Pfreddee
Well-known
*I* remember when gasoline was $.29 per gallon...
It's a hobby.
With best regards,
Pfreddee
It's a hobby.
With best regards,
Pfreddee
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I can afford to shoot film nowadays the same way I always afforded it in the past:
- make my film and processing costs a higher priority than other things
- don't shoot so much film that it overwhelms my budget
My budget is different from what it was in the past when all I used was film, and the cost of film and processing has risen as well. But the same principles apply.
G
- make my film and processing costs a higher priority than other things
- don't shoot so much film that it overwhelms my budget
My budget is different from what it was in the past when all I used was film, and the cost of film and processing has risen as well. But the same principles apply.
G
zian
Member
You've captured my sentiments perfectly.
ACullen
Well-known
After 10 years of exclusively shooting digital I went back to film 120 and 35mm. The costs don't seem too different to a decade ago. Sensible choices in film can control costs. Fuji Acros 100 for 35mm is at least double the cost of other films such as Ilford . By bulk rolling film costs can be pegged back a bit. Home processing B&W costs less than £1 a film. Even using expensive DDX the cost be roll is under £2.
I've even started E6 processing.
I've even started E6 processing.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
It costs about $0.80 per shot!! Not including the camera or lenses.
It costs about $0.80 per shot!! Not including the camera or lenses.
As I am now shooting film and having them developed and scanned at TheDarkRoom (Ilford), I estimate that every time I push the shutter costs me about 80 cents. I can bring it down to about 55 cents if I develop it myself (not printing it yet). It could cost about $0.26 every time I shoot my M8, or $0.35 every time I shoot my M9 (depreciation of those two cameras is big). Both consume time, I found that I was spending more time at the computer than shooting with digital. Now, I do not shoot as much, but with more thinking thoughts/process and cut down the computer time.
It costs about $0.80 per shot!! Not including the camera or lenses.
As I am now shooting film and having them developed and scanned at TheDarkRoom (Ilford), I estimate that every time I push the shutter costs me about 80 cents. I can bring it down to about 55 cents if I develop it myself (not printing it yet). It could cost about $0.26 every time I shoot my M8, or $0.35 every time I shoot my M9 (depreciation of those two cameras is big). Both consume time, I found that I was spending more time at the computer than shooting with digital. Now, I do not shoot as much, but with more thinking thoughts/process and cut down the computer time.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That makes it upward of 20 whatever per roll of processed B&W film. About twice the EU rate. What currency are you talking about, AUS$?
pepeguitarra
Well-known
US$20 per high resolution scanning for 35mm roll
US$5 to $6 per roll (36 frames)
US$6 shipping per roll
____________
US$32 per roll developed and scanned loaded on the Internet
32/36 = $0.89 per frame.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
FWIW, if you already have a film camera then you can go on using it and - in my case - the local lab for a lot less money than buying a digital camera as good as the film one, a printer, software and a film scanner...
And it seems to me that a decent digital camera costs a lot of money, lasts a few years and then is scrap.
Same with the printer and the cartridges cost more than a film, CD and a heap of 5" x 7" prints...
Regards, David
FWIW, if you already have a film camera then you can go on using it and - in my case - the local lab for a lot less money than buying a digital camera as good as the film one, a printer, software and a film scanner...
And it seems to me that a decent digital camera costs a lot of money, lasts a few years and then is scrap.
Same with the printer and the cartridges cost more than a film, CD and a heap of 5" x 7" prints...
Regards, David
MikeChong
oldskhool
I shoot with both film and digital. Putting equipment costs aside (and we all know if your choice is Leica film M's you're equipment prices are stable) it's the ride you get with film. Not just going from point A to B.
traveler_101
American abroad
I think film will continue to be sought after for both the experience and the look - particularly 35mm b&w scanned. I afford film by developing and scanning it myself. I really like developing, which I began doing just four years ago and would like to do wet printing as well - if I had the space for a darkroom. The other way I afford film is by keeping my digital costs down. I buy new cameras sparingly and only when they are on sale.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I still have rolls in my freezer from FreeStyle: rebranded Arcos short dated that I purchased for $1.89 a roll; and I still have a Tri-X (Arista Premium) that I only paid $2.89 a roll. I did like Boris in post 18 and filled my freezer because the price was right. B&W film only.
