The expense of shooting film

Minolta93 · Apr 6, 2023

Roger Cole said:
Within reason though I look for the best film for purpose, not the cheapest. But I'm not a college student working PT or a 20 something scraping by, either, and I've been both, so I understand that too.

If you were (like I am), which bulk film would you use? I've used foma/arista 400 before and it was okay, but it was a bit grainy for my taste. But HP5 at $127 per 100ft is a bit too expensive.

pbromaghin · Apr 6, 2023

Minolta93 said:
If you were (like I am), which bulk film would you use? I've used foma/arista 400 before and it was okay, but it was a bit grainy for my taste. But HP5 at $127 per 100ft is a bit too expensive.

I've never used them but a lot of people like Kentmere. Right now at B&H 400 is $71.38 and 100 is 82.50. They're both $73 at Freestyle. If you add leaders of scrap film (as I pictured in another thread last week), you can get 2 more rolls out of 100ft. The serious cheapskate can still save a lot shooting film.

Roger Cole · Apr 6, 2023

Kentmere. Ilford QC, good film.

dave olson · May 11, 2023

I shoot film. I started back in the 60s and still shoot film today. Hey I'm 80 and what does film or processing costs mean when you're 80? Nothing.

Pieter12 · May 11, 2023

dave olson said:
I shoot film. I started back in the 60s and still shoot film today. Hey I'm 80 and what does film or processing costs mean when you're 80? Nothing.

Speak for yourself.

Don_ih · May 11, 2023

Pieter12 said:
Speak for yourself.

I think he is.

Pieter12 · May 11, 2023

Don Heisz said:
I think he is.

You (and he) are assuming. He states “when you” not “when I”…

bjorke · May 11, 2023

I hope the simple arithmetic of the earlier posts will encourage everyone to go buy an M11. Cheap!

Don_ih · May 11, 2023

Pieter12 said:
You (and he) are assuming. He states “when you” not “when I”…

I'm not assuming anything that is not understood naturally from what he said, in the way he phrased it. Language is imprecise, even if meaning is not.

Sirius Glass · May 11, 2023

dave olson said:
I shoot film. I started back in the 60s and still shoot film today. Hey I'm 80 and what does film or processing costs mean when you're 80? Nothing.

Pieter12 said:
Speak for yourself.

You are not 80.

Ivo Stunga · May 12, 2023

Roger Cole said:
Kentmere. Ilford QC, good film.

A decent film - not the best at resolving extreme details and holding up to 50x projection/magnification, but damn fine indeed, especially for the money.

Sal Santamaura · May 12, 2023

Don Heisz said:
...Language is imprecise, even if meaning is not.

Language, when properly employed, is extremely precise. Humans, who far more often than not use language improperly, tend be very imprecise. That's frustrating for the minority who expend sufficient effort to communicate precisely using language.

Don_ih · May 12, 2023

Sal Santamaura said:
Language, when properly employed, is extremely precise.

When you consider that, through commonly-adopted use, the meaning of a word can completely change over the course of a few decades, there is no sense in which (a) language is precise or (b) there is a "proper" employment of language.

As an example, the pre-polymer meaning of the word "plastic" is pretty much antiquated.

Another example, to be seen below where I'm typing "Post reply". Think about what that means with regard to the real world and with regard to this "clicking" activity.

pentaxuser · May 12, 2023

Ivo Stunga said:
A decent film - not the best at resolving extreme details and holding up to 50x projection/magnification, but damn fine indeed, especially for the money.

Have you found any films and in what format that resolve extreme details at 50x projection? Let us know what they are, please

Thanks

pentaxuser

Ivo Stunga · May 13, 2023

I see what you are doing and let's not go there, there's been talk like that on this forum before, let me just invoke cinema projection again: smaller frame, ten times bigger screen and yet: viewers are satisfied, - lens quality, viewing distances and all that jazz.

It'll be sufficient to state that there's an obvious difference in resolving power when viewing 135 HR-50 and Ferrania P30 next to 135 Kentmere 100, especially in tiny details like background foliage in landscape. It's pretty stark, actually. Project HR-50 next to Kentmere 400 and the difference is even harsher: effect being described to me like watching slides with/without glasses. Therefore my loud statement above, therefore I stopped shooting it and am continuing to exolore films further - see link in signature below.

Agulliver · May 13, 2023

I have to say....when the question about projection at 50x was asked....my first thought was "Ferrania P30".

But realistically, the Kentmere films are good for 90% of uses. And I say that fully understanding that I and others do things with films that they were probably never designed to do. If I wasn't using HP5+ to push it to 1600 and 3200, honestly I'd use Kentmere 400 instead.

Ivo Stunga · May 13, 2023

They're great indeed as I said above, but for reversal/projection there are better options out there in ~same price range.

Sal Santamaura · May 13, 2023

Sal Santamaura said:
Language, when properly employed, is extremely precise. Humans, who far more often than not use language improperly, tend be very imprecise. That's frustrating for the minority who expend sufficient effort to communicate precisely using language.

Don Heisz said:
When you consider that, through commonly-adopted use, the meaning of a word can completely change over the course of a few decades, there is no sense in which (a) language is precise or (b) there is a "proper" employment of language...

