Is there a way to cut down on film costs?

[Sirius Glass]

$20 a roll and I'd be glad to pay for it?

$20 a roll and you'll have 5 people nation wide shooting film. Give me a break. The technology is mature and developed. The market seems to be underserved currently. Kodak can pull some ancient emulsion out of its basement, roll it up, call it KodaRetro and make a bundle.

The high costs can be mitigated with some intelligent marketing. Kodak doesn't seem to have that and Fuji doesn't care.

If that is what it will take to allow me to use the superior film products of Kodak, Ilford and Rollei, I will find a way.

 

[BMbikerider]

And why not? The object of taking photos is to make an image. Using film to make that image is a subset of that category. Using digital is another. Film is not photography. If the OP is so concerned with the cost of making photographs on film, then digital is a viable alternative. If film is essential to the OP's work, then bear the cost. It's not that expensive today, even compared to its heyday.

Because he was referring to film not a memory card.

 

[Cholentpot]

Have you offered your wisdom and expertise to Eastman Kodak? You seem to know more about how to manufacture film and effectively market it than that company does. It would be a fool not to hire you as CEO immediately.

I'm still waiting for the call from Eastman Kodak. It seems I'm just too brilliant for them and they can't handle my vast amounts of wisdom.

Their loss.

That smacks of capitalism!

Da.

 

[Pieter12]

Because he was referring to film not a memory card.

He was referring to the cost of film. Shooting digital would eliminate that.

 

[snusmumriken]

I think if I was shooting a roll every day, I would expect to be selling images to at least cover my costs. Otherwise I would sit myself down and have a frank introspection about why I was doing it.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

They way I've been doing for a while (at least for 35mm) it I buy bulk and rolls with few frames (probably 12 or 10). I load the rolls on a darkroom or bag to lesser the wasted frames. This way, I have fewer frames to use and I use them more wisely.

This is the same route I have used for 120 and LF. Fewer resources need better planning and thought process.

For 120, look for guys reloading 120 from 70mm rolls (or do it yourself). This is not easy but not impossible. Last batch I got this route was Agfa Aviphot 40 which is a great film not seldom seen/used.

If I want to take pictures of my cat funny poses and other nonsense I use my digital or my phone, which is ok for me.

For those old fellows like me, that involves a change in a thought process to known that film is different now. You can't use it as you used before digital, wasting film and only getting a keeper or two for each roll.

Film is not going to be cheaper anytime soon (if ever), only more expensive.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

No it would not. We have been there before. The cost of the top of the line digital Canon or Nikon camera is much greater than the cost of film, software, computer upgrades. There are thousands of posts on that on Photrio and many other websites.

How about the environmental damage to trashing a digital camera is much worse than continuing to use film.

Thumbs up on bringing that up Sirius. Tossing a litium battery pollute like helland plastic on cameras is almost impossible to degrate. It most likely end up as micro plastic on our blood.

There is no free lunches.

 

[Moose22]

No it would not. We have been there before. The cost of the top of the line digital Canon or Nikon camera is much greater than the cost of film, software, computer upgrades. There are thousands of posts on that on Photrio and many other websites.

How about the environmental damage to trashing a digital camera is much worse than continuing to use film.

1. Why do you need top of the line?
2. I have the digital camera anyway. It's how I get my negatives converted so I can show people my blurry pictures of cats online.
3. The question is about reducing FILM costs. Not the costs of photography. Just of film.

You're overcomplicating the formula. Willfully, of course, but the fact is, using less film means you spent less money on film.

 

[Cholentpot]

1. Why do you need top of the line?
2. I have the digital camera anyway. It's how I get my negatives converted so I can show people my blurry pictures of cats online.
3. The question is about reducing FILM costs. Not the costs of photography. Just of film.

You're overcomplicating the formula. Willfully, of course, but the fact is, using less film means you spent less money on film.

I needed top of the line because I outgrew my camera. Weird innit? Camera was excellent for 90% of work I do but that 10% couldn't get over the hump. So I upgraded to the last of the line. Used of course...

They way I've been doing for a while (at least for 35mm) it I buy bulk and rolls with few frames (probably 12 or 10). I load the rolls on a darkroom or bag to lesser the wasted frames. This way, I have fewer frames to use and I use them more wisely.

