The expense of shooting film
-
A
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 LACON Condensor set
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 Lamphouse and Bulb Adjustment Mechanism
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L184 accessories; VADAP tilting Baseplate
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
Want to Buy Kodak Polytoner
- Started by Guillaume Zuili
Forum statistics
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
I still shoot quite a bit of LF films (more 4x5 than 8x10 these days...), and lots of 120. I don't use TMY sheet film as I just cannot afford it. On the subject of bracketing...The only time I bracket is when I'm testing me a new to me film. I never bracket with films I've been using forever, such as HP5. No bracketing sheet film, but I do shoot a backup, if I am unable to return to a location for various reasons, usually geographic... I can see myself shooting only medium format one day, but that won't be because of the expense. It'll be most likely because I will unable to physically carry LF gear around... or it'll all just be by the roadside if I do bring it out! 
I still shoot quite a bit of LF films (more 4x5 than 8x10 these days...), and lots of 120. I don't use TMY sheet film as I just cannot afford it. On the subject of bracketing...The only time I bracket is when I'm testing me a new to me film. I never bracket with films I've been using forever, such as HP5. No bracketing sheet film, but I do shoot a backup, if I am unable to return to a location for various reasons, usually geographic... I can see myself shooting only medium format one day, but that won't be because of the expense. It'll be most likely because I will unable to physically carry LF gear around... or it'll all just be by the roadside if I do bring it out!
I stopped bracketing two decades ago. I had my light meters calibrated. I learned how to use the correctly and the need to bracket left a long time ago.
In my first analysis post, I mentioned that processing was for film only, no prints. You doubt film price, but I took it from the pages of 1981 Popular Photography. I made no attempt to find cheapest or most expensive, I simply used the price stated by the first ad that I encountered.
So I picked up that magazine again and found these ads...(there are relatively few places advertising film processin cost only)...
- Kodacolor processing $1.75 Sunset Color Lab)
- Kodacolor 400 135-36 film, processing, prints $46.55 (PDQ)
- Kodacolor 400 135-36 film+processing $10.20
Let us compare...
- Today you can buy a 135-36 roll of Kodak Portra for $17.99, its normal retail is listed at $23.22. You can get the film processed for $8. $25.99 for film and processing represents 20% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 2022.
- Consulting a 1981 Popular Photography you can buy a 135-36 roll of Kodak Kodacolor 400 for $10.20 with processing. $10.20 for film and processing (no prints) represents 5% less than 1 hour of median US pay in 1981.
Comparatively, shooting color neg film today is considerably MORE expensive than it was 40 years ago!
Median income in US was $22390 in 1981, $53924 in 2022
I ran the same numbers for my country, comparing 1970s to today, and found the cost was virtually exactly the same, comparatively, based on average income, inflation and (color negative) film price. YMMV based on economic development, I suppose - I think that might explain the difference between your and my conclusions.
I did not include processing, but the more economic options we have here are comparable to yours, it seems (currently around €6 for a roll of 135, I believe).
I've looked into the comparative cost in the UK a couple of times and it's skewed by the *massive* increase in average earnings, and of course that period of relatively high inflation in the early 80s. But when all is taken into account, taking typical prices such as buying film from Argos and getting it processed at a local lab....things aren't much changed. If one was lucky enough to live near enough to PTP to avail oneself of their processing services and "free film with D&P" (or used one of the mail order companies under their name) then it could be considerably cheaper....but that was probably not how most people did it back then. The problem is that all people remember is paying £1.99 for a film and £2.99 for D&P. They don't remember that a car cost £3000 back then, or that a pint of milk was literally pennies....or a pint of beer was 50p. Anyone remember that scene in Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy where Ford buys six pints of bitter and the landlord is amazed that Ford asks him to keep the change from a fiver? That was written for radio in 1977 but still relevant for the TV adaptation in 1981. Now one pint can cost £8 in London, and is typically over a fiver unless you go to 'spoons.
FWIW it's the same in the cassette tape community....people moan that they could buy cassettes for a quid 50 years ago so why are they four quid now?
FWIW it's the same in the cassette tape community....people moan that they could buy cassettes for a quid 50 years ago so why are they four quid now?
Why Portra and not something like Kodak Max for $11?
When I retired and for most of my career I earned much more that I did in 1981. I also get more in my retirement than I earned in 1981.
I have no idea what you posted before. This thread is way too long to be sure one has read every post. "Processing" to me means developing AND printing, or at least it did in the days before scanning.
I never bought film from ads in the magazines back then. I bought C41 film at any department store. And it simply wasn't that expensive. You could buy a roll of Kodacolor with DEVELOPING for that price.
I am not disputing that it costs proportionately more today. I really don't know, nor care. Bottom line for me is that I can afford to shoot more film than I have time to shoot anyway.
Great point. The 1981 comparison to Portra should be Vericolor III (or maybe it was II then, that I forget) Type S. Consumer films like Kodacolor were less expensive.
Just to add to the more recent history: about 5yrs ago development only here in Montreal was at the cheapest place in the city (Photo Service) $3.00 CAD (or was it $3.50), last week I payed $6.50 (plus tax, for the non-North American. And cutting would be +CAD0.50, but I do this by myself when scanning. Still a good rate I think, and for now doesn't bring to self develop C41. I am not a heavy user, I guess 3-5 color films per year plus some b/w which I do by myself.
Film is in my freezer, some are still €1 Ektar when German drugstores discontinued them about 10 years ago (I have family in Germany who I told to jump on those. Same for some original Agfa APX100 before it was replaced by the Harmann version). Lately I bought more 120 film in color when the 35mm was not that easy to get (last batches of Pro400H was still available until recently and cheaper then Portra 400 in 120)...
Film is in my freezer, some are still €1 Ektar when German drugstores discontinued them about 10 years ago (I have family in Germany who I told to jump on those. Same for some original Agfa APX100 before it was replaced by the Harmann version). Lately I bought more 120 film in color when the 35mm was not that easy to get (last batches of Pro400H was still available until recently and cheaper then Portra 400 in 120)...
I certainly rember while I was working, and my darkroom was packed away, paying 12 dollars Canadian at woolco, and getting a 36 exposure roll of C41 developed, with Prints and a "free" roll of ASA 100 Woolco brand film (Konica made) that was a three day turn around, I belive the processing was done at (the long gone) Charles Abel in Toronto.
Shooting film was certainly getting expensive for me when I was having it developed by a lab. The cost of processing wasn't that terrible, but I didn't trust the postal service with my film so I was sending it back and forth by courier, which was starting to add up. To mitigate shipping costs, I started to batch up film before I sent it in, but I wasn't shooting that much and got tired of waiting months to see my images. Now that I'm home developing my film, the cost is substantially lower and I don't really think about the cost of film/chemistry anymore. Sure, film prices have gone up, but I still buy HP5+ and FP4+ for about $7/roll and it costs me pennies to develop myself.
At this point, film photography is probably one of the least expensive of my hobbies
At this point, film photography is probably one of the least expensive of my hobbies
My friend came over today. I processed (develop only no prints) 13 rolls of 135-36 exp black and white films. 10 in XTOL, 3 in Rodinal. Pushed 10 1 stop, 3 2 stops. 3 runs on my Jobo CPP3. Used 1500 mL of XTOL, a liter of working strength rapid fix, hypo clear etc.
Didn't cost him a penny, and I was processing film that I gave him fresh.
Film is cheap,
Didn't cost him a penny, and I was processing film that I gave him fresh.
Film is cheap,
My friend came over today. I processed (develop only no prints) 13 rolls of 135-36 exp black and white films. 10 in XTOL, 3 in Rodinal. Pushed 10 1 stop, 3 2 stops. 3 runs on my Jobo CPP3. Used 1500 mL of XTOL, a liter of working strength rapid fix, hypo clear etc.
Didn't cost him a penny, and I was processing film that I gave him fresh.
Film is cheap,
Lost memories can be expensive.
Even when gas is $5/gal it's only 16.7 cents per mile for a car that gets 30 miles/gal. Further, assuming that one drives at least 10,000 miles/year and assuming $500 per year for insurance and $250 a year for registration, it's still less than 25 cents a mile. Are you including depreciation in your estimate? What am I missing?
Except my car gets 18 miles per gallon so that is 27 cents per mile. Insurance is $1,000+ per year … film is still cheap. Lets not get into the cost of medicines even though I have good insurance coverage.
You’re missing the acquisition cost of the car. Perhaps “Owning and operating a car is expensive” would be more accurate.
Technically, purchasing a car is not a per-mile expense. Gas and oil are. Tires and air filters and transmission fluid are, also - as are brakes and rotors.The longer you own a car, the greater these per-mile expenses will be as more things wear out from use while the purchase cost will go away.
It's like buying a Hasselblad for $2000 has nothing to do with the cost of using film. The only thing certain about film use is that you can't use it without a camera. (Well, you can but ...)
The best way to deal with the expense of film is to take better photos - or at least have fun taking the ones you do take (even if they're lousy).
It's like buying a Hasselblad for $2000 has nothing to do with the cost of using film. The only thing certain about film use is that you can't use it without a camera. (Well, you can but ...)
The best way to deal with the expense of film is to take better photos - or at least have fun taking the ones you do take (even if they're lousy).
OPEX vs CAPEX - awareness of which is which is a key to life's happiness
18 miles per gallon....as far as I can tel....spousal unit's 12 year old Skoda Octavia gets around 40mpg and in the 10 years she's owned it the only major expense was replacing the rear wiper motor. It gets a service when it requests one, tyres are about £50 each. Insurance comes in at £300 I think and that's because we don't have a garage. What the hell gets 18mpg and costs a grand to insure?
And in any case, presumably Sirius enjoys his vehicle. The main thing with film is to enjoy using it. When it reaches a point that one is moaning about the cost more than one is enjoying the product....perhaps it's time to give it a rest? I still remember wandering in a forest shooting a roll of Truprint branded Ferrania 400 C41 film in 2012 and thinking...."this is probably the last colour film I'll ever shoot". It was....for about six years....
And in any case, presumably Sirius enjoys his vehicle. The main thing with film is to enjoy using it. When it reaches a point that one is moaning about the cost more than one is enjoying the product....perhaps it's time to give it a rest? I still remember wandering in a forest shooting a roll of Truprint branded Ferrania 400 C41 film in 2012 and thinking...."this is probably the last colour film I'll ever shoot". It was....for about six years....
Lots of pickup trucks get around 18 mpg, And, in Canada, average insurance rates are around $1500 per driver. Depending on what they think of you and where you live, you can pay a lot more - I pay twice that much.
Our local bus gets 18mpg but it can carry up to 50 seated passengers.
I just started shooting film again after nearly twenty years of doing digital, and the price of film is shocking. Especially since I’m trying to do something I can’t do digitally by using a 4x5 view camera. I’m on a tight budget, so I’m buying the cheapest b&w sheet film I can find and developing at home. Color 4x5 is absolutely ridiculous though - around $5 a sheet! I had almost resigned myself to never using it, but I just picked up a 6x9 roll film back that should allow me to dabble in color without breaking the bank. I’m also considering doing c41 processing at home for the first time.
The IRS allows 65.5 cents per mile in 2023 for business purposes. That covers, gas, insurance, vehicle depreciation, repairs, maintenance, registration, etc. Depreciation is a legitimate cost and should be figured into the cost of shooting film even when it's not for business purposes. Add to that the cost of film, processing, camera equipment depreciation, and the cost per shot is much more substantial than just the cost of film. The difference between expired film or different grades of film is actually a very small part of the cost of photography. So, what appears to be let's say a 30% difference between film types because of film pricing actually comes down to 1% or 2% difference in the cost of each shot especially with large format. THis 1% or 2% ought to be considred when buying film. Is it worth it to save a few bucks on expired or more inferior film when you look at the overall cost of photography?
Note that depreciation for camera equipment is just a valid as depreciation for your vehicle. If you bought a Hassie for $4000 including lenses took 1000 pictures and sold the equipment for $2000, then each picture you took cost $2 in depreciated value. After all you spent $2000 on equipment to shoot those 1000 pictures.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |