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

[removed account4]

if film, not mater teh format / size were less expensive
would you expose it differently ? would you take more chances
would you be more spontaneous, would you not care about perfect exposures as much?

or does price of film not really matter much?

im not saying spray and pray, but i am saying loosen up a little bit ...

 

[LAG]

Excuse me jnanian

In my personal case, I'm certainly sure that the only thing that would change would be the space in the fridge.

 

[Dali]

No change for me. With the number of rolls I burn per year, doubling it (or tripling it) would have anyway a minimal impact on my budget.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'm in the same group as Dali.

 

[Luckless]

I don't think it would have a huge impact on my photography. It would be a very welcomed thing, but typically time is my key limit to the volume of my film work rather than budget. If 8x10 film was on par with the price per frame of 120 to shoot and develop, then I might be more tempted to just jump in and do more of my learning on that, but I'm still very happy with how my exploration of medium format is progressing. (Plus it is 'almost practical' to photograph wildlife with my C330f. Well, not really, but I sure won't let that stop me from trying to get photos of chickadees on it anyway.)

Budget wise I find the capital expense of getting new gear to be the greater inhibitor to playing with 'new things' far more than what it is going to cost me to feed said new things. I've wanted to get a 4x5 field camera for awhile now, but find it hard to justify dedicating the required funds to buying new hardware. $100 every month or two for an order of film, developer, and 'small bits' as it is needed is however far easier to budget and justify. I have the TLR and a pair of lenses for it. I have the tanks and reels to develop the film off it easily. And possibly the most important aspect is that I have a familiarity when it comes to working with that format and processing the end results.


So if film suddenly fell in price to 1/4 or an 1/8th of what it costs me now? Well most likely I would continue to shoot a similar volume.

However, if I had a different camera, one that supported multiple quick-change magazines, well then that might be a different story. I could easily see myself tempted to shoot a far higher volume at sport events and the like if:
1. I could quickly reload (and/or had 220 film)
2. Film was cheap enough to not negatively impact my overall budget.

But with my current camera it is the slow reload and fear of missing out on 'a far better shot' that keeps my finger off the shutter release more my film budget does.

 

[Wallendo]

I would love cheap film, but doubt I would change my shooting habits much at all.
I have a full-time job (60+ hours a week), a recent move, my family, and elderly parents to care for. My photography is limited by time, not finances. Currently, I have two films I haven't developed yet. Two rolls that I have developed, but not dealt with yet and an enlarger I have yet to set up. I suspect this is a common issue among amateur (hobbyist) photographers.

I do have frequent lulls at work when I can log into APUG, but not enough to shoot thoughtful photographs.

 

[farmersteve]

It doesn't make a difference for me at the rate I shoot. If I was a fashion photographer or photojournalist, it would probably make a huge difference.

 

[darkosaric]

Film is cheap. Papers, specially FB are expensive.

 

[baachitraka]

Its the time the most expensive of all...

 

[Dali]

Its the time the most expensive of all...

Very true!

 

[baachitraka]

I wish, I can fish out one print in a day.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I think for Vivian Maier and for Garry Winogrand film was as expensive as for many of us now if we will decide to shot film for living or for the life.

I can't call 30 meters of bw film for 40-50 USD as "expensive"... yet. I even have film which is 200m for 30 USD and it is usable for print.
Is bw 28 frames for 2USD max (film, developing cost) expensive? For bw which is superior to any existing digital it is not.

I don't like color film (which is expensive, yes), I like film for bw. And my final result is the print.
As soon as I realized what my final result is the darkroom print I started to use less film. From four 30m rolls of film per year, I went to 2x30m with better outcome on the prints.
Is 2x50USD film + 50 USD for developing per year expensive? 150 USD per year to have negatives more what I could physically print.

I paid 200 USD to have Canon 50L lens fixed, but they can't make it as good as new, because Canon is using soft plastic and glue in L series lenses. And Canon made 35mm digital 5D MKII camera appears to have compatibility problem with 50L lens. I get rid of both. And had the choice to make. Sell one of my film M Leicas to be able to buy very old and partially out of service support M8 or sell almost everything valuable from my photogear to be able to afford M9 series. But M8/M9 Leicas camera quality is gamble. Falling shutters even without significant use, corrosive sensors and ridiculously high repair costs. All of this huge price and risks for what? To have next to crappy BW? Spending 1000+ USD on M8 which has worst reablity or 2800 USD for old M9, M-E with bw same as from less expensive DSLR or dunky mirrorless RF like Fuji X series? While 1000 USD is 6-7 years of buying and developing film for me.
After I realized it, I chose to spend money on Leitz made lenses.

If you are retired photographer like honorable and renowned Frank Herzog and George Zimbel it makes sense to use small digital camera in your eighties.
But I'm still working, I don't spend 2 USD per coffee few times per day, I don't spend 20 USD on cigarettes and I don't spend 15USD regularly on fast food. So, please, tell me how less expensive film could be from 150-200 USD per year?

 

[pdeeh]

135 and 120 is certainly relatively inexpensive (though of course that's a judgement that can vary radically depending on one's personal financial situation)

however, lf users can easily find themselves paying £4 a shot for black and white, while for colour ... well, best not think about it.

so, yes, if film was much cheaper, I'd almost certainly shoot much more lf, but it wouldn't really change my use of 135 and 120

 

[blockend]

As a bulk loader and home developer (B&W and colour), film is well within my budget. On the other hand if I bought pre-loaded cassettes and sent them to a professional lab for development and contact printing and/or sc@nning (as I'd very much like to), I could easily blow £100 on a typical weekend, and quite often more. That's quite a commitment for an amateur hobby/passion. Nowadays I find it less financially costly, and more rewarding to create high quality printed books of my photographs than chase the perfect print in the darkroom, although it sometimes means doing both.

The quality of commercial printing has grown enormously in recent years, and companies often have promotions - Bonusprint in the UK currently offer a 100 page bound book for £20 instead of the usual £79 and the quality is as good as all but the very best duotone printing and as good as most books you'll find in an art gallery. On the OP's point we've lost some great formats over the years, including 5 x 4 roll film!

 

[michr]

I'd certainly shoot more film. But even twice as much would be a stretch. I don't have time to develop everything now let alone print everything worth printing. I've just recently worked through most of about 100 rolls of c41 drug store print film that I'd been stockpiling for years. I've never developed C41 before, so hopefully by the time I'm finished with this batch I'll know what I'm doing. My point being that it's really time that is at a premium and not film.

However, if 8x10 and 11x14 sheet film were now magically < $1 sheet, then I'd be out there making large format snapshots all day long. I know about xray film and I just haven't tamed it yet, but if it were Ilford or even Arista, I'd use the heck out of that stuff.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Don't neglect to consider time as well. Shooting and processing a very few images takes far less time than 10,000 images. I'm sure if analog was just as cheap and easy to shoot as digital then most people would treat it like digital.

 

[canvassy]

I shoot 35mm and 120 and it's affordable, but I would shoot more if it were cheaper. I would also try out large format, the pricing is prohibitive for me currently.

 

[pbromaghin]

Time is my limitation.

 

[dpurdy]

When sheet film became so expensive, especially 8x10, I stopped shooting 2 sheets of everything.
Especially when working with still life I now process film after every exposure instead of what i used to do... shoot a stack of film holders and then process only one side, making adjustments to the processes after seeing the first sheets. I would much prefer to shoot the two sheets.
Dennis

 

[winger]

Another vote here for increasing the numbers of hours available to shoot rather than decreasing the money per square inch of film.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Time and opportunities are more of a restriction for me.

However, if prices could be magically lowered, I'd definitely start using color 4x5 (never have) and I'd buy another refrigerator just for Fuji pack film.

 

[DWThomas]

Well maybe vastly cheaper film would result in my using "real" film instead of the X-ray stuff for my 8x10 pinhole setup, but other than that, I'm with those who say time is probably more of a factor than money -- and I'm even retired!

 

[Slixtiesix]

Yes I would shoot more, but I would not use it less carefully.

 

[pdeeh]

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

 

[LAG]

I thought it was quite obvious (for everyone) that Film Photography has never been very cheap (never, not for me), today this situation has not changed very much. I dare to say that in some particular areas, expensive is a short word, should be "far_too_expensive".

If time is so important, Why wasting it sleeping? Time is running ... for the rich people, but for the poor.

We can not buy time indeed, but needless to say between us that we can "stop" it at least, and to make it possible, we need film. We can not buy time indeed (and That's it!), because we can gain time ... to waste without having film at all.

would you expose it differently ? would you take more chances
would you be more spontaneous, would you not care about perfect exposures as much?

or does price of film not really matter much? ...

I wouldn't x4

Yes it does, and much, but for me, for other reasons out of a perfect exposure, perhaps to make film continue for a long "time", even for others to come, being less selfish and having less expensive material to buy, to "stop" this Wonderful Madness from disappearing forever, and have the chance to show its real Worth.

I do know nothing about Economy, but I Know this: I would buy much more.