That many use language improperly, changing its meaning over the course of decades, does not take away from the fact that, at any given time, there are arbiters of proper meaning/usage. Communicating in accordance with those standards is most definitely precise. Just like stating a film's sensitivity according to the ISO standard is precise, but casually saying "I shoot it at EI X because it works better that way" affords no insight into how or why one arrived at such a conclusion.

Don Heisz said:
...As an example, the pre-polymer meaning of the word "plastic" is pretty much antiquated...

Not in the circles within which I communicate. It still means easily shaped or molded, and anyone who's referring to a particular organic polymer better specify which one by more than just that imprecise word.

Don Heisz said:
...Another example, to be seen below where I'm typing "Post reply". Think about what that means with regard to the real world and with regard to this "clicking" activity.

Another example where there are specific linguistic norms that have been developed in parallel with changes in technology. Technology which, by the way, is very much part of today's real world.

pentaxuser said:
Have you found any films and in what format that resolve extreme details at 50x projection? Let us know what they are, please...

Not a reversal film, and my most powerful loupe is 30X, but I recently shot some 35mm ADOX CMS 20 II, developed it in Adotech IV and evaluated the negatives. At 55 feet away, using a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens on my Nikon F6, font at the bottom of a Macbeth ColorChecker was very sharp, and grain was imperceptible. Of course, the camera had to be tripod mounted to deal with this films low sensitivity. I exposed it at EI 6 in accordance with the ADOX data sheet.

Vaughn · May 13, 2023

Don Heisz said:
...
As an example, the pre-polymer meaning of the word "plastic" is pretty much antiquated.

...

Communication itself is highly plastic...('plastic' can mean 'cheap" these days, too).

Is using film expensive? I do not find it so. Driving a car is expensive -- about 60 cents a mile. It is a 100 mile round trip to photograph in my favorite redwoods...or $60 bucks. That would be generally more than the cost of film I would use...except if I get busy with the 11x14...or way too busy with the 8x10!

Arthurwg · May 13, 2023

Lots of high IQs at work here. I know that my first Manhattan apartment in 1964 cost $50.00 a month. At that time a recent collage grad might expect a starting salary of $6500.00 a year. That same apartment today, which had a view of a brick wall, would rent for maybe $4000.00 a month, and $6000.00 might get you up from a total dump.

As for film I no longer make several slightly different exposures of the same subject but try to limit myself to one shot.

Arthurwg · May 13, 2023

bjorke said:
I hope the simple arithmetic of the earlier posts will encourage everyone to go buy an M11. Cheap!

That's funny. Two days ago my partner was shocked when she bought five rolls of TX at $13.00 each plus tax. That same day she tried an M11 at the Leica Store in Manhattan, and now she wants one.

Arthurwg · May 13, 2023

Another great way to save money? Shoot a half-frame Olympus Pen F.

Sirius Glass · May 13, 2023

The expense of film and processing including printing are very small for me compared to gas, food, housing and transportation. And I am in a good position housing wise and income wise compared to most people. There are other things that come to mind that are bigger problems for me.

Don_ih · May 13, 2023

Sal Santamaura said:
That many use language improperly, changing its meaning over the course of decades, does not take away from the fact that, at any given time, there are arbiters of proper meaning/usage.

Those "arbiters of proper meaning/usage" - how do those work? Specifically during a time when a term is in transition from "not-meaning" to "meaning"? An example would be the word "text" used as a verb. How many decades had to pass for that meaning to appear?

You are confused by the fact that, at any particular time, you can solidly identify the meaning of a word or phrase. That's not a guarantee that that word or phrase will mean the same thing in the future, nor is it so comprehensive as to exclude the possibility that, for some groups within the same culture, that word or phrase means something else. A natural language is not anywhere near as homogeneous as you would like to think.

Chan Tran · May 13, 2023

Huss said:
I love film. Which is why I shoot it, a lot.

But when people say film is cheaper than digital cuz u can buy a Nikon N80 for $20 (I just did), while a FF Nikon is (for argument's sake) $1000. Shooting film is cheaper! As long as you do not shoot much film.

I've been tracking my film use since Sep 2014. From then until now - 1025 rolls. Some of it colour film, some B&W. Some E6 etc. Just rough guessing it (remember some films are much more expensive than others) picking an arbitrary number of $7/roll of film, that is $7175.

$7175 in film since end of 2014. But wait, there's more! Developing. Only in the last few years I've developed B&W myself. So again, taking that into account, I'll estimate $7/roll for all my C41, B&W, E6.

$7175 x $7 = $50,225. When I came to... I of course realized that does not include the cost of scanning. But I have been scanning myself using digicams for a long while now so just to pretend there is little cost there (I had to buy the camera, lens, stand etc), let's say $2k

$52,000 for 10 years worth of film photography. Ok, maybe saying $5000 a year makes it less painful? Eeeeesh.

EDIT!! Serious math error !

Film dev = 1025x7 =$7175.

So total cost is Film $7175 + Dev $7175 + gear to scan $2K = $16350. So $1635/yr.

I seriously feel so much better, thanks for pointing that out (I'll blame it on a long day at work..). It went from questioning my life choices to celebrating them!

Yeah if you shoot a lot then film is very expensive and digital is cheap. However, if you don't shoot you don't have to spend money on film but you still have to pay Adobe subcription if you use digital.

The expense of shooting film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency