TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES'

[Monito]

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.

It seems that after 40 years, some people still don't understand economics and business dynamics.

 

[jp498]

I've thought about buying up film that's apt to be discontinued and storing it in a freezer in some fallout shelter somewhere to protect it from cosmic radiation (earth and concrete in quantity are cheap ways to protect from natural gamma radiation). Imagine the wealth someone would be sitting on if they had a fridge full of polaroid 55 or a chest freezer full of tech pan? They might have the biggest inventory in the world!

This would not be an investment to avoid inflation related price changes in film, but rather a way to keep films on the market long after the end of their manufacture. It would take more money than I have to do on a worthwhile scale though. It's pretty much a guarantee there will be fewer film choices in the future, and a guarantee people don't like change, and a guarantee prices will increase. If you buy something that doesn't discontinue, it can easily be sold for most of it's cost as long as it's not far past it's exp date.

 

[bblhed]

I don't think that's the real problem. I think the real problem is that for the typical American, wages haven't kept pace.

+1

 

[michaelbsc]

Yes, we could have somebody make a film coating assembly line in their daddy's barn. Please see the dreaded 'Kodachrome has been deleted' thread to see where that one goes.

Hey, that was *MY* barn we were talking about in that thread.

Unfortunately we had a fire a few months ago, and that barn no longer exists. Only a concrete slab is there now, waiting for me to get another structure built.

Perhaps we should prepare it as a fabrication plant while I'm making the plans.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

You think film is expensive, go buy a digital camera. A good digital camera. You'll thank God for the low prices of film once you see what a good high resolution digital SLR costs. Film is not expensive. I make very little money compared to most of you, because I survive on my income as an artist...no other job...and I can afford to shoot a couple hundred rolls a year!

 

[Juri]

As a "broke student" I shoot mainly 35mm and just buy Lucky for 1.2 euro a roll or find some expired quality film for nearly the same price. Ocasionally I find old soviet films that were produced a couple of decades ago, but still usually work. I think the price of each frame is one of the factors that makes film photographs better.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES' ?

Nope. Not given the alternative...

Nor do I wish for them to unrealistically reduce their prices just to satisfy you, then go out of business and thus deprive me.



Ken

 

[Diapositivo]

Just shop around. I will be beginning soon developing negatives. I bought a bunch of films: Solaris FG 100 135/36 @ €1.80, FG 200 135/36 @ €2.22, Rollei Digibase CN 200 135/36 @ €3.72 per roll, Fuji Pro 160S 135/36 @ €3.60 (special offer, expiry date this July), Fuji Superia Xtra 800 135/36 @ €3.78. And I forgot some Kodak Ektar 100 135/36 @ 4.68, that's the most expensive film I am prepared to buy. Portra, sorry!

I bought today 4 Kaiser (Jobo-compatible) 1 litre flasks @ € 3.60 each, 4 Fujichrome Sensia 135/36 @ €3.66 each, and 4 more Fuji Superia Xtra 800 135/36 @ 3.78 each, besides some minor other items. That's tax included, and for additional €7.20 it will all be delivered within a few days at my door.

I'm especially interested in seeing how the Rollei CN200 will perform, as I can find 100ft (30.5m) bulk rolls for €28.50 (expiry date January 2015) which makes it very cheap, and rolls of CR200 are sold for the same price. (30.5 metres make more than 18 135/36 rolls, that makes the cost per roll less than €1.60 tax included).

When you find a shop which has a film you like at a price you like, "pillage it" and bulk freeze, you will not regret it.

Shopping around is the best way to save. Price vary a lot among different shops. Film sales will become an internet/bulk business. The weak shall die and the strong shall thrive. It's inevitable, and it's desirable.

Fabrizio

PS I also bought some 60% solution of acetic acid. That's corrosive but it appears it will be normally delivered at my door with the normal courier in a normal package. It's 1 litre after all. I'm glad there is no hazardous-material paranoia in my country.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

FWIW, I used to pay $1.15 for a 36-exposure roll of Tri-X in 1971; the current price from Freestyle is $3.99.

According to the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/), that $1.15 roll should now cost $6.66.

In 1972 the cost of 100 sheets of Kodak Polycontrast paper, 8x10 inch, glossy SW was $14.10 at one store I used to patronize; the same calculator says that that should be worth $77.84 today. The closest equivalent could be Kentmere 8x10 RC VC, at $62.99 or Ilford Multigrade Deluxe, at $78.19, at Freestyle. Not the best comparison, maybe, but it does serve to illustrate a point.

Note that these are Canadian prices, which, in my experience, aren't always in sync with U.S. prices.

 

[Diapositivo]

If Canada is like Italy, the present price should correspond to a much higher price in today's currency. For decades inflation statistics have been tampered on, for various reasons, not the least the "linking" between the official rate of inflation and the automatic raise of certain wages and pensions.

I remember when the bus was very, very cheap because the bus ticket was in the typical household inflation "basket" which was taken as the basis for all the automatic indexing and the collective bargaining. There was a small production of certain cigarettes, the "Nazionali" by the State Monopolies, which were to be found basically nowhere in Rome and were, you guess, quite cheap and you know why.

Bakers were (and probably still are) theoretically compelled to produce every day a certain amount of a certain kind of bread, ciriole, the price of which is determined by a Government decree, and is nowhere to be found, and you guessed it already, it was part of said basket.

Many dirty tricks were employed to make inflation appear less than it was in practice along all the '70s and '80s.

