Break down: Why film costs what it does

silvergrahm · Jan 17, 2013

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Silvergrahm,

Your 'good authority' has ' very bad information'

I will save you a calculation or two....

( Excluding waste etc ) you get 17.58 rolls of 135 - 36 per m2 of parent roll, 26.37 rolls for 24 exp and 19.55 rolls of 120 film per m2.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Wait, what? I said 1600 sqft per mole of metallic silver.

silvergrahm · Jan 17, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
The OP seems to confuse the concept of mole with mass. The mole is a just a unitless number equal to 6.02 X 1023. In order to speak of a mass you have to multiple this number by the mass of a silver atom. In this case a gram mole of silver would weight 107.9 grams. So it is perfectly possible to speak of gram moles, kilogram moles even pound moles. Perhaps this misunderstanding leads him to believe that the amount of silver in film is not important.

. I said one mole of silver is about 107 grams. If silver is slightly less than a dollar then one mole of silver spread across 1600sqft will be ~$100, right?

And in any case my real question is, what is the price breakdown for a roll of film?

Gerald C Koch · Jan 17, 2013

silvergrahm said:
. I said one mole of silver is about 107 grams.

Sorry I didn't catch that. However it is best to use the term gram mole to avoid any confusion. Chemists when speaking to other chemists may say mole knowing that they will not be misunderstood. Still not a good idea. However, chemical engineers will say pound moles, kilogram moles or ton moles since these are the weights that they deal witn.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Jan 17, 2013

If you are a photographer selling artwork, the cost of the film is a very insignificant part of your expenses. I don't know if it's the age of the internet, but this entitlement mentality that comes from "free" news, "free" software, etc. is frightening.

In my portrait studio, I currently charge $65 for a mounted 5x7, and people happily pay it. Why? Because they are paying for the content of the image that is printed on that 5x7, not for the raw materials used to produce it. They are paying for emotion, for memories, and they value that greatly. Some people, of course, say "well, crap, I can make my own photos for a lot less than that!" To which I would say "yes, but you can't make MY photographs." That's the difference.

When you buy a roll of film, you are paying not only for the equipment used to make it, but also for the brainpower needed to design it, quality control it, box it, ship it, etc. which is significantly more expensive than the equipment.

Some of us, I am sure, can make our own film or paper if we wanted to. Not me, but even if I could, why bother? You can buy a sheet of 4x5 film for $1.50 or less. A 4x5 contact print on Lodima (the most expensive paper currently available) will cost a whopping $0.65. It's a lot cheaper than golf. Last time I played, it was $75. That's 20 rolls of HP5!

AgX · Jan 17, 2013

ParkerSmithPhoto said:
If you are a photographer selling artwork, the cost of the film is a very insignificant part of your expenses. I don't know if it's the age of the internet, but this entitlement mentality that comes from "free" news, "free" software, etc. is frightening.

The same time we here at Apug are offering for free a whole lot of information. Outside this internet thing people would have to pay money for such tutorials.

And many of us paid a lot of money to gain that knowledge (trainings, books etc.)

Photo Engineer · Jan 17, 2013

The figures in the op equate to about 109 grams / 1600 sq ft or about 68 mg / square foot of silver (109 g/1600 square ft = 0.068 g/sq ft). Since B&W film averages more than that per square foot, and color film averages much more than that (about 3X that of B&W), I have to discount the OPs original assumption and what he is trying to say via his expert.

Rare organic and heavy metal compounds (including silver) come in second.

And, labor is the highest cost in the entire equation and that is why Kodak tried for years to speed up and automate production. Which is what put them in a dilemma now.

PE

silvergrahm · Jan 17, 2013

PE, what is the average g/sqft of modern emulsions?

I found the source. Haist Vol. 2, p. 297, in discussion of the creation of a film with incorporated developers: "A fine grain silver bromoiodide emulsion...was coated on paper base at a coverage of 1900 sqft per mole of silver."

So, I flipped the 9 upside down.

When I heard this figure I was surprised how far a mole can go.

