Is there a way to cut down on film costs?

[Agulliver]

It may have cost 18 cents to manufacture the film. The confectioning has always cost more than the actual film material.

Now in 2022 that may have changed.

In any case, one cannot even compare 2010 with 2022 in this industry.

 

[Don_ih]

It may have cost 18 cents to manufacture the film. The confectioning has always cost more than the actual film material.

Well, @ozmoose did say, "Some years ago (I recall it was about 2012-2013) a Kodak Australia rep told me it cost the company about 18 US cents to manufacture a roll of color negative film and import it into this country." That would include everything. The figure might have been true when Kodak produced at peak.

 

[fdonadio]

I'm suspecting that maybe the pro photographers who shot 70mm film, then handled the 70mm cartridge to the lab and then the lab did the development using a typical roller-transport machine (that can process any length of film).

I've spent some time reading about this Hasselblad 70 mm back. It takes from 21 to 42 feet (6.4 to 12.8 meters) of 70 mm double-perforated film, depending on thickness. With 21', it takes 100 6x6 cm frames and, with 42', it takes 200 frames. Hence, it's called "70/100-200".

I'm also not sure about the total thickness of HP5 in that format. B&H website says "layer thickness" (whatever that means) is 110 µm (0,11 mm), which is 4,3 mils. Looks like typical film thickness for me.

Anyway, the largest 70mm reel from Hewes can load "only" 5 meters (around 78 frames) of film, and I'm not sure which tank could be used for that. So, I see no point in loading more than 5 meters at a time. Realistically, I would prefer to go even shorter (3 meters) and use a smaller reel, which Hewes also carries. That would be enough for around 45 frames.

I'm writing Nigel an e-mail right now. I guess I'll be shooting some 70 mm soon.


Flavio (a.k.a. "the other Flavio", flavio77 or fdonadio)

 

[Don_ih]

Keep in mind that aviphot 70mm is not perforated. I don't know about the Plus-x 70mm. I think those 70mm backs require perforated film.

 

[fdonadio]

Keep in mind that aviphot 70mm is not perforated. I don't know about the Plus-x 70mm. I think those 70mm backs require perforated film.

Yes, they require 70mm Type II perforated film, which makes it a little harder to find. Kodak surveillance film is perforated, from what I recall.

 

[flavio81]

I've spent some time reading about this Hasselblad 70 mm back.

Wow... very interesting back flavio77 ... 200 exposures is a LOT

 

[CMoore]

That is not really very helpful.

Good Grief.
Don't shoot film EVER AGAIN.!
Think of all the money you will save......

Its like a guy asks about reducing his outlay for gasoline and is told to buy an electric car.
Some People............

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Don't shoot film EVER AGAIN.!
Think of all the money you will save...

Precisely.

...Its like a guy asks about reducing his outlay for gasoline and is told to buy an electric car...

A perfectly useful suggestion that, if followed, would reduce his outlay for gasoline to zero. Complete elimination of the expense. How much more help could he get?

 

[VinceInMT]

As an avid baker of artisan breads, I occasionally hang out on a bread forum and someone was complaining about the cost of parchment paper.

To me, this is a hobby and when I compare it to others I am involved in (vintage foreign cars!!!), considering that I’ve already got all the equipment I’ll ever need, the cost of the consumables is a relatively minor outlay.

I am currently shooting Ilford HP5+ 400 which I load myself from a 100’ roll for about $6.66 per roll. (Gotta love that number as it matches a prominent part of my phone number.). Assuming $1.25 in chemistry (D76, stop, fix, hypoclear, wetting agent), a roll costs just under $8/roll to get to the negatives. That seems pretty inexpensive to me especially when compared to those who spend $6 on a cup of coffee that that could make at home for 25 cents.

I say shoot away and enjoy. Like when I am looking for a part for my 1959 Volvo 544, I am less concerned about the price and just happy that I can still get it.

 

[Huss]

I really like Kentmere 400. I just bought a whole bunch of it for $4.76/36 exp.
That is really cheap.

And then if you use it in a half frame camera it becomes so cheap you’d be losing money not buying it..

 

[Agulliver]

Half frame camera may be an option in some circumstances. I still wish I had not sold my Fujica Drive.

Good point comparing this hobby to baking. Getting the necessary equipment is possibly a considerable outlay, especially these days compared to when everyone was offloading darkroom stuff cheap or free. But rather like baking, once you've got your equipment it may well last a lifetime. The ongoing cost of parchment paper, ingredients, film and chemicals isn't actually that great unless you're doing either hobby on near industrial levels.

For someone getting into film photography and wanting to develop their own film these days....I'd say getting the equipment at a bargain price is the biggest saving possible. Though it does kind of irk me that the bulk film loader manufacturers never made a penny off me.

 

[BMbikerider]

Good Grief.
Don't shoot film EVER AGAIN.!
Think of all the money you will save......

Its like a guy asks about reducing his outlay for gasoline and is told to buy an electric car.
Some People............

If you want your input into true photography to be reduced to zero then don't use film. Where is the skill in just pressing the button and allowing electronics to do the rest. The true skill and feeling of having done and made something meaningful is with using film and all the associated after work to produce a print that is your own work.

That is like buying a flatpack kit of an item of furniture and putting it together to make a functional item. You are literally screwing together someone or something else's automated work, all you are doing is assembling it. Compared to taking a piece of raw wood, a few woodworking tools and making a truly beautiful item of furniture with your own hands and skills.
Anyway I was not complaining about the cost of film so I don't think that is my business or problem, what I commented about was someone else opening up the sore point of digital v film. The two parties are never going to agree so it is best left to lie dormant

 

[Down Under]

Good Grief. Don't shoot film EVER AGAIN.! Think of all the money you will save......

