Can anyone give me any prediction or insight on if there will be affordable/accessible 35 mm color film

[Arcadia4]

Good review of historic prices for film esp. colour here;

A Look Back at the Prices of Film

It seems like every few months, another press release is made by Kodak or Fuji with bad news about some film stock that is being discontinued and others that ar

mikeeckman.com

In summary adjusting for inflation, current prices still generally cheaper than in 1995. Certainly when i first bought film in the 80s it was still a relatively expensive purchase so most photos were only taken on holidays, events and special occasions.

Prices aren’t going to go back to the 2005 lows, hopefully they will stabilise no higher than 1995 equivalent, but we could find ourselves back in the price equivalent of the 80s or earlier.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If cost of color is driving you away, you could try Instax. There are a number of options to shoot Instax behind a good lens (adapters for Hasselblad, RB67, 4x5 Graflok, and build-your-own options for almost anything), and what I have on hand (Instax Wide) cost less per frame than 6x9 120 Portra even before the recent Kodak price increases (pretty sure it still does even after the recent Fuji price increases).

Stuff's got no latitude (less than Ektachrome!) and pretty poor reciprocity (I got good results behind a pinhole with Ilford exponent of 1.3 starting at 1/4 second), but the color is excellent and it doesn't leave trash you have to dispose of like peel-apart films did. Then again, it also can't be tricked into providing a usable negative...

Prices aren’t going to go back to the 2005 lows, hopefully they will stabilise no higher than 1995 equivalent, but we could find ourselves back in the price equivalent of the 80s or earlier.

You mean when a cup of drip coffee at Starbuck's was around a dollar? I had no trouble affording film then (35mm was all I bought aside from an occasional Minolta 16 cartridge), even living in Seattle and working a pretty poor job. Film isn't nearly as affected as prices of housing in metropolitan markets (again, I paid $700/mo in Seattle for a 2 bedroom duplex with half basement as late as 2002, now they're getting more than that for a walk-in closet with barely room for a twin bed, bathroom down the hall, not even a hot plate worth of counter space and no fridge). Availability is an issue for me, price less so.

 

[abruzzi]

My photographing has been down during Covid so now I am getting more active again.

Not so for me, but I’ve decided that on my trip next week to Colorado/Utah/Arizona I will take a 35mm camera as backup to my 4x5. I was going to take a medium format camera, but I really have to burn through some of this 35mm film. So the Pentax MZ-S with 4 rolls of Velvia 50 and 3 rolls of Ektar 100, and the Norma will do B&W (with maybe a few sheets of Provia, just because 4x5 transparencies are glorious.)

 

[Huss]

Same as air-guitar with sound coming out of mouth.

Ling ling ling liiiing “solo” tring twiiiiiinnngg

This is why we need a "Like" button on Photrio.

 

[Huss]

Well... Maybe I oversold myself a little. I should say I'd rather skip a meal out, given that a burger at many places now costs fifteen dollars. I'm not skipping home cooked meals for film, although I could probably do with eating a bit less anyway. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Yesterday I was riding around taking snaps. Was enjoying myself so much I forgot about lunch. Shot a couple of rolls of Delta 3200 in my Blad, and 1 roll of kentmere 400 in the KlasseW. Developing that trash at home saved even more money.
That was unintentional - skipping a meal - but the point is crying about film prices is all on us. You live your life, you make your choices.

B&W film really IS cheap. Try that for a change instead of colour (to the OP who of course seems to have disappeared). Mix things up.

 

[koraks]

B&W film really IS cheap. Try that for a change instead of colour

That's like telling a truck driver to take the train for a change. Sure he could, but it won't get that particular job done.

 

[Minolta93]

Yesterday I was riding around taking snaps. Was enjoying myself so much I forgot about lunch. Shot a couple of rolls of Delta 3200 in my Blad, and 1 roll of kentmere 400 in the KlasseW. Developing that trash at home saved even more money.
That was unintentional - skipping a meal - but the point is crying about film prices is all on us. You live your life, you make your choices.

