Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
With inflation, $4.59 Cdn today would be about $8.50. But I guess inflation calculations don't take film manufacturing into consideration
Thanks. I realise my question was poorly thought out and phrased. What I meant to ask was: what does $4.59 translate to in today's value allowing for inflation and how does it compare to the price of comparable film today ?
Thanks
pentaxuser
With inflation, $4.59 Cdn today would be about $8.50. But I guess inflation calculations don't take film manufacturing into consideration
Official inflation figures are kept as low as possible for political purposes. When you look at individual types of products and purchases there is a wide range of price changes. Large screen TVs keep getting cheaper due to manufacturing scale etc, but for film it's the opposite unfortunately.
There's also marketing strategy. I used to use Fuji Neopan400 even though it was more expensive than Kodak or Ilford here (Australia). In other countries people reported that they used it because it was cheaper!
With inflation, $4.59 Cdn today would be about $8.50. But I guess inflation calculations don't take film manufacturing into consideration
So, Andrew and others participating, what films can you now buy for $8.50 Cdn that are comparable to Panatomic X and I had better add what other films that may purport to be the same but are not quite the same as an acknowledgement for some that there will never be anything as good as Panatomic X again.
Thanks
pentaxuser
I don't recall seeing Fuji B&W films in the 90's or early 2000's in Canada. At the shop I patronized which catered to the local professionals Ilford dominated the B&W market. They did sell some Kodak, but it was about a 75/25% split Ilford-Kodak.I can tell you for a fact that Fuji films were way more expensive in Japan than Kodak or Ilford. Back in Canada, I have no idea, though
Yes, I would say so. Paper especially is expensive now. 20 years ago I bought a box of 8x10 Multigrade, 100 sheets for $39.95. That same box is now $139.95.Thanks Craig and Andrew. So in real terms it would look as if in general b&w film prices are now appreciably higher in real terms than 30 years ago
pentaxuser
All this confirmation that film costs more now than 30, 20, or even 10 years ago is, first amazing, 2nd, depressing.......It's a wonder that film has the resurgence that it currently has.
This is getting a long way from Andrew's video but I think there was a kind of golden era of film and paper that lasted a relatively short time from about the early 2000s to maybe early to the mid decade of 2010-20
This is getting a long way from Andrew's video but I think there was a kind of golden era of film and paper that lasted a relatively short time from about the early 2000s to maybe early to the mid decade of 2010-20
It has passed and may not return
pentaxuser
So is the takeaway that Panatomic-X which expired in 1963 holds up pretty well to TMax 100 which expired in 2000?
I maybe incorrect here, but wasn't TMAX a T grain panchromatic emulsion and Panatomic X an ordinary panchromatic emulsion? In which case I can't see the former being a straight replacement for the later. But I may be wrong.
I maybe incorrect here, but wasn't TMAX a T grain panchromatic emulsion and Panatomic X an ordinary panchromatic emulsion? In which case I can't see the former being a straight replacement for the later. But I may be wrong.
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?