TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES'

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

You take night photography with f:1.4 when at the night shift. I did it.

Excellent Eric.

 

[2F/2F]

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.

Oh, so you have come south of the 49th parallel recently, I see?

(Made in good fun from a guy who works three, sometimes four, jobs to keep food in his belly and film in his cameras.)

 

[michaelbsc]

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.

You are correct, but let me offer just a little bit of defense for whining in general.

I don't think whining is bad per se. It is a reasonable mechanism that we use to ameliorate our discomfort at adjusting to changes in our environment which are beyond our control. To some extent we all whine. My *DOG* whines.

 

[michaelbsc]

Duplicate

 

[brianmquinn]

He is a post by Photo Engineer on 04-29-2011
"A color print in the 50s and early 60s was about 28 cents. A 36 exposure roll cost about $3, processing about $1 and printing about $10 for a total of about $14 per roll. In today's dollars that would be about $100 / roll."

 

[hpulley]

Photography is a luxury. If you can't afford it then do something else. Just about everything else is expensive too however...

 

[CGW]

Photography is a luxury. If you can't afford it then do something else. Just about everything else is expensive too however...

Amen. As luxury goods go, though, it remains accessible. Kodak has allowed us to "upgrade" our camera sensors several times in the past few years for the cost of a roll of film. This argument draws nothing but laughs from friends shooting digital but some actually do get it. Several ditched their Nikon D200s for D300s; others went up to FF D700s, while some went for the newer D7000. Their upgrades cost a bit more than mine.

 

[removed account4]

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.

the price of energy and fuel to make and transport film and paper has gone up since 1972.
gasoline cost 32¢/gallon ( here in the states ) and the average price of "regular unleaded" is 3.55 and obviously in europe it it 3 to 4x that ...
i am sure the world fuel and energy were plentiful and cheap...

if film and paper prices are too high, just buy outdated paper and make/buy a large format camera
and shoot paper negatives. contact printing them is effortless, and making them ( both the cameras and paper negatives ) is easy as well.

 

[andyaitken]

Film here in the UK is about £5 -£7 depending what you buy, fuel on the other hand is about £1.38 a litre which equate roughly to £5.50 to £6.00 per gallon depending where you buy. So comparitively, depending on volume film is a fairly good, given the film versus car option.

 

[mwdake]

Years ago when film and paper seemed so much cheaper I didn't have the money to buy it.
Now I am older I am fortunate to have enough money to follow my hobby.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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."

I did not have a digital camera. When the time came to consider a digital camera, I bought two 4"x5" cameras instead. I still do not have a digital camera and I do not feel that I am missing anything.

Steve

 

[CBG]

An elementary read of economic theory indicates that in a market with several or many producers, it is very hard for one producer to inflate their own prices. So, I wonder if the OP might explain how the photographic film market is an exception to the laws of economics.

I would suggest the OP take a look at the mechanics of making emulsions etc, which are enormously difficult. The level of control needed to maintain quality is very high. Every aspect of the process is very complex and thus expensive.

In a shrinking market with progressively fewer economies of scale, each unit of film is more expensive to produce.

Put another way, if everything was really as easy, simple and cheap to make as the OP's opinion would suggest, there would be no room in the market for digital, since film would be all but free.

 

[Terrence Brennan]

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?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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...

 

[CGW]

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 they'd be kvetching about why pork isn't 29 cents/lb. in 2011.

 

[michaelbsc]

... And you can probably thank advances in manufacturing process for that.

Actually we can thank advances in manufacturing for all kinds of things that are actually affordable to the common person today. We tend to forget that the few people we read about in history books were supported by drives of minions who lead totally monotonous lives toiling in obscurity.

Even though a surf is not actually a slave, the thought of shoveling horse manure for 40 years of adult life before dying from some undiagnosed, unnamed ailment to be buried in plot with hundreds of other people who were buried along with their names isn't appealing.

For all of modern society's ills, the lot of the commoners today is not worse off than the centuries that preceded modern society.

 

[WRSchmalfuss]

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.

"If now the ILFORD films FP4/HP5 are "unaffordable", why you not buy the KENTMERE? The KENTMERE 100/400 film or/and get an ROLLEI RPX 100/400, as well as available as 120 roll film. A FP4 135-36 costs € 4.32 in comparison. A KENTMERE 135-36 costs € 2.98 in the same carrier, at least at one of the highest grossing film services in continental Europe. Then you will save a lot of money, and have changed over to an top product."

 

[moose10101]

Yes, I am tired of 'excuses' being given for BW film prices.

Sometimes "excuses" are valid reasons that don't fit the listener's agenda.

 

[Aristophanes]

Photography is a luxury. If you can't afford it then do something else. Just about everything else is expensive too however...

One could argue then that literacy and books are a luxury....

 

[Mark Layne]

Well, in 1969, you could also buy a Volkswagon Beetle for somewhere around $1,995.

It's not just film...

in 1965 my Mini was less than $800.00

 

[SkipA]

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.

Is that a quarter ounce troy or avoirdupois?

Really, that sounds like a pretty high concentration either way. I didn't realize it was that much per gallon. It's definitely worth the trouble to reclaim it at that level given the price of silver.

I just recently bought one of those silver magnet gizmos. I'm saving up my used fixer in a covered 5 gallon bucket until I have enough to process. Hopefully the silver magnet will work even after the fixer has started to precipitate out those yellow-colored solids. I don't think that stubborn and almost impossible to clean precipitate contains any silver. I believe the silver should still be in solution.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

in 1965 my Mini was less than $800.00

If you try to sell a 1965 Mini now in good condition, it would bring a pretty penny!

Jeff

 

[mwdake]

in 1965 my Mini was less than $800.00

In 1972 my used Mini cost £70, $120.
And, it had flared wheel arches and rally seat covers.

 

[Sim2]

Please don't forget that the original Mini was sold at a price that the owner of the company dictated that it had to be sold at. Nobody had worked out (or told the owner) that it cost them more to make than the sale price; very successful product, high sales, bankrupt company soon to be taken over by the government.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, I've been thinking of a good answer, and I can't say as I have read the entire thread but here goes.....

In the 60s, a gallon of gasoline in the US ran, on average, about $0.15. Yes, that is correct! And, my car got about 7.5 miles per gallon. Again, that is correct.

Today, I pay about $4.00 / gallon and get about 20 - 30 miles / gallon depending. Oil is becoming more scarce and more costly. I know that there are other reasons, but there it is, one reason. Film (and paper) are heavily dependent on petroleum products! Therefore prices rise. Also, today's films and papers are much more costly to make due to the improvements in speed and grain. Back in the 60s a 160 film was the best we could buy and the grain and sharpness were nothing to write home about.

In addition, for the last 30 - 40 years, plants ran at full capacity and efficiency, balancing cost with profit nicely. Today, many coating lines lie idle due to the lower demand for products. Wages, benefits, utilities and taxes still have to be paid.

So, prices go up!

You are using a specialty product which uses increasingly rare items. Be happy with what you have!

PE