B&W film really IS cheap. Try that for a change instead of colour (to the OP who of course seems to have disappeared). Mix things up.

I have started shooting B&W recently. I wanted to do it from the start but now I shoot it more than color because of the prices. I still keep a roll of consumer color film in my point and shoot in case I need it when I'm out.

I've got a small number of rolls of inexpensive film, mostly some Arista stuff and now Kentmere 400 which I have yet to try, and a couple rolls of Kodak stuff which I probably won't buy again soon. Rodinal and my other chemicals were very cheap. So for me I've just shifted my shooting to less color, more B&W. I don't think I'd worry too much about film prices if everything else weren't so expensive, but that's outside the scope of this forum.

I still prefer color film, because I like color. But I've been able to change to accommodate pricing changes.

If I weren't (planning) to move out within a few months to Southern California, I might have bought a bulk loader and some bulk film, but I also don't want to have too much stuff to bring with me when I move. Then again, I guess a bulk loader isn't too large so I might just do it anyway. Then maybe I could bulk load Ektachrome, too...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Then maybe I could bulk load Ektachrome, too...

Don't forget Ektachrome currently comes in 135 cassettes, 120, sheet film, or 400 foot or longer cine rolls. AFAIK it isn't sold (by Kodak, at least) in the 100 foot bulk rolls that fit standard loaders. If you find it in 100 foot length, it's been "broken down" -- hand rerolled to the shorter length -- or "recanned" -- unloaded from a cine camera when a roll wasn't finished and put back into the original film can for resale.

Also, last I checked, 400 feet of Ektachrome was around $650 (though it's probably available for somewhat less direct from Kodak, it's harder to buy from them and shipping cost might offset much of the saving). If you have (access to) a large enough 3D printer and a sufficiently opaque filament, you could make a bulk loader that will hold a 400 foot "camera roll" -- I'm still trying to figure out how to trick my Ender 3 into printing the 8+ inch main chamber.

 

[Helios 1984]

My definition of affordable is under $9 guys give me a break

Not so long ago, my go-to color film was Kodak Gold 200 which was available at my local Walmart, for several years, at 12.91$ for a 3x24 pack. Then, during the space of past 12 months or so, it skyrocketed to 23.95$ :-/

 

[Minolta93]

Don't forget Ektachrome currently comes in 135 cassettes, 120, sheet film, or 400 foot or longer cine rolls. AFAIK it isn't sold (by Kodak, at least) in the 100 foot bulk rolls that fit standard loaders. If you find it in 100 foot length, it's been "broken down" -- hand rerolled to the shorter length -- or "recanned" -- unloaded from a cine camera when a roll wasn't finished and put back into the original film can for resale.

Also, last I checked, 400 feet of Ektachrome was around $650 (though it's probably available for somewhat less direct from Kodak, it's harder to buy from them and shipping cost might offset much of the saving). If you have (access to) a large enough 3D printer and a sufficiently opaque filament, you could make a bulk loader that will hold a 400 foot "camera roll" -- I'm still trying to figure out how to trick my Ender 3 into printing the 8+ inch main chamber.

At a 200mm build area it's just shy of 8". I'm sure you could somehow get it to work, but it would take a lot of filament for something that isn't really that hard to construct. In my opinion 3d printing has specific advantages, and something that's very simple and a large size is not among the types of products that will use those advantages. The time and trouble you will spend first trying to print something that large, then sorting out any issues that would normally come with printing something, and finally getting it to be lightproof, seem a bit much.

I've seen someone here make a 400ft to 100ft converter with just some pegs on a piece of board. If I ever buy 400ft rolls I'll probably just do something like that and split a 400ft roll into four 100ft rolls.

Anyway, have you considered building the 400ft bulk roller by hand? The large part that would be hard to print should be relatively simple to make by hand as it's basically just a cylinder. Any crank handles and gears and the like could then be 3d printed easily.

 

[pentaxuser]

. I don't think I'd worry too much about film prices if everything else weren't so expensive, but that's outside the scope of this forum.

That, as I see it, is the elephant in the room which I feel we are ignoring. I can't speak for the U.S. but in the U.K. inflation is set to reach 10% later this year and some of the real "essentials" have risen much more than 10% such as heating and petrol/diesel and travelling costs For many these are essentials and there is no way round such costs. It seems to me that eventually this is bound to have an adverse effect on film sales.


Are we entering a "perfect storm" in which the film makers have no choice but the raise prices by a lot more than the modest increase in income more of which has to be spent on genuine essentials so that most film users cut back on film use and sales then at best plateau or more likely decrease

At that point what does even the likes of venture capitalists like Pemberton the owners of IlfordPhoto do? One thing is clear in my mind they are not in it purely for the love of film or because the film business is all they've known

This is quite different from the old Harman where executives steeped in film, took the courageous decision to risk a management buy-out.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

That, as I see it, is the elephant in the room which I feel we are ignoring. I can't speak for the U.S. but in the U.K. inflation is set to reach 10% later this year and some of the real "essentials" have risen much more than 10% such as heating and petrol/diesel and travelling costs For many these are essentials and there is no way round such costs. It seems to me that eventually this is bound to have an adverse effect on film sales.


Are we entering a "perfect storm" in which the film makers have no choice but the raise prices by a lot more than the modest increase in income more of which has to be spent on genuine essentials so that most film users cut back on film use and sales then at best plateau or more likely decrease

At that point what does even the likes of venture capitalists like Pemberton the owners of IlfordPhoto do? One thing is clear in my mind they are not in it purely for the love of film or because the film business is all they've known

This is quite different from the old Harman where executives steeped in film, took the courageous decision to risk a management buy-out.INFL

pentaxuser

Inflation is worldwide and the rest of the world outside of film users gives a damn about film or film costs.

 

[MattKing]

This is quite different from the old Harman where executives steeped in film, took the courageous decision to risk a management buy-out.

It wasn't a management buyout.
It was a rescue purchase from the receiver.

 

[Donald Qualls]

At a 200mm build area it's just shy of 8". I'm sure you could somehow get it to work, but it would take a lot of filament for something that isn't really that hard to construct. In my opinion 3d printing has specific advantages, and something that's very simple and a large size is not among the types of products that will use those advantages. The time and trouble you will spend first trying to print something that large, then sorting out any issues that would normally come with printing something, and finally getting it to be lightproof, seem a bit much.

I've seen someone here make a 400ft to 100ft converter with just some pegs on a piece of board. If I ever buy 400ft rolls I'll probably just do something like that and split a 400ft roll into four 100ft rolls.

Anyway, have you considered building the 400ft bulk roller by hand? The large part that would be hard to print should be relatively simple to make by hand as it's basically just a cylinder. Any crank handles and gears and the like could then be 3d printed easily.

IMO, making the main chamber light tight is a harder problem with fabrication (from what?) than with 3D printing. I don't currently have a lot of workspace or tools (out of storage). However, it looks as if I might be able to get the main chamber (and hence all the other parts) to print if I make some setting changes (skirt to zero width will do it, I've read). Printer time is the main issue with print problems -- filament isn't particularly expensive (the amount needed for a device like this is around $10-$15 worth, depending on exact material selection).

The problem with breaking down to 100 foot rolls is that I'd then need three sets of can and black bag, or put the 300' remainder back in the 400' can. If it's all broken down to 100', well and good, but three hundred feet in a four hundred foot can is asking for confusion if I later resell the remainder or similar.

 

[Don_ih]

three hundred feet in a four hundred foot can is asking for confusion if I later resell the remainder or similar.

Write how much is left on the can with black marker.

I could make a bulk loader for 400 feet of film out of wood or aluminum or steel pretty easily. I wouldn't bother, though. I bought a 400 foot roll of Plus-X a few years ago and pulled 3-foot strips off the roll as I needed them - without taking the roll out of the bag. The roll is down to about 150 feet, I think, and fits in an Alden loader. I had been keeping the film in the black bag in a flat plastic paper safe. Using a bulk roll like that depends on having a place to do it.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I bought a 400 foot roll of Plus-X a few years ago and pulled 3-foot strips off the roll as I needed them - without taking the roll out of the bag. The roll is down to about 150 feet, I think, and fits in an Alden loader. I had been keeping the film in the black bag in a flat plastic paper safe. Using a bulk roll like that depends on having a place to do it.

Or having the right equipment.

 

[pentaxuser]

It wasn't a management buyout.
It was a rescue purchase from the receiver.

Where did the receiver get the money for the purchase? So when Harman was sold to Pemberstone, by whom was it sold? Didn't the likes of Simon Galley and a few others have an actual financial stake in the business or were they just salaried employees who then chose to retire on Pemberstone's acquisition of the business?

Here a quote from a Wikipedia article on Ilford's history since its collapse in 2005

Harman Technology[edit]​

2004 – 2015[edit]​

The UK site was subject to a management buyout by 6 former managers of Ilford Imaging UK Limited, which resulted in the formation of Harman Technology Ltd (named after the founder Alfred Harman) in February 2005.

 

[Huss]

I have started shooting B&W recently. I wanted to do it from the start but now I shoot it more than color because of the prices. I still keep a roll of consumer color film in my point and shoot in case I need it when I'm out.

I've got a small number of rolls of inexpensive film, mostly some Arista stuff and now Kentmere 400 which I have yet to try, and a couple rolls of Kodak stuff which I probably won't buy again soon. Rodinal and my other chemicals were very cheap. So for me I've just shifted my shooting to less color, more B&W. I don't think I'd worry too much about film prices if everything else weren't so expensive, but that's outside the scope of this forum.

I still prefer color film, because I like color. But I've been able to change to accommodate pricing changes.

If I weren't (planning) to move out within a few months to Southern California, I might have bought a bulk loader and some bulk film, but I also don't want to have too much stuff to bring with me when I move. Then again, I guess a bulk loader isn't too large so I might just do it anyway. Then maybe I could bulk load Ektachrome, too...

I love colour too, I just see the world that way. But I still get a kick out of shooting B&W, and some scenes look better for it. Also developing B&W is to simple, cheap and easy that it makes me appreciate it even more!
I pretty much use Arista and Kentmere by choice now. I love the results - I don't feel I'm giving anything up - and I love the pricing. Once I've used up my stash of HP5 I don't think I'll go back to it unless it is on sale. I just don't feel the need, I really like the more vintage vibe of the other films. As for TriX? $11/roll vs $5.19 for Kentmere? No thanks.

 

[Huss]

That's like telling a truck driver to take the train for a change. Sure he could, but it won't get that particular job done.

More like telling a truck driver to take a van. The train would be like using your iphone.

 

[Huss]

It seems impossible this is the dead end ;")

And with that Raquelle has disappeared!

 

[Minolta93]

IMO, making the main chamber light tight is a harder problem with fabrication (from what?) than with 3D printing. I don't currently have a lot of workspace or tools (out of storage). However, it looks as if I might be able to get the main chamber (and hence all the other parts) to print if I make some setting changes (skirt to zero width will do it, I've read). Printer time is the main issue with print problems -- filament isn't particularly expensive (the amount needed for a device like this is around $10-$15 worth, depending on exact material selection).

The problem with breaking down to 100 foot rolls is that I'd then need three sets of can and black bag, or put the 300' remainder back in the 400' can. If it's all broken down to 100', well and good, but three hundred feet in a four hundred foot can is asking for confusion if I later resell the remainder or similar.

