• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

This Bodes Bad Things For Film & Papers


Hahnemule prices don't help with the price of enlarging paper.... Ilford warmtone 20x24" (50 sheets).... $818 USD ......$1200 Cad by the time it gets to me......
 
GregY said:
Hahnemule prices don't help with the price of enlarging paper.... Ilford warmtone 20x24" (50 sheets).... $818 USD ......$1200 Cad by the time it gets to me......
Click to expand...

I understand. I was just relating what I have been doing. Most of the wet printing I do is pt/pd and that’s costly enough as well but fortunately I have enough supplies from before prices went crazy.
 
retina_restoration said:
Freestyle, Blue Moon and others all show a similar price breakdown: Kodak B&W films are less expensive than Ilford by a similar margin. It's not just a B&H thing.
Click to expand...

Yes but the biggest players effect the prices. I suspect that Harman is choosing to price Kentmere at a value point, Ilford especially HP5 and FP4 as the premium traditional films they are. Hard to know.
 
mshchem said:
Yes but the biggest players effect the prices. I suspect that Harman is choosing to price Kentmere at a value point, Ilford especially HP5 and FP4 as the premium traditional films they are. Hard to know.
Click to expand...

I simply wanted to point out that the Kodak/Ilford price ratio is similar at all the retailers I looked at, not just at B&H. Unfortunately, the tariffs have now pushed the price of Ilford sheet films beyond what I'm willing to pay. I will not pay $10+ USD per sheet of 8x10 film. I can make a collodion negative for about $2.50!
 

Yeah, the sheet film thing is a real dilemma. I've got some I need to shoot. I do love Ilford (and Kodak, Foma, Adox) black and white film. I'll be a buyer as long as I'm able. I've been quite satisfied with Kentmere films too. Don't care for the Harman color films, I've bought a few rolls as a measure of supporting the cause.
 

This is what has kept me from entering the 8x10 world, even before the tariffs. I keep wondering if I should take a shot at it using x ray film.
 
chuckroast said:
This is what has kept me from entering the 8x10 world, even before the tariffs. I keep wondering if I should take a shot at it using x ray film.
Click to expand...

I have enjoyed working with Fomapan 100, which is literally half the price of the Ilford equivalent, so I see plenty of Fomapan in my future. I'll likely do more 5x7 work and leave 8x10 for when I need to make a larger contact print.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
that would equate to roughly 1$ of silver /35mm film or an 8x10,but manufacturers charge us up to 10 times that.
Click to expand...
Must have something to do with the fact that if you take the silver out of the film, there's some material left, still. Maybe that has something to do with it? IDK, just a wild guess.
 
Regarding the high prices for paper. I stopped printing not because of prices. The walls are full. Plus my wife complains. About pricing for let's say 20x24. Even 16x20" How many sheets do you guys print of that size for private use? Just how big are your walls?
 
Since we are all moving into recuperating everything, "renewables" that is, won't enter this discussion, why not go back to old days when silver recovery at labs was not unheard of, and support a system which most users could afford for installation and then get "credit" for sending it back to Ilford/Adox/Foam/Kodak, whoever. For many it would likely take a few years before they accumulated enough silver to make it worthwhile for subscribing it, but ...
 
I’ve never used paper that large. Mostly 5x7 and some 8x10. I’m still finding Ilford paper expensive at that size. I’ll hang on if I can, but I’m looking into Foma papers now too. I don’t have any of my prints on my walls so that’s not an issue for me.

It’s a good thing I’ve always liked smaller prints. Large paper would be too expensive for me. Realistically I can’t do anything larger than 11x14 in my darkroom anyway. I would still like to look into inkjet more carefully and figure out if going that way (or full digital) would be more or less expensive all in.

 
I haven't printed B&W smaller than 16X20 and 20X24 for a long time, Alan, with the exception of a few 8x10 contact prints and a little bit of small 35mm printing. For quite awhile, I been printing color 20X24, 24X30, and 30X40 inches, plus extra frame dimensions when that has been involved. Yeah, there's only so much wall space. But I have big flat files for the unframed prints, and lots of print boxes too on wire racks. Where it's all gonna go afterwards is going to be a challenge. Possibly another family art vault somewhere - won't be here.
 

