Buy film to keep it in the freezer from the hoarders.
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Can anyone give me any prediction or insight on if there will be affordable/accessible 35 mm color film
-
A
- Thread starter raquelle
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: 4x5 field camera, wooden, simple
- Started by Dan Daniel
-
Found Looking for a good spot meter
- Started by Premier
-
Want to Buy View Camera Shutter
- Started by Beevo
-
For Sale Sam Abell - The Photographic Life
- Started by Rayt
-
For Sale Expired Film: Kodak, Agfa, Ilford and Fuji 4x5/5x7
- Started by Jammoh
Forum statistics
Buy film to keep it in the freezer from the hoarders.
alanrockwood
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,193
- Format
- Multi Format
Am I the only one who remembers the ads for the bulk film loaders: "a penny per shot"? These days it's more like 25 cents per shot for kodak black and white bulk-loaded films.
Even as late as 1979 a 100 foot roll of Plus-x or Tri-x was only $9.99 at 47th street photo. (I'm looking at an old ad right now in the August, 1979 issue of Modern Photography.) That works out to about 1.5 cents per shot.
Of course, median family incomes have gone up during that time, but incomes have kept not pace with bulk film costs. For example, in 1979 median family income in the US was about $16,500 per year, and for most families there was probably only one wage earner. Today it's about $74,000 per year, and many families now have two wage earners. Median family income is up about 4.5 fold since 1979, but a 100 foot roll of Tri-x is up about 15 fold during that same time period. It's pretty clear that the price increases of bulk loaded 35mm black and white film are far outstripping the increases in incomes. (Please forgive the slight shift from C41 to black and white film in this post.)
Even as late as 1979 a 100 foot roll of Plus-x or Tri-x was only $9.99 at 47th street photo. (I'm looking at an old ad right now in the August, 1979 issue of Modern Photography.) That works out to about 1.5 cents per shot.
Of course, median family incomes have gone up during that time, but incomes have kept not pace with bulk film costs. For example, in 1979 median family income in the US was about $16,500 per year, and for most families there was probably only one wage earner. Today it's about $74,000 per year, and many families now have two wage earners. Median family income is up about 4.5 fold since 1979, but a 100 foot roll of Tri-x is up about 15 fold during that same time period. It's pretty clear that the price increases of bulk loaded 35mm black and white film are far outstripping the increases in incomes. (Please forgive the slight shift from C41 to black and white film in this post.)
Well, the guys at Ferrania aside, there still is Mirko. He spent the majority of his business life on the idea of a small photochemical plant, moreover was devoted to this market all his business life. And all this time, as far as we know, as one-man-show.
But hoarders are not the clients that make manufacturers happy.
Instead they want steady sales. (Custom production runs aside.)
We also do need to examine "affordable".
We all make choices in life. Certain things are pretty much essential....a roof over our heads, food on the table, heating in the winter, water in the pipes and so on. But we can choose, to some extent at least, where we live and what we eat. In some parts, a car is essential. How important is film photography to each and every one of us? For those on low to medium incomes, it is still possible to shoot film but compromises may have to be made. Prioritise it over some other hobby/interest? For those able to eat out at restaurants, do so once less per month? There's the cost of a couple of rolls and development right there.
I like going to gigs, but mostly limit myself to small local gigs in a club that offers a pretty cheap night out. I'd like to go into London once a week or so to places like Ronnie Scott's but then I probably couldn't afford much film!
We all make choices in life. Certain things are pretty much essential....a roof over our heads, food on the table, heating in the winter, water in the pipes and so on. But we can choose, to some extent at least, where we live and what we eat. In some parts, a car is essential. How important is film photography to each and every one of us? For those on low to medium incomes, it is still possible to shoot film but compromises may have to be made. Prioritise it over some other hobby/interest? For those able to eat out at restaurants, do so once less per month? There's the cost of a couple of rolls and development right there.
I like going to gigs, but mostly limit myself to small local gigs in a club that offers a pretty cheap night out. I'd like to go into London once a week or so to places like Ronnie Scott's but then I probably couldn't afford much film!
