Jump to content

Price rising, do you still shoot film?


Einst_Stein

Recommended Posts

I don't even know how much it went up... Let me check... Actually nothing huge for a year since I checked it.

Arista/Kentmere/Foma bulks are in 70 USD price mark. In my days of film as primary I used about six+ per year. It was under 30 USD per bulk and then 50 USD.

I had chance to get old SG FB paper as gift and purchased more. 

I could probably still use film as primary, but two major factors. Job location change, no extra time for darkroom to print.

Lost interest in BW, film and digital.

 

But if someone is trying to use film as working media for color it is really for very deep pockets. Even ECN bulks from Kodak are total rip off now. It doesn't hurt to expose one C-41 roll per two weeks, but it is not productive photography, IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but the price rises are concerning

Also very hard to get at the moment, generally... particularly Kodak ?   B&W easier but if it follows the same availability we have seen for colour recently I'm worried for the next 6 months about shortages

I just stocked up actually 

Edited by grahamc
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t really paid any attention to the cost of film. I just buy whatever film I want. I categorize film as an essential item, like loo paper. You have to buy it so no point sweating it. 
 

Maybe it would be an issue if I shot film more prolifically.
 

If I were to shoot a roll of 35mm film a week, which I don’t but anyway, that’s 36 shots per week and at Cdn$1 a shot (developed) that’s only Cdn$36/week. Not a tiny number but if I were to save up for an M11 at Cdn$12k it would take many years to recover this expense. Seems reasonable to me.

 

Of course, on a nice vacation I might use a lot more film than that, but it’s still a small expense compared with the cost of a vacation

Edited by Mr.Prime
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting film is an indulgence for which I am happy to prioritise my expenditure. However I do not shoot prolifically. In my case, film is for travel, not daily photography. 
If one is a ‘spray and pray’ type of digital photographer, then film is likely already no longer financially viable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

              Yes, I have grown tired of digital. I have finally stopped the need to "upgrade" to the latest model. I have used digital for 10 years now and hate to think how much that I have spent on M's , SL"s  and Q "s  plus the odd DSLR.

                     My film cameras have all apreciated in value, the X Pan by a huge amount. I have always been careful not to waste film and be patient and wait for the right moment. This morning I carried my  Leica MP loaded with Trx for a hour or two  on a hill walk but did not take a single photo.There just was nothing of interest.  If I had had a digital camera I would have probably taken a dozen shots only to delete them later.

             I have also just acquired a Mamiya 6 , again I only use it sparingly. I will go on using film as it is for me a lot less than upgrading to the latest digital camera.  The main reason  that I  use film is that I find it a lot more enjoyable and when I get a good result , very rewarding.

             I still have a M9 and a M9 Monochrom but have to remember to expose 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as in my darkroom days, the cost of film today is less than the cost of printing materials. I bulk load 12-exposure rolls of mostly Foma film these days and develop with Rodinal. My net cost for a developed and scanned roll of 12 exposures is about $2.50. My cost to print just one frame of the roll at my standard 7x10.5 size is about $1.50. I typically print something more like half the frames. (The 12 exposures represent a week's shooting.) And the cost of printing that number of "free" shots taken with a digital camera would be exactly the same. 

My everyday camera and lens are a Leica IIIf and 50/2.8 Elmar that I bought for $100 in 1966 or 1967. That works out to about $1.80 a year. My bottom line is that I don't like digital, and I couldn't afford it if I did. 

Edited by Doug A
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 3:12 PM, Einst_Stein said:

A s much as I like shooting film, the rising price finally pushes me away. 
 

If you shoot color I could see that. But as hobbies go BW is pretty cheap.

Court time at the tennis club near my house is $40/hour. All my friends play golf a few times a week at $30 - 40 per outing. Another races cars and some travel extensively.

An old, paid-for camera, some good walking shoes, and a few rolls of BW film each month is relatively low-cost enjoyment. And, hopefully, you get something of lasting beauty to show for it. 

John

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is the argument that with film pricing going up you should be concerned, but not half as concerned as the amount people loose in depreciation on walking out the shop with a new digital Leica, or how much you could have spent on film if you'd never bought a digital Leica. But that is only the piddling little details, just go and look at the many (but not all) clinical boring photographs you get in the 'digital' photo sharing outlets on the forum, there is little passion or emotion in the photographs. But with a film camera you can choose the photographs you want to make using a different film or developer. 

If you are hankering for a change just look at the variety or images you can achieve with film. And then consider do you want to make the image your own, or do you want to wait for the next software update so Leica can decide on the image you make? If you aren't processing your own film it could be a major consideration, but many people do it at their kitchen sink and print or scan the results in many ways, and that in itself becomes an aspect of the expressiveness of film.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Color negatives and b&w price difference is not huge. Kodak is about 10$ per 120 or 15$ per 135. Ilford is about 8$ per 120 or 135. Foma  is cheaper, roughly 6$ per roll. You may save ~30% to go with bulk load. C41 adds about 1$ per roll. 

I used to shoot about 80rolls per year, then reduced to about 40, mostly 120, now much less. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a complex and emotional argument, to which I am as prone as anyone. I do find comparisons pointless such as some referred to above because the only thing that effects me (and anyone) is the real time cause. My disposable dollar is finite and just because it costs more to do something else is no help in the argument. Analogue photography costs me more than digital (allowing for the gear I already possess of both types) but It still delivers me a 'sensation' not possible from digital. Recently I have refurbished my darkroom (it had become a storeroom 😂) and am re-teaching myself 'lost' skills. Alas, I fear a lot of my store of printing paper (considerable) is losing its contrast. I am getting frustrated trying to analog print to the quality I get from the desktop. I know they are different, but not this different.

Buying new paper and developer is going to set me back apiece. Time to bite the bullet.

If I say so myself, I think I have a very sophisticated and well set up darkroom. I had a very productive colour printing set up but, for the present, will stick to B&W. My Durst M70 Enlarger (main unit of 3) has both the Micro head for colour and the Vario for B&W.

I have a JOBO Autolab1500 for processing B&W and colour film as well as Patterson tanks for hand processes.

Using all the above gives me a great sense of 'creation' that digital can not match. I must confess that manipulations that are possible digitally leave me convinced that any serious work that I would display would almost certainly pass through a digital stage. eg. hybrid sourced from film.

This is all a work in progress, that no longer pays its way, hence my concern about rising analog costs.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of brands is still growing and especially brands that try to stay low in price. Adox, Agfaphoto 100 and 400 re-issued, Bergger, Silberra, Washi, Kentmere, Rollei. Just a few examples of B&W films that stay around 5 or 6€. Fomapan isn’t bad either. If you stay low in ISO, prices can still be reasonable. But I must admit that for color I prefer digital anyway. 

Edited by otto.f
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...