How do you cope with high film cost?

[smk]

Here is the way I see it. I use M lenses on a film M (MP). If I go digital, then I have to spend $5450 for say an ME (I know there are smaller frame alternatives, but I want to use my M lenses on full frame).

Suppose the ME goes for 7 years. In those 7 years, I shoot on average 100 rolls per year, and each roll of Tri-X is roughly $5 ($4.29 actually on B&H). I process film my own, let's say each rolls costs $0.25 cents to process (Rodinal is cheap!).

This means that in 7 years I will spend 7 x 100 x (5+ 0.25) = $3675. This is much less than 5.5k, so shooting film is still ok even though naively it may seem expensive.

However, if I start approaching 150 rolls per year then the two are equivalent, and given the convenience of digital it may make sense to go that route, but I'm not there yet so it's ok to use film for now.

Savvas

 

[tunalegs]

Film is still cheap. I frankly do not understand the whining. When I was in high school, in the early 1990s (I graduated in 1994), I remember buying Kodak Ektachrome Lumiere 100, which was Kodak's flagship professional E-6 at the time, and it was $10 a roll for 35mm at the local camera store. I bought some Kodak 35mm E100G before they stopped making it, and it was $8 a roll from Calumet in Chicago (the local place didn't sell it anymore).

Locally slide film sells for about $14-$16 a roll. That is expensive IMO. Online I can get it for half as much, but have to order more to make the postage cost worth it. It is cheap if you buy enough of it online. But locally it is getting really expensive, especially since Kodak and Fuji murdered their consumer slide films. Only a few months ago I could still get Elite Chrome etc. for $8 a roll or so at the local shops.

People keep prattling on about digital being 'free' to use. No it isn't, the cameras cost a fortune. Digital allowed camera makers to triple camera prices overnight, and while the image quality has vastly improved over the last 10 yrs, prices for pro level gear have not gone down much.

I agree, but I think it should also be pointed out that you get more camera for your money these days. A brand new digital Canon Rebel for instance is roughly equivalent in cost to a Praktica in 1950s money... So from that viewpoint I don't think one can complain much. Unless...

I'd love a digital Leica Monochrome, but the thing costs as much as I spend on film in 16 years! I shoot a lot of film, and it costs me about $500 a year. The M-Monochrome is $8000. Do the math. Film is CHEAP.

🙂

 

[KM-25]

As a photo hobbyist the cost is not prohibitive especially developing my own B&W. However, one of the factors that drove the pros to digital was the lower cost. If you were a pro shooting a couple of weddings in a weekend, the film and processing costs were high enough to justify purchasing a new camera system (especially if you could keep your old lenses). I don't have that problem - shooting apx 100 rolls per year keeps things manageable. However if film becomes a niche item, costing several times what it does now, then many of us will rethink the equation.

Don't assume so much, I am a pro who uses over 70% film for my work, cost is simply not an issue.
But that being said, I am loving digital for creating ad content for full motion work, just got my pair of GoPro Hero3's...

 

[DougFord]

Behind the mustard and jelly, on the top shelf of the fridge, there's quite a few rolls of various brands of b&w film. All 36 exposure, all purchased years ago. At this point I can't afford not to shoot film. Poor, poor pitiful me. *wink*

 

[denizg7]

i paid 3.50 for my tri-x... Let's say i use a roll or two a month... that's not bag

 

[zuiko85]

When I started color film and processing were a lot more expensive than B&W.

No more.

Early 70's a 100 ft. roll of 35mm Tri-x was $8 and a box of 20 snap caps was $2. Fast forward 40 years. B&H prices, 100 ft. TX 61.95, Kalt reloadable cassette .89 EACH! ($17.80 for 20)

That adds up to $79.75 +shipping, about $7 (or NY sales tax if you pick it up at the store).

So, for those going on about inflation I ask, has it really gone up 8X since 1972?

 

[Joosep]

At times like this its pretty good to work in a camerastore...

 

[John Bragg]

I have learnt how to scan, so savings on paper offset cost of film. I shop arround, (cheapest deal on some film is on ebay shop of a reputable seller as they provide free postage). Mostly I accept it as the cost of a quality medium.

 

[Photo_Smith]

That`s interesting ...I can pick up Agfa Vista 200 for a quid a roll in the UK but where are you getting the mono for £2.50 ?

Regarding the number of shots ...I did a portrait session recently for a friend.
I rarely do stuff like that so was surprised that she expected to be able to choose between two to three hundred shots.

I can only assume that is considered the norm .
If so it makes film a very expensive option.

That`s not to suggest that you need to take that many shots.

I buy my mono film from here (£2.17 a roll):
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2211

Regarding shot's why on earth would anyone want 200-300 shots to choose from?
I've been a portrait photographer for over 20 years, and shudder to think of a situation where I'd have to do that.
In my opinion it's not the material costs, after all if you have a decent cost/profit base you should get that back; for me it's the time, 400 shot would take me several hours and unless my remuneration is high I'm not going there.
Even if it is high I'm not sure that time will be constructive image wise.

 

[Michael Markey]

Thanks ...passed me by...I`ll grab some next time.
I`ve no idea why people would want to choose from that many shots either.
My presumption was that people seem to work in a much looser way .

 

[Photo_Smith]

Thanks ...passed me by...I`ll grab some next time.
I`ve no idea why people would want to choose from that many shots either.
My presumption was that people seem to work in a much looser way .

Yes its kind of a bizarre mentality I can shoot 10,000 shots on a wedding so I will.
Why? When every couple has 1-2 wedding images printed and on display and possibly an album that comes out every few years!

What I'm seeing is a more 'burst' type shooting pattern looser as you put it is less decisive and certainly less targeted.

