when does the cost of film become too high for you?

[yossarian123]

I checked my fridge last night and noticed that I'm out of Portra 400 & 160 and only have 1 roll of Ektar remaining (35mm). The last time I bought C41 was more or less a year ago so I went to the B&H website to order a pro pack of 400. My jaw dropped to the floor - $8 for a roll of 400 and $7 for 160! As much as I love shooting film, I won't pay $8 + $12 (developing/scanning) for a single roll of film! So it looks like I'll be shooting B&W from now on and digital for color.

So, just a general question to everyone - at what point does the cost of film get to a point where you just give up? I don't foresee myself giving up B&W for a long time - the cost of chemicals, scanning at home, and the cost of b&w film is still pretty cheap for me. I imagine if the cost reached $10+ per roll then I'd seriously think about scaling back how much film I shoot.

 

[doolittle]

The cost of E6 has put me off using it routinely, would really only use it now if had a project in mind.
B&W on the other hand, is still more than worth it for me to use routinely. To be honest prices would have to go pretty high before I would consider other options.
Except for a particular look I don't really see any reason for using C41 anymore, for me digital is a more than adequate replacement for it. Especially as with C41 I would be printing scans anyway, where as with B&W I am now wet printing.

 

[Jan Pedersen]

For me it depends on the format. I have already given up on color film for large format (8x10) as one sheet now is more than 13$
For 35 and 120 it is still affordable but i mix color film photography with digital and use film for special projects where i don't like the 'Perfect digital look'
Shooting LF for some years have helped me being more selective with the trigger finger even shooting 35mm.

 

[jsrockit]

If you are in love with film, and aren't into digital, you will continue to pay. There's no way around it.

 

[Keith]

I'm really only comfortable shooting 135 from 100ft rolls ... if they become unavailable I may stop shooting that format.

 

[ZeissFan]

The cost of film becomes too high when you try to buy film from someone who thinks they can fund their kid's college education with a roll of Kodak HIE.

Otherwise, there is enough film out there - often from Freestyle - that this isn't even an issue.

However, if film is too expensive, maybe it is time to "go digital."

 

[brbo]

I buy relabled Provia 100F for 3.88 EUR and develop myself for 2 EUR/roll (single shot).

I'll probably keep shooting film (I don't have a digital camera) until I need to pay 10 EUR/roll or more. Then I'll pick another hobby.

 

[Keith]

If you are in love with film, and aren't into digital, you will continue to pay. There's no way around it.

That's a very sweeping statement ... IMO if film went to somewhere between ten and fifteen dollars a roll a lot of shooters would bale out!

I'm into photography not medium worship ... if I had to go digital, so be it!

 

[thegman]

My volumes are low enough for it not to be a problem. The cost of film could double, and it's still not a huge deal.

10 sheets of Ektar 4x5 costs $34.99, it sounds a lot for 10 shots, but this evening chances are I'll order a takeaway which will cost about the same.

Just recently I spent £110 on film for a once a year trip, again, sounds a lot, but my gym membership is £120 *a month*.

In real terms, inflation included, film is cheaper now that it was in 90's. I can buy a roll of Kodak ColorPlus for £1.69, two rolls of Rollei slide film for £6.99. In 1990, inflation adjusted, that is £3.63. That means a roll of slide film is the equivalent of £1.82.

Prices feel like they are going up as we're comparing numbers of pounds/dollars, but that only tells half the story. In the UK at least, now compared to 1990, money is worth roughly half what is was.

 

[lynnb]

It's the relative cost that matters. The total cost of digital is probably quite a bit higher than you think (computer upgrades, HDDs, software, time spent pp). I'll keep shooting film because I like the medium - as it gets more expensive I'll just shoot less.

Look at instant film - it's expensive, but those who like it enough still use it.

 

[yossarian123]

120 C41 is still within my budget. Thank god, because Ektar in my GA645 is just pure heaven...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Color film was expensive to my family long time ago. Because cost of even cheap film and Walmart developing was too high, if you have large family.
This is why at home we switched from EOS SLR, to advanced digital Fuji P&S in 2007 and moved to EOS DSLR in 2009.

