if film, all formats /sizes were less expensive ...

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I starting shooting 8x10, (15 years ago) it cost $3 a sheet (HP5). Now it costs me $7 a sheet. I'm way more pickier about what and how much I shoot now. If I want to continue shooting large format, I have to work this way. I still find 4x5 film reasonably priced and shoot it with abandon.

 

[Vaughn]

I can only carry so many film holders...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

It wouldn't change my entrenched methodology of how I use film.
Film is cheap and it doesn't worry me at all. Got to keep using it while it is still available.

 

[NedL]

Oh I would. I'd be developing it in the washing machine for a start.

High capacity automatic film processing.... yes that'd get me out shooting more

 

[sepiareverb]

I well remember when film was much cheaper. But as many others have stated it is time for me. Loss of my teaching job has required me to take on other work which requires much more time day to day to achieve a similar paycheck, so I've currently got about twenty rolls of undeveloped film. I shoot less as well as I can't have a camera with me as often. I've not been in the darkroom for eight months. Double the price of film but give me more time. I'll shoot twice as much. I promise.

 

[Alan W]

The amount of film that I shoot has not changed over the years.I shoot it no matter what it costs.I'm not paying a whole lot more for it now than I did in the '90's and early 2000's,when I was being held to ransom by the only "professional" store in Knoxville Tn.The internet came along and suddenly I could buy in a free market.I'm a very slow shooter and using two rolls a week is a lot for me(35mm or 120).I'm just glad to have a freezer and film to put in it.

 

[Brian Puccio]

Film is cheap. Papers, specially FB are expensive.

Hooray for slide film, no need to print, just project!

 

[skorpiius]

Only in the case of packfilm, with other film I don't find the cost affects how much I use.

 

[LAG]

It's quite curious to see people worried about The Time they need, specially coming from those who have ... thousands of text messages, isn't it?

Regards

(Just kidding, is for statistics)

 

[Eric Rose]

My experimenting days are behind me. When I was learning how to expose/develop certain films under differing conditions or for different looks I shot lots of film. Now I am rather exacting on how I approach things. So to answer the question I would not shot more film just because it's cheaper. Seems being a grandparent takes up a lot of the free time I have although I'm not complaining.

 

[Marttiko]

Currently I'm very short on money as I'm unemployed. Sometimes I have no money to buy film, but then I use paper negatives with my 9x12cm format camera. In that sense unlimited magical box of film would be a nice thing indeed.

When I have film (which is most of the time), I don't limit my shooting because of film price. I'm quite considerate shooter and I think larger formats have made me shoot even more sparingly. When I shoot less, percentage of good pictures rises, I think. Of course there are times and places when it's best to just shoot and not think much, but themes and places I like to photograph are not in a hurry. I have plenty of time to look and think. And I like that. That doesn't mean that all my pictures were fine, not by a long shot... But I'm trying to get to that direction where there is some reason for every photograph I take. That reason may be curiousity, experimenting or pure joy of photographing in a beautiful place. It doesn't always have to be about making a good picture. Every photo doesn't have to be good, but there must be something in it or in the photographing situation. Photography is not all about pictures, it also affects the way we are in our environment and perceive it. Sometimes photographing is best way to get to know your surroundings, even if you felt that the pictures aren't going to be that special.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Film is cheap, chemicals are cheap, paper is cheap, film camera equipment and darkroom equipment are cheap compared to the past. Only time is expensive, so for me there would be no change.

 

[trythis]

What would make a difference for me would be cheaper developing at a lab. last I checked a year or so ago its $8 to $10 a roll just for developing c41. B&W is easy at home, but C41 takes more work and is less certain.
If I could get my color or shoot slides and get it developed for $3, I would shoot a lot more!

 

[kb3lms]

I have to agree that time is the biggest issue. I'd be embarrassed to say when I last picked up any of my gear, let alone photographed something with it. Just don't have the time and my lab is a disaster. (But, my barn IS painted!) An affordable automated processor would be really nice. I often think about that machine that someone showed a while back and how to replicate it with an arduino or something. Almost even bid on a Noritsu mini-lab once but then I realized how ridiculous that was.

If I compare the price of film in 1982 vs what I pay for film today, it is MUCH cheaper now AND I am far more able to afford it.

I have a nice machine of that other technology and I shoot absolutely no more frames with it than I do with film.

OTOH, Daughter 5 was the photographer at Daughter 3's wedding two weeks ago. This was d---l, of course. She ended up with 849 shots, 800 of which were promptly deleted when we got home, lol. I guess if you wanted to do that kind of thing, the price of film would matter quite a bit!

-- Jason

 

[TheRook]

I may do exposure bracketing a little more often if film was significantly cheaper. And perhaps more experimental photography stuff.

 

[canvassy]

What would make a difference for me would be cheaper developing at a lab. last I checked a year or so ago its $8 to $10 a roll just for developing c41. B&W is easy at home, but C41 takes more work and is less certain.
If I could get my color or shoot slides and get it developed for $3, I would shoot a lot more!

The unicolor / tetenal kits are both cheap and easy to use. I certainly thought it'd be a lot harder than it really is.

 

[mdarnton]

One thing I notice when I shoot digital is that I shoot a lot more frames. With film, I left large format a couple of decades ago, and it was only the discovery of x-ray film that made me move back to it. Now, with x-ray film, I'm shooting more LF and larger than I ever did before, and have in fact completely abandoned digital for my personal work. The same thing works in 35mm for me: home-spooled and developed bulk b&w, I shoot much more freely than I do color film. But the allure of cheap 8x10 has me shooting almost no 35mm in the last couple of years.

There's this recording of dropping quarters that unavoidably plays in my head every time I shoot any piece of film.

 

[wy2l]

Could have, should have, would have.... the price of film is the price of film. Deal with it.
If pigs had wings, would we be carrying umbrellas?

 

[removed account4]

thanks for the 2 pages of interesting comments and commentary !

wy2l --- yup i am dealing with it
i have a lot of choices for film from 110 - 11x14. some of it
is extremely expensive some of it is affordable.
i shoot paper too ( hand coated and factory coated ) ...
im not complaining about the price of film, just wondering if people's
exposure/photographic practices would change, if prices were like 35$ a box of 100 sheets of tmy2 4x5 film ..
would people let their hair down a little bit, experiment a little, bracket a bit more, photograph things
that caught their eye but they didn't want to "waste their film".. sometimes the best exposures
and the best negatives are ones that are intuitive, not planned and taken without much thought ..
expensive film does not allow for that.

years ago it used to be advertised ( grafmatics, bag mags, countless magazine cameras ) that
someone could take 12 exposures ni 12 seconds .. most people who shoot LF wouldn't expose
their film like that, even if asked to, because -- $$$, and because they have settled down into
a routine.

i don't carry an umbrella now, but if pigs flew
im not sure if being cr@pped on from things fallng from
sky-creatures would still be good luck so i might carry an umbrella ..

 

[LAG]

Could have, should have, would have.... the price of film is the price of film. Deal with it.
If pigs had wings, would we be carrying umbrellas?

Excuse me

I suposse it is a rhetorical question, but in that case I'd definitely buy more film, no matter the price! "Indifference" could/would/should not be an option

 

[trythis]

I am using Kodak flexicolor and have tried the unicolor kits. They arent bad, in terms of difficulty, but I have little kids. Finding time in the wee hours of night to process film in very toxic chemicals is not easy.

The unicolor / tetenal kits are both cheap and easy to use. I certainly thought it'd be a lot harder than it really is.