Photography Economics

[jsrockit]

Welcome to the preeminate film vs. digital thread! It's like the Twilight Zone in here. 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger,

No.
These improved films like TMY-2 give us
- much better performance compared to the former films
- much better value in comparison
- using them means having a better situation today than 25 years ago.

That is only valid for the two Kentmere / AgfaPhoto New films.
I think Ilford is knowing what they are doing here. If it would not make sense for them, they would not do it.
They've learned from the past.
They are successful. In even such a way that they are working on a complete new, modernized factory in Mobberley.

Completely wrong.
There are no short ends or old Agfa master rolls in Rollei-Film's current BW assortment.
It is all fresh production either from Agfa in Belgium, or from Ilford (the RPX line).



As said before, I have the lists here: At least in Germany, the most important European market, the supply is bigger today compared to 1990.

Cheers, Jan

Dear Jan,

Para 1: "More" and "better" are different. Replacement films are not "more" though they may be "better".

Para 2: Who do you think coats Bergger? Clue: it ain't Bergger.

Para 3: Really no short ends and old master rolls? I defer to your superior knowledge. It's just not the way they operated in the past.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

Dear Cal,

you have the wrong benchmark. You are referring to prices which were a special situation, and not real sustainable market prices.

Cheers, Jan

Jan,

These opportunities existed for many years, and I capitolized on the cheap pricing by loading up the truck with Freestyle rebranded films. In turn I took the opportunity to blast away and shoot a lot of film while it was very inexpensive. To me if you want to be a good photographer it helps if one shoots a lot.

At the same time I loaded up 120 Fuji Acros that was not rebranded for $2.69 a roll at retail stores, and part of what you stated above is not true, cheap Fuji Acros was readily available in 120 at 135 Freestyle pricing at retail stores at the same time. I found that at Adorama and B&H I could bulk up on some films at lower pricing than at Freestyle. Not sure how many years the rebranded film at Freestyle lasted, but I surely took advantage of the low prices.

BTW I still have about 40 rolls of Arista Premium in my freezer, about 150 rolls of rebranded Acros in 135, and about 100 rolls of Acros 120 that I only paid $2.69 a roll.

I will agree with you that these low prices were not sustainable, but I call those now gone low prices an opportunity, but realize that theses crazy low prices lasted for some time and were not so limited like you suggest.

Cal

 

[pete hogan]

I have hunkered down with Tri-X. Was I wrong to do that, or just early?

 

[Calzone]

Welcome to the preeminate film vs. digital thread! It's like the Twilight Zone in here. 😉

John,

I'm confused. I love and promote both. I explore each seperately as entirely different mediums, and I feel that I fully exploit each medium to its advantage. In my book no clear favorite and economically I spend mucho money on both mediums to fully explore both.

I dont scan, I shoot film for wet printing, and now I finally print digital images digitally.

Sorry for the drama/trauma. The Twilight Zone does seems to suggest a seperate reality... LOL. Crazy thing is that some people can't help themselves and get kinda crazy... Kinda funny from where I'm coming from.

Already had to clarify that I'm not "Chicken Little" and that the end of film is not what is the subject of this thread. ECONOMICS=SPENDING MONEY AND PRICING. Everyone should know also that in addition to recently spending many thousands on my digital printing system that I also recently went on an economic rampage buying mucho film gear that were good deals: mint Leica IIIG; 43/1.9 Pentax-L in LTM; Olumpus 24/3.5 shift in Nikon F-mount; Topcon 250 exposure bulk loader; 45/2.8 Super Rokkor in LTM; a Leica film cassette loader...

In my book both mediums seem to be both being fully explored and exploited, and I've spent mucho money on both. Do you think I would still buy a lot of film gear if I thought the end of film was near? If I like film so much why do I shoot digital? If I shoot digital why do I continue to shoot film?

I like digital photography, but I don't like digital thinking. Perhaps this is the problem... I don't think I am so confused buy exploring two mediums fully at the same time. You are entering "The Cal-Zone."

Cal

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I have hunkered down with Tri-X. Was I wrong to do that, or just early?

Right there with you.
If I buy any film these days it's Tri-X and the occasional (no longer cheap) 400ft roll of Eastman 5222.

Hopefully my little purchases do some good in keeping that place open.

As for digital capture, if I look back to all my paid photo gigs, it made absolutely no sense for me to shoot a digital camera with regard to frame-to-frame cost. Cost of the digital camera and all its ancillary equipment (chargers, cables, batteries) eclipses the cost of a similar film camera plus film and processing. If you take Leica or Nikon, both systems which I have been heavily invested in, the film vs. digital economics weigh so heavily towards film, I have no idea (aside from deadlines) why I ever decided to go with a digital camera. I posted something like this a few years ago when I was shooting a Leica M9.