I was thinking any flat rigid material should do the trick for the flat sides of the main chamber. For something easy to cut without tools, I think even foam core board, or corrugated plasticboard should work. You know, the plastic they use for election signs. And a strip of something flexible enough to make a circle out of but still be a bit rigid--I think the plastic could work here as well. As for sealing, I imagined using some of that silicone caulking stuff they sell in those squeeze cans.

Of course, if you can get it to print, that would be great, and I think we'd all love to see it.

I also wonder if one of those big round cookie tins could be repurposed as a main chamber.

 

[MattKing]

Where did the receiver get the money for the purchase? So when Harman was sold to Pemberstone, by whom was it sold? Didn't the likes of Simon Galley and a few others have an actual financial stake in the business or were they just salaried employees who then chose to retire on Pemberstone's acquisition of the business?

Here a quote from a Wikipedia article on Ilford's history since its collapse in 2005

Harman Technology[edit]​

2004 – 2015[edit]​

The UK site was subject to a management buyout by 6 former managers of Ilford Imaging UK Limited, which resulted in the formation of Harman Technology Ltd (named after the founder Alfred Harman) in February 2005.

What I'm saying is that in 2005 Ilford Imaging was in receivership. The management group rescued the black and white business from the risk of the scrap heap by taking on a huge amount of personal risk.
I doubt the creditors in the receivership got much of what they were owed.
"Management buyout" tends to sugar coat what happened - to imply something more like paying market value for a going concern.
Thankfully, it seems that the risk was worth taking. When Pemberstone bought out Simon Galley et al, I hope they did very well.

 

[pentaxuser]

And with that Raquelle has disappeared!

Well we gave her our best answers which unusually for Photrio were all largely the same, namely that she could not expect prices to drop. So having all said the same thing, did she have any reason not to disappear, at least from this thread?

Will we see her again? Possibly, if she has other film matters for which she requires help

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

When my Dad was taking Kodachrome slides starting in 1949, my sister came in 5 years before me in 1951. Flashbulbs cost a dime each. A silver dime is equal to about 2 bucks today. Kodachrome was in virtually the same position as Kodak's color films today. Nothing better.
To answer the OP. I think the current prices will remain, every institution that is capable of producing an outstanding color film is located in the US, Japan, and Germany. (We are hoping for Italy). I pray that Kodak Sino Promise can get into production. The possibility of losing Kodak color negative papers should scare the heck out of us. Also I eagerly await the return Kodak color chemistry.
The Eastman Kodak end of the operation is in good order. Even if the overall company is struggling in it's core printing biz.
Film like Portra, Ektar, Ektachrome are miraculous, cheap considering.
MHOFWIW YMMV. Some people think I'm an idiot

 

[pentaxuser]

What I'm saying is that in 2005 Ilford Imaging was in receivership. The management group rescued the black and white business from the risk of the scrap heap by taking on a huge amount of personal risk.
I doubt the creditors in the receivership got much of what they were owed.
"Management buyout" tends to sugar coat what happened - to imply something more like paying market value for a going concern.
Thankfully, it seems that the risk was worth taking. When Pemberstone bought out Simon Galley et al, I hope they did very well.

Well apart from a difference in interpretation of whether a management buy-out means a sugar coating which in Harman's case we agree clearly consisted of taking a huge personal risk and the kind of investment that his means it would seem that we are in agreement

What I was trying to illustrate by this huge amount of personal risk is how much they had staked and why this kind of personal commitment to the "Ilford business" distinguishes their position compared to Pemberstone and what that might mean in the event of a decrease in film sales

I just feel at times that there is a real danger that a section of us here on Photrio believe that there is always "nothing to worry about" Some here seem to say they will continue to buy film especially Kodak colour film in a whatever it takes spirit and I am sure they mean it but I fear they do not represent anything like a big enough portion of the film buying public to be confident that there will be little of no effect on film revenue


It is not a matter of simply suggesting an approach of "stop complaining" or "if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen" as a solution.

pentaxuser