E6 cost has finally killed it for me

John - Fujiflex and CA Supergloss are the same product. Unfortunately, it only comes in big rolls. The contrast you get depends on the specific color neg film you are printing and degree of magnification. Contrast reduction or contrast increase masks can also be made, but should be more gentle than in Ciba days. Color neg masking has a few tricks to it due to the presence of the orange native mask. But lots of the time you don't even need a supplementary unsharp mask. Ektar is a wonderful film match to it. It takes a lot more patience to master internegs from chromes to print on this, with advanced masking skills.

RPC - The idiosyncrasies of Ciba are not present in the Fuji product. Of course, there's a learning curve to it, just like any other product, but color balancing and so forth are very similar to other Crystal Archive RA4 papers. There's a bit more contrast and saturation. The base itself kinks less than Ciba did, is far less electrostatic, and the emulsion surface is far less fragile to handling. A superb product; but they quite offering cut sheets of it back with the previous generation of the product. It is capable of much more accurate hues than Ciba, but that's a matter of truly understanding the film too.

Photography is expensive in general, but so are most things I enjoy. I shoot mostly E6. I develop my own E6 so that helps too off set the price increase in film a lot. As I have state in another thread I would rather have the choices in E6 film than not have it at all.

Kodak offers a good solution to Fuji when it comes to price. I have learned to adapt it to my needs as I have bought less Fuji. Regardless I will still keep shooting E6 as long as it is made.

I used to be a color only shooter and loved Slides for projecting. 10 years ago was the announcement of discontinuation of Kodachrome. Sending out film and getting slides back was like tiny pieces of the world and, as I did not have a scanner, just looked at them or rarely projected. I then moved into Medium Format, where projection is less doable (6x9).

Forward to now, I moved places and I am part of a photo club that has a fully equipped darkroom. I am really enjoying the ins and outs of B&W and doing it myself there skips any of the logistical issues with sending out to labs. Just recently there has been an initiative to do a E6 joint development where a kit is bought and some people process their film. The 30 roll capacity is enough to cover the average of 5 rolls every person was using up and costs much less.

However I am a bit conflicted about Slide film. I've bought a couple fresh pro packs of Provia at pre-increase price, for a sum of $6 a roll, and put them into the freezer. In some way it is fabulous to look at 6x9 slides but it skips the fun of B&W darkroom printing. However this is also affecting my C41 usage, as I've got my Portra frozen, prioritizing B&W for convenience in processing.

GarageBoy said:

Graduated ND filters

Click to expand...

But there is still the side of the buildings in shadow at night where the GNDs won't work, was that just how it was with slide film or did they also use drum scanning to get bring the shadows out more?

I develop E6 myself at home to the tune of ~$1/roll. I've always lucked out finding great deals on the film itself. Usually pay only ~$5/roll but I did spend the $11/roll for 2 bricks of E100 when it was released.

I've never used a grad filter in my life and see no reason for doing so now. It's quite rare that a grad filter shot doesn't blatantly look like a grad filter shot.

Steve Roberts said:

As my reserve of refrigerated 35mm E6 dwindles and I look at purchasing some more, I find myself stopping to take stock of just how expensive shooting 35mm slides has become.

Not so long ago, I could buy 35mm/36exp rolls in packs of ten for little over £5 a roll. As we all know to our cost, Fuji have increased their prices dramatically in recent times and the cheap, yet perfectly good, option to buy Fuji masquerading as Agfaphoto Precisa has now gone. Thus, I now find myself looking at 35mm/36exp rolls in the range of £13 - £17.00 each and there seems to be no price advantage buying in larger quantities.

Each time I send off films for developing and mounting, the price seems to have risen since the time before, as does the cost of return postage. The lab I use offers ‘free’ postage to them, but of course that is taken care of in their pricing structure.

If I buy an E6 film at current rates, I’m looking at £13 for the film (cheapest E100 I can find) plus £9.50 dev and mount plus £3.95 for return postage – total £26.45. (Over £30 for Fuji's more expensive offerings @ £17)

Though in the past I have defended the cost of E6 use in these forums, it’s now scary. I equate £26.45 to the best part of half a 100ft roll of FP4 or half a tank of petrol and I’m seriously asking myself how long I can or should go on shelling out this kind of money and whether it’s the time to leave colour work to the dreaded d*****l and spend the money saved on b/w materials instead. I currently have free use of a digital projector but could buy one of my own for the cost of a dozen transparency films plus D & P.

Selling out? Maybe.

“Use it or lose it!” Sure, but there are limits to how much I’m prepared to spend.

