The expense of shooting film

MattKing said:

At its peak, Kodak was manufacturing upwards of 70 master stock rolls a day of Kodacolor…each and every day – enough to make nearly 3.4 million spools each day.
The current volumes are infinitesimal compared to that.
And those volumes meant that they could also manufacture in-house many things that now have to be sourced from others in the far corners of the world, with Kodak being a small volume (i.e. low priority) customer.

Click to expand...

and at the peak, they had at least one coater in Rochester dedicated to JUST kodacolor. Proably another at Camera Heights, and yet another at Harrow. likely all running 3 shifts. And that film was being converted into 120, 126, 127, 110 and 35mm. (lets forget about Disc) now you have ONE machine coating everything for all markets. and Kodacolor only comes in 35mm and if you get really lucky 120. How much of the overhead of running the entire rochester site must be covered by Kodacolor?

markjwyatt said:

At the time Tri-X was $0.95 the quarters/dimes were 95% silver. That is the point. At that time and today the amount of silver that 3@qtrs & 2@dimes (95% silver) represents buys a roll of Tri-X. But 3@qtrs & 2@dimes today (nickel/copper) do not. My experience (and I have researched this a bit) is the price of things in silver is fairly steady over time, while the price is dollars is not.

Gasoline - in 1964 one 95% silver quarter bought a gallon. Today- the silver value of one 95% silver quarter still buys a gallon, but $0,25 does not.

Click to expand...

This is interesting. I didn't really understand what you meant so I did some googling. Here's what I found...

Before 1965, US coins were 90% silver (not 95%) and the typical mass of a silver quarter is: 6.25grams

Therefore, a silver quarter contains roughly, 0.90 * 6.25g = 5.625grams of silver, and assuming the present day spot price of silver is roughly 0.73625 $/gram, the silver in each silver quarter is presently worth roughly...

5.625g * 0.73625 $/gram = $4.14

However, the spot price of silver in 1960, for example, was a little less than 0.03 $/gram. Which means that, in 1960, the 5.625 grams of silver in the quarter was only worth about $0.16 or $0.17. In 1960, the quarter itself was worth more than the silver it contained. This ignores the cost of melting the coin and separating the silver from the copper and other impurities however. So, I googled again...

Separately, one can find places paying "scrap value" for old silver coins. The scrap value for a US silver quarter is currently around $3.75 and the scrap value of a silver dime is around $1.50. So, the present scrap value of three silver quarters and two silver dimes is: (3 * $3.75) + (2 * $1.50) = $14.50

I guess we could play the same game (and come to approximately the same estimate of inflation) with wheat or sugar or gasoline or goats but it wouldn't be as perplexing because neither coins nor film are made of those commodities.

Ok, but what if you paid with paper money?

BradS said:

This is interesting. I didn't really understand what you meant so I did some googling. Here's what I found...

Before 1965, US coins were 90% silver (not 95%) and the typical mass of a silver quarter is: 6.25grams

Therefore, a silver quarter contains roughly, 0.90 * 6.25g = 5.625grams of silver, and assuming the present day spot price of silver is roughly 0.73625 $/gram, the silver in each silver quarter is presently worth roughly...

5.625g * 0.73625 $/gram = $4.14

However, the spot price of silver in 1960, for example, was a little less than 0.03 $/gram. Which means that, in 1960, the 5.625 grams of silver in the quarter was only worth about $0.16 or $0.17. In 1960, the quarter itself was worth more than the silver it contained. This ignores the cost of melting the coin and separating the silver from the copper and other impurities however. So, I googled again...

Separately, one can find places paying "scrap value" for old silver coins. The scrap value for a US silver quarter is currently around $3.75 and the scrap value of a silver dime is around $1.50. So, the present scrap value of three silver quarters and two silver dimes is: (3 * $3.75) + (2 * $1.50) = $14.50

I guess we could play the same game (and come to approximately the same estimate of inflation) with wheat or sugar or gasoline but it wouldn't be as perplexing because neither coins nor film are made of those commodities.

