35mm Velvia 50 is back and very expensive!

faberryman · Oct 25, 2022

DREW WILEY said:
mshchem - I grew up within walking distance of a mountain town so small that the general store was no bigger than the average motorhome.

You were lucky to be so close. I had to hitch up old Bessie to the wagon for the two hour journey. Sure, you could walk, but then the rattlesnakes would get you. Everyone knew when someone tried to walk to town because you could see the buzzards circling in the distance. And nobody had a camera. We had to wait for a WPA photographer to come around. Or someone working on his MFA. I didn't actually go to town much. Most of the time I just stayed at home and played the banjo on the front porch. One time these four guys from the city came around wanting to do a canoe trip. I won't go into details, but let's just say it didn't work out too well.

Roger Cole · Oct 25, 2022

NB23 said:
LoL!

Another classic.

But could you buy a Nikon D50 for 40$ (or what would be something like 7.42$ in 1970 dollars) back in 1970?

When trying to be logical, please go all the way.

That makes no sense at all.

Of course you couldn't, for any price, because it didn't exist. But you COULD buy color slide film, because it did. Today's films are better but are essentially the same basic product.

NB23 · Oct 25, 2022

Roger Cole said:
That makes no sense at all.

Of course you couldn't, for any price, because it didn't exist. But you COULD buy color slide film, because it did. Today's films are better but are essentially the same basic product.

Sure it makes sense.
Back then film was the only game.

You just can’t compare two markets and bluntly say “even at 35$ velvia is cheap because in the 70’s it was priced similarly.

Anon Ymous · Oct 25, 2022

Roger Cole said:
That makes no sense at all.

Of course you couldn't, for any price, because it didn't exist. But you COULD buy color slide film, because it did. Today's films are better but are essentially the same basic product.

Well, back then you had to use film and didn't have any other choice, as opposed to today. So, if film becomes too expensive, some people will simply stop buying it. I'm not saying film manufacturers should sell their products with very low profit margin, it's up to them to decide what the price should be. That said, sales could be impacted by what people could perceive as too expensive, as in unreasonably expensive to spend based on disposable income. Few months ago, I spent 200€ for E6 film, I wanted to buy some Fuji films before the price increase takes effect. I honestly don't know if I'll buy any more of it, my digital camera takes very nice photos.

NB23 · Oct 25, 2022

Anon Ymous said:
Well, back then you had to use film and didn't have any other choice, as opposed to today. So, if film becomes too expensive, some people will simply stop buying it. I'm not saying film manufacturers should sell their products with very low profit margin, it's up to them to decide what the price should be. That said, sales could be impacted by what people could perceive as too expensive, as in unreasonably expensive to spend based on disposable income. Few months ago, I spent 200€ for E6 film, I wanted to buy some Fuji films before the price increase takes effect. I honestly don't know if I'll buy any more of it, my digital camera takes very nice photos.

That’s what happened, and we saw C200 priced at 1.99, kodak films going for peanuts, expired ilford pan-f bulk rolls going for 5$... all until the master rolls got totally dry.

Roger Cole · Oct 25, 2022

NB23 said:
Sure it makes sense.
Back then film was the only game.

You just can’t compare two markets and bluntly say “even at 35$ velvia is cheap because in the 70’s it was priced similarly.

Yes, of course you can.

I suppose you mean that because there are other, and now far more popular, ways of making photo images now there's this huge competition that didn't exist then. That's true, but it still doesn't mean you can't compare the costs then and now. Of course you can. The fact that digital is the main cause and driver of the vastly reduced market and thus one big factor in costs doesn't mean you can't compare the costs - one is one of the causes, the other is talking about the result.

eli griggs · Oct 25, 2022

Continuing the theme of 'ironic', I can no tell, on line, a good digital image from a wet darkroom print, ink jets no included for hybrid work, except for when the images are so very manipulated in software, post taken.

Film has a beauty that can no, in analog fashion, be taken but so far, and many of us must recognize that, for their to even be a divide, analog vs. digital and, IMO, a fair number of folks whom have and are returning to film, must some how value that difference.

