CalArts 99 Posted March 9, 2012 Share #21 Posted March 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I saw on e-bay a roll of Kodachrome II with a price tag on it of $2.09 for 36 exposures. Allowing for inflation from 1962, how much is that in today's dollars? A little over $15.00. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 Hi CalArts 99, Take a look here Kodak to raise film prices by 15%. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #22 Posted March 9, 2012 A little over $15.00. See, it's not that bad! Oh, it was from 1972. Sorry: List price was $2.95. http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-KODAK-KODACHROME-II-K-135-36-36-EXP-SLIDE-FILM-SEPT-1973-L-K-/200722521065?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ebbfe9be9 I found an inflation calculator: "What cost $2.95 in 1972 would cost $15.20 in 2010" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest suilvenman Posted March 9, 2012 Share #23 Posted March 9, 2012 A quick check at the UK's 7dayshop shows that they have 5-pack Kodak Elitechrome Extra Colour (not Kodak's finest, I'll admit) @ £15. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 9, 2012 Share #24 Posted March 9, 2012 See, it's not that bad! Which is precisely why I said I think film is a bargain! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #25 Posted March 9, 2012 Which is precisely why I said I think film is a bargain! Precisely. The $2.95 list price of a roll of KR in 1972 translates to $15.10 in 2010 dollars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2012 Share #26 Posted March 10, 2012 Precisely. The $2.95 list price of a roll of KR in 1972 translates to $15.10 in 2010 dollars. So if film is such a bargain, is it possible that something else might explain the fact that Kodachrome is no longer being made? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted March 10, 2012 Share #27 Posted March 10, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Where there's any bad news about film - you can always trust one particular member to turn up without fail... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 10, 2012 Share #28 Posted March 10, 2012 So if film is such a bargain, is it possible that something else might explain the fact that Kodachrome is no longer being made? In part due to a convoluted K-14 process and chemistry that only works on one brand of film, and not universally like E-6 which works on any E-6 process film. Granted the demand for film is way down. But how does that equate with it not being still a 'bargain' cost-wise? And isn't this lower demand for film really a result from the huge and readily available market of digital imaging technology, all its ancillary products and its convenience, rather than on price alone? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 10, 2012 Share #29 Posted March 10, 2012 So if film is such a bargain, is it possible that something else might explain the fact that Kodachrome is no longer being made? Huh? I am simply pointing out that allowing for inflation, the price of film has not really increased. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2012 Share #30 Posted March 10, 2012 Granted the demand for film is way down. But how does that equate with it not being still a 'bargain' cost-wise? Because you are forming that conclusion in a vacuum. I agree that it may never have been more affordable to shoot on film. (At least 35mm.) The cost of a DSLR camera is also quite a bargain compared to Kodak DSLRs from 1997. So? But the overall issue is not the cost of film but what is the cost to make a photograph? And that one piece of information gives a stilted picture with no analysis. So just to take Leica as an example. An M9 costs about $2000 more than an MP. Lenses are the same of course. So how many images does one have to shoot on the M9 to cover that $2000 compared with shooting film? And despite the guess that the cost of one lens will cover all the film you will use in the rest of your life (meaning that your film, processing and ancillary costs will be somewhere between about $1500 and $12,000)... One could say that the extra $2000 spent on an M9 is trivial compared to the overall cost of a comprehensive Leica system and enough film and processing to justify ownership of such a system. It just depends on your point of view what you think is a bargain. Of course if you prefer film, the price consideration won't matter very much and you won't really care if film or digital is the best bargain. In the case of a busy shooter, just the fuel cost to go back and forth to a lab that is about 3 miles away could cost $2000 in maybe 10-15 years. And no lab is that close to me today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jneilt Posted March 10, 2012 Share #31 Posted March 10, 2012 That math is off by a bit I'm afraid. If an MP and 50 1.4 cost $9000 US, that would work out to $1 per 36 images. It is more like 10 or 20 times that cost not counting any travel time or cost to get to the store or lab and before you get into printing or scanning costs. Color slide shooting is about $20 per 36 frames with processing and mounting so it only takes 450 rolls of slides to hit $9000. Of course bulk loaded b/w home processed film will be the cheapest at maybe $4 per roll if you don't count any cost for your time. "Buying just one Leica lens would cover the cost of film for the rest of one's life, in all probability. " Well if the lens is $4000 that would cover about 7200 35mm slide exposures assuming that the