Next I keep my processing costs low by doing it myself.
Understand that at one point I was shooting on average 150 rolls a month, so even the cost of my one shot developer had to be contained because that became a big expense. I ended up figuring out how to make Diafine work for me so the cost of development became the cost of a few pennies of fixer that I bought in bulk to keep my costs low. Understand that Diafine gets reused and is not a one shot. Also it does not require replenishment. My cost of processing is almost nothing.
Basically I still maintain low costs because I took advantage of sales; I bulked up; I lowered costs; and I used economy of scale to my advantage.
Even at current prices that are about double for film my costs are not a lot. Film still is not that expensive if you decide to control your costs.
As far as scanning (something I thought I would never do) I had two old laptop computers laying around that did not get thrown out. One is a 2008 Mac Ibook that will make a great dedicated scanning computer. I ended up finding a deal on a Nikon LS 8000 ED a particularly good scanner that is kinda slow. Excluding the initial outlay of capitol expense of the scanner, the price of scanning becomes zero instead of an accumulative ongoing expense that adds up.
There are many ways to lower prices that make film still afforable if you want to.
Cal
Next I keep my processing costs low by doing it myself.
Understand that at one point I was shooting on average 150 rolls a month, so even the cost of my one shot developer had to be contained because that became a big expense. I ended up figuring out how to make Diafine work for me so the cost of development became the cost of a few pennies of fixer that I bought in bulk to keep my costs low. Understand that Diafine gets reused and is not a one shot. Also it does not require replenishment. My cost of processing is almost nothing.
Basically I still maintain low costs because I took advantage of sales; I bulked up; I lowered costs; and I used economy of scale to my advantage.
Even at current prices that are about double for film my costs are not a lot. Film still is not that expensive if you decide to control your costs.
As far as scanning (something I thought I would never do) I had two old laptop computers laying around that did not get thrown out. One is a 2008 Mac Ibook that will make a great dedicated scanning computer. I ended up finding a deal on a Nikon LS 8000 ED a particularly good scanner that is kinda slow. Excluding the initial outlay of capitol expense of the scanner, the price of scanning becomes zero instead of an accumulative ongoing expense that adds up.
There are many ways to lower prices that make film still afforable if you want to.
Cal
kkdanamatt
Well-known
I still shoot B+W 35mm film on occasion.
The film cost is $5 per 36 exposure roll of Tri-X.
I process it myself for about $.40 worth of chemicals, usually 2 rolls at a time.
After a careful inspection with a loupe, I'll scan (with my refurbished $99.00 Epson V500) only those negs that look promising.
That eliminates about 50% of the negs.
So, my final cost per usable scan is about 29 cents.
Color C-41 35mm film costs a bit less...about $4 per 36 exposure roll.
I have a local lab that processes and scans the entire roll for $10, so the final cost per scanned image is about 78 cents, calculating the same 50% hit rate.
Film vs. digital is a trade-off, , because quality digital cameras always depreciate rapidly, while film cameras don't.
Here's a billboard ad for Santander Bank that appears on some New Jersey Transit Stations. I think they are trying to ride the hipster film wave. Looks like a Canon FT-QL.
The film cost is $5 per 36 exposure roll of Tri-X.
I process it myself for about $.40 worth of chemicals, usually 2 rolls at a time.
After a careful inspection with a loupe, I'll scan (with my refurbished $99.00 Epson V500) only those negs that look promising.
That eliminates about 50% of the negs.
So, my final cost per usable scan is about 29 cents.
Color C-41 35mm film costs a bit less...about $4 per 36 exposure roll.
