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

[pete hogan]

I wouldn't say that based on a drug store. They can discontinue carrying / processing just like that... we've seen it with other drug stores recently.

Sure. Some by us have quit processing, but they all still seem to carry film. Could even be regional. The advantage with those types of stores lies in their overall volume and distribution along with all the other stuff they carry.

For me the approach is to operate at this reasonable level while it's available. When and if that channel closes, it will be Tri-X and FOMA from the refrigerator and a processor by mail.

 

[raid]

I am mixing film with digital, but I have not had a film roll developed in months.
My refrigerator has lot of film in it. It is not the cost of film.
It takes too much time to get a film developed and scanned.
One day, I will find a better mix. We'll see.
Until then, I will use my M8 and M9.

 

[williams473]

If 120 film got to be twice what it is now (I usually pay under $5 a roll) I would still shoot it, but probably sparingly. I would treat each frame with more care - who knows - it might make me a better photographer, but as of right now I am more than happy with the price of black and white film - I think it's a bargain, given that I process at home.

 

[willie_901]

Digital or film... they both require a significant investment in time and effort to achieve quality results.

You operate a computer afterwards for both. Some people pay others to develop and make quality high-res scans... so that's how to avoid computer/desk time.

Maybe I was just slow, but I remember spending long periods of time printing in chemical darkrooms.

 

[raytoei@gmail.com]

I have been secretly amassing usd29.95 100 ft rolls
on Kentmere 400 + others. I think i have enough
for a while.

after that, i will probably weigh the cost+development of
BW film versus Color film. Color film seem to be cheaper
but i haven't done C-41 processing at home to determine
the development cost.



raytoei

 

[Vics]

Just checked Freestyle, and Tri-X is $4.39/36exp and Portra is $41.99 for a five-pack of 36exp. Now, I shoot black & white and have been since the late 1960s, and I've never seen film this cheap! I think film goes up and down, not so much with inflation, but more with the price of silver. Some of us remember back when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market and the price of film really ran up temporarily, til the feds shut them down. Film is cheap. Enjoy it more often.

 

[zuiko85]

How's this for cheap color negative film.

For residents in the U S B&H has basic Kodak 35mm ISO 200 film, 36 exp. loads for 1.99 each. If you buy 20 rolls that would be $46.43 with UPS ground ship to my location, Washington state. If you like Fujicolor better you can get their 200 ISO color neg film for $1.79 for 24 exp loads and $2.50 for 36 exp loads.

Of course these might be loss leaders and I don't know how long Kodak or Fuji can keep prices at that level.

 

[noisycheese]

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.

Digital photography isn't as "free" as some digital adherants like to claim it is. The absence of film and processing costs is but one facet of the total cost equation.

While many digital shooters have upgraded to the latest, greatest digital body over the past ten years so many times they have lost count, I have photographed with the same Leica and Nikon film bodies for the last decade. My cameras did not mysteriously get worse in terms of image quality because of the advent of digital technology. Film has not regressed in terms of quality either - quite the opposite, in fact.

If I were to compare my ten year expenditures for film and processing against the ten year expenditures of computer/camera/memory card/external hard drive, etc. upgrades for the typical digital photographer who is at my level of involvement and experience, I would hazard a guess that my costs are far less than those for my digital shooting counterpart.

Just some observations...

 

[lynnb]

Digital photography isn't as "free" as some digital adherants like to claim it is (...) If I were to compare my ten year expenditures for film and processing against the ten year expenditures of computer/camera/memory card/external hard drive, etc. upgrades for the typical digital photographer who is at my level of involvement and experience, I would hazard a guess that my costs are far less than those for my digital shooting counterpart.

That's been my experience. Also the experience of a friend who's been shooting Leicas for 40yrs - at least until he purchased an Imacon X5!

 

[Pioneer]

You put a frog in boiling water and it will hop out. You put it in cold water and slowly raise the temperature it won't.... or so it goes.

I have never been able to get the frog to stay in the water when it was cold. And my wife went nuts when I said I was going to try it with boiling water! 🙂

For me film is not really a cost issue, it is really more of a lifestyle issue. There may come a time when film costs too much. We are not there yet for me although color slide film feels like it is close whenever I buy it. While I don't buy as much as I used to at one time, I still buy it though.

There really isn't a digital issue either since I most frequently scan my film after developing it. Usually I print digitally after working on it in Photoshop. I do have a darkroom (why not, it is so cheap to buy the equipment nowadays) and I do occasionally make my own prints. I am still learning this art (better late than never right?) so I don't feel as comfortable in the darkroom as others obviously do.