I’ve been holding my breath and hoping that E100 will fall in price, but of course that was more in hope than anticipation, so unless I win the Lottery (unlikely, as I don’t do it!) I think that when I’ve used up the last of my current E6 stock I shan’t be replacing it, except possibly a film at a time for occasional use in stereo transparency work.

It’s with great dismay that I find myself thinking along these lines, especially as I received two cracking boxes of slides in the post yesterday but as Bob Dylan told us “The times, they are a-changing”.

Steve

Click to expand...

To me, the answer is either do your own processing (a real hassle if you mount them also), shoot and process B&W, and leave color (prints as well as slides), to digital. Or, maybe take up fishing.........Regards! P.S. Do take the money you save and buy that Digital Projector. Enjoy shooting B&W........

I recently got a Sputnik MF3D. At 6 shots per roll, the cost of slide film and processing is now of more importance to me.

Today I loaded it with a roll of Provia 100 and covered any potential light leaks with electricians tape. Started winding and being new to Fuji film, missed frame 1 in the red window. Grrr...only 5 shots then. Ended up not taking any pics with it. I'm going to re-roll it to get my full 6 shots.

When I posted this thread I thought that opinions would likely be a lot more polarised than they have been. Many interesting points have been raised and I’d like to pick some and comment on them.

Guangong: “Shooting colour slides has always been expensive….” I’d beg to differ on that. I’ve been shooting slides since 1970, right through my school days (with next to no income) up to the present day. My first colour slide film in 1970 cost me a shade over £1 from Boots with processing and mounting included. Allowing for inflation, I was never bothered by the cost of c/trans until a couple of years ago, when prices started to rise rapidly for reasons we all know. Like you, I’ve recently become a lot more discriminating in what I photograph and whereas in times past I’d have taken a couple of ‘just in case’ spares at half a stop over/under, I think twice now before doing that.

Ste_S: I’m sure that C41 films and the resulting prints can be excellent, but I have little or no interest in colour print work – b/w prints or colour images for projection are my interests. B/W slides may yet form an important part of my activities.

Grim Tuesday: Short-dated film – yes, I’m always on the lookout for short-dated or expired film. Like food and beer, it doesn’t suddenly go bad on the stroke of midnight of the expiry date. A chap I know used to keep K25 well beyond its use-by date before shooting it as he reckoned it gave a better colour palette. I’m currently getting near the end of a 400ft roll of Ilford FP4 motion picture film that I bought a while back dated 2004. No complaints about it.

Ces1uk: “…. Buy the digital camera…” I already have a digital bridge camera that I use for magazine work but may extend the use of that or upgrade it to cater for my own needs as well. Agree 100% with your comments regarding b/w!

Jnantz: “….one needs to be a .com millionaire …. to be able to afford to use slide film” Being any kind of millionaire would do me! However, I’d draw a careful distinction between not being able to afford to use slide film and choosing not to use it because of the cost and diminishing value for money.

StepheKoontz: If I played golf I would cheerfully give it up and spend the money on c/trans film instead, though as per my comment above, for me it’s not about whether I can afford it but whether I’m happy spending that amount of money on slides. Being brought up in the austerity of post-war Plymouth made a deep impression on me.

Lee Rust: Half frame c/trans photography – there’s lateral thinking! 72 shots per film, a little diminution of quality for a given projected image size, but is there an issue with mounting?

Large format colour transparencies have been mentioned. I am reminded of an occasion some 30 years ago when the organisation I worked for purchased three very expensive items of equipment from an offshoot of Fuji. Each of us who was involved in the purchase later received a calendar with the usual twelve images. These were 12” x 10” or thereabouts but instead of being printed on paper, they were transparencies, intended to be hung in front of a light source or window. The Japanese scenes were technically and visually outstanding and attracted many positive comments from visitors.

Thanks again for all the responses.

Steve

I have faced the same financial situation of slide film processing becoming higher every year. On the other hand, whenever I am on the verge of going digital-only for color, I look at a mounted slide on a light box and fall in love all over again.

Recently, I have fallen into the trap of buying E-6 film faster than I can shoot it.

A photograph worth creating is worth paying for. When I do shoot slide film, I use fresh film if possible and try to make every shot count.

As much as I enjoy well printed color and black & white, there is still nothing like a well make projected slide.

72 shots per film, a little diminution of quality for a given projected image size, but is there an issue with mounting?

Click to expand...

