Rising cost of transparency film

[rolleiman]

With 35mm Velvia now costing around £9 a roll, I've virtually abandoned using it in favour of 100asa Ektar costing around £3.80-£4.00 for a 35mm roll. The 120 size is also reasonably priced compared to tranny film. With the greatly improved colour neg emulsions now available, have many other pros or semi-pros made a similar move into colour neg. film? If so which one do you favour.

Also have buyers such as stock libraries noticed any difference in quality of submitted images?...The ones I supply don't seem bothered by the switch, so long as the scans are OK. The overall contrast is usually lower on neg., but on bright sunny days that can be an advantage.

If there is steady drift from tranny to neg., then what future is there for Velvia or Provia at their current sky high prices?

 

[wildbill]

Stock buyers buying images shot on film? Ha, that's funny. And no, they don't care. The market is saturated. As for costs, suck it up or get one of those d cameras. I don't shoot 35mm much at all since 36 exp is way too many to scan at once.

 

[donkee]

I have switched to Fui Provia 100 since it is decent and the cost isn't too terrible.

I love transparencies and use them with my Vivitar Polaroid printer for lifts and transfers.

I'll use it till the prices double then I will use my polaroid cameras for the job.

I would trade off one of my sons if they would offer it in bulk (not really but my sons don't know that).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ha! Start shooting 8X10 color film and you'll never complain about the price of 35mm again. The reason they end up costing about the same is that with the small cameras it's a temptation to waste
a lot of shots. Just how many are real "keepers" anyway?

 

[benjiboy]

I called into Jessops earlier this week and they wanted £13 for a roll of 135 Fuji Provia:confused: , I told the guy I just wanted the film not to buy shares in the company, and Fuji Film UK are selling it on line at half that price.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Counting pennies when purchasing film is no longer like counting pennies when purchasing gasoline. The worldwide market for the latter is bigger than ever and growing, while the market for the former is smaller than it's been in many decades and shrinking.

According to a (there was a url link here which no longer exists) by Mirko at Fotoimpex—who should know since he just returned from a visit to them—purchasers counting pennies are what did Efke in.

It's a different world now.

Ken

 

[benjiboy]

Since Kodak stopped manufacturing E6 films Fuji has the monopoly, which doesn't help.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Very true. But the point is still valid and still dangerous.

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

Ha! Start shooting 8X10 color film and you'll never complain about the price of 35mm again. The reason they end up costing about the same is that with the small cameras it's a temptation to waste
a lot of shots. Just how many are real "keepers" anyway?

Ain't that the truth. Shooting 35mm and 120 cost me about the same for the same time in the field. 120 film is less expensive per roll, more per shot, and I take fewer shots, plus I still finish a roll in a reasonable time instead of having three cameras loaded with three different films for several weeks until I shoot again. 4x5 actually costs me considerably LESS to shoot. On a good day I might go out for a few hours and expose 4-6 sheets, and that includes doing two of anything that really strikes me on the ground glass (some dust insurance, though I'm as careful as I can be given my circumstances) and, occasionally if light is tricky, a couple of shots at different exposures. You can also shoot more than one at the same exposure, develop the first and evaluate it then determine if you need plus or minus development of the other one, if you're unsure. Still comes out cheaper, it's so much slower and more contemplative.

I'd suggest, for those changing films away from a favorite because of cost, a different approach. There used to be a saying (I first read this in the 70s) "film is the cheapest thing in photography." Well it wasn't true then and it isn't true now. The cheapest thing in photography is a look through the viewfinder or at the ground glass. Slow down and take fewer shots and make them count. Just because you've focused and composed, or even waited for a moving subject to hit a certain point or whatever, doesn't mean you have to release the shutter. Go out with the intention of shooting no more than some arbitrary but small number of frames, maybe five or three or even just one, and try to make those count. With practice your film costs will go down and your photographs will improve.

This is one of the big reasons that getting into large format has improved all my photography including 35mm.

