The expense of shooting film

[MattKing]

I have no general problem with Alan's analysis of costs, and in particular its inclusion of depreciation, but I'm not sure it has much applicability to many posters here.
With the exception of people who are actually making money with their cameras, I think most people here have long ago "amortized" the acquisition cost of their camera equipment. Or, alternatively, they are pursuing the acquisition and use of camera equipment as a source of enjoyment separate from the photography they enjoy.
For all those people, it seems appropriate to separate out the costs associated with actually making photographs when doing the cost analysis.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Seems like a whole lot of off-topic discussion concerning the cost of cars in a thread about film.

 

[MattKing]

Seems like a whole lot of off-topic discussion concerning the cost of cars in a thread about film.

Within reason, examples of other price change comparisons can be informative and useful.
But note the "within reason" part!

 

[GregY]

17 pages of comments about the high cost of film photography, at the same time as threads about the latest $10k Leica M-11.... & a coffee at Starbucks is $5.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have no general problem with Alan's analysis of costs, and in particular its inclusion of depreciation, but I'm not sure it has much applicability to many posters here.
With the exception of people who are actually making money with their cameras, I think most people here have long ago "amortized" the acquisition cost of their camera equipment. Or, alternatively, they are pursuing the acquisition and use of camera equipment as a source of enjoyment separate from the photography they enjoy.
For all those people, it seems appropriate to separate out the costs associated with actually making photographs when doing the cost analysis.

Would you replace your used tires on your $50,000 BMW driven only for personal not business use with cheap Chinese brand or with top rated Michelins?

Of course we all have to budget our costs based upon the allocated expense we can afford. But it can be pennywise and pound foolish to cut costs on film. Better to shoot more selectively.

 

[MattKing]

Would you replace your used tires on your $50,000 BMW driven only for personal not business use with cheap Chinese brand or with top rated Michelins?

Of course we all have to budget our costs based upon the allocated expense we can afford. But it can be pennywise and pound foolish to cut costs on film. Better to shoot more selectively.

Tires are consumables too - closer to film than cameras are.
What amortization would you suggest for my 1970s vintage C330 or early 200's vintage 645 Pro?
How about my 1967 acquired, refurbished 1930s Kodak Six-16?

 

[Don_ih]

The IRS allows 65.5 cents per mile in 2023 for business purposes.

I was talking about non-business expenses. People claim toilet tissue as a business expense when they work from home.....

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I was talking about non-business expenses. People claim toilet tissue as a business expense when they work from home.....

I was showing what the IRS allows to indicate what the cost to run a car per mile really is, even as a personal expense. And it's not just gasoline. Depreciation is probably the largest component of running a vehicle especially if it's a new car. Every mile you run it to shoot pictures reduces the car's resale value. It's as much a cost as the price of film.

 

[MattKing]

Depreciation ....(is) as much a cost as the price of film.

Heavily edited - to make the point that this is only true if your camera(s) wear out/require replacement.
And that depends on the use you put them to.
Film cameras that aren't used professionally rarely wear out. Cars and tires usually do.
For many of the people here concerned about the price of film, the cameras basically don't wear out - any replacement is because of a desire to use something different - essentially for the enjoyment value.
The last camera I bought and then later sold after using it for a while I essentially broke even on. I haven't really been required to replace a camera at any time in my more than half a century of doing this. Over the years, I've chosen to trade a couple in on a newer model, but haven't done that for decades.
And a couple of times I've bought several things in a package, cherry picked what I wanted, and sold off the rest along with some of my previous equipment - again essentially on a break even basis (although it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison).
If you are speaking about people new to using film, and don't intend to buy a new Leica, it is far better to suggest that they consider cameras as one time, up front costs, not as something to be amortized over time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Heavily edited - to make the point that this is only true if your camera(s) wear out/require replacement.
And that depends on the use you put them to.
Film cameras that aren't used professionally rarely wear out. Cars and tires usually do.
For many of the people here concerned about the price of film, the cameras basically don't wear out - any replacement is because of a desire to use something different - essentially for the enjoyment value.
The last camera I bought and then later sold after using it for a while I essentially broke even on. I haven't really been required to replace a camera at any time in my more than half a century of doing this. Over the years, I've chosen to trade a couple in on a newer model, but haven't done that for decades.
And a couple of times I've bought several things in a package, cherry picked what I wanted, and sold off the rest along with some of my previous equipment - again essentially on a break even basis (although it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison).
If you are speaking about people new to using film, and don't intend to buy a new Leica, it is far better to suggest that they consider cameras as one time, up front costs, not as something to be amortized over time.