price of film and processing stays the same the rest of one's life... however long or short that may be. eh...ok... I did miss the comma...I meant to assume 10 per roll to buy and process...oops. regardless...I did not buy a leica because it was the cheapest route to take photos. I don't think (this will cost a quarter) every time I take a picture. I did buy an M9 prior to buying an MP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2012 Share #32 Posted March 10, 2012 regardless...I did not buy a leica because it was the cheapest route to take photos. I don't think (this will cost a quarter) every time I take a picture. Yep that is pretty inexpensive and hopefully you don't ration your use of film due to the price. Perhaps you are not putting forth the view that shooting film is a bargain. I will say that sometimes I would shoot an exterior view on 4x5 using maybe 6 sheets of film totaling $40 or so with processing. And then if the sky and lighting suddenly got better, I'd have to decide if it had gotten $40 better or if it would matter that much to my client before I'd re-shoot. I actually threw away a fair amount of un-processed film too. I think everyone has a price point that comes into play at least sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 10, 2012 Share #33 Posted March 10, 2012 Because you are forming that conclusion in a vacuum. I agree that it may never have been more affordable to shoot on film. (At least 35mm.) The cost of a DSLR camera is also quite a bargain compared to Kodak DSLRs from 1997. So? But the overall issue is not the cost of film but what is the cost to make a photograph? And that one piece of information gives a stilted picture with no analysis. So just to take Leica as an example. An M9 costs about $2000 more than an MP. Lenses are the same of course. So how many images does one have to shoot on the M9 to cover that $2000 compared with shooting film? And despite the guess that the cost of one lens will cover all the film you will use in the rest of your life (meaning that your film, processing and ancillary costs will be somewhere between about $1500 and $12,000)... One could say that the extra $2000 spent on an M9 is trivial compared to the overall cost of a comprehensive Leica system and enough film and processing to justify ownership of such a system. It just depends on your point of view what you think is a bargain. Of course if you prefer film, the price consideration won't matter very much and you won't really care if film or digital is the best bargain. In the case of a busy shooter, just the fuel cost to go back and forth to a lab that is about 3 miles away could cost $2000 in maybe 10-15 years. And no lab is that close to me today. You cut part of my post and so left it out of context. I said: "In part due to a convoluted K-14 process and chemistry that only works on one brand of film, and not universally like E-6 which works on any E-6 process film. Granted the demand for film is way down. But how does that equate with it not being still a 'bargain' cost-wise? And isn't this lower demand for film really a result from the huge and readily available market of digital imaging technology, all its ancillary products and its convenience, rather than on price alone?" And the film in discussion was Kodachrome. I never knew anybody in the commercial sector who used Kodachrome, they all used E6 process film before they moved to digital. You made the comment on why is Kodachrome gone. Anyway, film itself is a bargain. I think SD and CF cards are bargains, too. It's not about film versus digital and which is less expensive overall. I think a roll of film is pretty cheap. Sheets, too. btw, I use both digital and film and neither exclusively. And depending on the project, I've often mixed the two. This isn't a preference thing, but simply that I think film as a product is priced pretty inexpensively. p.s., an aside issue that I have with this cost comparison with buying film over a long period versus buying a film less camera, is that you have to replace the digital camera often as its lifespan is pretty short. And the resale value drops dramatically each time a new model appears. This obsolescence of digital hardware can add up, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2012 Share #34 Posted March 10, 2012 Sorry but I didn't mean anything specific about Kodachrome. It could have been any film since they all have seen a decline in use or have been dropped. The point was that despite film being a bargain, its use has declined so there is something beside the price now being lower than in 1972 that is at play. And of course I know that you and others here know why film usage has declined. So why dwell on that again? It just happened that Kodachrome was used in the pricing example. I am not making an argument for or against film. It is just that one can't always simplify the situation as some of these posts seem to do. But to generalize anyway, I'd suspect that many people (not all) feel that digital photography is a bargain compared to using film. But as you pointed out, you can argue various ways about pricing or preferences for film or for digital. And a lot of this depends on how much you shoot and what kind of gear you use. But I don't think many people choose to shoot film because it is now a bargain to do so. Besides, even if film and processing were free, I bet a lot of people would use digital cameras instead. Film is mostly shot today by those who like the look or experience of film and/or have film cameras they want to use. So film pricing is stuck where manufacturers need to raise prices to cover the drop in sales, and other rising costs, but every increase in price will tend to reduce the number of rolls sold. (Despite that some love film.) I'd expect that Leica film users will be among the last "group" impacted by film costs. It may be valid but is very narrow. Sorry but it isn't pretty as manufacturers look for some kind of stability or at least a temporary solution. BTW, I shot a lot of Kodachrome commercially. Especially for stock. But you are right that the speed and availability of E-6 processing displaced it in a lot of fields. And then my stock agency started preferring punchy Fuji colors and Velvia in particular. And eventually everyone wanted digital. 25 years ago, I could drop off my Kodachrome directly at the Kodak lab in Rockville, MD at night and get it processed before noon the following day as I recall. Back then Kodak labs picked up and dropped off at our studio daily. Times have really changed things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted March 10, 2012 Share #35 Posted March 10, 2012 Sorry but I didn't mean anything specific about Kodachrome. It could have been any film since they all have seen a decline in use or have been dropped. The point was that despite film being a bargain, its use has declined so there is something beside the price now being lower than in 1972 that is at play. And of course I know that you and others here know why film usage has declined. So why dwell on that again? It just happened that Kodachrome was used in the pricing example. I am not making an argument for or against film. It is just that one can't always simplify the situation as some of these posts seem to do. But to generalize anyway, I'd suspect that many people (not all) feel that digital photography is a bargain compared to using film. But as you pointed out, you can argue various ways about pricing or preferences for film or for digital. And a lot of this depends on how much you shoot and what kind of gear you use. But I don't think many people choose to shoot film because it is now a bargain to do so. Besides, even if film and processing were free, I bet a lot of people would use digital cameras instead. Film is mostly shot today by those who like the look or experience of film and/or have film cameras they want to use. So film pricing is stuck where manufacturers need to raise prices to cover the drop in sales, and other rising costs, but every increase in price will tend to reduce the number of rolls sold. (Despite that some love film.) I'd expect that Leica film users will be among the last "group" impacted by film costs. It may be valid but is very narrow. Sorry but it isn't pretty as manufacturers look for some kind of stability or at least a temporary solution. BTW, I shot a lot of Kodachrome commercially. Especially for stock. But you are right that the speed and availability of E-6 processing displaced it in a lot of fields. And then my stock agency started preferring punchy Fuji colors and Velvia in particular. And eventually everyone wanted digital. 25 years ago, I could drop off my Kodachrome directly at the Kodak lab in Rockville, MD at night and get it processed before noon the following day as I recall. Back then Kodak labs picked up and dropped off at our studio daily. Times have really changed things. I thought you were referring to Kodachrome specifically, hence my response about K-14 processing. I think that may have well started its demise early on. Plus I believe the EPA was putting pressure on the labs, too, with waste disposal. But it's all moot anyway since Kodak has now dropped all reversal film. I agree that people are using digital and not always due to whether they see film as costly or not. And that was my point, too. The low demand for film is not just about the price of film. But I'm not so sure that Leica owners will necessarily be the last holdouts of film consumption. Surprisingly, my students (none of which own a Leica, at least not yet) are really into film now. I've mentioned this on other threads, but film has become a real 'urban hipster' sort of thing. And Leica analog M cameras are becoming 'discovered' by a whole new younger demographic. There's a YouTube video of a young guy who dumped his digital DSLR for a used M6. He's raving about it and all the comments are positive. We'll have to see if this is just a passing fad or if it sticks. But there is this sort of new renaissance with younger people and film. And no, it certainly doesn't mean it will keep Kodak alive just because the Lomo and hipster crowd like the idea of using film. As far as commercial usage, an acquaintance of mine is Grant Mudford (Grant Mudford - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) As a prominent architectural photographer he goes back and forth from film to digital depending on the project. When he photographed the Sherman residence (the house used in the film "Fracture" starring Anthony Hopkins) which was designed and built by another friend, Peter Tolkin, he used 4x5 E-6 sheet film. The drum scans alone were right around $1200. I once asked about saving money with digital and whether that savings gets passed on to the client. The answer was that the fee structures have still remained the same despite the materials and workflow. So there appears to be a potential profit boost when using digital over film . Anyway, Mudford's pricing is all over the place depending on the project. I think most photographers (at