Did any of you actually READ this?? https://silvergrainclassics.com/en/2021/10/film-price-analysis/
From the above article, I quote: "Put into the perspective of inflation and buying power, a 135 / 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost 11.60 USD (1.15 USD) in 1956, and a roll of Kodacolor film even hit at over 22 USD (2.60 USD) back in the “golden age.” The current price of Tri-X, depending on reseller, is somewhere between 9.95 USD (B&H) and 9.09 USD (Freestyle) and thus roughly equals the pricing level of 1968, when Tri-X first flew to the moon on Apollo 8. Coupled to the 2020 US mean income, a roll of Tri-X is still at 0.012%, and thus not substantially more expensive than it was in the past."
Don't UK import duties really hurt Kodak compared to Ilford?
Are these films worth the extra cost?
a 135 / 36-exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X cost 11.60 USD (1.15 USD) in 1956,
I will not pay more than $20 a roll for Ektachrome, and I could care less about the rest of their film stocks.
It looks like I won't be purchasing any more Kodak film in the future.
I am surprised you'll pay $20/roll for Ektachrome now. My slide show and Cibachrome print days have long been over.
So why are you shooting 35mm? Seems like if you demand the best technical quality for your photographs you would be shooting medium if not large format. Do you process your own slides? What do you do with your slides when processed? Slide shows? Scan and print? Scan and post to the internet?I demand the best technical quality from my photographs. Only slide film provides it.
Everything in that article came from an official Kodak Alaris source who did not wish to be quoted.
So why are you shooting 35mm? Seems like if you demand the best technical quality for you photographs you would be shooting medium if not large format. What do you do with your slides? Slide shows? Scan and print? Scan and post to the internet?
Best of all, slides are less sharp and grainier than negatives.
Medium and large format, blah blah blah, yah yah yah. I get better photos from my 35mm slides than any digital devil can provide me. It is thoroughly satisfying.
I was making a comparison between 35mm film and medium and large format film. 35mm film is not technically superior to medium and large format film. So you are shooting 35mm film for some reason other than technical superiority.
Didn’t you say this?I demand the best technical quality from my photographs. Only slide film provides it.
Didn’t you say this?
Like you, I can be satisfied with a 35mm slide, but a 6x7 or 4x5 transparency always gives me the “best technical quality” compared to 35mm.
This exactly, a complete 180 from reality.Complete HORSEPUCKEY!
Which new 120 film intrigues you? I’m satisfied with my old reliables: FP4+ and Porta 160. Nothing more really excites me except when it gets dark and a 400 speed film is more appropriate. More often, though, I’ll just use flash.I know what you are saying. But the only reason I have been seriously considering the purchase of a medium format camera lately is the shortage of new 35mm film.
Oh Yeah. Do you presoak?Soapbox in 10, 9, 8…
Which new 120 film intrigues you? I’m satisfied with my old reliables: FP4+ and Porta 160. Nothing more really excites me except when it gets dark and a 400 speed film is more appropriate. More often, though, I’ll just use flash.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?