E6 cost has finally killed it for me

[wiltw]

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.

Yeah, the market basket definition does change! I was a bit reluctant to use CPI for that very reason.
If one applied CPI to rent, 2022 rent should be $988.
Simply on the basis of 'multiple for income' vs. 'multiple for film+processing', one can intutively see that cost far surpassed any increase in income!

 

[Sirius Glass]

'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,

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.

Yeah, the market basket definition does change! I was a bit reluctant to use CPI for that very reason.
If one applied CPI to rent, 2022 rent should be $988.
Simply on the basis of 'multiple for income' vs. 'multiple for film+processing', one can intutively see that cost far surpassed any increase in income!

The CPI definition just like the Unemployment Rate is regularly redefined lower by the politicians in power at the time to look better. Therefore neither is useful unless on uses the same definition for the comparison times.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah, the market basket definition does change! I was a bit reluctant to use CPI for that very reason.
If one applied CPI to rent, 2022 rent should be $988.
Simply on the basis of 'multiple for income' vs. 'multiple for film+processing', one can intutively see that cost far surpassed any increase in income!

Your income number is actually very disturbing as it seems it's nowhere kept up with inflation even if the CPI was underestimated. It may account for why families today have both adults working compared to decades ago when there was only one adult working to support the entire household, including the purchase of film. It could well mean that upper-income earners are becoming the main users of film today.

 

[wiltw]

Your income number is actually very disturbing as it seems it's nowhere kept up with inflation even if the CPI was underestimated. It may account for why families today have both adults working compared to decades ago when there was only one adult working to support the entire household, including the purchase of film. It could well mean that upper-income earners are becoming the main users of film today.

Indeed! And that does not even begin to factor in the very expensive housing costs in major metropolitan areas in which the residents are spending in excess of 30% of their income to keep a roof over their head, and mean rent is in excess of $3000 per month for a 2BR place (in an area with $115k median household income).
I am aware of folks in the service industry (senior care) who have jobs at two places each day, trying to make ends meet. Try being a teacher who is single, earning $70k in such an area! You'd have to have a roommate to share a 2BR place and you'd still be spending over 26% of your income on a place (ignoring costs of utilities). And lucky to get 3% salary increases, and make ends meet with 10-20% rent increases..

 

[MattKing]

We haven't discussed it, but perhaps Sean is considering adding an "economic theory" sub-forum as part of the pending upgrade.
Unless he does though, issues of economic theory are off-topic for Photrio, and posts about them are subject to deletion.
I'll leave this be for now, but if it continues.....

 

[Lee Rust]

I use my half-frame 35mm cameras whenever I want to shoot E6 chrome, which gives 75-78 photos for the film & processing cost of a 36 exposure roll. Then I digitize the images or view them all together in the Print-File page on a light box, so this approach won't help if you like to mount your slides for projection. As a perverse alternative, I've also experimented with copying my very best digital photos from my Mac laptop Retina display onto medium-format chrome film, which works much better than you might expect. You have to look really close to see the pixels.

 

[gone]

I've also experimented with copying my very best digital photos from my Mac laptop Retina display onto medium-format chrome film

Interesting idea. I took some pics of the original Star Trek series that was on my TV using the Nikon and B&W film. Those also looked better than they had a right to. But, that show was shot on 35mm movie film, and by people who really knew their stuff when it came to lighting. No grain or washed out tones on those shows, they still look amazingly good.

 

[Huss]

I use my half-frame 35mm cameras whenever I want to shoot E6 chrome, which gives 75-78 photos for the film & processing cost of a 36 exposure roll. Then I digitize the images or view them all together in the Print-File page on a light box, so this approach won't help if you like to mount your slides for projection. As a perverse alternative, I've also experimented with copying my very best digital photos from my Mac laptop Retina display onto medium-format chrome film, which works much better than you might expect. You have to look really close to see the pixels.

it would be interesting to see those images projected as diptychs, even though most would be random.

 

[braxus]

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 been looking into as of late. I will be getting a Fuji GFX camera soon, and have a Canon FD to GFX adapter. I also have a Canon FL 50mm macro lens and a bellows FL as well. All I'd need is the stand, light source, and neg holders. Problem is I really don't have the space to put the stand at this time, but I'd love to use it instead of my scanners. I don't use Lightroom though, so using Negative Lab Pro wouldn't be possible.

 

[abruzzi]

I've been looking into as of late. I will be getting a Fuji GFX camera soon, and have a Canon FD to GFX adapter. I also have a Canon FL 50mm macro lens and a bellows FL as well. All I'd need is the stand, light source, and neg holders. Problem is I really don't have the space to put the stand at this time, but I'd love to use it instead of my scanners. I don't use Lightroom though, so using Negative Lab Pro wouldn't be possible.

