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

[mtnbkr]

1997 has 243,000 miles all mine
1998 has 163,000 miles of which the last 40,000 are mine - to and from off roading and off roading as in
View attachment 305972

View attachment 305974
Yes that is me driving. It is a government project, just look at the watch to work ratio.
The green grand cherokee was a 1993, the 1998 is a similarly equipt white one.

Nice! I have a '97 4Runner that has been mildly modded. I don't take it anywhere like that though (not much of that in the Blue Ridge Mtns).

Our current fleet:
97 4Runner: 218k miles, 162k by us (purchased in 2002)
07 Odyssey van: 187k miles, 153k by us (purchased in 2010)
13 Focus hatchback: 88k miles, purchased new, all miles by us.

We're going to replace the van soon but the other two will remain for some time. The 4Runner is more of a toy now and only gets pulled out when I go camping, hunting, etc or when one of the other vehicles is in the shop.

Chris

 

[faberryman]

I think there is a difference between hoarding - which is keeping a large supply and not using it, but having it in case there is an "emergency" - and stock piling which is keeping a large supply that you will use.
My freezer is full of my film stock pile but I shoot all the time. I have it because I do not want to go down to a store, or mail order when I need a roll. I want to be able to just grab what I need, when I need it. In essence I am my own store. It is actually very liberating as it encourages me to shoot more, and not worry about running out of film.

Hoarders on the other hand just look at their stash, but don't dare touch it. Because, ya know, it's for emergencies.

At what point do you expend the Herculean effort to go online or down to the store to replenish your "stockpile"? When you are down to 500 rolls? 100 rolls? 50 rolls? 10 rolls?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, if car longevity is on the table...

My most recent car before the present daily driver was a 1990 Ford Aerostar passenger van. Had 166,000 or so on it when I bought it in 1998, had 244,000 when I parked it in 2015. Most of those years my commute was two miles each way and I could go a month on a 21 gallon tank of gas (even at 14-16 mpg around town). It's still pretty solid, except the engine is due for a ground-up rebuild or replacement.

My current one is a 2015 Ford Fiesta, the only car I've ever bought new (30-some miles on the clock when I drove off the lot, and I put 3-4 of those on in my test drive). It's now got 155,000; I replaced tires for the third time a couple months ago, but other than that I've only changed oil and filters. It's starting to need the oil checked every few thousand miles; it'll be a quart low at the 10,000 change interval if I do nothing (and that'll increase with more miles, I'm sure). I've lost a couple percent in fuel consumption; I used to get 40 mpg on my commute and now get 37-ish when I don't have to run the air conditioning. I'd probably get some or all of the mileage back with a new set of spark plugs and injector cleaning. I'm also likely due for A/C service. Still on factory brake pads/shoes, but due for a new serpentine belt (it chirps a little now), and I need to check the electric cooling fan, it may be behind the A/C issues.

No break-in required with new engines; my dual-clutch automatic is still on the original clutch plates. And this was literally the cheapest car Ford offered the day I bought it.

And people wonder why more than half my cars over the past 45 years have been Ford (or Mercury).

 

[Agulliver]

My late father's 1936 Morgan F2 is still on the road. Whereas his 1981 Ford Cortina died in 1988 as far as I know. Rusted, worn out, tired and knackered. Not a spot of rust on our 2011 Skoda.

 

[flavio81]

@MattKing waiting for you to steer this thread back to the original topic, really it seems the APUGgers here have shifted their brain horsepower into other interests and here we are sparking off topic content. We need you to signal the turning light so we can return to the original discussion. It's you, the moderators, the control unit that keep this forum well-oiled and firing on all cylinders. Otherwise we won't get enough mileage from this thread.

Mine is a '97 benzo, C240, 2.4L 90 degree twin-spark 18-valve SOHC V6, and currently has about 100K miles, engine and tramsision are just fine.

 

[lantau]

@MattKing . It's you, the moderators, the control unit that keep this forum well-oiled and firing on all cylinders. Otherwise we won't get enough mileage from this thread.

.

One could think you are writing this as a fact, not your opinion...

 

[MattKing]

Metaphorically speaking, I think flavio81 is correct - the thread has definitely changed lanes

 

[Sirius Glass]

To answer the OP's question succinctly "No", only worthless speculation.

 

[AgX]

You should not overlook that the OP did not even log in again since the day she started this thread/her request...




This thread better be closed.

 

[summicron1]

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.)

I can buy 100 feet of hp5 here in Ogden for $80 and get about 18 rolls of 36, or 650 shots, which works out to 12 cents a picture. The rate of inflation from 1979 to now is about ten times.

So the price hasn't really changed all that much. When you add in that shooting film means you don't need to upgrade your computer every two years, that a lot of money you save.

 

[alanrockwood]

I can buy 100 feet of hp5 here in Ogden for $80 and get about 18 rolls of 36, or 650 shots, which works out to 12 cents a picture. The rate of inflation from 1979 to now is about ten times.

So the price hasn't really changed all that much. When you add in that shooting film means you don't need to upgrade your computer every two years, that a lot of money you save.

I'm probably being too picky, but when I look at inflation number between 1979 and 2022 I see figures of about 4X. (References: https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/1979-to-present-value and https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1979?amount=100).

 

[faberryman]

So the price hasn't really changed all that much. When you add in that shooting film means you don't need to upgrade your computer every two years, that a lot of money you save.

You don’t need to upgrade your computer every two years when you shoot digital, so you may want to eliminate those savings from you calculations.

There are a lot of great reasons to shoot film. You do not need to make up a bunch of nonsense about digital.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You should not overlook that the OP did not even log in again since the day she started this thread/her request...




This thread better be closed.

Who cares what happened to the OP, we still putter on nattering on like a bunch of old fart.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Who cares what happened to the OP, we still putter on nattering on like a bunch of old fart.

I think this happens a lot. There's a very unique 'culture' here at Photrio and it if one isn't used to it, it can be a little off-putting. I think this is often why we lose newcomers to the site unfortunately.

 

[koraks]

There's a very unique 'culture' here at Photrio and it if one isn't used to it, it can be a little off-putting.

A little self reflection never hurts of course, but to be fair: most forums fit the description you gave. Also, registering members have a stake in this as well; being an active part of a community, whether online or offline, requires a little discipline and that's always been the case. Finally, OP may very well have read the evolution of the thread without logging in, or they may login at some point and come back to this.

 

[AgX]

I think this happens a lot. There's a very unique 'culture' here at Photrio and it if one isn't used to it, it can be a little off-putting. I think this is often why we lose newcomers to the site unfortunately.

But a lot is to blame to newcomers too. In several cases I pm'd newcomers with a certain request as my reply was too specific for the thread in question. In these cases I got no reply whatsoever.
Also newcomers put up a certain request, got several most apt replies (with no old fart bickering and such) in their thread, but no reply by them whatsover whether the advice solved the issue. Instead they put up yet another thread with a different request.

 

[Don_ih]

Some people just aren't going to stick around. Some people want to know something but have no desire to talk about it after they get their answer. Take this thread for example. She asked if film would ever be cheap. The answer is "No". What else does she need to say? I doubt she has much interest in the fabled operations of whatever entity calls itself Kodak....

 

[Willy T]

"I think this happens a lot. There's a very unique 'culture' here at Photrio and it if one isn't used to it, it can be a little off-putting. I think this is often why we lose newcomers to the site unfortunately."

Oh, no ... well, except for the querulousness, condescending pontification, sheer bloody-minded snottiness; the frequency of uninvited/'volunteer' non-sequiter responses; a remarkably hardcore group of compulsive responders who seem to believe that their 'insights'/rejoinders/wit are an undeserved grace bestowed on the forum which ought to cause a stunned hush to fall.

Maybe it's the average age, now well into the prune-juice/chronic-irritabiity stratum (of which I am a member), but a lot of things are said in a spirit and tone in this heady vacuum of distance and anonymnity that would earn the utterer a shunning if not a kick in the cods if said in person, in meatspace. Thus is it with the Internet, where one may let one's truculence be freely truculent, where jealousies, neuroses, ill-adjuted socialization, ax-grinding and attitude become banners of pride.

There is one truly expert and valued member here who contributes a lot; his style is unfailingly cheerful, positive, helpful, willing, accepting. His shared knowledge - which is vast - is always clad in helpfulness and good humor. And yet, yet, of late, some ill-humored someone with a species of sharp-elbowed wild bug up his nose has somehow found a way to give sneering affront to this chap, and for no apparent cause. Now ain't that just a damned shame.

 

[faberryman]

The OP asked if color film is ever going to be affordable again. After a couple of back and forths it was established that the OP deemed $9/roll affordable, and an enlightened member correctly responded in post #6 that color film will never be affordable again. Thus ended the inquiry. Yet here we are nine pages later.

 

[Wallendo]

The idea of "affordable" (cheap) film was a transitory phase in the history of photography. I remember shooting color negative film as a teenager, when I made $5 for mowing a lawn. I shot 35mm film much like many here shoot larger format work, with care and thought placed into each image because of the cost. One 24 exposure roll of Kodachrome, Ektachrome, or Kodacolor would last me several months.

I do remember the late 90's/early2000's when Kodal and Fuji films were available in 4 packs for less that $10 at times. That was an aberration, not the norm in photographic history.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The idea of "affordable" (cheap) film was a transitory phase in the history of photography. I remember shooting color negative film as a teenager, when I made $5 for mowing a lawn. I shot 35mm film much like many here shoot larger format work, with care and thought placed into each image because of the cost. One 24 exposure roll of Kodachrome, Ektachrome, or Kodacolor would last me several months.

I do remember the late 90's/early2000's when Kodal and Fuji films were available in 4 packs for less that $10 at times. That was an aberration, not the norm in photographic history.

This was the transition from "film is a big deal" to "film is a consumer item." If film hadn't been replaced in the professional world by digital, the trend would have continued, with Superia or Max 400 running $4 for a 135-36 and "professional" emulsions 50% above that, economies of scale and R&D continuing. But when the cine industry switched almost entirely to digital, that model died almost overnight and we're just lucky that the film manufacturers didn't fully follow it down.

 

[Helge]

"I think this happens a lot. There's a very unique 'culture' here at Photrio and it if one isn't used to it, it can be a little off-putting. I think this is often why we lose newcomers to the site unfortunately."

Oh, no ... well, except for the querulousness, condescending pontification, sheer bloody-minded snottiness; the frequency of uninvited/'volunteer' non-sequiter responses; a remarkably hardcore group of compulsive responders who seem to believe that their 'insights'/rejoinders/wit are an undeserved grace bestowed on the forum which ought to cause a stunned hush to fall.

Maybe it's the average age, now well into the prune-juice/chronic-irritabiity stratum (of which I am a member), but a lot of things are said in a spirit and tone in this heady vacuum of distance and anonymnity that would earn the utterer a shunning if not a kick in the cods if said in person, in meatspace. Thus is it with the Internet, where one may let one's truculence be freely truculent, where jealousies, neuroses, ill-adjuted socialization, ax-grinding and attitude become banners of pride.

There is one truly expert and valued member here who contributes a lot; his style is unfailingly cheerful, positive, helpful, willing, accepting. His shared knowledge - which is vast - is always clad in helpfulness and good humor. And yet, yet, of late, some ill-humored someone with a species of sharp-elbowed wild bug up his nose has somehow found a way to give sneering affront to this chap, and for no apparent cause. Now ain't that just a damned shame.

Hope the irony of this post doesn’t escape people.

Willy, it’s called humanity.
It might be slightly more subtle IRL for reasons of embarrassment, varying intelligence and verbosity.
But it’s basically how all humans are.
Removing all the bad traits you describe, would remove their bright side too.
It would be flushing the baby with the bath water.

Even your unnamed saint, has these traits, under layers of stealth smugness and inhibitions.

 

[Willy T]

"It would be flushing the baby with the bath water."

Oh, they're flushed, Bro, those types, here. A' moi, oui!
Twice, and hard - it's a long way to the treatment plant.

 

[Huss]

At what point do you expend the Herculean effort to go online or down to the store to replenish your "stockpile"? When you are down to 500 rolls? 100 rolls? 50 rolls? 10 rolls?

Please clarify. 500 rolls total, or 500 rolls per specific stock?

 

[Huss]

My late father's 1936 Morgan F2 is still on the road. .

Do you need help to go get it?