This is a hobby so I haven't kept exhaustive records but when I look back over the big expenses I have definitely spent more on digital then film. This is probably a bit of a red herring though because most of my digital expenditures are for new equipment. On the other hand my film expenses, with the obvious exception of film, has all been for used equipment. As an example, I paid over $500 for my Canon Pixma Pro Printer and over $100 for a spare ink set to go with it. This was new. About the same time I spent a little over $200 with shipping for my Leitz V35 Focomat enlarger, complete with extra bulbs. Obviously the Leica is used. A bit before I picked up the Focomat I picked up a Beseler 45 with a dichro color head and analyzer for the cost of a bit of gasoline. Again, this unit is used but, like the Focomat, it works perfectly after being aligned.

 

[jky]

Locally, the price for 1 roll of Portra 400 = $10.99!!! Crazy. $100 can only get you 2 pro packs (10 rolls of 120). Makes B&H look cheap... which is why I'm stocking up on Portra as much as I financially can.

I just started shooting film again (MF)... processing isn't too bad @ $5/roll. The scanner cost me $250. I'm extremely enjoying 6x6 and so I'm willing to pay for it - for now 🙂

 

[yossarian123]

Locally, the price for 1 roll of Portra 400 = $10.99!!! Crazy. $100 can only get you 2 pro packs (10 rolls of 120). Makes B&H look cheap... which is why I'm stocking up on Portra as much as I financially can.

I just started shooting film again (MF)... processing isn't too bad @ $5/roll. The scanner cost me $250. I'm extremely enjoying 6x6 and so I'm willing to pay for it - for now 🙂

I recently started shooting MF (talk about jumping on board a sinking ship), so I'm perfectly willing for now to pay a premium. I think 10.99 would be too much for me though, more than $2/frame (film+dev) if you're shooting 6x6.

 

[clayne]

I recently started shooting MF (talk about jumping on board a sinking ship), so I'm perfectly willing for now to pay a premium. I think 10.99 would be too much for me though, more than $2/frame (film+dev) if you're shooting 6x6.

MF ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[zsas]

When? Hard to fathom when a bulk 100' roll is only $30....

 

[c.poulton]

Wet plate collodion is definitely something I would like to try in the future.

😀😀😀😀 That's great!

Seriously, I am concerned with the price of film slowly creeping upwards. It's good to hear of Ferrania getting back into film production (hopefully). More choice might help to keep film prices down, but I guess that with slowing demand, economies of scale are being lost.

With all that said, I do remember that pro-quality film was always expensive - at least I remember not being able to afford these and having to go for the cheaper consumer emulsions. I think that B&W was always cheaper than colour too.

Which raises a question - if you go back to, say, the 1950's - 60's, what was the cost of colour film then and how does it compare to what the costs are today? I would hazard a guess that it's probably quite similar?

 

[clayne]

Film is just as cheap as always. Take into account inflation and don't take into account the great deals like arista premium 400 and legacy pro as they're aberrations.

 

[slidesandthecity]

More choice might help to keep film prices down, but I guess that with slowing demand, economies of scale are being lost.

Film sales increased by 75% from 2011 to 2012 (at least in the USA). Source

BTT:
At the moment I spend around 10$/week on film (including developing and wet printing), which imo is almost nothing.

 

[thegman]

More choice might help to keep film prices down, but I guess that with slowing demand, economies of scale are being lost.

Film sales increased by 75% from 2011 to 2012 (at least in the USA). Source

BTT:
At the moment I spend around 10$/week on film (including developing and wet printing), which imo is almost nothing.

Interesting stats, 35 million rolls is still a pretty big business, and that's just the USA. Encouraging news.

 

[Photo_Smith]

😀😀😀😀 That's great!

Seriously, I am concerned with the price of film slowly creeping upwards.

Which raises a question - if you go back to, say, the 1950's - 60's, what was the cost of colour film then and how does it compare to what the costs are today? I would hazard a guess that it's probably quite similar?

In the mid 1970's a roll colour film processing in the UK was about £4.95 (36 exposure 3.5"x5" £2.25 12 exposure) the films cost about £2.49. (5 day service)

Later in the 1980's we charged £2.00 for processing and 13p per print which worked out about £5.12 for a 36 exposure (2 hour service) and £2.99 for 48hr service.

Taking inflation and wages into account film is currently a bargain.

 

[Mcary]

Already shooting a lot less film then I use too though that's more to do with changing to 4x5 which is slower to work with then say 35mm or MF.
On the other hand I don't really end-up spend that much more as its a lot easier to find 4-6 shots then its is to find 12 or 36 shoots.
So what if I want to use a smaller camera or not worry about having only 4-6 shots? That simple I just shoot digital or both if weight isn't an issue.