The expense of shooting film

[BMbikerider]

This comparison between the cost of using film or digital has so many parameters that it is difficult to get a real answer. When digital came to be 'reasonable' pricewise, I went and bought a Minolta (yes it was that long ago) I cannot remember the model name but it was good - very good and could print up to A3 with care. Then there was this Sony Bridge camera that lasted abut 2 months because the lens was so flaming bad I got rid of it a bit sharpish.

This was followed by a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D90 D700 D600, D800, so on and so forth each was an improvement (?) on the one before, not that my pictures took the the vast strides forward that were promised!

Add on the cost of the ancillaries. More of this, more of that, I am sure I don't need to translate what I mean. Adobe Photoshop with regular upgrades also came into play and increased the cost. Then thinking about my 1st printer an A4 Epson then an A3 Epson - I wore both of them out! Oh yes I was still using film too, so there was my Nikon scanner and a bigger flat screen VDU. Then a second one a few years later because the previous one failed Don't even begin to mention the cost of the inks/dyes paper (sorry they call it media now).

Then Microsoft played a dirty trick when they changed from Windows XP to Windows 7 Just after my computer died and I had to buy another, so my printer, graphics board and more importantly for me, my Nikon scanner stopped working, although I got around that to get it back working again by using an old XP laptop I got for next to nothing.

I shudder to think of the total amount of money I have spent in the last 20+ years on digital and the bits and pieces surrounding it to make it work. Don't kid your self there will be thousands out there like me

In the meantime my darkroom was operational ( and still is). My film cameras I confess I have a few - mostly NIkon's, it saves buying a multitude of lenses 'cos I can use most of them for digital as well ( Nikon FT3, F601 (I got that given) F80 F100, and the granddaddy of them all my Nikon F2a. Add this a Bronica SQa and a couple of lenses plus a couple of classic Minoltas and MC/MD lenses all bought before the price of film cameras started to skyrocket.

My enlarger is getting on for 35 years old (LPL7700) and only replaced the bulb once or twice. My Nova processor about the same age (one new heating element replaced about 15 years ago. My most 'recent' major expense was the Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 Apo lens I bought about 8 years ago. My Jobo film processor is well over 20 years old and I have another for spares)

They all work as well as the day they were made. The bonus is I have no worry that the printer will run out of ink (My Current Canon Pro300 where a full set of inks cost in excess of £155). Such is the use of the ink/Dye from a full set of new cartridges It will empty at least one in just 6 A3 prints.

Film cost with B&W is still manageable with cost if you buy in bulk, Colour C41 when you can get it, is a bit on the expensive side, but I have enough to be going on with in the fridge. As for E6 I have not used any for around 20 years. Chemicals I buy in larger quantities (A lot cheaper in the long run) and decant the concentrates out into smaller bottles so that extends their useful life. Printing paper, for colour I used to buy Kodak in rolls of 90feet x 12" which works out around 1/3rd of the cost of cut sheets, but that is now unobtainable. I could use Fuji but they will only sell 2 rolls at a time so I am now relegated to Fuji in cut sheets which I don't like.

But overall if anyone tells you that Digital is cheaper they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They are also missing the moment when it all comes together in the darkroom and we produce something really good by ourselves and not totally relying on electronics to do the job for us.

I think however, in the long run we will run out of options when the current level of good working film cameras will bring about the demise of film whether we like it or not. The camera manufacturers will not take the risk of making a new model in small runs of a camera of the quality of say a Nikon F4 or even a Pentax Spotmatic. Just look at the prices of the current range of Leicas will give you an idea.

 

[Beverly Hills]

This comparison between the cost of using film or digital has so many parameters that it is difficult to get a real answer.

So let it make more simple : Could we say there is a direct
correlation between the number of shots (day/week/year),
and that to the point of inefficiency ?

For example 850 shots / week ? = the only way is digital

Some rolls 35mm film 135-36 / month ? = no problem at all!

BTW Rodenstock enlarger lenses are some of the best,
a lot of photographers say : THE BEST ...isn't it?

.....have a good time

 

[Beverly Hills]

I don't think that the existing user base can do this. Kodak needs new customers and they're out there. But will the young enthusiasts buy the much more expensive Kodak product or choose competition, or even those funky lomo films - time will tell.
My hunch is that coming from digital perfection they're probably into the funky side of things.