As for the cost film photography has never been cheaper, when I started working as a photographer in 1986 a roll of Fuji HR 200/36 was £3.99 a roll of FP4 20 exp was £1.99 Processing at a 1hr minilab was £5.12 for 36 and process only E6 £3,30.

I'm paying less in just about every single case, couple that with a glut of second hand cameras and it can really make sense to still shoot film.
If you shoot only 1-2 films a week to shoot with say an Olympus OM2 SP and 50 rolls Fuji 36 from Poundland is cheap– less than £100 for film and camera for the first year.

 

[dct]

Yes its kind of a bizarre mentality I can shoot 10,000 shots on a wedding so I will.
Why? When every couple has 1-2 wedding images printed and on display and possibly an album that comes out every few years!

What I'm seeing is a more 'burst' type shooting pattern looser as you put it is less decisive and certainly less targeted.[...]

Agreed! I was private photographer with only one RF film body at a wedding. The two professional DSLR photographers made a few thousand of raw images (of course using burst mode) but the official selection DVD went down to around 1000 photos. Of these I would guess there are not more than 50 keepers (for print distribution), including single or double portraits of the guests.

I accompanied and enjoyed the event with my film body shooting one roll of Ektar 100 in the sunny afternoon and two rolls in the evening (one Superia 1600 and one HP5 pushed to 1600). This sums to 100 raw photos. Of these the printing keepers are are up to 40.

Let's do the math 😉

 

[thegman]

I agree, but I think it should also be pointed out that you get more camera for your money these days. A brand new digital Canon Rebel for instance is roughly equivalent in cost to a Praktica in 1950s money... So from that viewpoint I don't think one can complain much. Unless...
🙂

Not sure if you're complimenting the Praktica or the Canon there. There is certainly *more* of a Canon, more technology etc. but good engineering is to do the task in the simplest, most effective way possible. Surely, the Praktica wins there, stick a decent lens on it, and a decent roll of film, and you've got *technically* a better solution.

I fear I missed the point of your post and you were making the exact same point as me though...

 

[thegman]

Yes its kind of a bizarre mentality I can shoot 10,000 shots on a wedding so I will.
Why? When every couple has 1-2 wedding images printed and on display and possibly an album that comes out every few years!

I have never shot a wedding (professionally), but I get why wedding pros do this. They only get one chance at it, the wedding (likely) will not be repeated. The customer is often very fussy. Generally, they're not looking for art, they're looking for photos to show their friends.

To have the backup of 10,000 photos to choose from is reassuring, and if you're after a certain type of smile, a certain kind of look, or whatever, it's more likely you've got it. Shooting 8 shots in a burst will mean that you've got 8 chances to get a shot where someone does not have their eyes closed etc.

Garry

 

[alistair.o]

...I`ve no idea why people would want to choose from that many shots either...

Michael: I have always gone for what they need to complete the task not what will make them feel as though they are getting value for money - the fact that they have chosen you to do the job is the value added. The photographer has a brief and completes the brief without interference (or just walk)

Unfortunately, it has become the norm to rattle off X hundred amount of crap shots just because 'we can' and then give total control to the client to choose (not always the best choice)

 

[Pickett Wilson]

If you are getting paid to produce photos, your only criteria is to get the shot. No photo, no pay. Which is why wedding pros overshoot. And sports pros. And it isn't just a digital phenomena.

Back in the 1980's, Walter Iooss got impossible shots by using the Canon New F1 based High Speed camera that ripped through film at 14fps. The camera body was $12,000, but Iooss was being paid top dollar by Sports Illustrated to get the shot. He wasn't interested in shooting in the HCB tradition. He would simply shoot every sports play during a game and pick the best frame.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/canonf1highspeed/index.htm

 

[Photo_Smith]

I have never shot a wedding (professionally), but I get why wedding pros do this. They only get one chance at it, the wedding (likely) will not be repeated. The customer is often very fussy. Generally, they're not looking for art, they're looking for photos to show their friends.

To have the backup of 10,000 photos to choose from is reassuring, and if you're after a certain type of smile, a certain kind of look, or whatever, it's more likely you've got it. Shooting 8 shots in a burst will mean that you've got 8 chances to get a shot where someone does not have their eyes closed etc.

Garry

Well, I've shot hundreds of weddings and I can tell you shooting 10K shots is no more likely to get 'the shot' than just plain 'ol knowing what your customer requires-you know the questions you asked them in the pre-chat.
To have 10K shots to choose from isn't reassuring its just a chore and for the couple it would be a bore also.
Burst shooting just to make sure they have their eyes open is plain daft; I shot weddings for years always just looked at the bride and groom while shooting, you might need to take a second shot say every 10-12 at most.
At worst you might have to resort to PSCS to 'open' the eyes but I've never had to do that personally.

If you know what you are doing you can give the customer what they want in 100-150 shots for most weddings any more points to your deficiency in doing a job rather than any client need.

 

[MartinP]

On the over shooting thing, it may also be marketing and customer perceptions of value. A nice album of forty colour prints might be what is "needed", but when the deliverable is "one thousand pictures of your wedding on easy to use DVD" then it's easy to think that most people today will choose the second option.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

We actually have a local "mom with camera" who shoots weddings that promises to upload "at least 1,000" photos to the happy couple's Facebook account within an hour of the wedding festivities ending. Seriously. She also doesn't own a flash. Modern times.

 

[alistair.o]

I'm noticing more and more that there is a tendancy just to give someone's thoughts in threads regardless of what has already been 'said' - absolutely pointless.

Please, read what has gone before and choose from the following three options:

1. Disagree
2. Agree.
3. Say nowt.