if it's " rebadged Tri-X" it's not "in the manufacturers cassette", and your budget covered only B+W film. I was deliberately cheating to show how easy it is to twist an argument to suit your preconceptions and desires.
As for your point 6, "Electronics and silicon dependent mechanisms", this is pure nonsense. What drives most people to replace most electronics is pure consumerism, lightly seasoned with genuine improvements (e.g. full frame 18 megapixel for M9 instead of crop-format 10 megapixel for M8). On my desk alone I can see several bits of electronics that are more than 10 years old and still in use: an exposure meter, a lap-top, a cordless phone...
All in all, I agree: people really should look quite hard at the hidden costs of digital. But that's why I said "Something of an overstatement" instead of "I disagree". Your arguments cannot be ignored; but equally, by overstating them, you weaken them.
Cheers,
R.
L Collins
Well-known
No need to argue, Roger. We're both correct. And I do appreciate your expertise. cheers!
jsrockit
Moderator
There are plenty of cheaper digital camera that are not $6000. You can buy a very good digital camera used for $400-600 these days.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry: I really didn't want to come across as combative. Rather, I wanted to support your argument, but in a milder form.
Cheers,
R.
L Collins
Well-known
L Collins
Well-known
absolutely. And you can buy a good mechanical SLR for $10. The price differential tends to work better for film cameras when we're discussing top end equipment.
I guess my ultimate point, and probably what Roger is arguing as well, is you can't justify either digital or film solely on cost. Certainly you can justify digital on the basis of ease and convenience. But those criteria are irrelevant for some folks, like myself. Ultimately, the argument is about personal preference, a standard that can't be universalized.
Frontman
Well-known
I guess the extra 20% they are getting since the yen began weakening isn't enough for them?
bwcolor
Veteran
If Velvia 50 and Ektar 100 were the only color films, I would be OK. Unfortunately at $10/35mm roll Velvia is really approaching my price limit. I'm pretty happy with digital color, so I am price conscious when purchasing color film.
thegman
Veteran
I think a more important point is that if you chose the film option, you'd have been using the camera you wanted for 5 years. If you'd chosen the digital option, you'd also have been using the camera you wanted for 5 years.
If this hobby was all about making savings, we'd all be using the the cheapest DSLR we could find.
I prefer film, and have just recently got into 4x5. This is not going to be a cheap hobby, but it's cheaper than most of my other pastimes.
KM-25
Well-known
Color film is an uncertain road, I pretty much wrote it off after Kodachrome went. However, Ektar is excellent and not badly priced, scans great, I am stocked up for the next 5 years which is all I really need for a particular project.
But Fuji is on the way out with film when one considers Acros in 4x5 already the most expensive black and white sheet film out there. After buying about 300 rolls of 120 Acros for $2.69 each last year, I am done with Fuji. They are simply not commited to film like Ilford is.
These are actually great times to be a film photographer, not rough. The reason is that even though film prices have gone up, film camera and darkroom related prices have come down so it all balances out.
I stocked up huge last year, so as I use and rotate stock with higher priced film, my net operating costs will still be lower than most who did not stock up.
I am part of a current show of 10 photographers, three had shot film and two of us actually printed hand crafted photographs. Film is alive and well as a great niche.
But Fuji is on the way out with film when one considers Acros in 4x5 already the most expensive black and white sheet film out there. After buying about 300 rolls of 120 Acros for $2.69 each last year, I am done with Fuji. They are simply not commited to film like Ilford is.
These are actually great times to be a film photographer, not rough. The reason is that even though film prices have gone up, film camera and darkroom related prices have come down so it all balances out.
I stocked up huge last year, so as I use and rotate stock with higher priced film, my net operating costs will still be lower than most who did not stock up.
I am part of a current show of 10 photographers, three had shot film and two of us actually printed hand crafted photographs. Film is alive and well as a great niche.
Mystyler
Established
Wow, I never throught that 400X could get any more expensive than $39.95/roll. Guess I was wrong!
taemo
eat sleep shoot
good thing my friend sold me over 30 rolls of Kodak E200 35mm for 2$ each, it should be enough for the next 3-5 years.
and I just bought 5 more rolls of 120 Provia 100F. which to be honest, I don't foresee shooting more than 1 roll every 2 months.
also for vacation, I will buy 5 rolls of 120 Provia 400x which is around $40 from B&H, not really that big of an issue IMO. rather have 50 memorable shots in 6x7 format than over 1000+ with a digital camera.
also slide film are very expensive already here in Calgary
https://www.thecamerastore.com/search/apachesolr_search/fuji velvia
thank god I buy mine from B&H for half the price
and I just bought 5 more rolls of 120 Provia 100F. which to be honest, I don't foresee shooting more than 1 roll every 2 months.
also for vacation, I will buy 5 rolls of 120 Provia 400x which is around $40 from B&H, not really that big of an issue IMO. rather have 50 memorable shots in 6x7 format than over 1000+ with a digital camera.
also slide film are very expensive already here in Calgary
https://www.thecamerastore.com/search/apachesolr_search/fuji velvia
thank god I buy mine from B&H for half the price
Similar threads