That's what I do. My film freezer is at capacity. I replenishment as I go. I just ordered from Foto Impex, because Color Mission is back in stock and I'd like to see what it can do. I added other film, some to replenish and some to try. 14 rolls for around €165. That includes 19% tax.
Much of my stock was bought much cheaper than it is now. But using a roll and then replacing it will still occur current prices. Provided it is still made...
Are there hoarders that don't stockpile for themselves?
NB23
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
mohmad khatab
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 934
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Can anyone give me any prediction or insight on when my stocks/bonds/etc will return to normal so my retirement income will allow me to buy film?
Huss
Allowing Ads
2026
I am hoping much sooner than the twelfth of Never.
You're joking, right?
NB23
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
Joking? Programmed obsolescence is true and sadly, a norm. An all-American system.
The society went from people owning one car for a lifetime to owning at least 10. Heck, I’m on my 10th and I have a long way to go, still.
My parents lived on One washing machine for 35 years. I’m on my 5th.
A pair of shoes used to last at least a year. I now use 4 per year. Winter jackets? One per winter.
Films are nowadays rated tonbe “fresh” only 1.5 to 2 years. It used to be 3, 4 years at least. It’s nothing but a trick to sell more Film and go through the cycles much faster.
Unfortunately, Kodak or Fuji or Ilford, cannot chip their films, program them to burn in smoke once they reach expiry date. But if they had a trick to make the film unusable once it’s expired, they totally would. Something like make the cassettes open up, or even sending drones to grab the films off your hands.
Yes, kodak papers used to go bad even within it’s “fresh” period. Just think about it for a minute.
Chan Tran
Allowing Ads
My cars always were always broken to the point of can not be economically repaired. They are not obsolete. Even my first car a 69 GTO is still not obsolete if it's in good shape. Now I can't say the same for my cameras. Many of my film cameras are in perfect condition yet I can't afford to buy film and can't get RA-4 chemica shipped to me. So my film cameras are getting obsolete. Also the 69 GTO would run on unleaded gasoline but the Minolta SRT-101 need mercury battery. So stop comparing cars to cameras.
So then why would communist manufacturers design their papers and films with planned obsolescence in mind, when they struggled to fulfill the demand? Because there are SU papers with dev. agents in them. And soviet films were fresh only for 9 to 18 months ( ЦНД-32, 65, ЦНЛ-32 having the shortest shelf life at 9 months, ОЧ-45, 180 having the longest, 18 months, both at 14-20°C)
NB23
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
Look up planned obsolescence, the definition and examples are startling. They also mention cars.
Besides, you and only you are the one comparing cars and your cameras. I haven’t even mentioned cameras LOL.
Topkek))
Here, take a look
NB23
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
Cheap russian/ukrainian cameras, papers, stuff made to not-last. Cars, plastics. Even fabrics. Anything from that beautiful era has been long sleeping in landfills. Obsolete the moment they got manufactured.
What is your argument, exactly?
My argument is, why communists would use planned obsolescence?
What makes you think so? Zenits are garbage, yes, but Kievs are good and certainly made to last. Sometimes a bit obsolete at the moment of manufacturing, but not always and certainly not "made to not-last". And the films we are talking about weren't that obsolete. Sure, they used a different coupler technology (that had it's own advantages, to be fair) and were a bit behind in terms of speed, but that's it
NB23
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
Communists were not into planned obsolescence. Rather, they were into instantaneous obsolescence. Anything that survived actually came from germany, the east.
I don’t know why we are mixing both in this discussion. On one side, the american system is cheapening its products down to a level that makes them quickly obsolete. On the other side, the communists made cheap products from the start.
Planned obsolescence, instantaneous obsolescence. All comes down to the same. I can’t buy quality winter boots anymore without paying 900$.
I don’t know why we are mixing both in this discussion. On one side, the american system is cheapening its products down to a level that makes them quickly obsolete. On the other side, the communists made cheap products from the start.
Planned obsolescence, instantaneous obsolescence. All comes down to the same. I can’t buy quality winter boots anymore without paying 900$.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |