Don't complain about the cost of paper or film

[Andrew O'Neill]

Film is still relatively cheap (except TMY ). There are more expensive hobbies, like boating.

 

[keisisqrl]

remarkably affordable to buy silver by the roll and throw most of it away

 

[Horatio]

Film is still relatively cheap (except TMY ). There are more expensive hobbies, like boating.

Or flying.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

like boating.

Or flying.

Anything that flies, floats or fucks it is better to rent

 

[Ernst-Jan]

But on topic, this is exactly what I say always, that films is cheaper that "in the past".
Yes there were some years in which film literally was dumped on the market, but the Kodak and Agfa went banktrupt.

Around 2000 a roll of FP4+ costed 7 Dutch Guilders (€3,40). Nowadays it costs €5,70.
In 2001 we got euro instead of the Guilder and with many commodities you can just swap the currency (price in guilders is today price in euros) but with film it's not the case.
And if this €5,70 is too much, you can swap to Foma 100 (€3,95). 60 cents in 20 years is hardly any increase.

 

[tokam]

Film is still relatively cheap (except TMY ). There are more expensive hobbies, like boating.

Definition of a boat.... A hole in the water that you throw money into.

 

[halfaman]

I still remeber buying in 2012 Kodak Portra 400 for 4.5€ a roll... I like to pay less for everything but we need to be also responsible consumers. It was impossible to maintain a healthy film business with that prices. I saw 3 years ago or so an interview to Mirko from Adox telling that the industry need at least a 20% price increase to fund investments.

 

[Agulliver]

Sometimes I wonder about "people".

People complain that the price of film is higher than it was "back in the day".

Someone points out that "back in the day", when adjusted for inflation, film is actually not much more costly now. Indeed if average wages are taken into account it's probably cheaper. So people still moan that Kodachrome was $4.80 in 1990 completely missing the point that the $4.80 in 1990 would be $10 today....without factoring in wage inflation.

Sure, I could buy Kocacolor for £1.99 in the early 80s. Say 1983.....in fact that is the price Argos were selling it at....so would have been higher at specialist camera shops. Today that is £6.88 which is *less* than Color Plus sells for. Looking at Ilford B&W prices they're not much different adjusted for inflation too.

Remember, you could buy a new car for £3000 then. And average weekly wages were a pittance compared to now.

What is not fair, is comparing today's prices to those of the turn of the 21st century when film stock was practically being dumped.

 

[John Phive]

I'm not complaining, though the film supply seems to be running low or I would have purchaser more then 7 rolls of Tri-X 400.

 

[Dismayed]

Everything was better 'back in the day' because I was younger.

 

[pentaxuser]

What is not fair, is comparing today's prices to those of the turn of the 21st century when film stock was practically being dumped.

Any idea what were the circumstances that resulted in film practically being dumped at that point in time?
Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[halfaman]

Any idea what were the circumstances that resulted in film practically being dumped at that point in time?

Supply exceeding by a huge extend the demand would be my bet. I heard stories in those days of distributors burning film and paper stocks in the range of tons due to the lack of demand.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Everything was better 'back in the day' because I was younger.

A truer statement has never been stated.

I have just gotten into 4x5 and have found that most of ilfords films are around $2 a sheet. A bit pricey, but that was to be expected, and the price I pay to have fun.

 

[marcmarc]

Well, for me and probably many others it's the fact that the cost of film and paper rises more than our incomes do and that's why we complain. Furthermore, for most of us I imagine photography is a hobby so it's funded by disposable income. However, thanks to recent jumps in inflation everything we need as necessities are going up and that means less money available for fun stuff like photography. My favorite burger joint raised their prices $2.50 for a meal. I understand that these are necessary choices but there comes a point where people will buy less or simply go somewhere else or make other decisions and thus businesses are must deal with lowered sales.

 

[Wallendo]

I don't complain much about the cost of film, although the costs seem to have doubled over the last 8-10 years (my anecdotal experience). My complaints are generally the cost of development. I do B&W at home, but send off C-41 and E6.. There are no local labs within 100 miles that I know of. Even if I find a lower price lab, there are still significant shipping charges. I pay more for development and scans than I used to pay for development and optical prints.

Nevertheless, I am grateful that these services are still available.

 

[tokam]

... continuation of cunning plan to squeeze a few more frames from bulk 35mm film.

Thought I'd better check the length of the leaders I should fabricate from scrap film. Method was to load a sacrificial film into each camera and advance to frame 0. I then opened the camera back and made a mark on the film opposite the end of the film rails before the sprockets before the load spool. The 2 - 3 cm of film covering the film gate will account for the amount of film wasted at the beginning of the cassette during bulk loading.