You're making assumptions that everyone prints for themselves...
 
I had thought there might have been at least one attempt to answer my question of my # 95. There were replies but none which covered the info I sought about what sources produce together the kind of demand that covers Harman's production costs of darkroom paper

Maybe the demand does not cover the cost of production but Harman continues to make darkroom paper because of the adverse effect of not doing so to its overall sales/ reputation? However I just don't know. All I have is the "worm's eye" view and not the necessary "bird's eye" view

pentaxuser
 

P, it's a good question, but a tough one to answer. But clearly the paper gets sold..... various sizes are out of stock at big retailers.
 
I do not print anywhere near as often as I would like but I keep practicing. I am pretty sure that what is stopping me or slowing me down is not a problem having enough room to hang my prints on my walls. It is more often because when I am finished with the print I really don't want to hang it on my wall. I keep practicing my printing technique but I suspect my problem starts way earlier, back at the start when I pressed the shutter button.
 

I know the feeling - I thing all silver printers do. The big jump for me was to quit worrying about making large wall hangings, and instead try to print strong 8x10 workbook prints. These prints are not quite ready to hang on the wall, but they're close to what a final image might be.

This helped me in several ways:

  • It's far more economical
  • Because it is, I print more stuff than I used to - I was self-editing things because of the costs
  • Printing smaller helps reveal images that just look better smaller AND ones that need a bigger canvas
  • It's a strong feedback system to help inform your composition and exposure controls during the making of the negative as well as how developing the film affects final outcomes
  • You end up with far more printing practice than you otherwise would. The more you do this, the closer the workbook print starts to resemble a final print (sans spotting and dry mounting)

And it doesn't have to be 8x10s. it could just as easily be 5x7s.
 


You mention Photrio being a large forum, but I think it is still a very small representation of the overall number of photographers. I imagine there are probably still quite a few people doing darkroom printing, relatively speaking. Keep in mind, also, that many schools still have darkrooms and film photography and darkroom printing classes.
 
GregY said:
You're making assumptions that everyone prints for themselves...
Click to expand...

You raise a good point. If you're printing commercially, you have to pass along the extra cost of paper. How much more does that actually add to the sale price?
 
Our Darkroom Group currently has a show at the Reach Gallery in Abbotsford. All of the prints there are Darkroom prints. although some are using alternative and traditional processes.
But it is interesting to note that in the other presentation spaces in the Gallery, where there are other exhibitions on show, there is at least one multi-disciplinary artist/photographer who is showing work that consists of "Silver Gelatin" prints.
I don't know whether her images originated on film and were darkroom printed - they may have started as digital files and been printed by a commercial lab like the ones branded Ilford - but even if that is the case the production of that product probably helps keep the sheet paper we like commercially viable.
She also has a great name - Deb Silver - so she clearly is on our side .
Here is a link to an Artist talk she gave in 2022, where her use of an RB67 is referenced: https://events.ufv.ca/events/artist-talk-with-deb-silver/
 

Those are the Harman GDS or "Galerie Digital Silver" papers for the laser exposure silver gelatin printers.

https://www.harmantechnology.com/lab-papers

As you mention, this might contribute to the overall viability of making black & white photo paper, but the Harman GDS paper is generally only used by professional labs, and there aren't that many labs that offer this printing service. I imagine that Harman sell more volume of the Ilford darkroom paper.

It is probably also a different process to make the Harman GDS paper, so I am not sure that it would really contribute to keeping the Ilford darkroom paper available.
 
With all this talk of paper being expensive because of the silver... Has anyone taken a look at the price of high quality inkjet paper?

Even Canon glossy is getting up there. Photo Paper Pro Platinum in US letter size is currently $17/20 sheets, so roughly that dollar per. Not a single bit of silver in there.

Lets check some better paper, Hahnemuhle German Etching Paper inkjet which is one of my favorite for pigment inks, we have US letter size, $55/25 slightly over $2 a sheet and still no silver in there.

Why do I bring up these papers? Because all of these require similar coating equipment, biggest difference is they can be run in the light.

Want to add in the cost of inks per print? Need to know what size printer you are using because the size of the ink cartridge makes a huge difference in the cost per ml.
 

....we're still in the analog place.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register