Mustafa Umut Sarac
Allowing Ads
You take night photography with f:1.4 when at the night shift. I did it.
Excellent Eric.
Excellent Eric.
I visit lots of countries where the population has to work 2 and 3 jobs just to put food on the table. Maybe those finding the price of film a bit hard to swallow should pick up an extra job so they can afford it.
Tri-X 135-36 is $6.99 at Henrys which is very close to what the Bank of Canada website predicts. 100 sheets of Ilford MGIV is $79.99, again very close.
I still have a roll of Panatomix-X expired in 1961. The $0.60 price tag is still on the box.
Sorry, I'll say it, the OP can't/won't realize that the adjusted price isn't outrageously out of line. It's just whining. Morphing this into yet another digital/analog brawl is absurd.
My point exactly. Photography is expensive, digital or analog.
But, about the Mpix race, just because new models come out doesn't mean you have to buy them. Any digital SLR camera purchased today is a good enough camera to keep for at least 10 years, the way I see it. Cameras have reached a point where they are all as good as they need to be for almost everyone, including professionals. Hell, I still have my 10D, which is over 8 years old, even though it was wildly improved upon since. It was the only digital camera I had until a few months ago when I finally "upgraded."
But you're comparing prices at Freestyle which is in California, not Canada.
Tri-X 135-36 is $6.99 at Henrys which is very close to what the Bank of Canada website predicts. 100 sheets of Ilford MGIV is $79.99, again very close.
You are correct; the price at Henry's is more in line with what a simple inflation calculation says it should be.
Having said that, doesn't that prove that the actual cost of film & paper, at least these examples, hasn't really increased in nearly 40 years?
That's correct. And you can probably thank advances in manufacturing process for that.
If this discussion was a pig roast, the pig will be over-done by now...
... And you can probably thank advances in manufacturing process for that.
Yes, I am tired of 'excuses' being given for BW film prices.
With such a mature technology (all the R&D long ago paid for) it seems amazing that decent, high quality, 'no frills' film cannot be made in bulk rolls for no more than $20 for 100 ft. Why does 100 ft of Kodak Plus-X have to retail for, what is it now, about $80 before discount?
When I was living in New York City in the 70s, a 36 exposure roll of Plus-X was 63 cents at the Camera Barn chain store. Why does a DISCOUNTED price now have to be over 6 bucks at B&H? That is TEN TIMES the 70s price. Back then minimum wage was $2.50/hour and now it is about three times as much.
I know that the usual excuses will follow (ie, less made) but I really think that the groundwork made in production efficiency and refinement over the years should mitigate the 'less is sold' excuse. Am I dead wrong here? Or is this film simply selling for what the traffic will bear? Lack of competition thwarts reasons for not giving 'value'? - David Lyga.
Yes, I am tired of 'excuses' being given for BW film prices.
Photography is a luxury. If you can't afford it then do something else. Just about everything else is expensive too however...
Well, in 1969, you could also buy a Volkswagon Beetle for somewhere around $1,995.
It's not just film...
i wonder how many people complaining about the high cost of film+paper bother
to reclaim and refine the silver out of their spent fixer ... 1/4 oz of silver / gallon of spent fixer
adds up, and dumping it down the drain is just a waste of $$$ that could pay for a film/paper habit.
in 1965 my Mini was less than $800.00
in 1965 my Mini was less than $800.00
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?