I like this quote:
"Our priorities for 2022 included providing our customers with uninterrupted supplies, reducing costs by improving operational efficiency and implementing pricing actions to realize the value of our offerings, which contributed to a year-over-year increase in gross profit for the fourth quarter."
So they 1) streamlined the production, made it cheaper to make film; 2) had problems keeping stock in stores; 3) experienced nice profit; 4) are looking for the max price customer is wanting to pay for Kodak film.
I, however, don't see Kodak sharing these savings with customer. Price increase for existing products is what we got instead.

So I truly don't know if growing market can make prices cheaper in this reality.

growing market ( massive demand ) AND many market players ( not only a couple of manufacturers ) can make prices cheaper.
beside some basic costs ( raws ) - so we will never see again
pricing from the time of beginning digital to the mass
market (2002 - 2005).

have a good time folks

 

[Don_ih]

But overall if anyone tells you that Digital is cheaper they are living in cloud cuckoo land

The time period you describe, when you bought so many digital cameras, the basic technology was in a heavy development period. But everything that's done at present is simple nuance. Frankly, there's no reason to buy the latest camera unless you just want to spend money.
And you can buy a 10-year-old digital camera with a couple of lenses for a couple of hundred dollars and use a 10 or 15-year-old laptop to mess with the photos using GIMP or a cheaper (but not free) photo editor like Affinity.
Digital is as expensive as you make it.
Film is as expensive as the amount you use.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't think that the existing user base can do this. Kodak needs new customers and they're out there. But will the young enthusiasts buy the much more expensive Kodak product or choose competition, or even those funky lomo films - time will tell.
My hunch is that coming from digital perfection they're probably into the funky side of things.



I like this quote:
"Our priorities for 2022 included providing our customers with uninterrupted supplies, reducing costs by improving operational efficiency and implementing pricing actions to realize the value of our offerings, which contributed to a year-over-year increase in gross profit for the fourth quarter."
So they 1) streamlined the production, made it cheaper to make film; 2) had problems keeping stock in stores; 3) experienced nice profit; 4) are looking for the max price customer is wanting to pay for Kodak film.
I, however, don't see Kodak sharing these savings with customer. Price increase for existing products is what we got instead.

So I truly don't know if growing market can make prices cheaper in this reality.

Kodak gross profit was 14%. Apple's for comparison is around 40%.

More importantly the statement includes the following sentnece: "

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't think that the existing user base can do this. Kodak needs new customers and they're out there. But will the young enthusiasts buy the much more expensive Kodak product or choose competition, or even those funky lomo films - time will tell.
My hunch is that coming from digital perfection they're probably into the funky side of things.



I like this quote:
"Our priorities for 2022 included providing our customers with uninterrupted supplies, reducing costs by improving operational efficiency and implementing pricing actions to realize the value of our offerings, which contributed to a year-over-year increase in gross profit for the fourth quarter."
So they 1) streamlined the production, made it cheaper to make film; 2) had problems keeping stock in stores; 3) experienced nice profit; 4) are looking for the max price customer is wanting to pay for Kodak film.
I, however, don't see Kodak sharing these savings with customer. Price increase for existing products is what we got instead.

So I truly don't know if growing market can make prices cheaper in this reality.

Gross profit is only 14%. Apple by comparison runs around 40%, I believe. More importantly, there's this sentence in the report: "Eastman Business Park segment is not a reportable segment and is excluded from the table above." So this report says nothing about Kodak film pricing and profits. Keep in mind that Kodak makes other things besides film such as chemicals, ink, etc..

I believe Eastman Business Park is where they make Kodak film. So the report doesn't seem to include financial figures regarding their film sales. Maybe Matt or others have more information on where you can find Kodak's film business statistics? The other factor is Kodak film is manufactured by Eastman Kodak in America but sold exclusively by Kodak Alaris in Great Britain. Alaris, a totally separate company, sets up their own markup and profit margins. So we really don't know what profits there are with film until we can get financial details from both Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris.

