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.
$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.
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.
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.
That smacks of capitalism!
Because he was referring to film not a memory card.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
He was referring to the cost of film. Shooting digital would eliminate that.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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?