Price rising, do you still shoot film?

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, erl said:

Now I think it is a privilege to be a FILM shooting photographer. It is what it is, so enjoy it whilst you can.

Good post!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stewartweir]

On 4/17/2022 at 9:12 PM, Einst_Stein said:

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

Adding to the comments - I’m shooting more film than in recent years. Very specific about what I take and how many exposures I shoot. When you factor in not replacing a Digi camera every 3/4yrs the cost of film is equal. I also now dev and scan at home which also makes a huge difference.

[Mr.Prime]

7 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said:

I don’t really think you need me to differentiate food from film. Granted the first letter in each case is the letter ‘f’, but that’s where it ends.

 

I think my passion for film ‘went over your head’ Steve. Our passions for life can show in many ways, including film photography, we find ways to pay for them.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Martin B]

Price for a used Leica M 246 monochrome camera in excellent condition: about $4K
Price for a 36 frame 35 mm B&W film: $11 (maybe a bit high but for the example let's be on the higher end)
Annual price for B&W development chemicals: $60

To make up for the price of this - not even the latest! - used monochrome digital camera, I can shoot about 300 rolls of B&W film. This of course does not take into account that film and digital are different media, and film allows to create some effects in B&W which digital can't (specific halos, light bending into shadows etc). I shoot about 20 B&W films per year. This means I can use one of my Leica M film cameras for almost 15 years until I reach the cost of digital monochrome (ignoring inflation and depreciation of the M 262 in this example over the course of this time). 

So yes, I will continue shooting film, especially B&W film for various reasons. But if I didn't have already film-based M cameras, the decision would be harder due to exorbitant used prices for these cameras currently.  

Edited November 12, 2022 by Martin B

[Mute-on]

3 hours ago, Martin B said:

Price for a used Leica M 246 monochrome camera in excellent condition: about $4K
Price for a 36 frame 35 mm B&W film: $11 (maybe a bit high but for the example let's be on the higher end)
Annual price for B&W development chemicals: $60

To make up for the price of this - not even the latest! - used monochrome digital camera, I can shoot about 300 rolls of B&W film. This of course does not take into account that film and digital are different media, and film allows to create some effects in B&W which digital can't (specific halos, light bending into shadows etc). I shoot about 20 B&W films per year. This means I can use one of my Leica M film cameras for almost 15 years until I reach the cost of digital monochrome (ignoring inflation and depreciation of the M 262 in this example over the course of this time). 

So yes, I will continue shooting film, especially B&W film for various reasons. But if I didn't have already film-based M cameras, the decision would be harder due to exorbitant used prices for these cameras currently.  

This is a very commercially rational explanation, which I wholly endorse.  

For perspective, in Australia a new M11 is now $14,490. Portra 400 is around $21/roll. Even if you pay $20/roll for processing with high-res scans, that’s 353 rolls or 12,723 photos. If you dev and scan at home that could fairly easily get you to 20,000 photos, give or take. This is all not to mention that the cost of the M11 is up front, not over time.

Even if I shoot a roll of film a week, I would have between of 6 years and 9 months and around 10 years and 8 months of photography to get to the same cost as the M11.  If cash flow isn’t a constraint then it’s purely a matter of preference. However if it is, and $14,500 is a fair sum for most, sticking with film for a moderate user is still commercially rational.  

[erl]

1 hour ago, Mute-on said:

This is a very commercially rational explanation, which I wholly endorse.  

For perspective, in Australia a new M11 is now $14,490. Portra 400 is around $21/roll. Even if you pay $20/roll for processing with high-res scans, that’s 353 rolls or 12,723 photos. If you dev and scan at home that could fairly easily get you to 20,000 photos, give or take. This is all not to mention that the cost of the M11 is up front, not over time.

Even if I shoot a roll of film a week, I would have between of 6 years and 9 months and around 10 years and 8 months of photography to get to the same cost as the M11.  If cash flow isn’t a constraint then it’s purely a matter of preference. However if it is, and $14,500 is a fair sum for most, sticking with film for a moderate user is still commercially rational.  

Years ago I had a very good accountant (he was NOT a photographer) who always questioned me on the sensibility of my habit of buying and using Hasselblad gear instead of the then much cheaper options that his other clients used. His training virtually precluded him from understanding any concept of pleasure and the tactile benefits of my choice of gear. He simply could not reduce it to dollars and cents no matter how hard he tried. My only response was; its my money, I will spend it as I choose! In other aspects of my business, he was brilliant.

My point being that some things in life cannot be quantified or measured. Just experienced. It is always an emotion decision and should just be enjoyed.

