The expense of shooting film

[wiltw]

Let us compare...

1. 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 4% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 2022.
2. Consulting a 1981 Popular Photography you can buy a 135-36 roll of Kodak Kodacolor for $10.20,. You could get the film processed for $5.29. $15.29 for film and processing (no prints) represents 40% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 1981.

Comparatively, shooting color neg film today is considerably less expensive than it was 40 years ago!
But the outcome is very dependent upon the set of figures used for the calculation.

• If you paid full price for the Kodak Portra (23.33) a roll of film and processing would be 54% higher than 1 hour of 2022 median pay, and today is more expensive by a small margin (14% of one hour of median US pay)

Median income in US was $22390 in 1981, $53924 in 2022

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Those "arbiters of proper meaning/usage" - how do those work?...

They're called dictionaries.

...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?...

It's called speaker/writer explaining. For however long it takes until dictionaries catch up. These days, in almost all cases that happens the year after a new meaning or word appears.

...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...

I'm not confused in the least. You're apparently unwilling to either research terms or usages unfamiliar to you or request clarification from an imprecise speaker/writer.

...A natural language is not anywhere near as homogeneous as you would like to think.

I never claimed they were homogeneous. I wrote that, when employed properly, they are capable of precision. Two entirely different things.

 

[Pieter12]

My only point is the generalization being made by an individual that the cost of film was negligible for that 80 year old person. There are 80 year olds who can barely afford rent and food who are also artists trying to squeeze in the cost of materials in their limited budget.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hobbies and sports. When I played badminton, just the high-end feather shuttlecocks would cost me over 1,000$ a year.

Badminton? You mean 'feather ball' right?

 

[Vaughn]

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

Exactly. Artist or hobbiest, a photographer considers one's time and income, and make decisions based on what is relatively more important, and plans.

Because I had saved up for a few years for a 3-month hitch-hiking trip around NZ with a 4x5 (1981) which ended up having a massive light leak and no photos, I spent the next 5 years saving up the money to return to NZ for a 6-month trip on a bicycle with a new (and lighter) 4x5. My usual year was working 6 months a year for the US Forest Service (some fire-fighting over-time always helped), and then 6-months of unemployment benefits while volunteering and helping run the darkroom at the university for almost-free 24/7 access.

The first year (1982) I saved up and bought a new 4x5 camera and lens (Calumet PocketView and 150mm lens) and a new Gitzo Studex tripod. (~$600) I wanted time to use the camera, learn the camera lens and the film, and make lots of prints (16x20 silver gelatin) before my next trip. I wanted no nasty equipment surprises!
Second year I bought the bicycle (~$750)
Third year I bought the round-trip ticket (around $1200)
Fourth and fifth year -- saved the spending money I would need for 6 months...also the panniers for the bike. Then off to NZ October 1986 after a summer of work.

I planned for about $20 per day, but with many days being much less or zero due to backpacking and bush camping along the way. A $20 day would included a Youth Hostel stay, a beer and meat pie for lunch at a country pub along the way.

Sorry...I got carried away with memories-- just wanted to illustrate that one can find a way to buy film if it is important enough. Just might take a little adjustment.

PS...my first trip to NZ (going to uni) was in 1975 and I needed a round-trip ticket good for a year...$1300. Just checked flight costs now -- still the same amount ($1300 to $1450) for the same round-trip flight. The inflation calculator says that 1975's $1300 is $7300 in today's money. Flying has gotten cheap.

 

[MattKing]

My only point is the generalization being made by an individual that the cost of film was negligible for that 80 year old person. There are 80 year olds who can barely afford rent and food who are also artists trying to squeeze in the cost of materials in their limited budget.

FWIW, I took the comment to mean that at 80, the long term consequences of high prices were of much less concern then when the poster was much younger.

 

[pbromaghin]

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

In modern parlance one can substitute for the other. No matter the hair splitting bullshit that followed.

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

Excuse me, but what what is hr-50?

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

Yes, because of my economic situation I have to be careful. There are so many photographers who are in desperate straits. I don’t want to insult anybody. I just spoke with the host of our VRBO who did all the trim work on his house and the mother-in-law house where we are staying.
He loves working with wood but knows he couldn’t make anywhere near the living he did as a CPA.

His man cave is full of the coolest power tools you ever saw.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Excuse me, but what what is hr-50?

It's a nice little IR sensitive film from a manufacturer that isn't trying to rip your kidneys out:

The best things in life are analog | HR-50 with Speed boost

www.adox.de

ADOX HR-50 135/36 with SPEED BOOST - fotoimpex.com analogue photography

Introduced at Photokina 2018: ADOX HR-50 stands for "High Resolution". ADOX HR-50 is based on an established emulsion commonly available for technical purposes, featuring ...

www.fotoimpex.com

 

[Don_ih]

They're called dictionaries.

I see.
Keep up the good work

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes, because of my economic situation I have to be careful. There are so many photographers who are in desperate straits. I don’t want to insult anybody. I just spoke with the host of our VRBO who did all the trim work on his house and the mother-in-law house where we are staying.
He loves working with wood but knows he couldn’t make anywhere near the living he did as a CPA.

His man cave is full of the coolest power tools you ever saw.

I was never one to just shoot off the rest of the roll of film to get it developed, but now I am even more reticent to do that.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

In modern parlance one can substitute for the other. No matter the hair splitting bullshit that followed.

It isn't BS. It's called effective communication via precise use of language.

I see.
Keep up the good work

I'll do my best.

 

[Don_ih]

It isn't BS.

No, really, admit it - it pretty much is.

 

[bluechromis]

Let us compare...

1. 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 4% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 2022.
2. Consulting a 1981 Popular Photography you can buy a 135-36 roll of Kodak Kodacolor for $10.20,. You could get the film processed for $5.29. $15.29 for film and processing (no prints) represents 40% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 1981.

Comparatively, shooting color neg film today is considerably less expensive than it was 40 years ago!
But the outcome is very dependent upon the set of figures used for the calculation.

• If you paid full price for the Kodak Portra (23.33) a roll of film and processing would be 54% higher than 1 hour of 2022 median pay, and today is more expensive by a small margin (14% of one hour of median US pay)

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[wiltw]

Let us compare...

1. 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 4% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 2022.
2. Consulting a 1981 Popular Photography you can buy a 135-36 roll of Kodak Kodacolor for $10.20,. You could get the film processed for $5.29. $15.29 for film and processing (no prints) represents 40% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 1981.

Comparatively, shooting color neg film today is considerably less expensive than it was 40 years ago!
But the outcome is very dependent upon the set of figures used for the calculation.

• If you paid full price for the Kodak Portra (23.33) a roll of film and processing would be 54% higher than 1 hour of 2022 median pay, and today is more expensive by a small margin (14% of one hour of median US pay)

Median income in US was $22390 in 1981, $53924 in 2022

Applying film and processing cost in 1981 vs. 2022, and comparing it to the maximum benefit paid by Social Security in that year

• $25.99 is 0.0516% of 2022 annual Soc Sec benefits
• $15.29 is 0.0515% of 1981 annual Soc Sec benefits

...virtually the same relative cost for a retiree earning max Social Security benefit!

 

[Oldwino]

Applying film and processing cost in 1981 vs. 2022, and comparing it to the maximum benefit paid by Social Security in that year

• $25.99 is 0.0516% of 2022 annual Soc Sec benefits
• $15.29 is 0.0515% of 1981 annual Soc Sec benefits

...virtually the same relative cost for a retiree earning max Social Security benefit!

I feel way better about retiring now. Thank you.

 

[wiltw]

I feel way better about retiring now. Thank you.

Film + processing might take the same size slice of income pie but food & gasoline costs are tremendously higher! Stats are US average...

$0.59 for 1 lb load of bread in 1981...median income buys 37949 loaves of bread in 1981
$1.70 for 1 lb loaf of bread in 2022...median income buys 31842 loaves of bread in 2022
...you could buy 17% less in 2022.

$1.29 buys 1 lb of ground beef in 1981...median US income buys 17357 pounds of ground beef in 1981
$4.81 buys 1 lb of ground beef in 2022...median US income buys 11254 pounds of ground beef in 2022
...you could buy 35% less in 2022.

$1.31 for gallon of gasoline in 1981...median income buys 17091 gallons of gasoline in 1981
$4.087 for gallon of gasoline in 2022...median income buys 13244 gallons of gasoline in 2022
...you could buy 23% less in 2022.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It isn't BS. It's called effective communication via precise use of language...

No, really, admit it - it pretty much is.

No, really, effective communication isn't BS. The imprecise use of language is a favorite technique of those who fling bovine excrement. In the interest of avoiding equine flagellation, I'll not reply further to your denigration of my praise of proper English. You seem to want the last word, so have at it.

 

[koraks]

The off-topic discussion about linguistics seems to have run its course. Please leave it at this, lest it become properly ugly.

 

[bjorke]

After seeing several fretful "film is expensive" threads on various platforms, a common pattern emerges: "film vs digital" -- you'd think this "versus" bit would be a moot point by now.

Film is expensive. Yup. It has nice qualities. Yup.

My walkaround camera is usually an M5 because I just love it, but if I know I'm going to shoot a wedding or an event or really almost anything that might burn more than a roll in a day or that needs results to a client, the digital cameras come out.

It's like owning a classic hand-tuned 1951 Mercury sedan. It's fantastic, but if you need to put on 11K commuting miles a year you're going to do most of 'em in a modern Subaru, and save the classic for cruising the neighborhood or an occasional car show.

 

[koraks]

"film vs digital" -- you'd think this "versus" bit would be a moot point by now.

It certainly is as far as I'm concerned, and we very explicitly discourage (forcefully so, if need be) discussions into that direction. They never end well!

 

[Roger Cole]

Let us compare...

1. 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 4% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 2022.
2. Consulting a 1981 Popular Photography you can buy a 135-36 roll of Kodak Kodacolor for $10.20,. You could get the film processed for $5.29. $15.29 for film and processing (no prints) represents 40% more than 1 hour of median US pay in 1981.

Comparatively, shooting color neg film today is considerably less expensive than it was 40 years ago!
But the outcome is very dependent upon the set of figures used for the calculation.

• If you paid full price for the Kodak Portra (23.33) a roll of film and processing would be 54% higher than 1 hour of 2022 median pay, and today is more expensive by a small margin (14% of one hour of median US pay)

Median income in US was $22390 in 1981, $53924 in 2022

I bought plenty of film circa 1981 and I never paid $10 for a roll. Maybe half that in practice, if that. "Processing" costs sound about right BUT that included prints. If you know where I can get 135-36 film developed AND PRINTED for eight bucks I'd like to know about it. Developed and maybe scanned, sure. I can do it myself way cheaper than that.

 

[Chan Tran]

A roll of Kodacolor in 1981?? not $10 it was about $3. And it was still around $3 in 2010. Prices for film didn't go up from 1980 to 2010 or so. It jumped a lot since then.

 

[foc]

I have read this thread, all 15 pages & 374 posts and you know what?

I am glad that there is still film available.

Yes, it can be expensive but if I want it I will pay for it. Simple.