When I ws scanning my negatives, I had a setup with a digital camera to scan. While you can hack together a setup with parts form Home Depot, I found it easy, and relatively cheap, to get a macro bellows and matching film holder. These were common for most 35mm formats, but the Pentax ones are very common. Thie nice thing is you can get just about any camera adapted to M42 screw mount, then get a lens and M42 pentax adapter. The big drawback is they're really only sized for 35mm film. Pentax did make a similar setup for the P67 and 120 film, but they are rare and expensive.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

We haven't discussed it, but perhaps Sean is considering adding an "economic theory" sub-forum as part of the pending upgrade.
Unless he does though, issues of economic theory are off-topic for Photrio, and posts about them are subject to deletion.
I'll leave this be for now, but if it continues.....

I thought political comments were forbidden, not economic topics? How can you have an economic topic called "E6 cost has finally killed it for me" and not comment on the economic issues that cause the problem? What's allowed? Can you comment on supply chain issues causing it? Lack of workers? Inflation? Government policy? Corporate greed? How do posters know what is acceptable and what's not? If all you want to do is to discuss technical issues about an economic topic, which is not clear to me how that's done, then the most interesting posters are going to get bored and leave.

 

[MattKing]

Economic theory is theoretical, contentious and political.
Whether or not Kodak Alaris, FujiFilm or SinoPromise can get containers to ship things due to shipping system disruptions is a question of fact and circumstance. If you have information about facts, feel free to share.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Economic theory is theoretical, contentious and political.
Whether or not Kodak Alaris, FujiFilm or SinoPromise can get containers to ship things due to shipping system disruptions is a question of fact and circumstance. If you have information about facts, feel free to share.

Matt, Shipping cost is only one of the reasons prices are going up. Inflation is as factual as shipping disruptions to the reasons film costs are rising. It was just announced a couple of hours ago that US inflation is up 8.4% for March over 7.8% for February. Don't you think that affects film prices? Why is arguing that inflation is more theoretical, contentious and political?

 

[MattKing]

Last post on this subject.
Price increases are appropriate subjects for discussion.
Economic theory discussions about political reasons for those increases are not.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

 

[mshchem]

Personally, I have a couple weeks before the blossoms really get going here. I have plenty of E6 film and chemistry get me through whatever is going on. Fuji makes color chemistry in Illinois, C41, RA4, E6. Fujifilm USA has been able to supply paper and chemistry to North America.

 

[Joseph Bell]

I recently shot a roll of 35mm Provia for the first time in a long time, and just as I was about to bring it in for processing, I experienced an overwhelming longing for youthful times when I only shot transparencies and the positives were mounted in cute little mounts and you could hold them without worry, and hold them up to windows, and look at them on light tables, and maybe even project them! "That's it," I said, "I'm almost fifty, I'm having these bastards mounted!" The roll cost $20. Processing cost $14. The mounting cost $10. That's $44 for 36 (actually 38) mounted slides. Will I ever do this again? Yes, perhaps once per season! This whole pastime is deliriously expensive anyhow, but it's fun, and it's important to have a little fun once in a while, isn't it?!

 

[Minolta93]

I may as well ask in this thread--does anyone know what the longevity is like for commonly available E-6 processing kits? I've started doing some B&W at home and would love to shoot slides and save money on the processing by doing it myself. But like with C-41 I'm worried that at the slow rate I shoot color film, I will end up wasting the majority of the chemicals I purchase when they expire.

Darkroom Supplies - FPP E6 Color Slide Ektachrome Development Kit

FPP E6 Home Processing Kit for Ektachrome and FujiChrome Color Slides We ship E6 kits to US and Canada only. Orders including liquid chemistry cannot ship via Priority Mail or any other expedited service. UPS Ground only. Makes 1 US Quart - You will need 3 (32 ounce ) quart containers to mix...

filmphotographystore.com

For something like this would it be possible to mix up only a portion of the chemicals at once? Would a powder kit be any different? I've heard that you can't reliably mix a fraction of powder chemistry because the various components will not be in the correct proportions, but there must be some way to get around that.

I remember reading about a somewhat crude method of pouring a mixed powder into a pile and physically separating it into portions in such a way that it would ensure the proportion of ingredients in each small fraction remained roughly the same.

If I had to pay $20 for a roll of E100 but then save the $10+ for E-6 processing it at least would make it easier to bear.

 

[Bob_Brooks]

I bought two boxed of Velvia 50 4x5, and it's safely sitting in my freezer for that special project that seem to elude me. I love shooting transparency film and as the poster above said "A color slide, especially medium format and larger, on a lightbox is a viewing experience that really can't be duplicated." this person hit it right on the head. But sadly, my stock of E6 chems are dwindling and its harder to source. But for what is worth, I employ a hybrid printing. I scan at home and upload it to a lab that does c-type prints, and let me tell you this, they come out superb. here is a link. https://www.dickermanprintsonline.com/