 

[VinceInMT]

Why film prices have risen and whether they will continue to do so is not as important about what you/we can do to weather the situation. We can talk about it, we can suggest that younger people shoot film, and maybe shoot more/less ourselves, but, IMO, that does little about the price or availability. What do we do as individuals to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the hobby? It really comes down to maximizing income and controlling spending on other things, a more interesting topic.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why film prices have risen and whether they will continue to do so is not as important about what you/we can do to weather the situation. We can talk about it, we can suggest that younger people shoot film, and maybe shoot more/less ourselves, but, IMO, that does little about the price or availability. What do we do as individuals to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the hobby? It really comes down to maximizing income and controlling spending on other things, a more interesting topic.

Speaking of spending on hobbies, I read yesterday that golfing during the weekdays has picked up something like 85%. It's booming. Apparently, a lot of people are getting their work at home done on the courses.

 

[snusmumriken]

This comparison between the cost of using film or digital has so many parameters that it is difficult to get a real answer. When digital came to be 'reasonable' pricewise, I went and bought a Minolta (yes it was that long ago) I cannot remember the model name but it was good - very good and could print up to A3 with care. Then there was this Sony Bridge camera that lasted abut 2 months because the lens was so flaming bad I got rid of it a bit sharpish.

This was followed by a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D90 D700 D600, D800, so on and so forth each was an improvement (?) on the one before, not that my pictures took the the vast strides forward that were promised!

Add on the cost of the ancillaries. More of this, more of that, I am sure I don't need to translate what I mean. Adobe Photoshop with regular upgrades also came into play and increased the cost. Then thinking about my 1st printer an A4 Epson then an A3 Epson - I wore both of them out! Oh yes I was still using film too, so there was my Nikon scanner and a bigger flat screen VDU. Then a second one a few years later because the previous one failed Don't even begin to mention the cost of the inks/dyes paper (sorry they call it media now).

Then Microsoft played a dirty trick when they changed from Windows XP to Windows 7 Just after my computer died and I had to buy another, so my printer, graphics board and more importantly for me, my Nikon scanner stopped working, although I got around that to get it back working again by using an old XP laptop I got for next to nothing.

I shudder to think of the total amount of money I have spent in the last 20+ years on digital and the bits and pieces surrounding it to make it work. Don't kid your self there will be thousands out there like me

In the meantime my darkroom was operational ( and still is). My film cameras I confess I have a few - mostly NIkon's, it saves buying a multitude of lenses 'cos I can use most of them for digital as well ( Nikon FT3, F601 (I got that given) F80 F100, and the granddaddy of them all my Nikon F2a. Add this a Bronica SQa and a couple of lenses plus a couple of classic Minoltas and MC/MD lenses all bought before the price of film cameras started to skyrocket.

My enlarger is getting on for 35 years old (LPL7700) and only replaced the bulb once or twice. My Nova processor about the same age (one new heating element replaced about 15 years ago. My most 'recent' major expense was the Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 Apo lens I bought about 8 years ago. My Jobo film processor is well over 20 years old and I have another for spares)

They all work as well as the day they were made. The bonus is I have no worry that the printer will run out of ink (My Current Canon Pro300 where a full set of inks cost in excess of £155). Such is the use of the ink/Dye from a full set of new cartridges It will empty at least one in just 6 A3 prints.

Film cost with B&W is still manageable with cost if you buy in bulk, Colour C41 when you can get it, is a bit on the expensive side, but I have enough to be going on with in the fridge. As for E6 I have not used any for around 20 years. Chemicals I buy in larger quantities (A lot cheaper in the long run) and decant the concentrates out into smaller bottles so that extends their useful life. Printing paper, for colour I used to buy Kodak in rolls of 90feet x 12" which works out around 1/3rd of the cost of cut sheets, but that is now unobtainable. I could use Fuji but they will only sell 2 rolls at a time so I am now relegated to Fuji in cut sheets which I don't like.

But overall if anyone tells you that Digital is cheaper they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They are also missing the moment when it all comes together in the darkroom and we produce something really good by ourselves and not totally relying on electronics to do the job for us.

I think however, in the long run we will run out of options when the current level of good working film cameras will bring about the demise of film whether we like it or not. The camera manufacturers will not take the risk of making a new model in small runs of a camera of the quality of say a Nikon F4 or even a Pentax Spotmatic. Just look at the prices of the current range of Leicas will give you an idea.

I’d say this analysis is spot-on.

I’m afraid what I’ve done could be described as entrenching, and little or no help to the future of film. I saw the general switch to digital coming, and bought the camera I wanted when the prices were not exactly low but at least stable for a spell. I built a darkroom and bought enough film and second-hand darkroom utensils to see me out. Now I’m dependent only on buying paper and some chemicals.

The obvious advantage of film is that once you’ve bought into good optics and a camera body that holds the film flat, technical upgrades are done just by loading a new film. IMO the best help manufacturers could give to cater for everyone would be to create cameras in which alternative digital and film backs (which should be vastly different in price) could be attached to a body housing the elements common to both. I expect @Sirius Glass will tell us it’s called a Hasselblad, but we need it in 35mm too!

 

[pentaxuser]

Some very good analysis has been given. However it is an analysis that compares what we do with film and what we did with digital or would do with it if we switched back to it

My worry is that I fear that the vast majority of the world takes pictures for nothing via iphones that seem to be getting a lot better at taking photos and meet the needs of your average snapper who used to have to use a camera and film

Takes pictures for nothing? Yes, unfortunately, as the pics are looked at, sent out and shared then filed away on the iphone which is essential for almost everyone to have and almost everyone does. Few if any are made into prints

Will we ever see anything like a return to film that will maintain film, its processing and paper prices, let alone reduce the cost in real disposable income terms?

I fear not

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

Some very good analysis has been given. However it is an analysis that compares what we do with film and what we did with digital or would do with it if we switched back to it

My worry is that I fear that the vast majority of the world takes pictures for nothing via iphones that seem to be getting a lot better at taking photos and meet the needs of your average snapper who used to have to use a camera and film

Takes pictures for nothing? Yes, unfortunately, as the pics are looked at, sent out and shared then filed away on the iphone which is essential for almost everyone to have and almost everyone does. Few if any are made into prints

Will we ever see anything like a return to film that will maintain film processing and paper prices, let alone reduce the cost in real disposable income terms?

I fear not

pentaxuser

Perhaps what we need is a film recording peripheral that can link to the the iPhone/Android via Bluetooth...

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't think that the existing user base can do this. Kodak needs new customers and they're out there. But will the young enthusiasts buy the much more expensive Kodak product or choose competition, or even those funky lomo films - time will tell.
My hunch is that coming from digital perfection they're probably into the funky side of things.



I like this quote:
"Our priorities for 2022 included providing our customers with uninterrupted supplies, reducing costs by improving operational efficiency and implementing pricing actions to realize the value of our offerings, which contributed to a year-over-year increase in gross profit for the fourth quarter."
So they 1) streamlined the production, made it cheaper to make film; 2) had problems keeping stock in stores; 3) experienced nice profit; 4) are looking for the max price customer is wanting to pay for Kodak film.
I, however, don't see Kodak sharing these savings with customer. Price increase for existing products is what we got instead.

So I truly don't know if growing market can make prices cheaper in this reality.

Kodak is doing its job of supplying enough film for our demands, now you need to step up and use to supply more efficiently. So get out there and shoot more film, even if you have to cut back on your lattes.

 

[BrianShaw]

... are you really certain of that or just making conversation. All of the Kodak film I've been seeking is out of stock, and has been for a while...

 

[Anon Ymous]

... are you really certain of that or just making conversation. All of the Kodak film I've been seeking is out of stock, and has been for a while...

What I have noticed at the major EU retailers for several years now, is that cheap Kodak C41 films are usually out of stock. Ektar and the Portras are almost always in stock. I think we can conclude what sells more or not.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Not really because I don't use any. If you are not a Pro then 8x10 seems to be a bit of an overkill, don't you think so?

Not really.

 

[BrianShaw]

What I have noticed at the major EU retailers for several years now, is that cheap Kodak C41 films are usually out of stock. Ektar and the Portras are almost always in stock. I think we can conclude what sells more or not.

Lately I've been having challenges getting Gold 200 and Portra 160 in both 135 and 120 (USA). There seems to be Portra 400 available, though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a much bigger problem with the growing cost of color and black & white inks than the rising costs of color film.

 

[redrockcoulee]

Since you develop your own black & white film you know that the cost of stop bath with indicator and PhotoFlo are just so damned expensive!

yes it was the cost of stopbath that forced me out of photography.

i shoot film and digital because I enjoy them both. Not sure how much I spend on either but if money becomes tight I watc h my spending. I think my wife's coke habit (Coke Zero not the white powder) is more expensive .

 

[Sirius Glass]

yes it was the cost of stopbath that forced me out of photography.

i shoot film and digital because I enjoy them both. Not sure how much I spend on either but if money becomes tight I watc h my spending. I think my wife's coke habit (Coke Zero not the white powder) is more expensive .

I lose sleep at night because my bottles of PhotoFlo last so long!

 

[MattKing]

I believe Eastman Business Park is where they make Kodak film. So the report doesn't seem to include financial figures regarding their film sales.

They still have interests in the land around their location. That is known as the Eastman Business Park, and they run that business separately, with separate income, expenses and financial statements.

Maybe Matt or others have more information on where you can find Kodak's film business statistics?

Their coating business, including film, and their chemistry business, including motion picture film chemistry, as well as their business related to manufacture of polyester based materials - including Estar film base - is all included in the Advanced Materials and Chemicals numbers. So the businesses that are related to film and coating are between 1/6 and 1/7 of their business (based on gross revenue).
Included in that are all sorts of interesting things that are related to their coating expertise and their very specialized coating equipment. As an example, they coat a lot a lot of flexible circuit boards.
And of course, with still film, they have almost no marketing or distribution costs. They make it, and then sell it to one customer at wholesale. Kodak Alaris has the substantial cost burden of marketing and distributing still film worldwide.
Before the bankruptcy, the vast majority of Eastman Kodak (and its subsidiaries)'s costs relating to still film, including its staff costs, were related to marketing and distribution. As a result of the bankruptcy settlement, all of those costs were transferred to Kodak Alaris.

 

[BMbikerider]

I’d say this analysis is spot-on.

I’m afraid what I’ve done could be described as entrenching, and little or no help to the future of film. I saw the general switch to digital coming, and bought the camera I wanted when the prices were not exactly low but at least stable for a spell. I built a darkroom and bought enough film and second-hand darkroom utensils to see me out. Now I’m dependent only on buying paper and some chemicals.

The obvious advantage of film is that once you’ve bought into good optics and a camera body that holds the film flat, technical upgrades are done just by loading a new film. IMO the best help manufacturers could give to cater for everyone would be to create cameras in which alternative digital and film backs (which should be vastly different in price) could be attached to a body housing the elements common to both. I expect @Sirius Glass will tell us it’s called a Hasselblad, but we need it in 35mm too!

As for colour negative film or transparency (velvia etc) I have a nagging feeling that it may not be with us for very much longer, the cost over the counter is starting to price us out of the market.
However, I am fairly sure that B&W film will be with us for quite some time, almost certainly longer than me. But those who have come into the game relatively recently will not experience the buzz you get when you develop a film and see what you have taken has been successful and then print from the negatives to make pictures that will bring memories that will last and last and knowing you did most of the hard work yourself and not relying on automation.

 

[redbandit]

This comparison between the cost of using film or digital has so many parameters that it is difficult to get a real answer. When digital came to be 'reasonable' pricewise, I went and bought a Minolta (yes it was that long ago) I cannot remember the model name but it was good - very good and could print up to A3 with care. Then there was this Sony Bridge camera that lasted abut 2 months because the lens was so flaming bad I got rid of it a bit sharpish.

This was followed by a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D90 D700 D600, D800, so on and so forth each was an improvement (?) on the one before, not that my pictures took the the vast strides forward that were promised!

Add on the cost of the ancillaries. More of this, more of that, I am sure I don't need to translate what I mean. Adobe Photoshop with regular upgrades also came into play and increased the cost. Then thinking about my 1st printer an A4 Epson then an A3 Epson - I wore both of them out! Oh yes I was still using film too, so there was my Nikon scanner and a bigger flat screen VDU. Then a second one a few years later because the previous one failed Don't even begin to mention the cost of the inks/dyes paper (sorry they call it media now).

Then Microsoft played a dirty trick when they changed from Windows XP to Windows 7 Just after my computer died and I had to buy another, so my printer, graphics board and more importantly for me, my Nikon scanner stopped working, although I got around that to get it back working again by using an old XP laptop I got for next to nothing.

I shudder to think of the total amount of money I have spent in the last 20+ years on digital and the bits and pieces surrounding it to make it work. Don't kid your self there will be thousands out there like me

In the meantime my darkroom was operational ( and still is). My film cameras I confess I have a few - mostly NIkon's, it saves buying a multitude of lenses 'cos I can use most of them for digital as well ( Nikon FT3, F601 (I got that given) F80 F100, and the granddaddy of them all my Nikon F2a. Add this a Bronica SQa and a couple of lenses plus a couple of classic Minoltas and MC/MD lenses all bought before the price of film cameras started to skyrocket.

My enlarger is getting on for 35 years old (LPL7700) and only replaced the bulb once or twice. My Nova processor about the same age (one new heating element replaced about 15 years ago. My most 'recent' major expense was the Rodenstock 50mm 2.8 Apo lens I bought about 8 years ago. My Jobo film processor is well over 20 years old and I have another for spares)

They all work as well as the day they were made. The bonus is I have no worry that the printer will run out of ink (My Current Canon Pro300 where a full set of inks cost in excess of £155). Such is the use of the ink/Dye from a full set of new cartridges It will empty at least one in just 6 A3 prints.

Film cost with B&W is still manageable with cost if you buy in bulk, Colour C41 when you can get it, is a bit on the expensive side, but I have enough to be going on with in the fridge. As for E6 I have not used any for around 20 years. Chemicals I buy in larger quantities (A lot cheaper in the long run) and decant the concentrates out into smaller bottles so that extends their useful life. Printing paper, for colour I used to buy Kodak in rolls of 90feet x 12" which works out around 1/3rd of the cost of cut sheets, but that is now unobtainable. I could use Fuji but they will only sell 2 rolls at a time so I am now relegated to Fuji in cut sheets which I don't like.

But overall if anyone tells you that Digital is cheaper they are living in cloud cuckoo land. They are also missing the moment when it all comes together in the darkroom and we produce something really good by ourselves and not totally relying on electronics to do the job for us.

I think however, in the long run we will run out of options when the current level of good working film cameras will bring about the demise of film whether we like it or not. The camera manufacturers will not take the risk of making a new model in small runs of a camera of the quality of say a Nikon F4 or even a Pentax Spotmatic. Just look at the prices of the current range of Leicas will give you an idea.

What it means is that some of us are going to become faced with the oldest dilemma...

buying the highest end film camera possible... for long time one of the selling points of Hassy was they could and would service ANY of their film cameras... that doesnt happen anymore for certain models due to the repair center in USA moving... and apparently "losing" all of the old stock components
that personally i believe will end up on ebay in a few years at quadruple the price.

 

[Beverly Hills]

... are you really certain of that or just making conversation. All of the Kodak film I've been seeking is out of stock, and has been for a while...

+1

 

[Beverly Hills]

What I have noticed at the major EU retailers for several years now, is that cheap Kodak C41 films are usually out of stock. Ektar and the Portras are almost always in stock. I think we can conclude what sells more or not.

...you need to mention that it is avaible on an interim basis.
A situation that first occured with the Ferrania P30 :
As soon as it was avaible, it was sold out, was delivered a few weeks later and was sold out again a week later!

Same with Kodak last 6 month. Same cause: the demand can no longer completely covered by ongoing production.

Same balancing procedure : price increases.

have a nice day Anon Ymous

 

[Pieter12]

This was followed by a Nikon D100, D200, D300, D90 D700 D600, D800, so on and so forth each was an improvement (?) on the one before, not that my pictures took the the vast strides forward that were promised!

Every time I upgraded a digital or film camera, I was able to trade it in for the newer model. But I did not necessarily jump for each successive generation, only when I saw a real improvement for my purposes. Same with computers and software. If you're comfortable with what you have just keep using it. I have never had a high-end digital camera go bad on me, but several film cameras have given me headaches that required return visits to the repair shop.