Steve,

For projection, I suppose you could set two adjacent 1/2 frames into a standard slide mount... as long as all your photos were shot in the same orientation. Mixing portrait and landscape in one mount would require some head tilting when the images were projected. For me, that's no problem while I'm peering through a loupe.

Lee Rust

Lee Rust said:

Steve,

For projection, I suppose you could set two adjacent 1/2 frames into a standard slide mount... as long as all your photos were shot in the same orientation. Mixing portrait and landscape in one mount would require some head tilting when the images were projected. For me, that's no problem while I'm peering through a loupe.

Lee Rust

Click to expand...

Get fancy with tinkering? Build a slide projector with a mask, re-centering AND rotation mechanics?

Our Granddaughter was born 3 years ago. I bought a projector and a screen. I have not used them yet, but.......i have shot 10 rolls of Provia and will shoot a few more at her birthday in August and then again during (usa) "The Holidays".
It HAS become (IMHO) ungodly expensive. So yeah, i do not shoot too much of it.
But now we also have a 2 month old Grandson and i hope to shoot more Provia of him and her over the next few years..
My intent, in all of this, is to present a "Surprise Showing" in 3-4-5 years.
To sit the kids down, and the Grand Kids and the Grand Parents, and let them reminisce .....via the beauty of Provia, projected onto a screen.
I hope it will be impressive. There really is no digital equivalent to watching a screen full of Provia, and listening to the slow progression of the Kodak Carousel as it rotates through five years of memories.....in color.!

CMoore said:

Our Granddaughter was born 3 years ago. I bought a projector and a screen. I have not used them yet, but.......i have shot 10 rolls of Provia and will shoot a few more at her birthday in August and then again during (usa) "The Holidays".
It HAS become (IMHO) ungodly expensive. So yeah, i do not shoot too much of it.
But now we also have a 2 month old Grandson and i hope to shoot more Provia of him and her over the next few years..
My intent, in all of this, is to present a "Surprise Showing" in 3-4-5 years.
To sit the kids down, and the Grand Kids and the Grand Parents, and let them reminisce .....via the beauty of Provia, projected onto a screen.
I hope it will be impressive. There really is no digital equivalent to watching a screen full of Provia, and listening to the slow progression of the Kodak Carousel as it rotates through five years of memories.....in color.!

Click to expand...

This is why I shoot slide film!
Keep up the good work, it will be greatly appreciated by your family.

cjbecker said:

This is why I shoot slide film!
Keep up the good work, it will be greatly appreciated by your family.

Click to expand...

I honestly appreciate the encouragement... Thank You

Eugen Mezei said:

Is the base of FP4 not grey? Or did you manage to make it completly transparent?

Click to expand...

Hi, It was as transparent as I'd hope for or expect. What was particularly important was the use of fresh film stock. For several years I had been making my way through a 400ft roll of FP4 motion picture film. As far as I was concerned, that was perfectly good for normal use, i.e. producing prints, right up until I finished the roll last year, by which time it was seventeen years past its expiry date! It had been stored in cool conditions. My first experiments with using that expired stock for reversal were disappointing - it usually produced a greenish hue. Newer (but still outdated) film was considerably better but it was not until I used brand new, factory fresh stock that the results were as good as I wanted them to be.
That could in part be due to a change in FP4's base material. I don't know what the difference is (I'm sure I could either look it up or no doubt someone on here can say) but older FP4 stock tears easily. By this I mean that when loading bulk film into cassettes I used to be able to simply tear the film off at the required length. These days, however, I can't just tear the film and have to resort to a pair of scissors in the darkness. Perhaps that change of base material helped improve the transparency?
It's now a little while since I tried reversal processing of FP4. Since then I've become interested in stereo photography and have it in mind to run a roll through one of my 35mm stereo cameras, reverse process that and mount the slides for viewing.
Best wishes,
Steve

I still have quite a bit of E6 stock at the moment, but I too am feeling the pinch in costs in using it. Most rolls of E6 here in Canada are around $20 per roll, some higher. Developing costs have gone up from $7 per roll to now almost $12. And my one lab won't even mount the slides anymore, siting the fact of getting the slide mounts, as being a problem. Why shoot 35mm E6 at all, if they can't mount it? And then having to scan it all for over 5 hours at 5000 dpi, and even at 2500 dpi. You really got to want to use film these days. If I want a better scanner just to speed things up, I have to spend 18 grand on a pro scanner. So film is not something the process is easy anymore. If I wasn't developing my own B&W here, I wouldn't shoot as much of it. E6 is a problem, since its $40 both ways just to get the film to the lab itself. I love the look of slides especially on a light table, but its getting harder for me to continue using it. I have lately switched over C41 films for better post manipulation. But even with that Im asking myself, if the end result is just a scan, I get better results from digital to begin with. Most consumer scanners leave a lot to be desired today. I wish I had a Noritsu here in my house.

braxus said:

Im asking myself, if the end result is just a scan, I get better results from digital to begin with. Most consumer scanners leave a lot to be desired today. I wish I had a Noritsu here in my house.