If you have a beautiful wife, do you ever consider that an ugly one would be cheaper? of course not! You enjoy what you have and to hell with the cost, .... till you run out of that other stuff. 😇

[johnwolf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Martin B said:

Price for a used Leica M 246 monochrome camera in excellent condition: about $4K
Price for a 36 frame 35 mm B&W film: $11 (maybe a bit high but for the example let's be on the higher end)
Annual price for B&W development chemicals: $60

To make up for the price of this - not even the latest! - used monochrome digital camera, I can shoot about 300 rolls of B&W film. This of course does not take into account that film and digital are different media, and film allows to create some effects in B&W which digital can't (specific halos, light bending into shadows etc). I shoot about 20 B&W films per year. This means I can use one of my Leica M film cameras for almost 15 years until I reach the cost of digital monochrome (ignoring inflation and depreciation of the M 262 in this example over the course of this time). 

So yes, I will continue shooting film, especially B&W film for various reasons. But if I didn't have already film-based M cameras, the decision would be harder due to exorbitant used prices for these cameras currently.  

Well, to be fair, not many people would spend $4K on a digital camera with the intention of shooting 720 photos per year.

One of the prime benefits of digital is the ability to shoot freely -- even with abandon, if you want -- with no concern for cost. Doing so with film would significantly change the equation. 

Edited November 13, 2022 by johnwolf

[Herr Barnack]

On 11/11/2022 at 8:38 PM, erl said:

Yes! But I don't know for how much longer.

If I may: https://www.robgreenfield.org/21-gourmet-dumpster-meals/  (just kidding).

Regarding film prices, Kentmere has some black and white emulsions that are priced within reason - https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/601021-REG/Kentmere_6010476_Kentmere_35mm_Black_and.html

 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[Herr Barnack]

2 hours ago, erl said:

...My point being that some things in life cannot be quantified or measured. Just experienced. It is always an emotion decision and should just be enjoyed.

If you have a beautiful wife, do you ever consider that an ugly one would be cheaper? of course not! You enjoy what you have and to hell with the cost, .... till you run out of that other stuff. 😇

😅  I would hazard a guess that the above is by no means a given. 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[Mute-on]

3 hours ago, erl said:

Years ago I had a very good accountant (he was NOT a photographer) who always questioned me on the sensibility of my habit of buying and using Hasselblad gear instead of the then much cheaper options that his other clients used. His training virtually precluded him from understanding any concept of pleasure and the tactile benefits of my choice of gear. He simply could not reduce it to dollars and cents no matter how hard he tried. My only response was; its my money, I will spend it as I choose! In other aspects of my business, he was brilliant.

My point being that some things in life cannot be quantified or measured. Just experienced. It is always an emotion decision and should just be enjoyed.

If you have a beautiful wife, do you ever consider that an ugly one would be cheaper? of course not! You enjoy what you have and to hell with the cost, .... till you run out of that other stuff. 😇

Indeed. That’s why I would be happier spending $4,500 on another Leica M film body than $14,500 on an M11. I just enjoy the experience of using a film M. 

Having said that, I think three film Ms is enough (cough), and I don’t have a digital Leica at all, so I’d consider $3,000 for an SL 601 to use with my longer M lenses to take portraits of my family. 
 

As you say, it’s an emotional decision based on what matters … to you.

[Pyrogallol]

In the past 15+ years since I got back into Leicas I have bought and sold dozens of cameras, not all Leicas, and only bought one digital, a Fuji XPro 1, because I had felt for some time that I needed a digital body for testing lenses. It came from my local classic camera dealer, now sadly retired and is used occasionally, not for anything worthwhile as you can only see the results on a computer. The only time I used it in preference to a film camera was for pictures of a TV personality on a film shoot and I was taking pictures for publication.

The price of film is just something you have to put up with, like fuel for the car if you want to travel anywhere. I have noticed the increase in the cost of darkroom paper as much as film. A box of 100 sheets of A4 paper has almost doubled in the last few years. And when you open a new box of paper the first thing you do is tear up a sheet (for test strips). If I open a box of digital printing paper it feels wrong to open it in daylight.

[Steve Ricoh]

I suppose every cloud has a silver lining, as it’s said. With the ever increasing cost of film, photographers will be turning out some stunning work as a consequence of not wasting frames. But only if they are seasoned, having done the 10,000 shots Bresson talked about.
I use digital differently: I’ll ‘shoot’, review, possibly deleting moments later, or in LR when I have more time. There’s a benefit: I think we can learn from mistakes and improve with more thought and practice. Also 10,001 shots should not cost much more than the initial training period with fewer exposures made by the camera.

Not intended to be a film v digital discussion, I think we should do whatever we wish. 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by Steve Ricoh

[ianman]

11 hours ago, johnwolf said:

Well, to be fair, not many people would spend $4K on a digital camera with the intention of shooting 720 photos per year.

One of the prime benefits of digital is the ability to shoot freely -- even with abandon, if you want -- with no concern for cost.

Benefit? You don’t have to shoot with abandon just because you can. IMHO this “benefit” of digital photography can be detrimental to users. I don’t shoot anywhere near 720 photos per year whether using my M9 or MP.

[mediumformula]

I bought 5 rolls of Porta 400 yesterday from B&H for $80.  That's $16 a roll.  I just checked their site again and now it is out of stock. 

[ejg1890]

I think there are numerous ways to manage the cost of film some of which has already been mentioned:

1. Develop and scan at home. Of course this assumes you already have a digital camera and macro lens. If you don't then development and scan of a roll comes to $10-$12 USD. High end scans are about $15-$20. Assuming equipment to scan costs between $2500-$3000 (camera, macro lens, film holder, light source, stand) that would be about 125-200 rolls of film before receiving payback of buying your own equipment to scan at home (does not include chemicals). If you think you will have approx 150 rolls over 2 years then at home investment may be the best option. At home you also have the advantage of developing BW as you wish. Most labs will use D-76 stock rather than the other options.
2. Assuming 35/135mm as 120mm film is readily available.  If you require Portra 400 then yes film is expensive at $16/roll on up. Kodak Gold 200 and Ektar seem impossible to find at retail locations, only available on Ebay/Etsy for $20+/roll. You can be creative on what color film to use and where you buy it.  For instance I found Fuji Superia X-tra 400 (36 ex) available for about $7/roll. But not at a regular camera store. There's also Fuji 200, Kodak UltraMax, Kodak ColorPlus. These Portra alternatives are good/satisfactory just not the reputation as Portra. I seems you you can find color rolls that come in at under $15/roll you need to act quickly or they will be gone in a short period of time.

[hansvons]

I have a past as a cameraman in the advertising industry, which meant shooting miles of colour negative film was a natural. That ended in 2009 because digital became a viable alternative. Now only a very few can afford to shoot negative as it’s hard to argue.

But I admit that it took me a whole decade to embrace digital in terms of skin colour, texture etc. Now I made peace with digital colour photography.

But I cannot say that about B&W. That's a whole other story. Recently, I came across a project that requires B&W images. I got myself an R6.2 (I have a set of R primes for film projects), a couple of B&W rolls, Extol and shoot this ongoing project analogue. Yes, it's more expensive. But the results are so much more tangible, timeless and convincing that even a hardcore bookkeeper must admit the meaningfulness. 

I like the film photography thread very much on this forum because of its quality in terms of artistic understanding of the craft. Shooting film pays into quality. Perhaps a reason for investing the premium. 

[Fotoklaus]

Shooting and developing film brings joy to my life. I like to handle well built mechanical cameras.

Using my digital camera is nice, but a bit too perfect. Eye- detection focus, perfectly exposed portraits in milliseconds, ok.

But the feeling is just different.

Talking about film prices in this forum is just ridiculous, sorry for that.

It´s like talking about prices for motoroil in the Ferrari- Forum.

 

[Doug A]

17 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

...Assuming equipment to scan costs between $2500-$3000 (camera, macro lens, film holder, light source, stand)...

Unless you are making large prints, perfectly good home scanning needn't cost anywhere near that much. (Plustek 8100 at $329 from B&H for 35mm, Epson V600 at $300 from Adorama for 120.)

I did have a digital camera and a good 50mm enlarging lens. I bought a Leitz BEOON copy stand for $400 and a Logan light tablet for $50. A helical extension tube brought my total added cost for 35mm scanning to just under $500. 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Doug A

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[williamj]

I shoot film for pictures that have to be around for longer than me or the current cycle of technology. I've looked at the costs of film vs digital and you can make it come out any way you like depending on your starting assumptions. Also, film and digital are different products and different approaches, which we should embrace.

I prefer shooting film because that's what I know and because in real life I have spent too much time working with computers and have had enough now that I have retired.

Is film too expensive? Up to the year 2019 the cost of Tri-X was the same adjusted for inflation as the cost in the early 1990s. Since then it has jumped, and it's not due only to hipsters. There are a great many reasons, too many for a short post. But Kodak for one is struggling to keep up with demand.

What does it mean to me, though. I will continue to shoot film at my current rate. Prices will drop if fewer people buy film, that is my devout belief. There will be more for me.

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, williamj said:

Prices will drop if fewer people buy film, that is my devout belief. There will be more for me.

That won't happen soon, as demand has risen in the last few years considerably.

The film stock producing industry, in decline for over two decades, and not being recovered from the Kodak shock, won't invest in new production lines as the new demand may be seen as based on a short-lived fad, at least partly. 

It needs new players to improve the situation. But producing negative films of high quality isn't exactly the next digital startup. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by hansvons