The Modern Film Shooter: Costs and Allegiences

[amateriat]

I went into Adorama yesterday (Thursday...Friday is sheer, utter madness...if you've done it, you know exactly what I mean) to stock up on film. Here's what roughly $166 (including NYC tax) buys:

- 20 rolls Kodak BW400CN (two 10-roll bricks)

- 10 Rolls Kodak Portra 400NC (two 5-roll Pro Packs)

- 2 rolls Kodak Portra 160NC

(Most of this is for specific projects...the rest is for stashing away.)

I hadn't bothered to compare different color films just yet (I'm shooting a daylight gig over the weekend...Fuji, like Batman, more or less rules the night, but Rochester holds the daylight fort for me), but the chromogenic state-of-cost got to me. Up until relatively recently, I'd bit the bullet and chose Ilford XP2 over BW400CN for two reasons: (1) unlike BW400, XP2 comes sans orange-ish cast, making it more amenable to the wet darkroom should I ever choose that option, and (2) a vague notion that it scanned just a bit better. I've been challenged on this by several people (even by Frank van Riper, and how can I argue with him?). I was going to mention pushability, but even though Kodak's offering doesn't appear to push well at all (the photo agency I used to work for pushed its predecessor, T400CN, but I forget how well that went, even though I was in charge of the push processing at the time), I can't say XP2 is more than marginally better at, say, EI 800. (Edit: While I was still in charge of that Noritsu processor at the agency, I also push-processed XP2–the real way, by adjusting development time, which just meant slowing down the processor transport–for myself: that stuff looked pretty sweet.)

But what I couldn't totally ignore was price. XP2 clocks in at $5.39 a roll at Adorama; BW400CN comes in at $4.29. Multiply that by the 20 rolls I bought yesterday evening and you get the picture fast.

Yeah, in my case, Kodak has home-field advantage: the stuff is made a mere 450 or so miles away, in the same state, while XP2 is brought to me from across the sea (cue Charles Trenet singing La Mer...or is that cool to mention here in regard to a Brit film?). But $22 was $22 this afternoon, and Rochester knows this.

So, for now, I stick with Kodak's chromo (it's quite good stuff, BTW...I don't feel I'm compromising in terms of overall quality or scannability). But, in the shifting sands of the film world we know and try to love, getting what you want–or think you want–gets trickier all the time.


- Barrett

 

[back alley]

i think xp2 is around 8.50 cdn here...

 

[Mattikk]

I bought 10 rolls of Ektar 100 and 10 rolls of Trix 400 = 97 euros.

Makes you really think about releasing the shutter. 😉

 

[Al Kaplan]

For color I mostly shoot Kodak Gold 200. On sale at Walgreens or K-mart the multi packs come in at about $1.50 for a 24 exposure roll which would equal about $2.25 for 36 exposures. For B&W I've been using mostly Tri-X but I'm in the process of transitioning over to Double-X 5222 motion picture film. Roughly the 5222 would figure at under $2 for a 36 exposure roll.

 

[amateriat]

I bought 10 rolls of Ektar 100 and 10 rolls of Trix 400 = 97 euros.

Makes you really think about releasing the shutter. 😉

Well, I'm almost always thinking, but I "release" when I want to. 🙂

What I'm thinking about here is the finessing of details when you reach the film-sales counter with the intent to lay out a good bit of cash. (I was there for fifteen minutes, trying to sort it all out in my little 'ead.) By the way, the Pro Packs of Portra (how's that for alliteration?) run about $28. I'm not exactly partying like it's 1999 here, but I can more or less deal with the situation, which, as my father was fond of saying, could always be worse.


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

For color I mostly shoot Kodak Gold 200. On sale at Walgreens or K-mart the multi packs come in at about $1.50 for a 24 exposure roll which would equal about $2.25 for 36 exposures. For B&W I've been using mostly Tri-X but I'm in the process of transitioning over to Double-X 5222 motion picture film. Roughly the 5222 would figure at under $2 for a 36 exposure roll.

Gold 100-6 was the stuff for me some years ago. I couldn't believe how good it was. Not quite what I saw when shooting Portra, but for cheap-and-cheerful it was solid film. Trouble was, it got mostly replaced by that retched Max stuff in local chain stores here, and I'll never touch them again. It's a bit like beer for me: consume a bit less, but go for the better stuff.


