• 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

Don't complain about the cost of paper or film

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
10,231
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I found an old page from Pop Photo, a Freestyle add from 1968, the cost of 100 sheets of Mitsubishi DW 8X10 was $42.55, adjusted for inflation$115.55. A short roll of 20 ex Kodak Plus X was $1.79 or $4.64 in 2021, about the same considering that it was 20 rather than 24 exp. 36 ex Kodachrome was $7.36 or $19.16 which included processing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=L...#v=onepage&q=popular photography 1986&f=false
 
Absolutely correct.
 
What makes film feel expensive now was the big dip about 12-15 years ago. Film was being dumped on the market. I remember buying HP5 for less than $2 a roll in foil. Rebranded Fuji and Kodak under the Arista name for around $20 for 100 feet. Before that IIRC film was always about 4/5 bucks a roll depending. Everything is relative I guess.
 
There are more things than inflation that affect the prices, though. The price of metals and chemicals, supply and demand, VAT and special taxes, improvements of the products, the cost of labour and so on, so I always take the inflation adjusted prices with a grain of salt.

All I know is that I used to buy bricks of film and boxes of film and paper, but these days I have to plan before buying a lot less.
 
But in 1990 a roll of Kodachrome 64 is only $4.69. Price of film was going down before it went up in the 21st century.
 
When I first got interested in photography, a roll of Verichrome Pan cost about $0.90 and minimum wage was $1.25. I think the relationship is about the same or better now, though VP would be replaced by FP4 Plus.
 
Yes, current pricing is high compared with 1990's and 2000's, not so much when compared with the 1970's.

I recall that my mother held a dinner party in the mid 70's and she took a few photos (instamatic with flash bulb), later in the evening a then somewhat intoxicated guest grabbed the camera and took a photograph.
My mother got extremely angry - and later, after the film was processed, she actually presented the guest with the print along with the bill comprising of carefully calculated cost of film, flashbulb development and print.
I was 10 years old, and don't recall the exact amount, but do remember it seemed like a fortune to me and that I kind of understood her anger over the carelessly wasted shot.
A year or two later when my parents asked med to take a shot of them together during a vacation - the first photograph I ever took, I was terrified thinking I could screw up that precious frame.
 
I still have the box from Tri-X I bought at Wolf Camera in Atlanta in 1985 or 1986. $44.95 for 100-sheets of 4x5. $44.95 in 1985 adjusted for inflation would be $114.28. Now at B&H, 100-sheets of 4x5 Tri-X is $300.
 
It's such great fun to live in the past...

Here in Australia, many are now abandoning film because of the high cost of buying even B&W - it has become a niche product and my great fear is that soon only young shooters who invest in a used film camera will be buying a few rolls, gasping at the ridiculously high cost of having it processed (even color negative which a few years ago could be processed in department store minilabs for A$5, try and get it done for this price now, ha!), giving up on film and dumping the camera on Ebay.

I no longer buy lots of individual 35mm rolls as it's cheaper for me to load my own cassettes. I can't recall the last time I placed an order for 120 film - at $15-$15 and even $20 a roll for the stuff, not including the processing, it's just too rich for my bank balance now. When I've used up the 100 rolls or so I have left in my freezer, that will be it for me and medium format. My Rolleis and folders will become museum pieces - or get sold off to someone who is richer than I am and can afford to use them.

Last week I ordered three bulk 30.7m/100 foot rolls of 35mm film (Ilford FP4, HP5 and XP2) from an Australian supplier. After a lot of online homework, I was able to get it for A$125 per roll with a minimal postage rate. The salesperson I put in the order with told me they have so far resisted increasing the price until old stocks were sold but from October, the same films will cost more - like A$20 per bulk roll.

It's just something we have to live with. But I for one don't like it, and I also happen to dislike being told I shouldn't complain about the price of films or papers. It's expensive and I for one am bloody well unhappy about it!!
 
I do not remember a time in the past 40 years of photography when folks did not complain about the price of film. Still cheaper than a latte and it takes longer for film to go thru the camera than the latte thru the body.
 
Vaughn said:
I do not remember a time in the past 40 years of photography when folks did not complain about the price of film. Still cheaper than a latte and it takes longer for film to go thru the camera than the latte thru the body.
Click to expand...

Me too. Moaning about the cost of materials has been a perennial phenomenon for as long as I’ve been making photographs (45 years)
 
Hi Ozmoose, I share your pain with the cost of film in Australia at the moment.

I have a cunning plan which may yield me an additional 5 - 6 frames when I do my own loading from bulk film. Make my own leaders from scrap film or old neg strips I no longer need.

The idea is first to establish the length of leader required for each camera body. Load a sacrificial film into the camera and advance to frame 0 or whatever your 'Start' mark is.
Then open the camera back and make a Sharpie mark to the left of the film gate, just before the wheels that engage the film sprockets. Unload the film and establish just how much film is being wasted on the leader.

