What is the price per roll that will stop you using film?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, $10 is the max price I would pay for a 135 or 120 format.

Once I have finished all my stocks, I will see if I will buy any.

Edited November 15 by Einst_Stein

[Advertisement]

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

[fotomas]

10 €

[Ivan M]

I recently dropped off 2 35mm BW rolls 36 exposures each for developing and  SCANNING TIFF files and the total was 52.00 USD here in NYC, i decided to take the batteries out of my M6 and put it away for a very long time, i will shoot with the Q3 and enjoy it, film has gotten absolutely ABSURD! I can and have developed it myself but the scanning process gets annoying after while, just to slow and tedious for me. I recently SOLD all my film cameras and just kept the M6. 

[Crem]

I think your $10 USD per roll of 35mm is about where I'd start re-evaluating. Here in the USA I'm settled on buying Fujifilm 400 for color. Assuming I find it with free shipping it works out to about $7 - $8 a roll. I've quit buying Portra 400/800 even though I prefer it. It just doesn't make sense to me to buy it at $15 - $17 a roll. To save money I scan myself, but lately I still use a lab for dev as I don't have enough free time. The real issue I'm dealing with is that I simply enjoy shooting film much more than digital. So for all I know I'd probably pay more than $10/roll if required. Hobbies are silly like that.

Edited November 15 by Crem

[FrozenInTime]

I'm coping with UK B&W prices; £11 for Tri-X. But will not pay for Portra 400 or 800 which is now in the £18 - £25 GBP range  i.e ~$30 USD.

I really gave up on seriously using C-41 long ago when Fuji discontinued  NPH/400H and press800/800Z.

[TomB_tx]

I have a good stock of frozen color & B&W that should last years. $10 a roll is pretty cheap when you consider inflation has raised prices about 10x since the 1970s. So its about like buying $1 film back in the day…

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any current price.

[Anbaric]

Ilford is cheaper than Kodak for B&W in the UK - HP5 135-36 is about £8. The consumer colour films are in the £9.50-£11 range if you shop around. These prices include VAT, and are at the upper end of acceptable for me. As above, I wouldn't generally buy Portra at £18 (and up) except for something really special. Fujifilm consumer colour films seem both less available and more expensive here than Kodak, and may well actually be rebadged Kodak at this point, so I wouldn't bother unless I spotted a bargain (a real pity, as Superia was once a favourite). Ektachrome is around £30 a roll, which means it's more than £1 a frame after you get it developed, which is just silly (respooled 100D, which is the same film, is 'only' about £14).

[johnwolf]

Color film plus processing long ago passed the threshold for me. I shoot BW film (HP5+, not Tri-X) and process myself, so it still feels reasonable. 

I’m okay without color film. Except for distinctive films like Portra, I generally don’t see much aesthetic edge to color film over digital. 

I’m not sure where my cutoff is for BW film. I think for sure once my wife also retires. Until then, 10 bucks US might change my mind.

[Doug A]

I have been bulk loading 12-exposure rolls of 35mm B&W film for about six years. In that time my cost per roll has roughly doubled. I recently bought a 100' roll of Kentmere Pan 400 for $72. I get 40 12-exposure rolls from a 100' bulk roll. That works out to about $1.80 a roll. I develop the film with Rodinal, use a plain water stop bath, and fix with whatever is the cheapest rapid fixer at the time. My cost for developing one roll is well under one dollar. If those prices increase enough to be prohibitive the rest of the economy will be in such bad shape that photography will likely be the last thing on my mind. 

But I also shoot 120 film. At $6.00 a roll of Kentmere Pan 400 and double the cost for chemicals if the prices were to double again I would likely switch to 100% 35mm. 

Edited November 15 by Doug A

[Ko.Fe.]

4 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

For me, $10 is the max price I would pay for a 135 or 120 format.

Once I have finished all my stocks, I will see if I will buy any.

Done and gone. 

Paying for rolls, getting it developed, scanned elsewhere became dead end to me long time ago.  

And I'm with HCB and Jane Bown, who quitted on 120 because it became useless after Leica or Olympus entered the market.

135... I had not much use for 135 in color. I went trough ECN-2, E6 and C-41 self developing... Bulks of old E-41 and ECN-2. But preferred few dozens of C-41, E-6 per year. Yet, it was half-digital, no optical prints are much possible. 

So, it left me on been real. It means cost of bw film is not a biggy if bulk loading and no fuss with cliché brands . Here is no practical difference from Kodak and Kentmere. Kentmere 100 is totally awesome and 400 is pushable to 1600. Well, I was buying Kodak 3200 in rolls because its huge grain was as good as lith printing, espacially @6400 and more  

But if it is not on the dark room print, it is gimmicks.