This is the same route I have used for 120 and LF. Fewer resources need better planning and thought process.

For 120, look for guys reloading 120 from 70mm rolls (or do it yourself). This is not easy but not impossible. Last batch I got this route was Agfa Aviphot 40 which is a great film not seldom seen/used.

If I want to take pictures of my cat funny poses and other nonsense I use my digital or my phone, which is ok for me.

For those old fellows like me, that involves a change in a thought process to known that film is different now. You can't use it as you used before digital, wasting film and only getting a keeper or two for each roll.

Film is not going to be cheaper anytime soon (if ever), only more expensive.

How is Agfa Aviphot 40? I bought some Aero Plus-X from India and it's...interesting to say the least.

 

[Sirius Glass]

1. Why do you need top of the line?
2. I have the digital camera anyway. It's how I get my negatives converted so I can show people my blurry pictures of cats online.
3. The question is about reducing FILM costs. Not the costs of photography. Just of film.

You're overcomplicating the formula. Willfully, of course, but the fact is, using less film means you spent less money on film.

No, you have it all wrong. If I were to make a change it would be to an equivalent model. Why would I ever take a great leap to the bottom to satisfy an out of line call to save money by switching to digital? If Pieter12 and you choose to jump off a sky scraper, I will not follow you by jumping off too.

 

[Pieter12]

No it would not. We have been there before. The cost of the top of the line digital Canon or Nikon camera is much greater than the cost of film, software, computer upgrades. There are thousands of posts on that on Photrio and many other websites.

How about the environmental damage to trashing a digital camera is much worse than continuing to use film.

There are so many assumptions now that this has nothing to do with the cost of film. Who said the OP needed to shoot with a top of the line digital? Nobody mentioned trashing a digital camera either. And the environmental damage of producing and using film vs digital? Oh, and you have already jumped off that skyscraper. You just don't realize it yet.

 

[Moose22]

No, you have it all wrong. If I were to make a change it would be to an equivalent model. Why would I ever take a great leap to the bottom to satisfy an out of line call to save money by switching to digital? If Pieter12 and you choose to jump off a sky scraper, I will not follow you by jumping off too.

Nice straw men. I'mma mute this thread now. I love ya' man, but your pain in the ass shtick is not fun.

 

[BMbikerider]

He was referring to the cost of film. Shooting digital would eliminate that.

But it would not be film he would be using which is the crux of the matter. If the question had been worded something like "What could I do to save on film costs but still take pictures", your answer would be fine. But there was no mention of using any other medium except film and how to reduce the costs.

 

[Two23]

I mostly shoot wet plate now.


Kent in SD

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Let's start by level-setting once again. I have and use film cameras from 35mm through 11x14. I have Nikon D810 digital and Sigma Art lenses, which I also use.

To those who claim there's some magic or superiority to film, and/or some inferiority to digital photography, I call BS. The one, and only one, advantage of film is limited to black and white negatives on polyester base. Properly stored (and that's a relatively passive process going forward), they have an expected life expectancy of 500 years or more. Digital files will only be around as long as someone constantly converts them to the next format, because sure as the sun comes up in the east today's formats will be obsolete and unreadable in the not-too-distant future. Prints, both chemical from negatives and inkjet from digital files, are vastly more fugitive than polyester-based black and white negatives. Mechanisms of deterioration differ, but the end result is the same.

For 99.9999999% of all photographers, including me and almost everyone at PHOTRIO, none of this matters. The photographs we make will be part of a huge mass of "stuff" that the executors of our estates will summarily throw in the trash or, in the case of digital files, format out of existence. Bottom line: use whatever technology suits your fancy when making photographs as part of your hobby. If film costs are burdensome, use digital. Download files from your memory card(s) and reuse the card(s). That is the ultimate way to cut down on film costs. It's effective and photographing digitally is just as "good" as film / darkroom printing. Some would say (I'm among them given the dearth of quality darkroom papers today) it's "better."

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Have you ever bulk loaded your own? I do that for my students, as it's way more economical than buying readymade rolls. Even though the price for bulk film has gone up considerably in the past year, it's still cheaper. But... I know one's choices are extremely limited if you go this way, sadly.

 

[Wallendo]

In the late 90’s I shot primarily C-42 and had it commercially developed and scanned. I calculated that with all costs figured in, I was paying $1 a shot. 25 years later and the cost is about the same.

Although film is more expensive now, the cost of development and shipping (for those outside of large cities) is more of a factor.

C-41 is still affordable. The costs of E-6, on the other hand, has jumped significantly. I still shoot some E-6 - because a properly exposed Velvia slide is worth the cost.

 

[gone]

I could go the half frame route, that alone should halve the film expenses. Unfortunately, I like to shoot an 85-135 as a normal lens, and on the half frame cameras, the equivalent lenses protrude way out from the camera. My usual films are Foma 100 and 400, so I'm already at the bargain bin prices there. Great films too, it's difficult to find better films at almost any price once you figure them out.

 

[Cholentpot]

I could go the half frame route, that alone should halve the film expenses. Unfortunately, I like to shoot an 85-135 as a normal lens, and on the half frame cameras, the equivalent lenses protrude way out from the camera. My usual films are Foma 100 and 400, so I'm already at the bargain bin prices there. Great films too, it's difficult to find better films at almost any price once you figure them out.

I invested in an Olympus Pen F last year. Got the whole kit and a CLA. I know that at some point soon the costs of film will outpace my budget and staving it off with a half frame is my last ditch when it happens. I have a Pen EE3 and a Univex Mercury now to bolster my half frame bull pen. I hope it doesn't get to that point but if it does I'll know the bellwether has been rung and the time for switchover is coming. We're one major event away from this.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I invested in an Olympus Pen F last year. Got the whole kit and a CLA. I know that at some point soon the costs of film will outpace my budget and staving it off with a half frame is my last ditch when it happens. I have a Pen EE3 and a Univex Mercury now to bolster my half frame bull pen. I hope it doesn't get to that point but if it does I'll know the bellwether has been rung and the time for switchover is coming. We're one major event away from this.

I found that I liked tabular grain film for half frame [single frame] photographs since I am not a big grain fan. Your taste my vary.

 

[NB23]

I do not get it. Foma 100/200/400 in 100’ bulk rolls brings your cost to the same level the OP wishes, which is 2.50$ per 24 exp. roll.

Why ignore this?

 

[Cholentpot]

I found that I liked tabular grain film for half frame [single frame] photographs since I am not a big grain fan. Your taste my vary.

I ran Eastman Double X through my Pen F and it looked amazing. The grain just worked well for it. And then I thought to myself, this film was designed for single frame as it's motion picture film. Duh.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I needed top of the line because I outgrew my camera. Weird innit? Camera was excellent for 90% of work I do but that 10% couldn't get over the hump. So I upgraded to the last of the line. Used of course...



How is Agfa Aviphot 40? I bought some Aero Plus-X from India and it's...interesting to say the least.

Is quite good. High contrast so I develop on POTA developer. Use it at ASA 40. Film is thin and tend to curl so need to put between books.

A couple of examples:

Aviphot 40 Gallery

 

[pbromaghin]

I'm still waiting for the call from Eastman Kodak. It seems I'm just too brilliant for them and they can't handle my vast amounts of wisdom.

Their loss.


Da.

They wouldn't listen to the fact that he is a genius. The man said we got all we can use.

 

[wahiba]

It wasn't that long ago when I would shoot a roll of B&W film every day. I'd come home and develop/proof scan the negs, then try to get some prints made that same week. The 35mm Tri-X was rebranded as Arista, and only $2.50 a roll. 24 exposure was perfect for a daily shooting schedule.

But when I looked at what it would cost to do that today I came up w/ crazy numbers.....between $2500 and $3000 just for the film, not even counting paper and chemical costs.

So I thought of making the film. Just build a jig to cut edge perforations into a clear base, then coat it and stuff it into used canisters. Hardly seems to be a viable replacement though, maybe just something to try and see if it could be made to work.

Is there any way to make this less expensive, other than buying a quantity and putting it in the freezer?

35mm bulk rolls and roll your own. Process in caffenol. (Rodinal seems to have reappeared from ADOX. At 1:50 it goes a long way) Roll film just buy in quantity. Not sure outside UK but Ilford sometimes have online offers on their site. While prices are about the same all round occasilnally they have a free postage offer, used that a few times. Currently though for 120 FOMA looks the best priced.