Cost of color digital is high? It is not, if you calculate how much couple of thousands family and friends portraits will cost you on film.

 

[jsrockit]

That's a very sweeping statement ... IMO if film went to somewhere between ten and fifteen dollars a roll a lot of shooters would bale out!

I'm into photography not medium worship ... if I had to go digital, so be it!

I feel the same way, but there are those here that do not care for digital.
I am all digital (or at least 99.9%) already.

If you don't care for digital, you'll continue on doing what you've been doing while dealing with the costs however you can e.g. buying expired film, DIY, B&W only, etc.

 

[lam]

I'm really only comfortable shooting 135 from 100ft rolls ... if they become unavailable I may stop shooting that format.

I'm this way also..

I am also not opposed to shooting some C41 120 since cost isn't bad still 🙂

 

[thegman]

That's a very sweeping statement ... IMO if film went to somewhere between ten and fifteen dollars a roll a lot of shooters would bale out!

I'm into photography not medium worship ... if I had to go digital, so be it!

Sure, but he did state the proviso that if you love film and are not into digital. At present, I'm not into digital at all, so I'll just pay what film costs. There are lots things that I'd prefer were cheaper. I'd like my gym to cost less, I'd like Lagavulin to cost less, but unfortunately film photography like many hobbies has an ongoing cost.

For me, it's far less than other things I enjoy like exercising, eating out, whisky, travel.

 

[yossarian123]

I've thought about developing C41 at home, it certainly doesn't sound like it would be difficult (already processing the b&w stuff at home). The main problem for me is that scanning (and color correcting) C41 takes an insane amount of time on my plustek 7600. If I wanted to scan color I'd need to spend more money to get a scanner capable of batch processing.

 

[edge100]

The volume of shooting I do with film is low enough that my film costs are still very reasonable. Perhaps this is a bit circular, though; I also shoot less to keep costs down.

I'll admit, I shoot less E6 film than I'd like to because of the high cost of film and (especially) processing. Provia 400X is $16 a roll (while it's still around) at B&H; add in about $10/roll to develop, and you're talking about nearly $0.75 per shot, which is a bit rich for 35mm quality. Still, I shoot some, but not as much as I otherwise would.

I process B&W and C41 colour film at home, which works out to (at most) $1 per roll, so paying $8/roll for Portra 400 isn't a huge deal.

When the day comes that I can no longer get reasonably priced C41 colour film, I'll switch back to digital for colour and keep shooting B&W film. By that time, perhaps the dynamic range of digital will have improved such that it more closely resembles what I already get from Portra 400...

 

[edge100]

I've thought about developing C41 at home, it certainly doesn't sound like it would be difficult (already processing the b&w stuff at home). The main problem for me is that scanning (and color correcting) C41 takes an insane amount of time on my plustek 7600. If I wanted to scan color I'd need to spend more money to get a scanner capable of batch processing.

Re: developing C41 at home, it's silly easy.

And re: scanning, yes the batch thing is an issue with the Plusteks, but if you can put up with that, getting good colour is also a breeze.

 

[Lauffray]

I feel the same way, but there are those here that do not care for digital.
I am all digital (or at least 99.9%) already.

If you don't care for digital, you'll continue on doing what you've been doing while dealing with the costs however you can e.g. buying expired film, DIY, B&W only, etc.

I agree with that, my issue with digital is mainly the usability and time spent in front of the computer. Ask me about digital a few years ago and my answer would be a resounding no, now with smaller cameras and more sensible editing software, I'm more comfortable with the idea of switching to digital. Eventually, just not now 🙂

 

[hipsterdufus]

The cost of film doesn't bother me at its current levels. However, the time cost of film does bother me sometimes. Spending time developing, scanning, and post-processing can be a pain. If there was anything that could convince me to go 100% digital, it would be the time that film takes. And I don't care what anyone says, scanning color negative film is a pain in the ass.