Click to expand...

Have you tried scanning with a digital camera? There're many solutions as one might expect and maybe there is something that meets your requirements. I've used Nikon ES-2 adapter, which is one of the cheapest solution for 35mm film, with Sony A6000 and have been quite happy with the results.

Steve Roberts said:

That could in part be due to a change in FP4's base material. I don't know what the difference is (I'm sure I could either look it up or no doubt someone on here can say) but older FP4 stock tears easily. By this I mean that when loading bulk film into cassettes I used to be able to simply tear the film off at the required length. These days, however, I can't just tear the film and have to resort to a pair of scissors in the darkness. Perhaps that change of base material helped improve the transparency?

Click to expand...

Interesting observation.

I sold off all my E6 stock (unless some is hiding in the back of my freezer) because I was done with paying $16+ just to develop it.

Huss said:

I sold off all my E6 stock (unless some is hiding in the back of my freezer) because I was done with paying $16+ just to develop it.

Click to expand...

That is about what is costs to develop a roll of C41 film with one print each. Just to cost of doing business unless you want to develop 16 rolls yourself and spend hours making one print of each. I would rather pay to have the roll developed and printed. If I still shot slides I would pay $16US+ to get the film back in the slide mounts in a few days rather than wait until I had enough rolls to develop and then have to mount each one of the slides myself.

'Expensive' is relative, so I did a bit of research to compare things...

• in 1990, a Kodak 135-36 roll of color slide film was $7.29 (Adorama ad), 36 exp E-6 processing was $3.50; median US household income was $50,200, and median US rent was $447 per month
• in 2022, a Kodak 135-36 roll of color slide film is $20 (Adorama ad), E-6 processing is $12; median US household income in 2021 is $79,900, and median US rent is $1104 per month
• The CPI was 127.5 in Jan 1990 vs. about 282 in Jan 2022..

So using the above figures as basis of comparison

1. Median annual US rent was 10.7% of annual income in 1990, vs 16.6% of annual income in 2021
2. You can buy and process 41 rolls of E-6 with one month's rent in 1990 vs. 34 rolls of E-6 with one month rent in 2021
3. You can buy and process 387 rolls of E-6 with one month's income in 1990 vs. 208 rolls of E-6 with one month income in 2021
4. Film+processing has gone up by 2.96x (1990 to 2022) while rent has gone up by 2.47x (1990 to 2021) and income has gone up by 1.56x (1990 to 2021)
5. If based upon CPI increases, film+processing should have increased from $10.79 in 1990 to $23.86, so the actual amount is 34% higher than CPI increase,

wiltw said:

'Expensive' is relative, so I did a bit of research to compare things...

• in 1990, a Kodak 135-36 roll of color slide film was $7.29 (Adorama ad), 36 exp E-6 processing was $3.50; median US household income was $50,200, and median US rent was $447 per month
• in 2022, a Kodak 135-36 roll of color slide film is $20 (Adorama ad), E-6 processing is $12; median US household income in 2021 is $79,900, and median US rent is $1104 per month
• The CPI was 127.5 in Jan 1990 vs. about 282 in Jan 2022..

So using the above figures as basis of comparison

1. Median annual US rent was 10.7% of annual income in 1990, vs 16.6% of annual income in 2021
2. You can buy and process 41 rolls of E-6 with one month's rent in 1990 vs. 34 rolls of E-6 with one month rent in 2021
3. You can buy and process 387 rolls of E-6 with one month's income in 1990 vs. 208 rolls of E-6 with one month income in 2021
4. Film+processing has gone up by 2.96x (1990 to 2022) while rent has gone up by 2.47x (1990 to 2021) and income has gone up by 1.56x (1990 to 2021)
5. If based upon CPI increases, film+processing should have increased from $10.79 in 1990 to $23.86, so the actual amount is 34% higher than CPI increase,

Click to expand...

Many economists agree that the methods to calculate the CPI has been changed over the years so that it actually appears lower than it is. If that;s the case, then any calculation indicated in your paragraph 5 may not be accurate. The current price of the film may really reflect the actual CPI.