Click to expand...

I remember when they switched quarters from silver to layered type with copper in the middle and nickel on the outside. It was 1965. People made a stink about it.

In Roman Empire days they would scrape the edges of gold coins so you can "illegally" get more gold. That's when they came up with the idea of serrating the edges so you can see if someone did that when they paid you with gold coins. We still have serrated edges on quarters but considering there's no longer silver, it really doesn't matter.

AnselMortensen said:

Ok, but what if you paid with paper money?

Click to expand...

Some paper money was called "silver certificates" and you could take those to any branch of the Fed, and they would give you the face value worth of silver. Silver and gold were money for millennia. Only in the last 50-75 years did we start to move away from that. A lot of people still understand that.

Here is something I wrote years ago:

Introduction​

OK. So you have some silver and gold or you want to buy some [more], and you are wondering- what would I barter it for in a currency collapse scenario? How much would I expect to pay for things? How much would I expect to need to take care of my family? Of course this is a very difficult question, but one thing we can do is to look back to a time where silver and gold were treated as money, and see how much it cost to live. We could then try and see how things have changed since then, and see if we can put that into perspective. This is what I attempt to do in this article.

Looking back to 1903, we have the following circumstances.

In 1903, there was no Federal Reserve System. We were on a gold standard, but both gold and silver circulated as money.

Silver was permitted to float relative to gold (no 16:1 or other fixed monetary ratio).

There was no income tax in 1903, so more of money earned went to the worker.

The population of the USA was around 80,800,000 (US Pop Statistics, Bob McCaugheyn). Today it is around 307,000,000 (US Census Bureau estimate, May 2010).

The Department of Commerce published Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food 1903, Commissioner of Labor. This work sampled 24,500 families living in industrial centers of 33 states in the US. They collected information on the cost of living, wages, status of the family etc. This work is the basis of a reasonable estimate of what one may expect it to cost to live on silver and gold.

One can argue whether this scenario is a reasonable one. For one thing people are not used to paying in silver and gold today. Also, the population has increased dramatically, and there may not be enough silver and gold available for such a system. This may be true, but as a first order estimate, I think the 1903 basis may be reasonable. There was enough silver and gold around then. The analysis following indicates that the production rate of silver and gold in the world has increased proportionally to the population in the world (and in the US) and the conclusion is that the production of silver and gold per capita (US and world) is very close to what it was in 1903. Of course in this scenario, the consumption pattern for silver and gold will change significantly from what it has been in recent decades. The other issue not addressed is how much is physically available right now.

Comparison of silver and gold purchasing power: 2010 and 1903​

Population US 1903 = 80,800,000

Population world 1903 = 1.6 billion (www.Geography.about.com)

Population US 2010 = 307,000,000

Population world 2010 = 6.9 billion (www.Geography.about.com)



Population US 2010/(Population US 1903) = 3.8

Population world 2010/(Population world 1903) = 4.3

Now since the silver and gold market is worldwide, and there is potential for silver and gold to be used as money in many places in the world, and since also the population ratios for the US and the world are both similar (approximately 4), an average ratio is used for this analysis. Finally, the US has always purchased (and sold) some silver and gold in foreign markets.

Analysis ratio Population 2010opulation 1903 = (3.8+4.3)/2 = 4.05 .

According to the USGS, the world production of silver in 2008 (nearest year available) was 4.08 times what it was in 1903.

According to the USGS, the world production of gold in 2008 (nearest year available) was 4.6 times what it was in 1903.

Defining purchasing power of a commodity as being proportional to the population (i.e., more population is more demand), and inversely proportional to the production rate (i.e., less commodity is less supply and thus higher purchasing power) we can use these ratios to compare the purchasing power of silver and gold today (2010) vs. 1903.