- Barrett

 

[alan davus]

I've just bought a 20 roll brick of Velvia 50 and one of Astia from Freestyle. With packaging and postage to Oz plus our lousy exchange rate vis a vis the greenback at the moment, it was still less than half price than if I'd bought it Downunder. If I had to pay $A23.95 a roll (current retail over here) I'd be out shopping for a digital camera.

 

[amateriat]

I've just bought a 20 roll brick of Velvia 50 and one of Astia from Freestyle. With packaging and postage to Oz plus our lousy exchange rate vis a vis the greenback at the moment, it was still less than half price than if I'd bought it Downunder. If I had to pay $A23.95 a roll (current retail over here) I'd be out shopping for a digital camera.

I'm truly wincing at those prices, Alan. All I can say is, thakk goodness for Freestyle (and Adorama, and B & H...).


- Barrett

 

[WDPictures]

For color I mostly shoot Kodak Gold 200.

Wouldn't have guessed this as a film of choice, not sure why really, perhaps the snap-shot connotations. This is what I've been shooting from a Costco stockpile that I think is now expired. Great stuff for me to run through a new camera to test out how it drives in color.

 

[Mattikk]

Well, I'm almost always thinking, but I "release" when I want to. 🙂

Yeah, I know. But I'm from the younger generation who started on digital. I'm used to snapping away all the time. Now I just enjoy looking through the viewfinder without even shooting, although I think I missed a couple of good shots because of that.

 

[WDPictures]

I'm truly wincing at those prices, Alan. All I can say is, thakk goodness for Freestyle (and Adorama, and B & H...).


- Barrett

I too have been doing some film pricing as I've been running a few new types through my RF's. This has me noticing the prices a bit more than just grabbing the Tri-x off the shelf. All my likes seem to be at or approaching $4 a roll.

Was also thinking about the possibility of rolling my own with the cost savings there... especially with something like Efke. Maybe once I settle on a new favorite or decide to stay with Tri-x.

 

[amateriat]

Yeah, I know. But I'm from the younger generation who started on digital. I'm used to snapping away all the time. Now I just enjoy looking through the viewfinder without even shooting, although I think I missed a couple of good shots because of that.

Understood. 🙂

The funny thing is, even on the odd occasion when a digital camera is in my hand, I can't get into just holding that button down and blazing away...I think the fear of all that post-shoot editing holds sway with me, big time!


- Barrett

 

[Lilserenity]

THat is a difference and I believe must be the direct result of some price rises from Ilford that I was warned about at the end of March.

Luckily I still have a local camera shop where I can buy paper. chemicals and films all at a decent price (120 or 35mm) -- by local I mean it's a 5-10 min walk from my front door. The only thing is they don't sell Kodachrome.

For that I either have:

- Boots Chemists - 3 for 2 brings it out at £25 for 3. ($39)
or
- 7DayShop.com - Price rise recently of around £2 a roll which in fairness we were warned about so now it costs pretty much what it does from buyting it locally in my own town especially in quantities <5

I have the same dialemma as I am doing a big walk soon (2 weeks, North Downs Way, 135 miles bring it on baby!) and necessarily I need film.

I have two choices:

10 x KR64 - my preferred choice but at £81 thereabouts not that cheap but it does include processing but not postage to Lausanne, basically we're talking £100.

or 10 x EBX (Consumer E100VS) - that will come in at a little over £25 -- massively cheaper but no E6 development included. E6 Film + E6 processing is more or less exactly the same price I pay for a roll of KR64 and postage to Lausanne. It's a tough call.

I'm not what you could all rich (I get by but I have to watch the pennies) so I'm really stuck over which to choose at the moment.

Also FWIW, apart from the orange mask, there's nothing wrong with BW400CN, I've always found it more forgiving for portraits than XP2. I don't often shoot Chromogenic C41 but I must admit I usually go for XP2 as it has no orange base.

 

[amateriat]

I too have been doing some film pricing as I've been running a few new types through my RF's. This has me noticing the prices a bit more than just grabbing the Tri-x off the shelf. All my likes seem to be at or approaching $4 a roll.

Was also thinking about the possibility of rolling my own with the cost savings there... especially with something like Efke. Maybe once I settle on a new favorite or decide to stay with Tri-x.

I have, off-and-on over the last 20 years, rolled my own. I still keep a really good bulk-loader around if I ever feel the need for bulk loading again. But I haven't felt the urge in quite some time, and I don't possess deep pockets. The combination of convenience and consistency have kept me buying factory-rolled film. But all this depends on individual priorities and needs: if one desires or needs to get the most from every dollar, film-wise, and is willing to do the proper work to keep things running smoothly on the bulk-loading front, then bulk loading is clearly the way to go.