Cut your leader(s) to shape and length according to measurements established above. Overlap your homemade leader with the film stub ex the reloaded cassette by 3 sprocket holes. and tape them together. Then cut through the leader and new film ONE sprocket behind the edge of the new film. This should give you two pieces of film that should butt together smoothly while providing the correct spacing between sprocket holes. I usually have about 2 -3 cm of film poking out the cassette after removal from the bulk loader.

Remove the tape and film from the film ex the cassette and butt your homemade leader against the film ex cassette and tape them horizontally without blocking any sprocket holes. Rewind the new leader into the cassette prior to use and then load as normal.

I normally load a nominal 24 frames per cassette and if I get 5 extra frames per roll I'm laughing. If you are bulk loading film this bit of faffing around could effectively lower your film costs by 20%.

Cheers, Baldrick
 
tokam said:
I have a cunning plan which may yield me an additional 5 - 6 frames when I do my own loading from bulk film. Make my own leaders from scrap film or old neg strips I no longer need.
Click to expand...

Damn. Why didn't I think of that? My autoload cameras sacrifice two frames (00 and 0) on my bulk rolls. I'm going to try this soon. Thanks.
 

1986, not 1968
 
juan said:
I still have the box from Tri-X I bought at Wolf Camera in Atlanta in 1985 or 1986. $44.95 for 100-sheets of 4x5. $44.95 in 1985 adjusted for inflation would be $114.28. Now at B&H, 100-sheets of 4x5 Tri-X is $300.
Click to expand...

In the 80s a lot of pro were still shooting 4X5 black and white, not to mention, governmental agencies, colleges, and the Zone was popular as well, Kodak made a lot of 4X5, then came the move to MF, less demand, no longer produced at the scale that made 4X5 so cheap in the day.
 
Vaughn said:
I do not remember a time in the past 40 years of photography when folks did not complain about the price of film. Still cheaper than a latte and it takes longer for film to go thru the camera than the latte thru the body.
Click to expand...

​

Alan Edward Klein said:
Be more selective in what you shoot. Your shots may actually get better.
Click to expand...

​

paulbarden said:
Me too. Moaning about the cost of materials has been a perennial phenomenon for as long as I’ve been making photographs (45 years)
Click to expand...

​

Quit bitchin' and enjoy the fact that we still have film and paper available.
 
Part of the problem with prices is that we naturally tend to look at the lower prices we see on the internet, and are saddened by the higher prices we see near home.
Sort of like how we felt when we looked at the ads from the New York camera stores at the back of the magazines around 1978!
 

Instead of scrap film can some sort of paper or plastic sheet be used instead? I guess it wouldn't have sprocket holes, though, so maybe it wouldn't be worth the effort trying to cut something up.
 
Paul Howell said:
I found an old page from Pop Photo, a Freestyle ad . A short roll of 20 ex Kodak Plus X was $1.79 or $4.64 in 2021, about the same considering that it was 20 rather than 24 exp.
Click to expand...

note that that price was "finest Reload-able cartridges" so it was likely spooled by Freestyle from Bulk rolls, perhaps 5231 rather than still film. I used to get for the "englands Finest" which was factory packed Ilford Products. (although it might have been ILFORD PAN rather than FP4 and HP5
 
I give zero crap how much it was in 1958. Most of us won’t give crap about either.
Where was commanding OP in 1958?

I entered darkroom in 2012. Film was times less expensive as now and so is dr paper.
It was possible to get roll of c-41 film under one dollar just ten or so years ago.

So, this 1958 prices has zero meaning for today.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
Be more selective in what you shoot. Your shots may actually get better.
Click to expand...
I agree. After buying a digital camera, folks are used to shooting for little or nothing. When I shoot film, I keep in mind that I can't shoot hundreds of shots for nothing. From decades of shooting film, I shoot digital cameras the same way. With film and digital photography, more is not necessarily better.
 
For me the price of film is trivial. It's the price of photographic paper that begins to hurt.

For example a $10 roll of film can offer 36 really nice negatives allowing for diligent subject selection and good camera work.
Then to get a fine 8x10 off each negative might require test strips, a pilot print, and a good final print. All up maybe $150 or more to do justice to that one roll of film.

One could say "don't print every negative" but then why make a wasted exposure since film is supposed to be expensive.
 

Yes!! I've been doing this (in my own variation) for many years.

reusable film leaders is the way to go. I have leaders so old, they were cut from Panatomic-X film when Kodak was still producing it. With a little care in cutting, sticking on and removing (in the darkroom), they last forever and then some.

One photographer friend loads his cameras in a darkroom film changing bag - I've not yet gone quite that far, but it's a thought.

I play a (sort of) competition with myself to see how many shots I can get from a bulk loaded cassette. My record so far is 41, but at a cost - the last image was only a half frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register