2010 Purchasing Power of Silver in 1903 Scenario = Population Ratio/Silver Production Ratio = 4.05/4.08 = 0.99 or 99%. This means that 1 ozt. of silver in 2010 should purchase 99% of what it did on 1903. Conversely wages in 2010 should be 101% of what they were in 1903 on a silver basis.

2010 Purchasing Power of Gold in 1903 Scenario = Population Ratio/Gold Production Ratio = 4.05/4.6 = 0.88 or 88%. This means that 1 ozt. of gold in 2010 should purchase 88% of what it did on 1903. Conversely wages in 2010 should be 114% of what they were in 1903 on a gold basis.

What is interesting about this analysis is that there is not a huge change in purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today! My intention is not to argue the merits of fractional reserve basis, but to come up with a first order estimate of what one may expect to purchase with silver and gold.

Creating the Model of Silver and Gold as Money​

Ok, now let's look at what silver and gold did buy in 1903. The 1903 study referenced earlier came up with the following parameters for the 24,500 families studied.

The average family was composed of a husband and wife with children. Average family size was 4.88 members. There income is a distribution of wages from the father (predominant), wife, and in some cases children, plus in some cases boarders and other income sources.

The average family annual income was $749.50. 81.08% rented, 18.97% owned their home (56.02% unencumbered, 43.98% encumbered). The average rent: $127.18 (4.55 persons, 4.98 rooms) per annum. For home purchasers, average principal was $109.54and interest $49.51 per annum. The cost of fuel was $34.68 per annum (this of course could change drastically today). Lighting (electricity) was $ 8.32 per annum. Clothing expenditures were $100.87 per annum. Food expenditure was $322.07 per annum. Other expenditures totaled $140.93 per annum. Total expenditures for the average family were $726.07 per annum implying an average savings rate of $23.43 (3.1%) per annum.

Now silver in 1903 averaged $0.54 per ozt. Gold was $18.95 per ozt. The gold:silver ratio was 35.1. The implied corrected gold:silver ratio (corrected for 2010 purchasing power) is 35.1*0.83/0.94 = 31:1, or 1 ozt. silver = about 1 gram gold.

Given these facts we can create the Table 1 below showing monthly income and expenditure in silver and gold for the average 4.88 person family. Table 1 also shows corrected figures taking into account the 2010 purchasing power of silver and gold.

Average Family (~5 members) Income and Expenditures, Silver and Gold, 1903 Basis​

Category	In Silver ozt./month	In Gold grams/month	Corrected Silver ozt./month	Corrected Gold grams/month
Income	115.7	102.5	116.9	116.5
Rent*	19.6	17.4	19.8	19.8
Principal/Interest*	24.5	21.8	24.7	24.8
Fuel**	5.4	4.7	5.4	5.3
Electricity**	1.3	1.1	1.3	1.3
Clothing	15.6	13.8	15.7	15.7
Food	49.7	44.1	50.2	50.1
Other	21.8	19.3	22.0	21.9
Avg. Expenditure***	112.1	99.3	113.2	112.9

* Choose "rent" or "principal and interest" depending on the situation

** Fuel especially and electricity may not be realistic today. If it is, then the lifestyle would likely be much different than what we are currently used to.

*** Do not expect all the expenses to add to the average expense. The data is not normalized, and each average for each category stands on its own. In this study no attempt was made to normalize the data for each category to the average family.

Conclusions​

A typical family requires around 113 grams of gold or 113 ozt. silver per month to live. This is based on actual purchasing power considerations for silver and gold. In today's dollar with gold at $1200/0zt. ($38.58/gram) and silver at $19/ozt, this is equivalent to $4360 in gold terms or $2147 in silver terms. The disparity indicates a problem in the gold:silver ratio today (around 63:1 vs. 31:1 in the study). Another possible issue is the presence of the income tax, which makes the amount of income necessary inflate. Relating the gold or silver needed to current dollars is difficult because of these issues. Either gold needs to go to $590/ozt, or silver needs to go to $39/ozt. or both need to move together (i.e., gold = $1000, silver = $32.26 for example).

From the analysis, silver would be the most cost effective purchase based on this scenario. With the gold:silver ratio currently so high, and the purchasing power of monetized gold and silver indicating the need for a lower gold:silver ratio, silver gets you twice as much bang for the current buck. Of course this analysis is approximate, and other factors may force the ratio to stay the same or even get larger.

A family should probably have the equivalent of 1400 ozt. silver or 1400 grams of gold (45.0 ozt), or a combination to make it through the first year of a currency collapse as a minimum. It may take much more, because in a an initial panic situation, some necessities of life may be very expensive. Hopefully, it will be possible to earn silver and gold (or other barter) to help extend it into the future.

Disclaimer: This is a hypothetical analysis, and cannot be verified. Please do your own due diligence. The study is intended as a basis of discussion and a possible guideline for those already purchasing or considering purchasing silver and /or gold.

markjwyatt said:

That response deserves the platinum award. Mine deserves the palladium award . Note that the current cost of metals is Palladium > Gold > Platinum > Silver..

Click to expand...

markjwyatt then I want to suggest you a business that will make you rich in no time !!!
I'm offering you a contract that includes buying gold from you and paying in palladium by weight ....!

I also assure you that you can purchase unlimited amounds of palladium.

The best at least : I will also try to find investors who will enable you to sell gold on credit !

The difference of the value from my (9999paladium) in
weight to your 9999gold is your profit..!

but now you have to sign very quickly - otherwise I'll deal with
someone else!! But maybe koraks wants to join in too !!!

I had no idea that there were so many financial experts here
at photrio?

Beverly Hills said:

markjwyatt then I want to suggest you a business that will make you rich in no time !!!
I'm offering you a contract that includes buying gold from you and paying in palladium by weight ....!

I also assure you that you can purchase unlimited amounds of palladium.

The best at least : I will also try to find investors who will enable you to sell gold on credit !

The difference of the value from my (9999paladium) in
weight to your 9999gold is your profit..!

but now you have to sign very quickly - otherwise I'll deal with
someone else!! But maybe koraks wants to join in too !!!

I had no idea that there were so many financial experts here
at photrio?

Click to expand...

Smart move. I will pass. Currently (and this only changed recently), the order of the metals I mentioned is:
Gold > Palladium > Platinum > Silver!

Palladium was > $3k/ozt not too long ago, but has been falling below gold recently. Pd > Pt in cost, which is unusual.

AnselMortensen said:

Ok, but what if you paid with paper money?

Click to expand...

The cashier would give you change back?

All this talk is conjuring images of a Burl Ives snowman.

Truzi said:

All this talk is conjuring images of a Burl Ives snowman.

Click to expand...

redbandit said:

and it still costs the same for kodak to MAKE or at least obtain the cassette it puts your film into.. so going by bulk cost versus cassette cost.... using film sold under the same inflation scheme...

One can easily find a big price difference... in that method..

some have stated a 2.5 dollar difference, some 5 dollars..

even lookin at arista film.. factory rolls of 36 exp versus a bulk roll of 100' still show a minimum price difference of 2.50$ USD between bulk rolled and factory

Click to expand...

Yeah rednandit, with bulk rolls from Kodak there was and there is a special issue :

You got bulks for lot of different Kodak films. Even for the
Professional ektachromes of the last series : E100 G, E100 S,
E100 VS . But you had to pay more in comparison to the normal spools.
Because Kodak's Management wasn't experienced in math
the final days?

( Dear moderators pls. your job here is exausting enought, so pls. don't put each harmless joke relentlessly on the gold
scales )

,....because the demand for that service wasn't high.

So the consumers were experienced in math ? ?

I guess there have been a special task were bulks in lower demand were in use.

Maybe this service was just an anachronism to previous years?

