What percentage price increase would it take before you reconsider using film?

[shadowfox]

Answering the question,

*If* the main cause of the price increase is indeed production cost (not price-gouging), there is a threshold where production cost ceased to be viable. Therefore the manufacturers would give up first before customers will.

So my prediction is there will not be a $50 Tri-X roll (10x current average price). If it gets to that point, there will no longer be Tri-X, period.

I'll buy and use film as long as they make film. Beyond that, I'll use my digital camera and from time to time do this:
http://vimeo.com/14472775

😀

 

[Rayt]

It won't matter much with 135 format because I can bulk load or be more selective when shooting. For large format I usually bracket my shots but that really isn't necessary unless the light is really tricky. For medium format if a roll of TX in 120 goes up to ten buck then that might just do it for me. I don't need to shoot 120 as long as there is 4x5.

 

[Red Robin]

For me it's open up the freezer and then "once more into the breach, dear friends, once more into the breach". I started stocking up some time ago.

 

[alfredian]

Quo vadis "capital?"

Quo vadis "capital?"

Okay, here's a foray into capitalist economics:
"What if" Kodak abandons B&W film - leave color aside for now. B&W is definitely a niche any more. Kodak will possess=own a bunch of newly-built machines in a a building + warehouse on some land. Real estate aside, the physical asset (machinery) belongs to the shareholders. Ultimately, as a publicly-traded company they'd have to do something with the value tied up in the machinery, let alone the real estate.

So they'd sell the machinery. That's what (eventually) happened with the former Afga gear - sat idle while the lawyers dreedled on, then changed hands. I don't know if the gear was unbolted & put on trucks & trains, but it (supposedly) is back in operation somewhere in Central/Eastern Europe.

Willl "Kodak" become "Kodox" or "Koji" or "Koford"? With seven billion+ people on the planet, even a small percentage of B&W users will be a market.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

It's more than just equipment, and I doubt Kodak would have a thrift sale on their intellectual property.

 

[Rayt]

If b/w sales drop to a point where Kodak can no longer maintain its facilities then the logical next step would be to license the product to a foreign partner along with equipment and know how and collect royalties.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Well, that could help Kodak's shareholders and some company in another country, I guess.

 

[Lss]

My friendly neighbourhood C41 development went up 20% year-on-year, but the total cost increase for all my film stuff is smaller. This makes no difference at this point, but these things do add up over time. I don't see myself giving up on film completely as long as it's legal.

 

[DougK]

I'm never really sure how to answer these polls. My GR Digital III has already replaced 35mm and 120 film for me for most casual shooting, so I guess you could say 35mm and 120 already cost more than I'm willing to pay.

However, I'm still looking at getting into 4x5 film because I shoot mostly landscape and there is no large format digital option within the reach of mere mortal budgets (I suppose I could sell a kidney, but I might need it someday). If I'm going to spend money on film, then I want the best and biggest negative or chrome I can afford; I can shoot 4x5 film for the rest of my life for the cost of one digital LF back. So for 4x5 I guess the answer is that I'll spend what it takes to get the image I want.

 

[Gid]

I don't shoot a lot so, in absolute terms, cost is not a significant problem. I've just bought some FP4 and HP5 at £3.30 a roll (cheapest I could find in the UK) which is about 50% more than I was paying a few years ago. relative to the beer I paid £6 for yesterday, film is cheap.

 

[c.poulton]

I don't shoot a lot so, in absolute terms, cost is not a significant problem. I've just bought some FP4 and HP5 at £3.30 a roll (cheapest I could find in the UK) which is about 50% more than I was paying a few years ago. relative to the beer I paid £6 for yesterday, film is cheap.

Well put Gid!

For me film is photography! So if I want to continue with my photographic hobby (and it is only a hobby) I will continue to buy film at any cost.*

I might change my mind one day in the future, but so far I'm not convinced by digital - I don't want to start a film vs digital debate, this is my personal opinion.

It's not too dissimilar to painting, drawing or other fine arts - the cost of materials is horrendous!

(*Obviously there is a point where if the cost of the film workflow becomes too much for me to afford, then I will need to seriously think about pursuing my hobby.)

 

[Snacks]

I recently bought into medium format, and the both the quality and the experience of shooting, developing and printing make the cost worthwhile for me. I do realise, though, that I could have bought a D90 for the amount of money I've sunk into it so far.

Since I have all I need to get from light to framed photograph, I reckon I'll hold out even if 120 film reaches $20. Beyond that, I doubt I'd be able to use the camera with any frequency.

My gripe is that 220 film has one foot in the grave. If you have to pay someone else for postage, development and printing then it makes sense to have more shots per roll. At $10 per roll it is still cheaper than two rolls of 120 (development and printing included). Oh well, the price of the art etc. etc.

 

[DerekF]

Having almost gone through all of the PX600 film I bought from The Impossible Project a few weeks ago, I'm primed to order another batch (probably another 5 or 6 packs) just as soon as our postal dispute gets resolved. $24 + shipping for 8 exposures isn't cheap, but it sure as hell is fun stuff to shoot.