 

[Hatchetman]

I just dropped off a roll of E6 for processing ($15.85) and "presentation" scans for $16. Balance due: $34.88

Shooting film is not supposed to make you feel so bad. LOL.

 

[ME Super]

I can't wait 'til October. There's a branch of a chain of Camera stores (Creve Coeur Camera) opening up in the city where I work. About $9 for a 35mm roll of Provia 100F (costs between $6-7+shipping from NYC, which is still cheaper if I order 5 rolls), and a decent selection of Ilford/Kodak B&W too. Sure it's cheaper to order it online but I'll now have the ability to get it locally for not much more $$, and that's really nice.

Add to that I can get the film developed through them for $9.90+tax/roll (as opposed to $6.88+tax at Wal-Mart), which again, isn't a lot more than I am paying now for processing (they will be sending it to their St. Louis store via courier). The camera store in Bloomington wants $14 to develop a roll of E-6, and it's even more expensive in Peoria.

 

[BMbikerider]

Some companies arre selling a 're-born' Agfa Precisia' slide film. Openly declared as made in Japan and 'similar' to the discontinued Fuji Sensia. I have seen it with UK companies AG Photographic and Mailshots around £4 a cassette

 

[wogster]

Ain't that the truth. Shooting 35mm and 120 cost me about the same for the same time in the field. 120 film is less expensive per roll, more per shot, and I take fewer shots, plus I still finish a roll in a reasonable time instead of having three cameras loaded with three different films for several weeks until I shoot again. 4x5 actually costs me considerably LESS to shoot. On a good day I might go out for a few hours and expose 4-6 sheets, and that includes doing two of anything that really strikes me on the ground glass (some dust insurance, though I'm as careful as I can be given my circumstances) and, occasionally if light is tricky, a couple of shots at different exposures. You can also shoot more than one at the same exposure, develop the first and evaluate it then determine if you need plus or minus development of the other one, if you're unsure. Still comes out cheaper, it's so much slower and more contemplative.

I'd suggest, for those changing films away from a favorite because of cost, a different approach. There used to be a saying (I first read this in the 70s) "film is the cheapest thing in photography." Well it wasn't true then and it isn't true now. The cheapest thing in photography is a look through the viewfinder or at the ground glass. Slow down and take fewer shots and make them count. Just because you've focused and composed, or even waited for a moving subject to hit a certain point or whatever, doesn't mean you have to release the shutter. Go out with the intention of shooting no more than some arbitrary but small number of frames, maybe five or three or even just one, and try to make those count. With practice your film costs will go down and your photographs will improve.

This is one of the big reasons that getting into large format has improved all my photography including 35mm.

The only problem with being more careful with the amount you shoot is that many more films will fall below the point where producing the stuff in vast master rolls makes economic sense with a perishable product. What the film industry really needs is the ability to manufacture film in smaller batches, so that the plant doesn't have to store vast amounts, that may never sell before it expires.

What I would like to see companies like Kodak do, is to make the formulas for retired emulsions like Kodachrome (and the K14 chemicals) available under a creative commons licence, so that if someone figures out how to make it in small batches, they can.

 

[spatz]

the agfa precisa ct is a great film especially in australia where a roll costs $7.70 while a roll of velvia 50 is around $32.

 

[destroya]

and it could only get worse, with kodak trying to sell all of its film business..

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/kodak-sell-imaging-units-focus-212342730.html

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Next paycheck, I know what I'm buying: Kodak E100G and E100VS before they are totally gone.

I recently did a test of E100G and Ektar. While both are 100 speed films, here's the most important thing I noticed: the E6 film can really seperate out the scene with its smaller dynamic range. There's many instances where I like that, so a negative film just won't do.

E100VS


Ektar 100

 

[Roger Cole]

I just dropped off a roll of E6 for processing ($15.85) and "presentation" scans for $16. Balance due: $34.88

Shooting film is not supposed to make you feel so bad. LOL.

Good grief. I pay $8.95/roll (36x) at Dwayne's. Postage adds to that but if you do four rolls at a time it totals $6 and adds $1.25 per roll.

I used to get scans but have been increasingly unhappy with their scans. I need a film scanner. No problems with their processing, though.

 

[mhanc]

Brian, thanks for posting these. THIS is why I prefer transparency films... You just cannot get the same results from negative film - both types make great photos and there are individual preferences, but slide film is distinctly different from negative film.

( As they say: you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. And yes, silk is more expensive than bacon )

 

[rolleiman]

Some companies arre selling a 're-born' Agfa Precisia' slide film. Openly declared as made in Japan and 'similar' to the discontinued Fuji Sensia. I have seen it with UK companies AG Photographic and Mailshots around £4 a cassette

I've noticed the more reasonable prices for Agfa Precisa, but so far as I'm aware it's only available in 35mm format, and I shoot an equal amount of 120 alongside 35mm. I've not so far tried it in 35mm, so how it compares with Ektar colour neg I don't yet know, but I might try a few cassettes.

 

[Hatchetman]

Good grief. I pay $8.95/roll (36x) at Dwayne's. Postage adds to that but if you do four rolls at a time it totals $6 and adds $1.25 per roll.

I used to get scans but have been increasingly unhappy with their scans. I need a film scanner. No problems with their processing, though.

I usually mail order out to North Coast Photo, but with only one roll.....I probably could have Fed Exed it out there and the cost would've been the same. Gamma Imaging in Chicago does a good job though. The only E6 lab around Chicago I would trust anymore.

Roger - I have found scanning transparency film at home to be a real nightmare. No fun at all. Just my opinion.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I posted a single roll of Fuji 35mm transparency film in the process paid mailer earlier this week and it cost £2.70 owing to a film canister being more than 25mm thick. That £2.70 would buy me up to 750g, even though a packaged 35mm film is only IIRC about 35g. I guess if I was brave I'd have sent the film without the canister, when it would have been under 25mm and therefore only 90p!
Steve

 

[nworth]

There is not a whole lot of demand for transparency films these days. Most people have gone negative . That means less supply as well, and the few suppliers feel they can raise prices to those who demand this kind of film. To some extent, that has happened to film generally. But transparency film has some unique qualities that are particularly valuable to those who know how to use them.

 

[wogster]

I posted a single roll of Fuji 35mm transparency film in the process paid mailer earlier this week and it cost £2.70 owing to a film canister being more than 25mm thick. That £2.70 would buy me up to 750g, even though a packaged 35mm film is only IIRC about 35g. I guess if I was brave I'd have sent the film without the canister, when it would have been under 25mm and therefore only 90p!
Steve

Send 4 rolls at a time, ends up being just under 68p each

 

[Roger Cole]

I posted a single roll of Fuji 35mm transparency film in the process paid mailer earlier this week and it cost £2.70 owing to a film canister being more than 25mm thick. That £2.70 would buy me up to 750g, even though a packaged 35mm film is only IIRC about 35g. I guess if I was brave I'd have sent the film without the canister, when it would have been under 25mm and therefore only 90p!
Steve

I never send mine in the canisters or "film cans" as I always called them. Even 129 I just drop the rolls in a padded mailer. Never any problems, yet anyway.

 

[benjiboy]

With 35mm Velvia now costing around £9 a roll, I've virtually abandoned using it in favour of 100asa Ektar costing around £3.80-£4.00 for a 35mm roll. The 120 size is also reasonably priced compared to tranny film. With the greatly improved colour neg emulsions now available, have many other pros or semi-pros made a similar move into colour neg. film? If so which one do you favour.

Also have buyers such as stock libraries noticed any difference in quality of submitted images?...The ones I supply don't seem bothered by the switch, so long as the scans are OK. The overall contrast is usually lower on neg., but on bright sunny days that can be an advantage.

If there is steady drift from tranny to neg., then what future is there for Velvia or Provia at their current sky high prices?

That option isn't available to me I'll just have to pay the price, I shoot lots of 120 and 35mm Fuji Provia and Velvia that I project onto a 50"X50" screen, how do I do that with Ektar ?