TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES'

[2F/2F]

7.5 MPG? Yikes! What were you driving? Even my 7,000 lb. 22-foot-long '65 Cadillac ambulance with it's original 30 year old 429 c.i. (7 L) engine (with 100K miles) and trans got better mileage than that. 10 in the city and 14 on the highway. My '65 2+2 Mustang with a factory 289 K code ("Hi-Po") engine got 13 in the city and close to 17 on the highway with the 4 speed trans. You must have had a three ton boat with a 2-speed auto trans, and not driven it mildly, to get such foul mileage in the '60's.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I had a '65 Mustang with the big engine!

It gave me nothing but trouble. I had to trade it in due to the excessive gas consumption, size and other major problems. Cars back then were not as good as today and films were not either!

PE

 

[MattKing]

I had a '65 Mustang with the big engine!

It gave me nothing but trouble. I had to trade it in due to the excessive gas consumption, size and other major problems. Cars back then were not as good as today and films were not either!

PE

PE:

I bet though your Mustang got better mileage than some of the planes you have worked with.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, Matt, IDK really but when you are upside down at 3 Gs you don't think of that problem!

PE

 

[Shawn Rahman]

in 1965 my Mini was less than $800.00

Wow! I just paid $24,000+ for my Mini last year.

Then again, I overpaid for a Leica M7 last year, too, so I'll just shut up and stop complaining.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Investor speculation on raw materiasls, higher demand for silver in many other industries from tech industries to clothing (microban is silver embeded clothing), costs of petroleum by products (though now we can derive plastics direct from processing plants, eg pepsi bottles), pension and medical costs from large pool of workers in past paid currently by a much smaller company with lower revenue (though I know through a friend that her family many other families got their pensions cut by Eastman). Much of this adds on to the cost of film. Though I believe much of the prices could be pushed further down if companies still put as much money into R&D for new films as they did in the past (or maybe not and film has reached it technological envelope?)

What surely is killing the fine art aspect of photography is the current acceptance of inkjet prints as gallery pieces and sold at high prices. Gone is the 1 off piece perfected over countless hours manually in a darkroom, now its just digital capture, digital pp, and inkjet print. With more artists turning to digital, material costs go up over the entire spectrum, as there is a lost of economies of scale. Paper costs are ridiculous because many do not print, they may only wish to scan them in, many with digital cameras dont print either, just leave them on computers, upload them, or leave them on digital picture frames.

Stopping myself from running on and on now.

TLDR: Combinations of effects driving up prices of film and paper, not all costs are fixed, and many are variable which contribute to this.

 

[Aristophanes]

I had a '65 Mustang with the big engine!

It gave me nothing but trouble. I had to trade it in due to the excessive gas consumption, size and other major problems.

Cars like that start wars and that shorts petroleum, and now we have higher B&W film prices.

Sheesh!

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Okay, I'll bite.

"Photography isn't for the faint of wallet" a great photographer once told me. Go ahead and buy a dslr and spend buckets of money for inkjet ink (yeah, it isn't cheap either), calibration software, and don't forget PS and a computer and see what you think of the cost of film. I am happy to spend $4 a roll and get a great product.

D.

 

[2F/2F]

PE, I am really having a hard time believing that mileage statement unless you were a complete maniac on the road all the time, or did nothing but sit in the car with it idling. First of all, there was no "big engine" in '65 Mustangs. They were all small block V8's or six-bangers. And big blocks are not simple drop-in modifications until '67, when the Mustang increased in size. So I am assuming you mean a V-8 as opposed to an L-6. However, there were three V-8's available! You had either the K-Code Hi-Po engine (fairly rare), the A-Code 289-4-barrel-carb version, or the C-Code 289-2-barrel-carb version. And those small block V8's were quite fuel efficient for the time. The Mustang would not have been anywhere near as popular as it was among housewives and the rest of the general public if it had got 7.5 MPG. At that point, the Mustang was basically a Falcon (an "economy" car) below the surface, but wrapped in a more stylish skin. As I said, I got 13 city (almost twice what you state) and 17 highway with the K-Code Hi-Po model and 4-speed trans, which is the most powerful engine Ford themselves supplied in the Mustang that year. Non-4-barrel V-8's got better mileage, by at least a few MPG in the city.

 

[Photo Engineer]

2F;

There was only one Mustang with a larger engine. It had to have a raised hood to allow for the size of the engine. Mine was just below that level, and I assure you I was not a cowboy. And, yes, the 7.5 mpg was a correct figure averaged over several months. No, the Mustang was not a really good car until the 66 or 67 model, I think. I struck up quite a friendship with Frank and Ron, my gas station guys, and although Frank is long gone, Ron still gasses my car when I visit Pittsburgh. He and I trade jokes about that era!

 

[2F/2F]

"No, the Mustang was not a really good car until the 66 or 67 model, I think."

I have to disagree on this matter of opinion. To me, the Mustang was only a great car for the '65 and '66 model years. It was only then that it was a pure and true "pony car." They got big and muscly after that, and lost much of their European-inspired character and nimbleness. They also got more complicated mechanically (smog laws, larger engines), and thus less reliable and poorer performing in general...but that does not mean "bad" in terms of reliability. (There were exceptions in the area of performance, of course, as the horsepower race heated up, but in general they became slightly more mechanically complicated.) I think it was still an attractive body style in '67 and '68, but it had a different character by a long shot. It was big and "snarly" looking and could hold a big V-8. There are very few '69 and '70 models that I think look good (all fastbacks). They had pretty much departed from the original pony car concept by that point and were one step away from the hulking, hideous beast Mustangs of the early '70's. A travesty, those were. I honestly prefer the Mustang II to those ones!

As for the statement, "There was only one Mustang with a larger engine. It had to have a raised hood to allow for the size of the engine," it is just dead wrong, through and through. I have no idea where that factoid came from. It just isn't true, in any way. I listed the engine options in 1965, and none of them were big or required a "raised hood." The Shelby GT350 had a purely cosmetic hood scoop, but the engine was simply a K-Code with intake and exhaust modifications. It was no larger in displacement or physical size than a regular K-Code Hi-Po engine (though it was slightly higher in power due to the aforementioned modifications). It did not require a "raised hood." It just had a scoop for looks.

So, again, there were three '65 Mustang engines other than the standard L-6, not counting the Shelby-modified K-Code. They were all effectively the same size physically and in displacement. None of these engines can be considered "big" in the world of V-8's. None of them required a "raised hood." And none of them should have got any less than 12 or 13 MPG in the city unless something was seriously wrong with the tuning of the car or the habits of the driver. Both of those reasons are not faults of the design.

The cars were the model of simplicity and reliability outside of the world of European cars like Volkswagens, as were other domestic "compacts" of the day, such as the Chevy II. There is nothing mechanical on the car a 10-year old cannot replace in a day's work, and very little that would ever need fixing in the first place. If you were getting 7.5 MPG without hot-rodding all day long, then whoever was working on your car had no idea what they were doing.

At any rate, the whole point of this is that your figure of 7.5 MPG is at best atypical of the average car of the day, so is a bad figure to use as an example, and at worst a purposeful exaggeration to bolster your point. I think your point is correct, but the exact figures are wrong. If you had said you were driving a Cadillac all day long in bumper-to-bumper traffic, I might believe it. But not a '65 Mustang, with ANY engine, not even "the big engine." Not unless it had a fuel leak or something – an atypical situation.

P.S. In your comment about trading it in due to size, I am assuming you thought it was too small. Because there wasn't a whole lot that was smaller at that time.

 

[fmajor]

This car discussion is reminiscent of "My Cousin Vinny" with Marisa Tomei as an expert witness about automobiles.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Now, uh, Ms. Vito, being an expert on general automotive knowledge, can you tell me... what would the correct ignition timing be on a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?
Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!
Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!
D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?
Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

So, what say ye?

 

[Monito]

So, what say ye?

I say it looks like I should look in an antique car forum for some film photography information and discussion.

 

[Diapositivo]

2F/2F I don't understand your insistence about a fuel consumption figure. They can vary wildly. Half a world says "your mileage may vary" because it does vary a lot.

When I drive Joséphine*, a small motorbike, in a "sporty" way in the countryside, and I'm no speed fanatic at all, fuel consumption doubles.
When I am stuck with my car in Roman traffic jams I have no idea how much I consume, but it's not comparable, not even from far, from normal average.

Galileo Galilei taught us that a body which has reached a certain speed, if no force intervenes in stopping its motion, goes on and on forever. So when a car advances in flat road, after you put it into speed, you are expending energy only to win frictions and air resistance.
But any time you stop and start again, you have to spend a lot of energy to put the mass in motion again and again, that's where you spend energy, not in maintaining the car in motion.
So if you practice rush hours every day, your fuel consumption can skyrocket because you have to constantly put the car mass in motion. If you drive in a low-density traffic, you only have to maintain the car in motion.

Figures about fuel consumption are only indicative to compare different cars in the same traffic conditions. They have no absolute value whatsoever. I do more than 16 km/l in normal traffic, and probably less than 5 km/l in a bumper to bumper situation. (Never measured actually).

* The world knows the model as Suzuki GSF 400 "Bandit", 1992.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

Life's a bitch, then you die

 

[lxdude]

Joséphine*

* The world knows the model as Suzuki GSF 400 "Bandit", 1992.

A very sweet machine-small, nimble and pretty. A great city bike.

 

[markbarendt]

2F/2F I don't understand your insistence about a fuel consumption figure. They can vary wildly. Half a world says "your mileage may vary" because it does vary a lot.

I think there maybe a girl and a memory involved.

I remember jokes from back then that go something like this:

"It gets about 10 MPG, until you turn on the key."

 

[removed account4]

So, what say ye?

great movie, thanks for posting that

 

[ath]

Galileo Galilei taught us that a body which has reached a certain speed, if no force intervenes in stopping its motion, goes on and on forever.

AFAIR that was Newton...

 

[Diapositivo]

AFAIR that was Newton...

That was Galileo, Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze, 1635.

http://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Disco...,_del_naturalmente_accelerato._Giornata_terza

E.g.

[...]Inoltre, è lecito aspettarsi che, qualunque grado di velocità si trovi in un mobile, gli sia per sua natura indelebilmente impresso, purché siano tolte le cause esterne di accelerazione o di ritardamento; il che accade soltanto nel piano orizzontale; infatti nei piani declivi è di già presente una causa di accelerazione, mentre in quelli acclivi [è già presente una causa] di ritardamento: da ciò segue parimenti che il moto sul piano orizzontale è anche eterno; [...]

[...] Besides, it is legitimate to expect that, whatever degree of speed is to be found in a mobile, it be for its own nature ineffaceably impressed, provided the external causes of acceleration or deceleration are removed; the which only happens in the horizontal plane; in fact in the downhill planes it is already present a cause of acceleration [gravity], while in those uphill [it is already present a cause] of deceleration; from this equally follows that motion on the horizontal plane is also eternal; [...]

 

[ath]

You are correct and my lectures have been too long ago.

From wikipedia

Newton's first law is a restatement of the law of inertia which Galileo had already described and Newton gave credit to Galileo.

 

[laser]

Making KODAK Film

If you want to see what is involved in making a "simple" roll of film see:

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[Photo Engineer]

Film is indeed very hard to make and requires a lot of expertise! So are cars.

I cannot answer with the authority of 2F, but can answer from my POV. My mileage did vary depending on traffic and road. The city average was 7.5 and was due to the problems dealers had in adjusting that carburetor that Ford designed. It could not be kept in tune. Besides, the welded frame developed cracks which caused problems with acceleration and braking. And the body was rusting out. All of that in 3 years and with excellent maintenance.

I had at least one flat tire, and the Ford equipment broke the first time I tried to use it. (Jack and tire iron)

The brake system leaked brake fluid.

And, I did see many raised hood Mustangs. In fact, when I bought mine, the dealer tried to sell me one. The raised hood was for the huge air intake and carburetor. The dealer and the salesman were friends of the family as our family business used to buy their trucks and family cars from him. So, I did get a "good" car and a "good" deal. But, I had to trade in 3 years due to all of the problems. I bought a Torino from the same dealer and had the same rust and poor gas mileage, but it was a bit better than the Mustang. It literally fell apart though over 3 years, and so I changed to another manufacturer.

PE

 

[lxdude]

I think there maybe a girl and a memory involved.

I remember jokes from back then that go something like this:

"It gets about 10 MPG, until you turn on the key."

I had a couple of old land-boat clunkers back in the 70's. I used to talk about gallons-per-mile, whether fuel or oil consumption!

 

[fmajor]

I say it looks like I should look in an antique car forum for some film photography information and discussion.