Its like a guy asks about reducing his outlay for gasoline and is told to buy an electric car. Some People...

This is entirely too sensible. You will never get anywhere in a debate like this one by using common sense.

As for electric cars, well - they are the way of the future, are they not?? That is, if we have any long-term future.

(Being a cynic is such hard work...)

 

[Down Under]

Wow... very interesting back flavio77 ... 200 exposures is a LOT

Yes, but the cost of a suitable processing tank will most likely bankrupt you.

(Being a cynic is such hard work...)

 

[Down Under]

You mean me, AgX, Sirius Glass, Paul Howell, cholentpot, benjiboy, cooltouch, Les Sarile, and all the other guys are an ILLUSION?!?!

Can I join? I so like being part of an exclusive club, altho' in this case, I'm not sure we are all that exclusive. There may well be a great many of us out there.

At home I regularly get called a Troglodyte, so maybe The Dinosaurs could be a suitable new monicker for this group. Can we have our own forum??

Arguing about APUG vs Photrio etc etc is so much more fun than woofing on about analog versus digital.

 

[VinceInMT]

….is so much more fun than woofing on about analog versus digital.

That “discussion” is one that I avoid, considering it in the realm of non-overlapping magisteria as Stephen Jay Gould defines it.

 

[flavio81]

Can I join? I so like being part of an exclusive club, altho' in this case, I'm not sure we are all that exclusive. There may well be a great many of us out there.

Welcome to APUG!! You are already in!!

 

[Steve York]

Certain to echo others when I say bulk loading (not Tri-x) and home developing will save a lot on B&W film costs. Bulk lodgings saves about 50% on film, and home development saves 80%+ on processing. Look to Orwo or Kodak movie stocks, or Foma/Kentmere. Save even more if you go for longer spools (400', 2000') of Orwo.

 

[npl]

Regarding home developing and associated cost, I see that caffenol was mentionned. I don't have the math handy, but it's not a cheap developer : it can't be replenished or reused (actually some people claim to do it) so you have to mix it everytime, and pure ascorbic acid is not that cheap.

It will depend where you live and if you can get it, but it was my impression that rodinal can't be beaten on that front, HC-110 being a close second. Let's say I shoot 35mm and have a single reel tank that only need 300ml of solution. If I only ever do rodinal 1:50, I can develop 80 rolls with one 500ml bottle. Right now in my town that's available for 12,90€ (damn, I'm sure I paid 14€ last year) so that's 0,16€ a roll ! Now, HC-110 dilution b (1:31) : 110 rolls for a 1000ml bottle, at 39,9€ that's still a fair 0,36€ a roll. While We're doing some math, replenished xtol would be 0,22€ a roll (for 70ml taken from the stock solution for each roll), 1:1 0,46€ per roll.

Fixer and stop : buy the cheapest you can find, they'll all work. Probably foma / arista.

I'm curious : when you shot a film everyday, what kind of work did you do ? if it was mostly "training" shots around the neighbordhood, places you could get back to anytime, using a digital camera is not a bad idea... work on your composition without worriyng about the cost by shooting any cheap digital camera in black&white mode, and when you find a scene with an angle you like, go back with your film camera at a time when the light is how you want it to be. I'm actually thinking of doing that more often.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Use replenished XTOL.

 

[maltfalc]

switch to 4x5, shoot x-ray film, pay $5 canadian for 36 exposures.

 

[Don_ih]

switch to 4x5, shoot x-ray film, pay $5 canadian for 36 exposures.

Where are you getting xray film that cheap?

The cost of developer should not be part of the equation. The quality of the developer is far more important. Or at least, getting a developer that brings about the result you want - which the cheapest may not do. And developer costs the same no matter how much the film costs.

 

[abruzzi]

Where are you getting xray film that cheap?

Don't know Canada, but in the US Fuji HR-U in 8x10 is USD$38 for 100 sheets--which is USD$13.68 for 36 exposures. I've never seen 4x5 x-ray film (I'd be curious if it exists?), but if you cut the 8x10 down, you're down to USD$3.42 for 36 4x5 exposures, but then you have to buy a cutter, and go through the process of cutting it down.

 

[Don_ih]

Don't know Canada, but in the US Fuji HR-U in 8x10 is USD$38 for 100 sheets--which is USD$13.68 for 36 exposures. I've never seen 4x5 x-ray film (I'd be curious if it exists?), but if you cut the 8x10 down, you're down to USD$3.42 for 36 4x5 exposures, but then you have to buy a cutter, and go through the process of cutting it down.

I bought what should have been fairly cheap Kodak (Carestream) x-ray film about 5 years ago - a box of 8x10. With shipping and customs, it ended up costing well over $100 (don't remember how much). I'd rather buy Shanghai.

Not that I need 4x5 film, anyway - I have enough to last until doomsday.

 

[abruzzi]

I bought what should have been fairly cheap Kodak (Carestream) x-ray film about 5 years ago - a box of 8x10. With shipping and customs, it ended up costing well over $100 (don't remember how much). I'd rather buy Shanghai.

Not that I need 4x5 film, anyway - I have enough to last until doomsday.

yeah, I have a bunch of HR-U and ultimately, I'd rather shoot pictorial film, even if its just Foma or something else cheap. Xray film is harder to dial in (though it can be done.)