No bargains in 120 ISO 100 film!

[Sirius Glass]

The one bargain is that we can still get many great color print, color slide and black & white film at reasonable prices. Another bargain is that we can now buy cameras that we could not even afford to dream about.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

A few years ago, acros was inexpensive in "pro packs" for 120.

To me it seems like photo paper and my time are the main expenses of film photography. But I'm a slow shooter.

A few years ago I bought a Fuji X100 digital camera. Since then I have bought a nice FM2n, a great 120 folder, a couple lenses, film and paper. In several years I have not spent as much as the X100 cost. It's odd when people say that film photography is so much more expensive.... I guess that would be true if you use tons of film and have it processed by a lab.
Paper can add up fast if you print a lot....

Of course it's expensive................if you must shoot hundreds of pictures a day because the digital "film" is "free."

What I've noticed happening is that people are trying to use things like face recognition or GPS location in the EXIF data to find images as they pile up by the thousands. "They" are drowning in images without any sense of what should be kept and what shouldn't. I think this is going to be a repeat of "Oh, no, Uncle Melvin is pulling out his slides from his vacation to Paris..............."

 

[Athiril]

Key word here is FRESH. At expiration this film goes bad fast. That said I like it and used it very successfully but only used because I got it for 75 cents USD a roll in Beijing. I'd never pay $3.50 or so for it when Ilford can be had for less than $1 more per roll.

I'd use it at the same cost or a little more than FP4+ tbh

 

[Kevin Harding]

I love GP3, to the point where it's now my primary film. I bulk buy it via Hong Kong for roughly $2 Canadian per roll, and have never had the number imprint issue others have.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Shanghai is your friend. I'm in touch too.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Have any of you used Shanghai GP3 past it's expiry date?

 

[Kevin Harding]

It goes straight into he freezer when I get it, and I defrost on need. I believe some has gone past expiry, but if have had no issues. Newest batch in the mail to me is expiry 2017.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

It goes straight into he freezer when I get it, and I defrost on need. I believe some has gone past expiry, but if have had no issues. Newest batch in the mail to me is expiry 2017.

Ok thanks. I love GP3 and have gotten terrific results. I keep a lot of B&W film in my freezer and pretty much ignore expiration dates as I've rarely seen any issue with films under 5-10 years past expiry when kept frozen. However my batch of GP3 started going bad within 6-9 months past expiration with severe mottling and the frame numbers showing through in the negs, all well-documented here and elsewhere on the Internet. Anxious to hear how the newer batch holds up past expiry. Sure I guess I could get more and shoot it faster before expiry but as mentioned that close to price for Ilford I'll always choose Ilford if for nothing else but GP3's terrible black backing paper and hard to see numbers through red windows of my older cameras and pinhole cameras.

 

[Roger Cole]

Either do the free shipping options you mention, or bundle your film order in with other things. I throw in a some film every time I order heavy things like chemicals or paper from Freestyle.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's just weird. Hey, if it's good, it's good, if you like it, great. For my extra 5% a roll, I'll go with Ilford.

Foma turns my pre-soak and, to a lesser degree, developer green, as you say. T-Max turns it pink. I don't care either way. It can be produce a paisley pattern in the developer for all I care.

 

[fotch]

Film is the least expensive cost of what we do in photography and the most important thing. Spend hundreds of dollars on a camera, lens, expense of getting to location, then worry about saving a buck on a roll of film, or 8 cents a shot. Seems rather silly but then again, I am probably the last of the big spenders.

 

[DWThomas]

Enh, I started dabbling in these arcane arts in the late 1950s when petrol was around $0.25 a gallon. I can't remember any film prices from back then, but I suspect today's relative prices are as good or better. And the films are typically improved to boot.

 

[Jager]

I'm with Roger. Just bundle your film with other stuff so you get the free shipping.

I'm also in the camp that thinks film, relative to all the other costs associated with this artistic endeavor, is noise.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Or buy enough film to qualify for free shipping.