Beverly Hills said:

Yeah rednandit, with bulk rolls from Kodak there was and there is a special issue :

You got bulks for lot of different Kodak films. Even for the
Professional ektachromes of the last series : E100 G, E100 S,
E100 VS . But you had to pay more in comparison to the normal spools.
Because Kodak's Management wasn't experienced in math
the final days?

( Dear moderators pls. your job here is exausting enought, so pls. don't put each harmless joke relentlessly on the gold
scales )

,....because the demand for that service wasn't high.

So the consumers were experienced in math ? ?

I guess there have been a special task were bulks in lower demand were in use.

Maybe this service was just an anachronism to previous years?

View attachment 333490View attachment 333491View attachment 333492

Click to expand...

id hate to be the poor bastard who had to spool those 250 frames onto a single stainless steel reel

redbandit said:

id hate to be the poor bastard who had to spool those 250 frames onto a single stainless steel reel

Click to expand...

Once you start doing stuff like that a real continuous processor starts to make sense. Splice 400 ft or more of film together and run it reel to reel, (or Core to Core) Dry to dry

AnselMortensen said:

Ok, but what if you paid with paper money?

Click to expand...

Well paper has gone up in price as well so you might still be in luck. Wasn't there a discussion here on Photrio or maybe APUG in which the cost of darkroom paper was largely put down to a large increase in the price of paper?

pentaxuser

As I started this thread, do I get veto powah?

Huss said:

As I started this thread, do I get veto powah?

Click to expand...

once a thread gets out in the wild, it has a life of it's own.

cmacd123 said:

once a thread gets out in the wild, it has a life of it's own.

Click to expand...

If you love a thread, set it free. If it goes off the rails, pretend someone else started it.

Go to the crossing that leads to your kids's schools.

Every one of those kids has a phone/camera.

Goofy to imagine that they'd prefer to divert their attentions from making photos and perhaps making prints over to buying film, processing (probably paying$), and printing. Easy to order prints for nearly-free online.

Kids aren't stupid. Their grandparents wouldn't shoot film today. Sorry.

jtk said:

Goofy to imagine that they'd prefer to divert their attentions

Click to expand...

True. On the other hand, I was talking to a mid-20s fine art photographer the other day; graduated from the academy a couple of years ago, off to a reasonable good start of (hopefully) a career in the arts. When I asked her why she prefers shooting film and printing in the darkroom, her argument boiled down to (1) creative possibilities and (2) enjoyment of the process.

For her, 5000 others choose to shoot digital, of course. But some just choose differently.

What I liked about her answer, was that it was genuine and straightforward. No hype, fuss, cynicism or ulterior motives. Just a straight answer.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that all the kids are going to start shooting film We all did so in part because there was no other option available in our youth. But what is tangible is the increase in interest among older teenagers and people in their twenties. Hence college darkrooms re-opening, photography courses covering film, developing and printing again.

Nobody is talking about the millions of kids taking up their parents' cameras and buying film.....but if just 1% of them do....that's the future of film somewhat assured.

Agulliver said:

but if just 1% of them do....that's the future of film somewhat assured.

Click to expand...

Pieter12 said:

You use a phone to make calls? How quaint.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my phone is not much of a "phone" and I've always thought "phone" is a bit of a misnomer for smartphones. It's really a highly portable, almost always connected, pocket computer that just happens to have a voice application so it can also make calls. Voice calls are far and away the least used (while still being used a small amount) function on my phone.

Roger Cole said:

Yeah, my phone is not much of a "phone" and I've always thought "phone" is a bit of a misnomer for smartphones. It's really a highly portable, almost always connected, pocket computer that just happens to have a voice application so it can also make calls. Voice calls are far and away the least used (while still being used a small amount) function on my phone.

Click to expand...

I call mine "The Pocket Oracle"

Film is more expensive these days, but there are many other hobbies out there that are just as expensive... and not nearly as fun!