Even those whom do practice hybrid shooting and printing.

Digital can be a 'perfect' image, but, then, so can analog, but more and more analog people seem to prefer, an "Eye of GOD" aspect in film photography, and I suspect, in the long run, that will be what saves analog amongst the growing force which is "Analog Photography".

IMO.

faberryman · Oct 25, 2022

eli griggs said:
Digital can be a 'perfect' image, but, then, so can analog, but more and more analog people seem to prefer, an "Eye of GOD" aspect in film photography, and I suspect, in the long run, that will be what saves analog amongst the growing force which is "Analog Photography".

I am not familiar with the "Eye of GOD" aspect of film photography. Can you elaborate?

Alan Edward Klein · Oct 25, 2022

NB23 said:
LoL!

Another classic.

But could you buy a Nikon D50 for 40$ (or what would be something like 7.42$ in 1970 dollars) back in 1970?

When trying to be logical, please go all the way.

I bought a Nikon F Photomic T with f 1.4 50 mm lens and leather camera case in Japan in 1965 for $190. That was top of the line at the time. In New York City it was going for around $450. Today that would be roughly $4200.

Sirius Glass · Oct 25, 2022

Anon Ymous said:
Well, back then you had to use film and didn't have any other choice, as opposed to today. So, if film becomes too expensive, some people will simply stop buying it. I'm not saying film manufacturers should sell their products with very low profit margin, it's up to them to decide what the price should be. That said, sales could be impacted by what people could perceive as too expensive, as in unreasonably expensive to spend based on disposable income. Few months ago, I spent 200€ for E6 film, I wanted to buy some Fuji films before the price increase takes effect. I honestly don't know if I'll buy any more of it, my digital camera takes very nice photos.

I am willing to buy film at prices that keep the manufacturers in business. My cost is just the cost of doing business with film and it is worth it.

Sonynolta User · Oct 25, 2022

NB23 said:
LoL!

Another classic.

But could you buy a Nikon D50 for 40$ (or what would be something like 7.42$ in 1970 dollars) back in 1970?

When trying to be logical, please go all the way.

Well to take this to its illogical conclusion, back in the 70s, I would buy 'old' cameras at local auctions for 50 cents or a buck or two. Things like brownies, old Arguses (argusi?) , etc. Much like a 6 mp Nikon, these were the outdated, unwanted cameras of the day. Why would you want some huge old brownie when you could buy a nice new 110 or 126 instamatic or (wow!) a polaroid. I would take these home, then drag my mom to the drugstore so I could buy weird films like 127 or 620.

Is a brownie a Nikon D50? No. But back then, it was the contemporary equivalent.

I still buy weird films like 127, 620, etc.

faberryman · Oct 25, 2022

Sonynolta User said:
Well to take this to its illogical conclusion, back in the 70s, I would buy 'old' cameras at local auctions for 50 cents or a buck or two. Things like brownies, old Arguses (argusi?) , etc. Much like a 6 mp Nikon, these were the outdated, unwanted cameras of the day. Why would you want some huge old brownie when you could buy a nice new 110 or 126 instamatic or (wow!) a polaroid. I would take these home, then drag my mom to the drugstore so I could buy weird films like 127 or 620.

Is a brownie a Nikon D50? No. But back then, it was the contemporary equivalent.

I still buy weird films like 127, 620, etc.

I remember when there weren't any cameras and the only thing we could do was sensitize paper and make photograms out in the front yard.

DREW WILEY · Oct 25, 2022

I remember when we had to hold our hands on the surface of cave walls and blow red oxide clay powder around it creating a silhouette. That's how the Eastman Chemical division began.

Sonynolta User · Oct 25, 2022

faberryman said:
I remember when there weren't any cameras and the only thing we could do was sensitize paper and make photograms out in the front yard.

Yeah. I remember when I was a kid buying those brownies, the proto-hipsters would hand-craft small-batch locally sourced pigments to mix their own oil paints, because photography was too modern and clinical. Oil paintings had a certain quality and etherial tones I couldn't possibly comprehend as someone practicing photography.

NB23 · Oct 25, 2022

Is it so hard to understand?