I recently started large format shooting about three years ago. I spent around $4000 for a new 4x5 camera, film holders, 4 lenses, and assorted equipment. I shot probably 100 pictures so far which equates to around $40 a shot just for the equipment, so far. Of course, unit price goes down the more I'll shoot. When you include the additional fixed costs of automobile expenses to get the shot, processing, darkroom costs, etc, film is a very much smaller portion of overall costs. Maybe using cheaper or expired film to save money is really being penny wise and pound foolish. Of course, each person has to make up their own mind on this point.

 

[MattKing]

I recently started large format shooting about three years ago. I spent around $4000 for a new 4x5 camera, film holders, 4 lenses, and assorted equipment.

Which makes you somewhat of an outlier in respect to the community here, and film users in general.
If you were to turn around and sell all that $4,000.00 worth of equipment now, I wonder how much of a "capital loss" you would end up with.
Or, if you had amortized the cost in those three years, would you enjoy some "recapture"?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Which makes you somewhat of an outlier in respect to the community here, and film users in general.
If you were to turn around and sell all that $4,000.00 worth of equipment now, I wonder how much of a "capital loss" you would end up with.
Or, if you had amortized the cost in those three years, would you enjoy some "recapture"?

Hassies are going for $2-3,000 and with extra lenses will be higher. Better 4x5's used run over $1000. My new Chamonix was $1300 plus the 8 new holders. Not much higher than most used cameras. I also bought four lenses that were the same price everyone else pays for used lenses. Add in loupes, camera bag, and other accessories, it's pretty easy to get to $4000 for a complete equipment set. After spending all that money, it seems odd to buy expired film. I realize some of my equipment is old. But why use old film?

 

[Steven Lee]

I recently started large format shooting about three years ago. I spent around $4000 for a new 4x5 camera, film holders, 4 lenses, and assorted equipment. I shot probably 100 pictures so far which equates to around $40 a shot just for the equipment, so far.

Your posts on LFM were my inspiration, and I've been following your path: new Chamonix, etc. So far I am sitting at around $120 per shot, but as shoot more the number is dropping.

The wonderful thing about large format is that it increases the amount of time I spend outdoors and reduces the amount of time I spend scanning. In retrospect, my gradual shift from 35mm to MF to LF is partially driven by minimizing the scanning time. I also suspect that larger formats are cheaper in the long run, at least with my shooting habits.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Your posts on LFM were my inspiration, and I've been following your path: new Chamonix, etc. So far I am sitting at around $120 per shot, but as shoot more the number is dropping.

The wonderful thing about large format is that it increases the amount of time I spend outdoors and reduces the amount of time I spend scanning. In retrospect, my gradual shift from 35mm to MF to LF is partially driven by minimizing the scanning time. I also suspect that larger formats are cheaper in the long run, at least with my shooting habits.

That's s good point. With medium format i would bracket exposures and don't with large format.

 

[Agulliver]

I think I've shot well over 30,000 photos on one of my Praktica BX20S bodies.....and current prices suggest it's now "worth" more than when it was bought direct from Pentacon in Dresden. Go figure.

Ultimately I enjoy shooting film. And I presume Sirius enjoys his vehicle. You pays your money, and takes your choice. It is quite interesting to see the relative expenses of things across the world though. We all decide what we value enough to spend our wages on. Some people think I am utterly mad or stupid to shoot film and record on magnetic tape. Same folk might well buy a £4 coffee every morning. Which I assume and hope they enjoy.

 

[Don_ih]

Some people think I am utterly mad or stupid to shoot film and record on magnetic tape. Same folk might well buy a £4 coffee every morning.

Or better yet - smoke.

After spending all that money, it seems odd to buy expired film.

It would be wasteful to buy expired colour film, especially if you didn't know how old it was and how it had been stored. I have thousands of sheets of 4x5 b&w in a freezer, though - bought directly from the freezers of the photographers who bought them new. It all works just as it should.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I was showing what the IRS allows to indicate what the cost to run a car per mile really is, even as a personal expense. And it's not just gasoline. Depreciation is probably the largest component of running a vehicle especially if it's a new car. Every mile you run it to shoot pictures reduces the car's resale value. It's as much a cost as the price of film.

I ignore depreciation because when I buy a car I use it until the wheels fall off. I presently have a 1997 Ford Explore with 244,000 miles and a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 160,000 miles.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I ignore depreciation because when I buy a car I use it until the wheels fall off. I presently have a 1997 Ford Explore with 244,000 miles and a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee with 160,000 miles.

Well, in your situation, it's worth it to bracket.

 

[Agulliver]

Yeah I know a lot of people who buy a nearly new car and drive it until it's basically in the ground. That's what the wife does. In that instance, depreciation isn't really a thing because you're not looking to get resale or part exchange value out of it. I also know folk who lease a car and thereby get a new car every couple of years....but of course they never actually own anything. You pays your money and takes your choice. We're still delighted with the Skoda having owned it almost 10 years now, no interest in replacing it.

One of my partners loves expired colour film, precisely because she doesn't know what she's going to get. That fun and uncertainty is what she's enjoying. It's not my "thing" but I'm not going to rain on her parade when it does no harm. Smoking is another personal choice, but of course that does great harm even when done in moderation. But still, most people I know who still smoke enjoy it.

And that's the thing with film. If you enjoy it enough, you'll do what you can to find a way to accommodate the costs associated. Film has never been cheap, but 25 years or so ago (likely for much of *our* lives) there was no alternative if you wanted to take photographs. The cost is something people think about more now because practically everyone carries around a device which is perfectly capable of doing everything a decent compact camera did 20-30 years ago and without film. But for those of us who do continue, it turns out it's actually not much more expensive than it was back in the day in many cases. We just notice it because we don't strictly need to shoot film, and because those rose tinted classes remember when film was two dollarpounds a pop....and forget what average wages, milk and petrol prices were back then.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yeah I know a lot of people who buy a nearly new car and drive it until it's basically in the ground. That's what the wife does. In that instance, depreciation isn't really a thing because you're not looking to get resale or part exchange value out of it. I also know folk who lease a car and thereby get a new car every couple of years....but of course they never actually own anything. You pays your money and takes your choice. We're still delighted with the Skoda having owned it almost 10 years now, no interest in replacing it.

One of my partners loves expired colour film, precisely because she doesn't know what she's going to get. That fun and uncertainty is what she's enjoying. It's not my "thing" but I'm not going to rain on her parade when it does no harm. Smoking is another personal choice, but of course that does great harm even when done in moderation. But still, most people I know who still smoke enjoy it.

And that's the thing with film. If you enjoy it enough, you'll do what you can to find a way to accommodate the costs associated. Film has never been cheap, but 25 years or so ago (likely for much of *our* lives) there was no alternative if you wanted to take photographs. The cost is something people think about more now because practically everyone carries around a device which is perfectly capable of doing everything a decent compact camera did 20-30 years ago and without film. But for those of us who do continue, it turns out it's actually not much more expensive than it was back in the day in many cases. We just notice it because we don't strictly need to shoot film, and because those rose tinted classes remember when film was two dollarpounds a pop....and forget what average wages, milk and petrol prices were back then.

Every mile or KM you drive a car, whether leased or owned until it falls apart., is part of the cost of the car. It ends the car's life that much quicker if owned. If leased, you have to pay for the miles that you use to take photographs. These are real costs just as the money you pay to fill up the gas tank before you leave on a photoshoot. Nothing's for nothing.

 

[BradS]

An automobile is a basic necessity here in the rural West so it makes little sense to consider depreciation when reckoning the cost of one's photography hobby.

 

[Don_ih]

An automobile is a basic necessity here in the rural West so it makes little sense to consider depreciation when reckoning the cost of one's photography hobby.

True, but Allan seems to be thinking more along the lines of business expenses, even if it's not a business, and saying the same applies. And it's kinda true. If you're taking photos of Iceland but have to fly there to do it, those photos are expensive because of that added expense, even if you're not planning on selling the photos.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

An automobile is a basic necessity here in the rural West so it makes little sense to consider depreciation when reckoning the cost of one's photography hobby.

True, but Allan seems to be thinking more along the lines of business expenses, even if it's not a business, and saying the same applies. And it's kinda true. If you're taking photos of Iceland but have to fly there to do it, those photos are expensive because of that added expense, even if you're not planning on selling the photos.

When you sell the car, the more miles you have on it because of photo shoots, the less its resale value. If you keep it until it becomes junk, then the car becomes junk faster because of miles used during photo runs. There is no such thing as a free lunch whether used for business or personally.

 

[Sirius Glass]

An automobile is a basic necessity here in the rural West so it makes little sense to consider depreciation when reckoning the cost of one's photography hobby.

But the value of my film cameras keep going up. Life is tough.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Smoking is another personal choice, but of course that does great harm even when done in moderation. But still, most people I know who still smoke enjoy it...

Like all addicts, they claim to enjoy it, but in reality need it.