For me, however, I just buy 'em by the "brick."


- Barrett

 

[Prosaic]

But what I couldn't totally ignore was price. XP2 clocks in at $5.39 a roll at Adorama; BW400CN comes in at $4.29. Multiply that by the 20 rolls I bought yesterday evening and you get the picture fast.

The bad news is, if you look at Kodaks and Fujis annual reports, film sales are dropping year by year, they dont just stagnate on a low level, they drop.

So prepare for constant price increase over the next few years. Thats the bonus you pay for "film as a hobby".

 

[amateriat]

The bad news is, if you look at Kodaks and Fujis annual reports, film sales are dropping year by year, they dont just stagnate on a low level, they drop.

So prepare for constant price increase over the next few years. Thats the bonus you pay for "film as a hobby".

Perhaps. But the situation at the moment is at least somewhat better than I believe was predicted in some quarters some time back.

There's no predicting the future; I'd even speculated here about the entire world of still photography as we know it dying a crass and ignoble death before the 21st Century is done. By the same token, the proverbial stray, uncharted asteroid could swing by a bit too close and render all this discussion, amongst most others, irrelevant.But, in the end, I'd just rather head out and buy a bunch of film and photograph. Much, much better.


- Barrett

 

[Bob Michaels]

The bad news is, if you look at Kodaks and Fujis annual reports, film sales are dropping year by year, they dont just stagnate on a low level, they drop.

Film is truly an insignificant part of both Kodak and Fujifilm's business. The Kokak SEC filing (Form 10K) shows the photography group to be less than 1% of sales. And that <1% includes photo finishing and the movie industry, both larger than the consumer & professional film business. Fuji's product breakdown is similar. You have to read very deep into the Fujifilm financial analysis to even find mention of film as we think of it.

B&W film is a insignificant part of the insignificant total film business. I would be surprised at all if either the CEO of Kodak or the CEO or Fujifilm could tell you if Tri-X was a Kodak or Fujifilm product.

But I do remain convinced that film will always be around. And that film costs will be an extremely minor part of our total personal expenditures. Film costs are absolutely dwarfed by our personal expenses for any one of: housing, food, transportation, medical, energy, communications or a host of other things.

 

[Ronald M]

It is not film cost, but film inconvience and processing. It has to be developed by you or you take it somewhere, two trips. Then it has to be printed some way for evaluation.

No wonder digi has taken over !

A few old grumps like me still buy film 100 feet at a time, load it into cassets, and have a great time.

But my digital Nikons see more and more use. The instantaeous color image is very adictive. I recommend a Nikon D700.

Now if Leica made a full frame RF, I would be in heaven.

 

[djonesii]

I have been shooting film pretty regularly for about 6 months now, first 35mm and now mostly MF, it is always to augment something that I am doing in digital, or for a special project or an other. I scrounge off of e-bay. My magic number is $2 for C41 120 or $4 for 220. If I cannot beat $2 per roll, then I just buy from ultrafine online or free style. Simply, I get the bottom of the barrel cheap stuff, and it almost always works out.

Worst case, I always have the digital to fall back on. I shoot film because it's something diffirent and slows me down and I need to think just that extra bit about what I'm doing. In general, my film shots are framed better, and take less post than the digal, but they are almost always a week later for the C41, and 2 or 3 days for the B&W.

The next trick is 4X5!

Dave

 

[NathanJD]

I feel lucky to live in the same country as Ilford because what we get is their price minus all the shipping fees etc you poor people overseas have to contend with. They make a very nice (in my opinion) little clutch of films. Also, as far as the consumer industry is concerned, film related products is all they do so I’m not expecting them to shut their doors on film until they have to shut their doors and hand their employees their redundancy packages, which I hope with all my heart will not be in my lifetime, or at least not until they make a full frame RF and I can afford it!! :O

I have a bulk film outfit at home but to date I have been experimenting that much that I don't really want to have 100ft of one type of film hanging around in case I see something else that suits me better although 100ft of HP5+ is looking very tempting at a price of £38.42 plus shipping at the moment.

Colour is a worry. I haven't tried Ektar yet but I’m hoping it will be everything I want from a highly accurate and low noise film and is available to me for about £4.69 for a 36 exposure roll. I have used Kodak Gold 200 but found it a little on the grainy side for my liking - I love grain in my B&W images (see my most recent gallery additions) although I do feel it can sometimes be too intrusive in a colour film.

That's my $0.02 anyway 🙂