Digital photography is a shift of paradigm just like Cars were to Horses.
Not horses to horses (brownie vs nikon , for example).

Anyhow, 35$ for a roll of Velvia today will result in extremely low sales. I don’t know why anyone is even debating this

Sirius Glass · Oct 25, 2022

NB23 said:
Is it so hard to understand?

Digital photography is a shift of paradigm just like Cars were to Horses.
Not horses to horses (brownie vs nikon , for example).

Anyhow, 35$ for a roll of Velvia today will result in extremely low sales. I don’t know why anyone is even debating this

On this we agree.

mshchem · Oct 25, 2022

I checked my film fridge today, like winning the lottery. I found Velvia 50 and a bunch of Provia.

Sirius Glass · Oct 25, 2022

mshchem said:
I checked my film fridge today, like winning the lottery. I found Velvia 50 and a bunch of Provia.

I do not have to check my freezer, I know that it is loaded with all types of film. Hoarders be damned!

eli griggs · Oct 25, 2022

faberryman said:
I am not familiar with the "Eye of GOD" aspect of film photography. Can you elaborate?

Simply put, I am referring to what is a intentional act of accepting or introducing a error or mistake into a work of craft or art,

"Only God is perfect, she said, so we have to make sure our art isn’t perfect either. Every item she knitted had a mistake; small and unnoticeable but to the most discerning eye, but it had a deliberate mistake." *

Somehow, those things that analog films record, that some viewers gravitate to naturally, when viewing an photographic image or print, that marrs technical or aesthetical "perfection" but is accepted, as is, without negative conientions.

The traditionally, these errors are introduced into a work or craft, out of a Fear of GOD, belief, in a number of societies, (I referred to this as an "Eye of GOD" motivation, because this is how it was described to me years ago,) but picking an analog camera, instead of a digital instrument is to, like future viewers of that work, accept it's limitations to further "perfection" by the photographer.

Like a traditional Korean potter, it is what it is and nothing within the work is no where it should no be, be it lens flare, old film degradations, missed wardrobe error on a model, or object either missing or misplaced, etc.

It simply is what it is and shows us nothing more.

*Rebecca Nason on knitting/weaving

DREW WILEY · Oct 25, 2022

Must be a lot of Daguerrotypists on this particular thread. It's evident from all the mercury poisoning insanity.

Larryc001 · Oct 25, 2022

Hard to believe I know. This is what $180 (cdn) bought today at London drugs.

mshchem · Oct 25, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
I do not have to check my freezer, I know that it is loaded with all types of film. Hoarders be damned!

View attachment 319983

I buy film every month, try to keep buying what I want to see now and in the future. Consistent consumption, even if I don't use it.

Minox · Oct 26, 2022

Too pricey, like everything nowadays. I remember the 90's, when I could just visit my local Jessops and get a couple of rolls of Techpan, APX 25 and Velvia 50, without any problems. Never bought too many, there was no need to hoard.

Today, I just paid some 300 euros for 30 meters bulk rolls, three of them. One thing is certain, I am going to be extra cautious when it comes to wastage.

DREW WILEY · Oct 26, 2022

My whole big film freezer cost less than a single box of 8x10 color film does today. A smart squirrel buries enough cones and nuts for the winter in advance. Once in awhile my wife sneaks a spare frozen turkey in there too when I'm not looking.

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 26, 2022

I have a little fridge stuffed full with film. Like, when I open the door, film falls out. Maybe it's time for another little fridge. About a quarter of our freezer in the garage is film. I also have a shelf of film in the garage. Nice and cool in there. That is the film that I use first.

35mm Velvia 50 is back and very expensive!

faberryman

Roger Cole

NB23

Anon Ymous

NB23

Roger Cole

eli griggs

faberryman

Alan Edward Klein

Sirius Glass

Sonynolta User

faberryman

DREW WILEY

Sonynolta User

NB23

Sirius Glass

mshchem

Sirius Glass

eli griggs

DREW WILEY

Larryc001

Attachments

mshchem

Minox

DREW WILEY

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

35mm Velvia 50 is back and very expensive!

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency