Which account are you referring to? The one denominated in USD or the one denominated in SFr? - David Lyga
Which account are you referring to? The one denominated in USD or the one denominated in SFr? - David LygaFrom my point it isn't so much a question of expensive or inexpensive!
We all HAVE the money to spent (gues David is one of us with the highest amount on the bank statement ...but he will not state ....what is indeed always smart...)
All acounts I have in mind with a single. + before!Which account are you referring to? The one denominated in USD or the one denominated in SFr? - David Lyga
Sorry I am just at this moment understand you right !Which account are you referring to? The one denominated in USD or the one denominated in SFr? - David Lyga
I beg of you to differ. I was living in NYC in the 1970s and, regularly, I priced B&W Plus-X in 36 exposure cassettes. For the first half of the 70s decade, it was selling for 63 cents per roll and 120 size was selling for about 45 cents. At that time a beginning store clerk at Gimbels (I was employed in their Herald Square location) was $2.20 per hour, which was barely above minimum wage. Since then, a constant dollar restatement would yield an increase of about 4X.Practically I think the price of film is pretty low by historical standards. I am now retired and it seems cheaper.
PS : Here in Berlin / Germany is a district named : " Prenzlauer Berg "btw but there are also some more : middle class businessman (Mirko possible know) are meeting on weekend their friends
sitting in special "hypster caffees" and what do they need ?????
A camera - but it has not to be a modern digital one - oh no !
It HAS TO BE THIS HERE : View attachment 220002
The "Spiegel" wrote about - soon the "Frankfurter Allgemeine" came up within theirBerlin is not all Germany. To the contrary.
I have never seen what you describe. Nor do I know anyone who did.
Vegan Cafes and film don't go along...
I think your memory is off. I looked at a back issue of Popular Photography for 1977. The going price for a roll of 36 exposure Tri-X in New York was $1.95-$2.15. The inflation factor is 4.17x resulting in an equivalent price of $8.13-$8.97. A roll of Tri-X at B&H today is $5.79, meaning film is actually cheaper today by a fair margin. An equivalent 1977 price would be $1.39.I already, definitively, posted on the cost of film in 1977, adjusted for the (4X) inflation increase and shown that we are paying more now.
I am reluctant to use New York prices for the comparison. I think they have always distorted the reality for most of us - particularly those of us who live outside the USA.I think your memory is off. I looked at a back issue of Popular Photography for 1977. The going price for a roll of 36 exposure Tri-X in New York was $1.95-$2.15. The inflation factor is 4.17x resulting in an equivalent price of $8.13-$8.97. A roll of Tri-X at B&H today is $5.79, meaning film is actually cheaper today by a fair margin. An equivalent 1977 price would be $1.39.
I am comparing apples to apples. There are no readily available prices for film at local brick and mortar stores for 1977 so I am using the best available data.I am reluctant to use New York prices for the comparison. I think they have always distorted the reality for most of us - particularly those of us who live outside the USA.
I understand that you have chosen this data because of its availability, but I just wanted to point out that it creates problems as well.I am comparing apples to apples. There are no readily available prices for film at local brick and mortar stores for 1977 so I am using the best available data.
So do you think film for you in your neck of the woods is cheaper or more expensive than it was in 1977, adjusted for inflation (which may be different in Canada than the US for the same time period)?I understand that you have chosen this data because of its availability, but I just wanted to point out that it creates problems as well.
Ironically, I have better access to New York prices now then I did in 1977. However in 1977, my local market was significantly more competitive than it is now.
I ordered my supplies from New York in 1977 and do so today. The difference between $8.13-$8.97 and $5.79 leaves plenty of room for variances in the inflation adjustment factor.Please guys, let’s realize that the inflation adjustment index we are given is not an exact science.
Most things are more expensive now.So do you think film for you in your neck of the woods is cheaper or more expensive than it was in 1977, adjusted for inflation (which may be different in Canada than the US for the same time period)?
Yikes! You can save $4.00/roll and get 36 exposures to boot if you buy 10 rolls on amazon.ca, with free shipping. Still, the film photography revival must be adversely impacted with those prices.Most things are more expensive now.
For example, a 135-24 roll of Tri-X is $14.99 - way more than 4 times what it cost (for a 20 exposure roll) back in 1977.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?