Back in the day an Ektachrome processing kit was only $1.80!

[DDTJRAC]

 

[MattKing]

And those wonderful 828 slides gave you really nice slides for projection - bigger than 35mm slides!
Of course, your income was pretty small as well

 

[koraks]

The Kodak logo seems to me like it's the one they used in the 1960s. Let's say this was from 1965. Ektachrome processing apparently cost $1.85 back then. Adjusted for inflation, that equals around $32 today. I see that e.g. Blue Moon offers E6 processing for $19. So it has become quite a bit cheaper, overall.

Or was this supposed to be one of those "oooh look at how cheap things used to be" things? If so, sorry to pop that bubble. It doesn't always pan out.

Enjoy your comparatively affordable E6 processing available to you in 2025.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 50s and 60 Photography was expensive. My father made a very good living, we only took photography on holidays and one roll for a 2 week vacation.

 

[MattKing]

My parents moved us out to the Vancouver area in 1961, for my Dad to work at the newly opened Kodak Kodachrome and Ektachrome processing laboratory - as Customer Service manager.
Even with a Canadian Kodak manager's salary, my parents found it somewhat challenging to afford the mortgage payments on the $21,000.00 CDN house they bought.
Clearly, that $1.80 should have been higher!
From around the same time, on 828

 

[wiltw]

The Kodak logo seems to me like it's the one they used in the 1960s. Let's say this was from 1965. Ektachrome processing apparently cost $1.85 back then. Adjusted for inflation, that equals around $32 today. I see that e.g. Blue Moon offers E6 processing for $19. So it has become quite a bit cheaper, overall.

Back in 1960 the median annual family income in USA was only $5600...you could develop 3027 rolls of Ektachrome with one year median income.
Using today's price an median US family income in 2023 of $80600 you could develop 4242 rolls of Ektachrome.

My first new car monthly payment was DOUBLE what my parents new house payment was, only 15 years after they had purchased that house.

 

[MattKing]

Back in 1960 the median annual family income in USA was only $5600...you could develop 3027 rolls of Ektachrome with one year median income.
Using today's price an median US family income in 2023 of $80600 you could develop 4242 rolls of Ektachrome.

Apples and oranges I'm afraid. That $1.80 was for a do-it-yourself kit.

 

[koraks]

Back in 1960 the median annual family income in USA was only $5600...you could develop 3027 rolls of Ektachrome with one year median income.
Using today's price an median US family income in 2023 of $80600 you could develop 4242 rolls of Ektachrome.

Look at how those numbers track perfectly with the inflation-based estimate I posted. Which of course is not a surprise.
I find the "how much film can I process with my salary, provided I don't rent/buy a house and don't eat" kind of amusing.

 

[ntenny]

The Kodak logo seems to me like it's the one they used in the 1960s. Let's say this was from 1965. Ektachrome processing apparently cost $1.85 back then. Adjusted for inflation, that equals around $32 today. I see that e.g. Blue Moon offers E6 processing for $19. So it has become quite a bit cheaper, overall.

Maybe we checked different sources on inflation—I found almost exactly a tenfold increase from 1965 to 2024, so the processing is a break-even.

But the kit does seem to be less expensive in the old days—an Arista kit now costs US$35.49 at Freestyle, and that’s rated for four rolls, vs. six for the Ektachrome kit in the ad.

Enjoy your comparatively affordable E6 processing available to you in 2025.

Agreed. There are a lot of activities more expensive than photography, at whose costs people don’t bat an eye. Golf looks like a money sink to me, but for many millions of people it seems to pencil out to their satisfaction.

-NT

 

[wiltw]

Look at how those numbers track perfectly with the inflation-based estimate I posted. Which of course is not a surprise.
I find the "how much film can I process with my salary, provided I don't rent/buy a house and don't eat" kind of amusing.

The problem is that what one has to pay for a house is so variable, as is the income. larger house new costing 1/3 is one example, comparing homes near Boulder Co vs. SF Bay Area CA.

So is the food cost...what our daughter in CO pays for produce is so much lower that what we pay for produce in CA, yet much of nation's produce is grown in CA!

In Merced CA they have 46% of the median family income of San Jose CA, but they only pay 27% of what the San Jose family pays to own a median priced house, but the cost of film processing applies for both families.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Back in 1960 the median annual family income in USA was only $5600...you could develop 3027 rolls of Ektachrome with one year median income.
Using today's price an median US family income in 2023 of $80600 you could develop 4242 rolls of Ektachrome.