I have a local lab that processes and scans the entire roll for $10, so the final cost per scanned image is about 78 cents, calculating the same 50% hit rate.
Film vs. digital is a trade-off, , because quality digital cameras always depreciate rapidly, while film cameras don't.
Here's a billboard ad for Santander Bank that appears on some New Jersey Transit Stations. I think they are trying to ride the hipster film wave. Looks like a Canon FT-QL.
Attachments
sara
Well-known
At university, I used to buy self-spooled rolls of HP5 from the fashion department for £2/roll, and processed it myself, and scanned it at studio.
You are right, film is not cheap, but digital is far more expensive for me. With film, although I wish I could shoot every day but I don't, is cheaper overall within the x number of years that a digital camera is released till a new version appears.
But why buy something I hate shooting on and don't enjoy
You are right, film is not cheap, but digital is far more expensive for me. With film, although I wish I could shoot every day but I don't, is cheaper overall within the x number of years that a digital camera is released till a new version appears.
But why buy something I hate shooting on and don't enjoy
justsayda
Member
Permit me to imagine an alternative universe where photography had been digital from the start...........and now someone invents this strange stuff called "film"..........
Yes, you can get cracking photographs with film, but you can only use it once and it's not cheap, especially the larger stuff you need for really good quality photographs. Not only that, you can't see if your pictures have worked until you've had it "developed" which is another process you have to do yourself or pay extra for.
The film itself is really fragile and - get this - has to be handled in total darkness when it's un-rolled or taken out of it's cassette. Even when it's "developed" you can end up with mould growing on it if you're not careful.
This "printing" lark also has to be done with special equipment under a weak red light in a dark room such that you can hardly see what you're doing, in addition to having to inhale the fumes from the chemicals you use.
And then when you make a print, you have to do test exposures and "develop" these too before your final print because, like film, you can't see what you've got until it's too late correct mistakes without essentially starting again.
If that wasn't bad enough, you have to manipulate / edit each individual print unlike with digital where you make all the changes once on the file you're going to print from while sitting in a nice airy room with a cup of tea or coffee.
And, of course, you have to pay for the chemicals and paper even though you'll waste most of it making test prints.
Remember also that in this alternative universe, film cameras have just been invented, so there are no secondhand bargains to be had.
I could go on, but I think you've got the gist of the argument by now.
In this universe, would anyone - except the wealthiest and most enthusiastic - be ready to take the plunge and "go film"?
Yes, you can get cracking photographs with film, but you can only use it once and it's not cheap, especially the larger stuff you need for really good quality photographs. Not only that, you can't see if your pictures have worked until you've had it "developed" which is another process you have to do yourself or pay extra for.
The film itself is really fragile and - get this - has to be handled in total darkness when it's un-rolled or taken out of it's cassette. Even when it's "developed" you can end up with mould growing on it if you're not careful.
This "printing" lark also has to be done with special equipment under a weak red light in a dark room such that you can hardly see what you're doing, in addition to having to inhale the fumes from the chemicals you use.
And then when you make a print, you have to do test exposures and "develop" these too before your final print because, like film, you can't see what you've got until it's too late correct mistakes without essentially starting again.
If that wasn't bad enough, you have to manipulate / edit each individual print unlike with digital where you make all the changes once on the file you're going to print from while sitting in a nice airy room with a cup of tea or coffee.
And, of course, you have to pay for the chemicals and paper even though you'll waste most of it making test prints.
Remember also that in this alternative universe, film cameras have just been invented, so there are no secondhand bargains to be had.
I could go on, but I think you've got the gist of the argument by now.
In this universe, would anyone - except the wealthiest and most enthusiastic - be ready to take the plunge and "go film"?
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, artists, nerds and the extravagant probably would. Not everything is converging towards the most comfortable solution. For more than a century there have been far more easy and healthy ways for getting down from Montblanc than wingsuit flying, nonetheless the latter has been invented and grown popular in recent years.