 

[Roger Cole]

Film isn't THAT expensive, but it is no longer "the least expensive thing in photography" as people used to say. Black and white film in inexpensive, color neg not too bad (except sheet film, see below) - but when I shoot slides I AM aware of the cost. My remaining stock of Provia 400X is rather carefully allocated, for example, and not just because there's no more new to be had but also because of what I had to pay (as much as $17/roll not counting processing of course) for much of what I have.

For one thing, film costs have gone up, especially sheet film (and color sheet film, WOW has it gone up) while film camera gear, while not as inexpensive as a few years ago, is still a bargain.

For another, that saying was never right in the first place. The least expensive thing in photography is a look through the viewfinder (or at the ground glass.) I used to say that, while my 4x5 film cost way more per frame I exposed, I thought my cost per finished print I was satisfied with was pretty similar to 120 or even 35mm. And that may still be true. Many times I've set up the 4x5 and spent 10-20 minutes fooling with a potential shot then decided to not even expose a sheet. I'm not really suggesting we do that with medium or small format so much, but taking the time to make each shot count increases the clarity of our vision while cutting down on materials cost.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Film isn't THAT expensive, but it is no longer "the least expensive thing in photography" as people used to say.

You sure? Even with inflation taken into account? What did a roll of Tri-X cost in 1975, for example?

 

[pentaxuser]

No bargains in 120 ISO 100 film? When we in the U.K. pay U.S. prices there will be "dancing in the street"

It's all relative as they say as in "relative to the U.S. we pay a "queen's ransom" being an equal opportunity non sexist monarchy

pentaxuser

 

[Maris]

You sure? Even with inflation taken into account? What did a roll of Tri-X cost in 1975, for example?

When I look in an old Modern Photography (April 1976) I see Garden Camera in Seventh Avenue, New York offering Tri-X at $0.89 for 135/20, $1.19 for 135/36, and $0.85 for 120 roll. And a Nikon F2 Photomic with a 50mm f2 lens on it went for $469.00. I could easily afford the film but the camera was more than a month's salary!

 

[Roger Cole]

You sure? Even with inflation taken into account? What did a roll of Tri-X cost in 1975, for example?

You apparently misunderstood. My impression is that, adjusted for inflation, film cost has remained similar or perhaps even decreased. My point though is that the bottom fell out of prices for film gear, making the equipment now the cheapest thing in photography per shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Have any of you used Shanghai GP3 past it's expiry date?

No. I'm buying film to use, not to freeze.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

You apparently misunderstood. My impression is that, adjusted for inflation, film cost has remained similar or perhaps even decreased. My point though is that the bottom fell out of prices for film gear, making the equipment now the cheapest thing in photography per shot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Ah, understood. Excellent observation.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

No. I'm buying film to use, not to freeze.

I do both.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

When I look in an old Modern Photography (April 1976) I see Garden Camera in Seventh Avenue, New York offering Tri-X at $0.89 for 135/20, $1.19 for 135/36, and $0.85 for 120 roll. And a Nikon F2 Photomic with a 50mm f2 lens on it went for $469.00. I could easily afford the film but the camera was more than a month's salary!

Well, a quick punch in in this CPI calculator below of that 85 cents for 120 film, the topic here, shows it is the same as $3.53 cents today. 120 size Tri-X at Adorama is $4.59. Some 30% more. Considering that there is a lot less competition now than then, both at the retail and manufacturing levels, not a terrible penalty. But nevertheless, the bottom line is that film has gone up sort of substantially.

And, whatever happened to that 20 exposure 135 size option? Really logical, just a tad more than half of a 36 exposure. How did 24 exposure become the newer short roll standard? The cost difference in a given film line between 24 and 36 shots is usually so inconsequential it's seldom logical to buy short rolls. I now bulk load my short rolls to 18 exposures.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Either do the free shipping options you mention, or bundle your film order in with other things. I throw in a some film every time I order heavy things like chemicals or paper from Freestyle.

Roger, my project compared apples to apples. There is often a Plan C or a Plan D that makes sense at a point in time for a person. But if I don't need or want heavier items, I'm looking at the calculations I posited. And even then, Freestyle film pricing is only competitive with the house brand.

 

[Nodda Duma]

The blue film base has been gone for quite a while. The color in the developer is only the AH dyes washing out.

Yep and if you prewash then you take care of even that color before the developer hits the film.