My first new car monthly payment was DOUBLE what my parents new house payment was, only 15 years after they had purchased that house.

Money had value then. Gas was 29.9 cents and a 5 cent cigar was decent. Do not try a 5 cent cigar today! Besides now smoking is bad for you.

 

[koraks]

Maybe we checked different sources on inflation—I found almost exactly a tenfold increase from 1965 to 2024, so the processing is a break-even.

Yeah, depends on which source you use. The one I used estimates inflation considerably higher than some others (e.g. this one, which I'd say is probably trustworthy).

The problem is that what one has to pay for a house is so variable

Yes; fort these reasons, inflation is based on more than housing, gas, food etc. However, the correlation tends to be fairly strong.

 

[MFstooges]

My parents moved us out to the Vancouver area in 1961, for my Dad to work at the newly opened Kodak Kodachrome and Ektachrome processing laboratory - as Customer Service manager.
Even with a Canadian Kodak manager's salary, my parents found it somewhat challenging to afford the mortgage payments on the $21,000.00 CDN house they bought.
Clearly, that $1.80 should have been higher!
From around the same time, on 828 View attachment 386997

How do you preserve that picture, it still has beautiful colors. although there are some micelliums or marks but it's way better than my newer slides.

 

[MattKing]

How do you preserve that picture, it still has beautiful colors. although there are some micelliums or marks but it's way better than my newer slides.

Nothing special - it is just one of many, many, many Kodak Canada processed Kodachrome slides that I inherited from my Dad and Mom.
They have been kept in boxes, in relatively benign storage locations. They would most likely be faded if they had been projected repeatedly

 

[Samu]

The cheap film existed for a short time when the digital cameras became affordable and available to the general public in the early 2000´s. Many of the young folks have born after this, and they don´t realize that film was nos so cheap when no digital photography was available. Also. in the late 1980´s, when there were one hour C-41 / EP-2 minilabs on every corner, and cheap point-and-shoot cameras prevailed, consumer grade color negative film and printing on the cheapesta available paper was not very expensive- But products like slide film or professional grade negative films were quite expensive. I can´t quote the prices, but I remember that Kodak color paper in sheets was quite expensive, and as a teenager, I had often opt for the cheaper Agfa, even though Kodak paper was much better. Cibachrome was very expensive.

But what is almost amusing, is that nowadays making a black & white print of 20x25 cm on Ilford Multigrade RC paper in a 100 sheet box costs me almost 5 times more than making a color print of the same size on Fuji DP II cut from a roll, chemistry costs included.

 

[mshchem]

Nothing special - it is just one of many, many, many Kodak Canada processed Kodachrome slides that I inherited from my Dad and Mom.
They have been kept in boxes, in relatively benign storage locations. They would most likely be faded if they had been projected repeatedly

These slides are incredible. A brief period in history when people have amazing crisp memories recorded in color. All the digital stuff turns to dust.
All my father's Kodachrome slides are in great shape 60 to 75 years on.

 

[gbroadbridge]

I find it amusing that someone would expect to pay $12 for an advertisement ripped out of an old magazine.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Kodachrome endures!
Ektachrome...not so much.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

These slides are incredible. A brief period in history when people have amazing crisp memories recorded in color. All the digital stuff turns to dust.
All my father's Kodachrome slides are in great shape 60 to 75 years on.

Have a look at these...just scanned, dating from 1978 to 1987. Kodachrome 64 and 200.
Minolta SRT101b...and later (1986-1990), the venerated Canon T90.


Promise of a landscape photographer 15+ years...?
Lunch stop on a long-haul bicycle tour in a field of granite boulders.
Kodachrome 64, 1978.
Minolta SRT101b

On tour down the coast. Crimson Rosella, 1987 (Kodachrome 200, Canon T90)

Yup, been down that hellhole and back, and let me tell you sweethearts, there's nothing there.
Ektachrome 100, 1979.

 

[mshchem]

Kodachrome endures!
Ektachrome...not so much.

The Ektachrome slides my father shot in the 70's that were processed by Kodak have held up well. I have a few 50 year old prints made by Kodak, Chicago lab that still look great.

EKCo was the absolute best MHOFWIW