least the ones I know of here in LA), just adjust their fees accordingly if they decide to use film or not. One way or another the costs will get passed on. So with the big projects it doesn't seem to matter too much as everything gets paid for in the end. Many commercial photographers are using Industrial Color here in town (Capture | Industrial Color) and that adds a big amount to the costs despite being all digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted March 10, 2012 Share #36 Posted March 10, 2012 I once asked about saving money with digital and whether that savings gets passed on to the client. The answer was that the fee structures have still remained the same despite the materials and workflow. So there appears to be a potential profit boost when using digital over film . My great niece is using film in her intro to photography class in college. I try to help her out a bit. While I think it is good that young people "discover" film and printing, it would be more efficient for them to learn the basics of photography using digital rather than waste so much material in the early learning stages. It isn't as if they are somehow tuned in to any particular characteristics that can only be achieved on film, since they know almost nothing about how to make a picture. I don't know if young people using film really represents any kind of numerical change as a number of young people always did this in school and other places as far as I know. I know that film and darkroom use at my old school is way down from when I was there. As for pricing, that is a long story and to put it briefly, I would not advise anyone to take up photography for a career unless they are prepared for the economic challenges and the steady decline of photography as a "profession" during their lifetime. (Rights and usage are less well understood and enforced than at any time I have been shooting.) The home building industry has been impacted pretty severely the past few years. Even major builders and ad agencies are getting tight and bidding out more jobs. (Often awarding them to the lowest bidder.) But even before that there were pricing pressures that kept one from being able to raise prices each year. My solution back when I switched to digital in 2003 was to charge clients the same as if I shot MF or LF film and had it scanned. This gave me $500-$1000 additional profit on each day of shooting and made a big difference. To go back to shooting film would be a major income hit. (And harder of course.) I shot architecture on 4x5 for about 25 years so I am probably pretty familiar with every aspect of it. The decline of film use by formerly high volume pro shooters, industrial, government, military, medical, commercial users, and by many consumers, has left a rather small group to carry the flag. This is mostly a hobbyist sub forum and film is great for hobbyists. Despite the hope that hipster types will allow for a successful business model, it is way too little when you look at the big picture. The unanswered question is should the decline in film use ever stop, what kinds of materials will be profitable to keep in production? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 11, 2012 Share #37 Posted March 11, 2012 I have no illusions regarding the little film we buy having any major influence of the companies business outcome - things seem to have shifted way too far in a way too big scale already. Nevertheless, I do love Kodak Tri-X 400 in 135, 120 and would love, to find 4x5 as well (but can't, where I am). I do not buy the occasional roll in between, fretting about price increases, but stock always several bricks/ film stock, when I see a competitive price between several dealers. A general 15% price increase on Kodak film won't keep me away from using Tri-X - that stuff is simply too good and I am too much of an addict, to use a substitute (although HP5 is not bad and I do like Neopan400 a lot as well). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted March 12, 2012 Share #38 Posted March 12, 2012 Nevertheless, I do love Kodak Tri-X 400 in 135, 120 and would love, to find 4x5 as well (but can't, where I am). I think it was reported recently (about Tri-X) the formula had changed...such as less silver content recently. Some were reporting having to change their development times to accommodate. And the look was a little bit different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 12, 2012 Share #39 Posted March 12, 2012 I think it was reported recently (about Tri-X) the formula had changed...such as less silver content recently. Some were reporting having to change their development times to accommodate. And the look was a little bit different. This is untrue. the "silver content" myth has been floating around for years. Kodak switched production to a new facility about 4 years ago, using different coating machines. There was a minor effect on development times but the film in all other respects was unchanged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebarnman Posted March 12, 2012 Share #40 Posted March 12, 2012 This is untrue. the "silver content" myth has been floating around for years. Kodak switched production to a new facility about 4 years ago, using different coating machines. There was a minor effect on development times but the film in all other respects was unchanged. You might want to read this recent thread... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/212631-tri-x-drop-quality.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.