I quit because it became mad max. You pay insane price for fresh MG FB (RC is short lasting substitute, IMO) or you scavenge on SG FB from seventies.

Even 8x10 pricing is insane.

And time is huge money in my case. Don't want to loose it in repetitive, time consuming  process.

Would it be scanning, editing or darkroom printing. 

Edited November 15 by Ko.Fe.

[Pieter12]

I have no max. I might shoot less film, but unless I start having LVT negatives made, film is the only way for me to print in the darkroom and that is what I like.

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

For me, $10 is the max price I would pay for a 135 or 120 format.

Once I have finished all my stocks, I will see if I will buy any.

A lot of people already changed to digital because they couldn’t differentiate in their mind price from value. As culture evolves those are the people who now spend money on fancy cups of coffee twice a day or a new digital camera with every ‘upgrade’ when they could have bought rolls of film instead. So isn’t this less of a question about the price of film and more a question of how much of a dilettante the person is in the first place?

Edited November 15 by 250swb

[Pieter12]

Koudelka switched to Leica digital because of the cost of film & processing and the hassle of international travel with film. I don't know if he paid for the camera or if Leica gifted it to him, and how he deals with his digital files, maybe Magnum takes care of that. Because you can buy a lot of film for the price of a proper computer set-up and software, not to mention a decent printer.

[fotomas]

Koudelka was gifted a Monochrom from Leica at least at the award ceremony for the Dr. Eriche Salomon Preis given to him by the DGPH (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Photographie) in 2015 in Essen, Germany.

[Bateleur]

To me its not a question... the pleasure I derive from the process of loading film, development and eventually making a print cannot be expressed in financial terms.

[250swb]

12 hours ago, Pieter12 said:

Koudelka switched to Leica digital because of the cost of film & processing and the hassle of international travel with film. 

I think perhaps the practicalities and not cost, it's like imagining he or Magnum can't afford to use film if he wanted to. When he used our college darkrooms back in the late 1970's he'd have over sixty rolls to develop from even a short trip, and he needed help from the photography technicians to develop it. Of course he was processing film on-the-go because the risk of carrying it around undeveloped was too great. But with fewer darkrooms capable of the personal service and less personal control it becomes risky to stockpile undeveloped film or have it processed by people you maybe don't know or understand the standard you expect given the content of the film is future income.

[spydrxx]

I gave up on film for color shots as the cost and availability of developing became untenable, although I still have several color rolls in the freezer. As for B&W, I have several rolls and some bulk which I develop and scan myself. I don't see buying any more at my age. Sadly, my favorites are no longer commercially available, either in color or B&W.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[TomB_tx]

A lot of valid views presented here. I still find great pleasure in shooting with film cameras, maybe because I'm an old mechanical engineer who appreciates fine mechanisms. The M10 is the nicest Digital experience I've found, making shooting almost the same as with film, and I can't argue with the convenience and results quality. But there is still something magic about seeing the images on film as it hangs to dry, or watching a print appear in the developer tray. And watching slides presented on a Pradovit & screen still can't be equaled. 

I've never burned through film quickly (or digital for that matter), so film cost is still not much of an issue for me. But getting color processed involves $10 postage each way now and a long wait for "feedback" on how you did. That's why I recently added a color film processor to my darkroom routine, and I find it reasonable solution. However, I still don't get instant feedback because of the need to process several rolls in a short time while the color chemicals are still good, unlike B&W where a roll now and then is still easy. I'm still shooting more rolls of E100 to get enough to justify mixing the chemicals. I like shooting 120 E100 in 6x7 to get enough rolls because it takes me a long time to take 36 exposures with 35mm! Also easier to scan 120 on my flatbed.

C41 processing has been easy, and I've been impressed even with Kodak Gold at a better price than Portra or Ektar.

True, the AGO processor was ~$500, but the convenience has been worth it.

[Pieter12]

8 hours ago, 250swb said:

I think perhaps the practicalities and not cost, it's like imagining he or Magnum can't afford to use film if he wanted to. When he used our college darkrooms back in the late 1970's he'd have over sixty rolls to develop from even a short trip, and he needed help from the photography technicians to develop it. Of course he was processing film on-the-go because the risk of carrying it around undeveloped was too great. But with fewer darkrooms capable of the personal service and less personal control it becomes risky to stockpile undeveloped film or have it processed by people you maybe don't know or understand the standard you expect given the content of the film is future income.

I believe he implicitly cited cost as an important factor in an interview about switching to the Leica. As you say, he shoots a lot of film--that adds up quickly. I don't think Magnum funds his projects, he solicits funding (grants, perhaps) on his own. https://leicarumors.com/2015/06/03/leica-made-a-special-one-of-a-kind-s2-digital-panoramic-camera-for-josef-koudelka.aspx/