Counting the sprocket holes from the beginning of the leader to the marks I made revealed that most of my cameras used 25 to 31 sprocket holes, between 3 and 4 frames of film. Probably safe to say 3 frames and even then frame 1 would probably be wasted. Darn, I was hoping to claw back about 5 frames.

I may not get around to trying this anytime soon as I still have about 60 films in the fridge that I loaded about 3 years ago. Must get around to shooting more when we are out of Covid lockdown.

Sorry if I got anyone's hopes up.

Cheers, Baldrick

 

[Paul Howell]

Any idea what were the circumstances that resulted in film practically being dumped at that point in time?
Thanks

pentaxuser

Konica, Agfa, the Hungarian Photo company whose name has slipped my mind, Ferraina all closed up completely and sold off their remaining rolls of stock paper and film, forced Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji to dropped prices. I bought rolls of rebranded Fuji color at the dollar store 4 for a buck. I also recall buying boxes of rebranded Mitsubishi 8X10 black and white glossy black and white for $10 a 100 sheets. The market was glutted for a couple of years. Even Kodak and Ilford sold bulk rolls to Freestyle.

 

[flavio81]

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=LxmeZrp-lukC&pg=PA87&dq=popular+photography+1986&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHof7lv6DzAhWXvJ4KHWUsAssQ6AF6BAgDEAI#v=onepage&q=popular photography 1986&f=false

Thank you very much for taking the time to do the inflation adjustments. Very interesting figures. And it's amazing that film costs the same despite the market being dramatically smaller.

That being said, I recall that back in my "good days of analog" (circa year 2000-2002), since the usage of film was widespread, there was an abundance of expired or lesser-known film that was dramatically cheaper than Kodak or Fuji. For example I recall that a roll of Fuji Provia 100 costed about S/28 (local currency) and a roll of Tura Chrome 100 i could get for about S/14. *

So i kinda miss the times were i could get film that was dramatically cheaper than Kodak/Fuji/Agfa. Nowadays even the most silly drugstore-labeled outdated film wants to be sold at premium prices...

(* Tura Chrome was rebranded Agfa E6 stock. Acceptable quality, good colors, but a bit grainy.)

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I have memories of buying 8x10 100 sheet boxes of SW Luminos paper (Hungarian, Czechoslovakian ?) for around $7 in the late 60's.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Film is still relatively cheap (except TMY )...

8x10 TMY-2 just went from $12/sheet to $15/sheet:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html​

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

8x10 TMY-2 just went from $12/sheet to $15/sheet:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533811-USA/Kodak_1930106_TMY_8_x_10.html​

Beyond what I'm willing to pay. It's now a rich man's film. Maybe I can just squeak in a box of 4x5...
Nope. Just checked. A 50 sheet box is around $200 Canadian.

 

[Paul Howell]

I rummaged my 1952 Montgomery Ward Photo Catalog out of storage. Montgomery Wards was one of the 3 mid level department stores of the day, the others were Sears and JP Penny. The Catalog is all photography, 102 pages. A roll of 20 ex PlusX was $2.91, with inflation now $30.04, want a box of 100 high speed Dupont 4X5 was $10.40 or $107.76, not bad when when consider that 3 rolls of 35mm plus x was $91.00 The cost of a box of 25 sheets Varigram paper was $2.59 or $27.74, not much different than today. A gallon of Dektol was 2 for $1.40 or $14.45, around $7.00 a gallon. A bit less than what we pay. Need an enlarger, a Dejur 6X9 was $109 or $1125 a Omega DII was $183.50 or $1894. A Bessler 45MTX is $3211 so the price of a new pro level enlarger was much less than today. Seems that film was really expensive, roll and 35mm much more, must have been packaging in cassettes was the cost, lot for film in a box of 4X5.

The catalog is very informative, a page on different types and features, even a few pages on how design a darkroom.

 

[foc]

I remember in the early to mid 1970s I was in a camera club and the price of film was regularly discussed and examples were shown of cheaper prices from the back pages of photo magazines.

I worked in photo retail, from 1977, first as an employee and then self employed, and customers regularly complained about film prices and cited examples of cheaper prices from the back pages of photo magazines.

In the early to mid 990s, the heyday of film sales and minilabs, customers often asked why film was so expensive compared to the cheaper prices in the back pages of photo magazines.

In the late 1990s early 2000 customers asked why were film prices cheaper on the internet.

Then no one wanted any film and only in the last few years was there any interest in buying film again.

But some people complained that prices now were expensive compared to cheaper prices a decade or two ago.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Threads merged.

 

[mgb74]

Everything was better 'back in the day' because I was younger.

How do you know you're old? When you use the expression "back in the day". At least in my case.