Jon Buffington
Member
Once you get your workflow down, film is cheap and quick. I prefer this workflow than to the one I use for my digital setup (to each their own). Plus, I enjoy the whole process. From finding a former pro camera from the 70's for a whopping $20 that comes with a nice, sharp, fast prime, to the tactile feel, to the delayed gratification while I wait to develop the film, to feeding my pakon scanner, to watching the negs show up digitally that require almost no digital manipulation in post (compared to all my digital files, blahhhh) to finding out that if my negs aren't right, it was my fault with some part of the workflow and I must figure it out. And at the end of the day, I spent less than $5 on fun.
David Hughes
David Hughes
FWIW, when digital came along I had a perfectly good outfit and a neat little pocket P&S and couldn't see the point of abandoning them. Plus film was vastly superior to the early digitals for a long time and a lot lot cheaper since I only had to buy film and not hand over thousands to get a 3 megapixel outfit...
And, as I pointed out above, film and labs' prices have slowly dropped in real terms.
Regards, David
And, as I pointed out above, film and labs' prices have slowly dropped in real terms.
Regards, David
sara
Well-known
I am the artist and nerd you speak of
Most of us art people went through traditional methods of photography at university. This is the reason why film still works for me.
Pioneer
Veteran
Couldn't say. Never lived in that world. I would hate to live in your world.
I love the world that I do live in.
We are currently living in a golden age of photography. There have never been more wonderful ways to create photographs of things I see or imagine I see.
Of course, if you spend all your time imagining alternative worlds you will never get to enjoy the one you actually live in.
trondareo
Established
I run about thirty black and white films a year through my home darkroom. The number is slowly growing.
I run about 4 times that many digital color pitures a year through my camera and computer and some are even printed. It feels like I make about the same number of physical prints and it feels about as costly. So what?
A few years ago I didnt do film, I had a growing family and no time or money. I took pictures with a compact.
My daughter draws and paints about the same amount of digital and analog drawings and paintings a year. After a bout of digital she longs for a canvass and opposite.
I write in my paper journal, and my wordpress blogs. Probably about the same amount.
I use a mac and a pc, powerpoint and keynote, gmail and outlook, etc etc.
I dont think to much about which is better, it think about how they support my interests, and I pay the price of doing it because it is valuable to me. Not because the cost of one is lower.
Also, I was on the verge of buying a fuji X-pro 1 for cheap the other day because I was curious about exchanging my x-e1. But then I decided to spend a third of that money on film instead because I was running low.
I guess I was'nt curious enough.
I need to sell a few cameras that are sitting unused. And get a film evening going at my university department. I hope to print two books of digital work within a year, probably just for myself.
The point of all this is we do stuff for curiosity, engagement, feeling, materiality, esthetics, communication and fellowship. It film does not tickle these feelings you are not obliged to worry about it. Go do whats worth it instead.
I run about 4 times that many digital color pitures a year through my camera and computer and some are even printed. It feels like I make about the same number of physical prints and it feels about as costly. So what?
A few years ago I didnt do film, I had a growing family and no time or money. I took pictures with a compact.
My daughter draws and paints about the same amount of digital and analog drawings and paintings a year. After a bout of digital she longs for a canvass and opposite.
I write in my paper journal, and my wordpress blogs. Probably about the same amount.
I use a mac and a pc, powerpoint and keynote, gmail and outlook, etc etc.
I dont think to much about which is better, it think about how they support my interests, and I pay the price of doing it because it is valuable to me. Not because the cost of one is lower.
Also, I was on the verge of buying a fuji X-pro 1 for cheap the other day because I was curious about exchanging my x-e1. But then I decided to spend a third of that money on film instead because I was running low.
I guess I was'nt curious enough.
I need to sell a few cameras that are sitting unused. And get a film evening going at my university department. I hope to print two books of digital work within a year, probably just for myself.
The point of all this is we do stuff for curiosity, engagement, feeling, materiality, esthetics, communication and fellowship. It film does not tickle these feelings you are not obliged to worry about it. Go do whats worth it instead.