Statistics methods have changed now (the basket is very complicated, continuously updated, I don't know how they manage to compare prices year to year) and Eurostat methodology have increased the reliability (or seriousness) of inflation surveys. Nonetheless, when I listen to the official rate of inflation, I always wonder which is the real one.

Disraeli's definition of lie comes to mind.

 

[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.

The reality of the situation is you either pay the price or do without the product.

 

[CGW]

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.

As stated above, "do the math."

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/...arch/sahr/inflation-conversion/pdf/cv2010.pdf

 

[markbarendt]

Wages have not kept pace.

Exactly that, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Two23]

It is true that speculators have driven the price of silver way up, along with gold. Since I shoot mostly 4x5, I'm not worrying about it. It's not like I'm going through twenty sheets a day or something.


Kent in SD

 

[hpulley]

FWIW, I used to pay $1.15 for a 36-exposure roll of Tri-X in 1971; the current price from Freestyle is $3.99.

According to the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/), that $1.15 roll should now cost $6.66.

In 1972 the cost of 100 sheets of Kodak Polycontrast paper, 8x10 inch, glossy SW was $14.10 at one store I used to patronize; the same calculator says that that should be worth $77.84 today. The closest equivalent could be Kentmere 8x10 RC VC, at $62.99 or Ilford Multigrade Deluxe, at $78.19, at Freestyle. Not the best comparison, maybe, but it does serve to illustrate a point.

Note that these are Canadian prices, which, in my experience, aren't always in sync with U.S. prices.

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.

I still have a roll of Panatomix-X expired in 1961. The $0.60 price tag is still on the box.

What people are forgetting overall is that the price is what people are willing to pay. They can talk about silver, fuel, etc. all they want but if it is too expensive then people won't buy it, regardless of the excuse. I'm glad I stocked up at the beginning of the year before the FIRST increase but I have already run through some sizes of it and that means buying more, oh well.

At least it isn't inkjet... there isn't any silver in the ink or paper and yet it is more expensive than printing in the darkroom! I really don't understand the digital revolution there -- if you don't make prints then I understand but not if you do.

 

[markbarendt]

What people are forgetting overall is that the price is what people are willing to pay. They can talk about silver, fuel, etc. all they want but if it is too expensive then people won't buy it, regardless of the excuse.

The willingness to pay is simply a measure of how important something is to someone.

Excuses are just used to gently say I'm not that interested.

 

[2F/2F]

I suggest you go entirely digital, for the second time in response to a post you have made on APUG. It seems to suit you better, based on your posts of complaint about issues related to the use of film.

 

[hpulley]

I suggest you go entirely digital, for the second time in response to a post you have made on APUG. It seems to suit you better, based on your posts of complaint about issues related to the use of film.

If cost is the real factor he'll find that digital printing is more expensive, not less expensive! Digital cameras that depreciate at the same rate as desktop computers, or even faster, are also more expensive than film gear for which today's films are better than ever so in fact they can take higher resolution images than when the cameras were new while digital cameras will be last year's model faster than you can say megapixel race...

 

[Diapositivo]

I hope this thread does not transform itself into another digital<->analogue thread. We know the pros and cons of both technologies by now.

The OP complains about prices but offers no suggestion.

I for myself can not think of many:

1) Explore cheaper products, you might like them;
2) Buy less, economise film and paper, shoot more reflexively;
3) Hoard in times of good prices, or when you find a special offer, a good price on bulk rolls, etc.;
4) Hedge your film position by staying long Silver, buying a series of instruments with expiry every three months: when the price go up you earn in derivatives what you lost in film increases; when the price goes down, you earn in film decrease what you lose in silver price. That supposes your film consumption is fairly stable and silver prices don't move too erratically*.

*As every hedging strategy, that's not so easy to work out. For how long are you going to hedge? Which is the amount of hedging you need to sterilize the effect of silver prices on your accounts? And how much is it going to cost (no hedging strategy is free); and finally, as the silver "bubble" seems to be on the verge od bursting, shouldn't you be short Silver instead? Maybe 1), 2) and 3) are sufficient

 

[2F/2F]

If cost is the real factor he'll find that digital printing is more expensive, not less expensive! Digital cameras that depreciate at the same rate as desktop computers, or even faster, are also more expensive than film gear for which today's films are better than ever so in fact they can take higher resolution images than when the cameras were new while digital cameras will be last year's model faster than you can say megapixel race...

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."

 

[CGW]

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.

 

[tkamiya]

I could complain about cost of film, paper, and chemistry. But, the point I remind myself is, I get enjoyment out of these products and that's worth a lot to me. I do this for personal enjoyment, not a financial gain.

I could complain about the role of economy, wages, speculators, executives, banks, and the government but that won't change anything in the way I enjoy my photography. At the current cost of film, paper, and chemistry, I am neither going to use more or less than, say, if they were 25% less. I'll probably do the same if it were 25% more.

I tend to care less about what others do to my hobby and care more about what I get out of my hobby.

This is just my way of enjoying my life.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I don't find photography to be too expensive; at least not the film/chemistry/paper side. But then I shoot 35mm and print at 5"x7".

GAS impacts the wallet more, as does many other things like long commutes, restaurant meals, alcohol, meat, cinema tickets, cars. I think it's about priorities: I get far more out of a roll of film than a plate of meat.

 

[2F/2F]

But then I shoot 35mm and print at 5"x7".

That has A LOT to do with why you don't find it too expensive.

 

[Eric Rose]

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.