Gerald, I think it's too much to ask everyone to know all the specific jargon of every discipline. Isn't that why there are standard units in the first place? So that scientists can communicate across disciplines and, believe it or not, laypersons can understand and make use of scientific discoveries--if scientists are generous enough to parse them out.

polyglot · Jan 17, 2013

Photo Engineer said:
Since B&W film averages more than that per square foot, and color film averages much more than that (about 3X that of B&W)

Is there really 3x more silver in C41 than in B&W film? My impression was that with the final density being due to dyes no silver and the overall CI generally being lower, the quantity of silver was generally lower in C41 film. And that C41 fixer seems to be more-dilute than B&W fixer.

As to the OP, the breakdown depends heavily on which manufacturer's film you buy and from which retailer:
- Kodak has HUGE plant, arguably much too large for current market conditions, so capital costs will be significant and likely problematic for them,
- Ilford seems to have more-appropriately-sized plant but it's probably more labour-intensive to run,
- Efke while they existed had a tiny ancient coater and such small runs that they were probably paying more for materials;
- if you buy from B&H or Freestyle, the price is similar to what the manufacturer is selling it for
- if you buy it from a storefront in Australia, the price is 3x as high so 2/3 of the cost is going to distribution & retail

AgX · Jan 17, 2013

polyglot said:
Is there really 3x more silver in C41 than in B&W film? My impression was that with the final density being due to dyes no silver and the overall CI generally being lower, the quantity of silver was generally lower in C41 film. And that C41 fixer seems to be more-dilute than B&W fixer.

The silver has two functions in chromogenic films: light-sensitivity and image-forming. To a certain extent those functions must be kept apart.

Vaughn · Jan 17, 2013

AgX said:
The silver has two functions in chromogenic films: light-sensitivity and image-forming. To a certain extent those functions must be kept apart.

That was going to be my guess -- a layer for each color (3) and each layer its own silver content.

Photo Engineer · Jan 17, 2013

B&W paper materials have no real burden in terms of grain and sharpness for a variety of reasons, and therefore silver laydown is in the range of 50 - 150 mg of Silver / sq. ft. Some papers go as high as 300 using the same units. These so-called silver rich papers waste silver because the technology to get high density from low silver is difficult. Color paper runs in the same range.

B&W films need speed, grain and sharpness and these require lots of Silver! So, they use about 150 to 300 mg / ft sq. Color films may use 300 - 900 depending on these factors.

The density formed depends on the following reactions:

4 Ag + 1 coupler = 1 dye (4 equivalent coupler)
2 Aa + 1 coupler = 1 dye (2 equivalent coupler) < these are mainly in use today!

To go one step further though, the dye has an extinction coefficient or in simple terms, how much bang for the buck! How many moles of dye are needed to get to a given density. The lower the "E" (actually it is Epsilon), the more silver and coupler needed to get a given density. These must be calculated for every coupller / developer pair.

So there, something new for today. You see what a little reading can lead to? You can end up making the wrong statement. Sorry. Please do not equate paper coatings with film coatings ever! Same goes for paper vs film emulsions. These are different areas entirely. And, BTW, I worked with Grant on these types of coatings.

PE

lxdude · Jan 17, 2013

madgardener said:
...Factoring in everything, it cost $50 just to pull the truck up to the curb.... Not realizing the total cost, we were charging $50 to mow (acre size lots), and we were losing money fast.

Oops.

kb3lms · Jan 17, 2013

Film really isn't very expensive. Just use it and don't worry about it. Labor and overhead is where the costs are. Doing my own processing, which is one of my main interests anyway (sure as hell isn't art - lol), I can buy and shoot a half dozen rolls of film and print 8x10's of ALL of it (which I wouldn't) for less than it costs to re-ink the the inkjet printer and buy one box of a decent quality photo paper to print upon, not to mention the extra time / aggravation spent in front of the computer.

Delta 100 in 120 off of Amazon is $4.19. Big deal.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 18, 2013

silvergrahm said:
Gerald, I think it's too much to ask everyone to know all the specific jargon of every discipline. Isn't that why there are standard units in the first place? So that scientists can communicate across disciplines and, believe it or not, laypersons can understand and make use of scientific discoveries--if scientists are generous enough to parse them out.