Phil Forrest

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just to change the subject; what I have done with people I know is trade cameras and postage to their country for film and postage to me here. Usually it's a win win deal as I tell them what film I'd buy with the money and they can often go one better even allowing for postage...

Just thought I'd throw it in to the discussion.

Regards, David

 

[Calzone]

I have hunkered down with Tri-X. Was I wrong to do that, or just early?

H,

Good choice, classic, and you can do a lot of great photograpghy with just Tri-X.

Tri-X is one of my choices, and the other Acros. I only need two.

Jim Marshall made his whole reputation and established his career with just shooting Tri-X, Another is Jerry Gay a pulitzer Prize winning photojounalist.

It is wise to stick with one film and fully explore how to make it work for you. Lot's of experimenting with ISO and developers to find out which magic combination works for you.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

Sorry for the drama/trauma. The Twilight Zone does seems to suggest a seperate reality... LOL.

Cal, you are one of the sane voices... this time! 😉 The Cal-zone isn't such a bad place. In person, we love the over the top gear fests.

 

[Calzone]

Hi,

Just to change the subject; what I have done with people I know is trade cameras and postage to their country for film and postage to me here. Usually it's a win win deal as I tell them what film I'd buy with the money and they can often go one better even allowing for postage...

Just thought I'd throw it in to the discussion.

Regards, David

David,

Barter is generally always mutually beneficial. I've traded a lot of gear over the years.

Once traded camera gear for two vintage Bruce Davidson prints with an art dealer (the two images are from the Welsh Mining series: one is of the little girl in the graveyard; and the other is the little boy with the baby carrage).

Trade a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor AIS for a boxed 35/1.4 Lux ASPH pre-FLE in a flat trade. I still miss the Noct-Nikkor, but I decided to get more Leica centric.

Then somehow I got this 1954 M3-DS that had a factory fresh brand new "L" seal because it had gotten overhauled by Leica Germany back from this art dealer as an interest payment in a loan sharking deal. A really remarkable M3 because Leica had even resilvered the rangefinder prism.

Traded unwanted/unused Leica gear to get a chrome version of a 50 Lux ASPH in another flat trade (35 Cron V.4 and a black M6 with 0.85 finder). In a way good gear trades like a commodity. Another reason why I decided to become more Leica-centric.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Cal, you are one of the sane voices... this time! 😉 The Cal-zone isn't such a bad place. In person, we love the over the top gear fests.

You kinda said it, "The best tool for the job." I don't care if its digital or analog. The most fun is going crazy without limit.

Perhaps I'm the rare fool who embraces both mediums with such crazy gusto. I'm kinda afraid of adding up all the costs. Whatever you do don't tell "Maggie" that I spent all this money. LOL.

BTW I only own 13 cameras. I'm giving away my trophy/bargain camera, the Busch Pressman that is minty, that I paid only $24.99 plus tax, that I found at the Housing Works near Puck Fair where we have the NYC Meet-Ups, because it is the one camera that will likely never get used. A great Grand Prize for the Cheap Camera competition at our February "Camera Convention."

Back on topic, meaning Photography Economics: Free Camera deserves a mention. Now to start the arguing: its an analog camera. LOL. Seriously, this thread is getting silly, but photography should be fun.

Cal

 

[Out to Lunch]

The digital camera market is collapsing. The sales in 2014 were only 1/3 (!!) of the level in 2010.

And...but don't tell anyone else... the continents are drifting apart!

 

[jsrockit]

One man's collapse is another man's equilibrium. It's all in your bias and how you choose to interpret things.

 

[Calzone]

That's right.

And another aspect is very important:
If you ask digital photographers what they are doing with their pictures about 90-95% say they only look at them on a computer monitor.
Only a very small percentage is making prints, and those often make only quite small prints.

Computer monitors offer by far the worst picture quality of all viewing media.
Extremely low resolution (1-2 MP), because of the discrete structure of LCD screens no real halftones are possible, limitations in color rendition.
But for using that limitated media you just don't need a 12, 18, 24 or 36 MP cam.
These cams are complete overkill.
You pay huge amounts of money for a technology you cannot exploit at all.
You are indeed wasting lots of money.

And those who have spent so much money again and again for the latest digital toy, but using only a monitor as viewing medium, are very often those who say to film photographers that "film is more expensive than digital" 😉.
Crazy world.....

Cheers, Jan

Jan,

Very true, but understand that a 27 inch Eizo is a mighty good display that can display 256 shades of grey accurately, and along with Piezography inks (7 shades of black) and a Quadtone RIP (no dither or airbrush like effect like when printing B&W on a color printer) these toys/tools offer the very best. This by no means is money wasted. Mark Cuban once said," Go big or don't go." Good advice. It took almost 2 years to get the funds to "go big." I didn't mind the wait because there has been a great payoff: great results.

It was two years ago that I bought my Leica Monochrom, but only recently do I have the capability to print digitally. Nothing wrong with concentrating on digital image capture for two years to learn how to fully exploit the medium.

Also understand that I annoy people by shooting mucho film, but I don't yet print. I went to art school in the 70's and was a very-very good wet printer. I figure to avoid "opportunity lost" it is best to concentrate on shooting a developing film at this time and printing can always be performed later. To me this seems like the most cost feasible approach, especially since I live in NYC, am not so far from retirement, and at this time I do not have the time or space for a darkroom, although I have a complete darkroom in storage. Again Mark Cuban once said, "Go big or don't go."

Meanwhile I eat my nut butter sandwitches for lunch at my day-job. The money has to come from somewhere. I don't own a car because I have NYC mass transit so right off the bat I figure I save about $10K a year. Cameras are a lot cheaper than a car.

Cal

 

[HHPhoto]

Dear Roger,

Dear Jan,

Para 1: "More" and "better" are different. Replacement films are not "more" though they may be "better".

that's fuddy-duddy nit-picking, isn't it?
Whether I have more film options, or better film options, in both cases my situation is improved, is better compared to the former situation. That's all what counts.

Para 2: Who do you think coats Bergger? Clue: it ain't Bergger.

Right. But you cannot buy this film completely converted as 135 film, ready to use from any other source.
And Bergger has announced that this film will be additionally available this year as 120 and sheet film, too. Exclusively coated for them on the different 120 and sheet film bases.
Same here: You cannot get this film in 120 or sheets from anyone else. Only exclusively from Bergger.

Para 3: Really no short ends and old master rolls? I defer to your superior knowledge. It's just not the way they operated in the past.

No short ends and master rolls in the current BW film range.
Some years ago they sold APX 100 and 400 from Leverkusen stock as Rollei Retro 100 and 400.
But that stopped several years ago, long gone.
Current films are from Agfa Belgium, Ilford and FilmoTec. All current production.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

One man's collapse is another man's equilibrium. It's all in your bias and how you choose to interpret things.

Not for the manufacturers who have to cope with this dramatic development.
Not for the employees who are dismissed.
Lots of the Asian OEM manufacturers for DSC cams already had to stop production.
If the trend continues (and that is what the manufacturers do think) others have to follow.
Sony's camera department is hardly profitable, Olympus' is not profitable for five years now.
Nikon would have made a loss last year if not the (for them) improving exchange rate saved them.

No one is doing anyone a favour by ignoring the facts.
The party time is over.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Timmyjoe]

On a similar note, I've noticed the price of used Leica film cameras is going up. Last summer, and for the previous few years, nice shape Leica M3, M2, and M4 cameras could be had in the $800 to $1300 range. Now, except for some of the classified postings here and on eBay, the prices are ranging from $1100 to $1900. The only old Leica M B&H currently has for sale is an M4-P in moderately worn condition (not really a highly sought after M) and they're asking $1100 for it. Same thing with KEH.

Maybe the launch of the M-A made folks think twice about the value of older M film bodies.

 

[HHPhoto]

It was two years ago that I bought my Leica Monochrom, but only recently do I have the capability to print digitally.
Cal

Dear Cal,

if you print, especially if you print big, you agree to me.
Then we are sitting in the same boat.

I think I've clearly written it:
Spending thousands of dollars for a 12, 18, 24 or even 36 MP cam and then only using a 1-2 MP computer monitor, the worst viewing medium with lots of limitations, is a waste of money.
Because you cannot fully exploit the potential of your cam at all.
If you print big, then it's fine.
That's the case when higher MP cams make sense.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Maybe the launch of the M-A made folks think twice about the value of older M film bodies.

That is indeed possible.
If you make a real economic calculation, Leica film Ms (and also new Rolleiflexes, or a new Nikon F6, Linhof Technika etc.), are extremely cheap cameras with excellent value.
You can use them for decades.
Leica and Rolleiflexes are working fine even when they are 40, 50 or more years old. If you pass away even your children can continue to use them.
Well, that is real value. Using a product for such a long lifespan.
You really get something for your money.

Cheers, Jan

 

[jsrockit]

If the trend continues (and that is what the manufacturers do think) others have to follow. Sony's camera department is hardly profitable, Olympus' is not profitable for five years now. Nikon would have made a loss last year if not the (for them) improving exchange rate saved them.

No one is doing anyone a favour by ignoring the facts. The party time is over.

Well, computer manufacturers had to deal with the same thing years ago. Nobody stopped making computers even though the average person only upgrades after 4-5 years. Digital items evolve and there are always hits and misses. Items go through cycles. Don't you think that film camera manufacturers had some losing years as well? There were certainly very slow years in the film camera days. Do you think that Nikon and Olympus should start going back to making film cameras in huge numbers? That would be an even worse idea.

I get it, you are PRO-film. Your bias shows this by your comments. However, film is not going to replace digital in any mainstream form. If digital, as it currently stands, is replaced...it'll be replaced by something entirely different.