Exactly most people do not know what mole means. This effectively isolates them from the discussion. Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

heterolysis · Jan 18, 2013

kb3lms said:
I can buy and shoot a half dozen rolls of film and print 8x10's of ALL of it (which I wouldn't) for less than it costs to re-ink the the inkjet printer and buy one box of a decent quality photo paper to print upon

This is great... and very true.

$60 to replace the ink in my printer, or about 50 sheets FB paper. I certainly will never get that sort of value (or quality) making prints from my computer.

lxdude · Jan 18, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

I don't gopher it either...

John Shriver · Jan 19, 2013

Look at the property tax rate in Rochester. It's high. I think there's also property taxes on plant and equipment in New York State. That's why Kodak tears down buildings in Kodak Park when they stop using them -- too expensive to pay the property tax.

Some of the sensitizing dyes make silver nitrate look dirt cheap.

Photo Engineer · Jan 19, 2013

Sooooo right John.

And Silver Nitrate will keep. Not so for some of those dyes!

PE

silvergrahm · Jan 20, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Exactly most people do not know what mole means. This effectively isolates them from the discussion. Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

Which argument? The one about film prices or the one about scientists.

BrianShaw · Jan 20, 2013

I don't mind being excluded from the conversation. (I once knew what a mole was but forgot most of the high school chem I ever knew.) To me it really doesn't matter how much it costs to make (or package or market) film because all I care about is the retail price I'm paying. Lower is better but it isn't for me to really determine (other than the intellectual curiousity) if the price is justified or not.

Gerald C Koch said:
Exactly most people do not know what mole means. This effectively isolates them from the discussion. Since moles really has no bearing in your argument why mention it at all.

lxdude · Jan 20, 2013

BrianShaw said:
(I once knew what a mole was but forgot most of the high school chem I ever knew.)

How about some SoCal home kitchen chemistry? I love mole. Especially guacamole.

Photo Engineer · Jan 20, 2013

silvergrahm said:
Which argument? The one about film prices or the one about scientists.

Well, as a scientist, and in an effort to be clearer............

In your statement, you used Haist as your source. However, you used the word "film" in place of the original word used by Haist which was "paper". This was a clear statement by a scientist which you altered and then misunderstood. So, even clear statements can be misunderstood by lay people in spite of an effort at clarity by the original scientist.

You equated film with paper. This is not correct.

Therefore, comments about clarity notwithstanding, we had a misunderstanding. You see the problem here?

PE

mts · Jan 21, 2013

Has anybody considered supply and demand? Dwindling demand and tighter markets, and stocks that need to pay dividends are important, probably more so than the cost of materials and labor. Perhaps the best example is the price now asked for guns and ammunition; doubled in the past few months in the US with no change in the cost for materials and labor.

StoneNYC · Jan 21, 2013

mts said:
Has anybody considered supply and demand? Dwindling demand and tighter markets, and stocks that need to pay dividends are important, probably more so than the cost of materials and labor. Perhaps the best example is the price now asked for guns and ammunition; doubled in the past few months in the US with no change in the cost for materials and labor.

what demand, and where? last I checked there was a surplus of film and not enough buyers haha, still, some film prices remain higher, like Kodak, who's LF sheets are so ridiculously high compared to it's competitors I can't see anyone buying them, really it's just stupid to sell a film of equal quality at twice the price of your competitor and think many will buy it out of "loyalty" well that only goes so far...

polyglot · Jan 21, 2013

StoneNYC said:
what demand, and where? last I checked there was a surplus of film and not enough buyers haha, still, some film prices remain higher, like Kodak, who's LF sheets are so ridiculously high compared to it's competitors I can't see anyone buying them, really it's just stupid to sell a film of equal quality at twice the price of your competitor and think many will buy it out of "loyalty" well that only goes so far...

Nice theory. Except Acros costs the same as TMX now (though Acros used to be a high-priced outlier) and there is no substitute for TMY2 - Delta400 isn't as good and it's not even available in sheets.

Once you get into traditional-grain films though, you are right. There's no Plus-X compared to the excellent pricing on FP4+ and the eastern-EU offerings.

Break down: Why film costs what it does

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency