Wayback Machine: Vintage darkroom and film prices - 60 years ago

[kreeger]

So Google has a lot of magazines from the 50s and they have old Pop Photo issues in there.

This is a 60 year old Freestyle ad from the back of the magazine.

Tri-X 135-36 were $3.95 a dozen.
The 100' roles of 35mm are even more dirt cheap!
100 sheet box of 11x14 for $2.95.

Hey, if you have any great ads like this, share em.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Inflation? What inflation?

Holy Sh**!

I remember Danny Lyon (I think) complaining that back in the 50s he had to pay $3 a roll for Tri-X. Now I know he was talking about 100' and shouldn't have been bitchin' about it!

 

[chip j]

I was paying $1.29 for Plus-X 36 at Jewel Mart in the early 80s.

 

[Soeren]

And the yearly income back then was???

 

[chip j]

I was getting $325/month from a VA Pension, which placed me a little above the national poverty level.

 

[AgX]

I find it interesting that even military surplus material as a K-20 showed up at a regular photo dealer.

 

[Trask]

Military surplus, the stuff of my young man dreams in the early 1960's -- Harley Davidson military motorcycles packed in grease and like new, for peanuts, according to the ads in the back of Popular Mechanics. Or so we all believed...

 

[ic-racer]

$2.95 for the 100ft Kodak roll would be around $28 dollars today. That the film now cost over $100 is not due to inflation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have too much surplus.

 

[frobozz]

I bought a 100' roll of Background-X off of ebay a while back (for not much more than in that ad!) and was pretty excited to use it... until I opened the can. UGH!!!!!! First time I had ever seen (smelled!) vinegar syndrome in anything other than processed movie film. So if you go back in time to buy that film, avoiding the time travel paradox would probably mean it would be a gooey stinky hunk of glop when you returned with it ;-)

Duncan

 

[bdial]

The "old" Freestyle was a fascinating place. My first visit was in the 70's but even then it was full of all sorts of interesting and obscure used and surplus stuff like the aerial cameras featured in the ad . Now it's all pretty and respectable.

 

[AgX]

Thus the name resembled the impression that shop once gave?
I always wondered where that name originated from.

60years... I always thought Freestyle was at most 20 years old.

 

[Eric Rose]

So $1.98 for Kodabromide in say 1955 would equal $17.70 in 2015. 33cents/roll for Tri-x in 1955, $2.95 in 2015. This is just taking inflation into consideration. Today at the evil B&H TriX 36 exp goes for $4.95/roll.

The average American household income in 2015 was $52,250 according to census data. What cost $52,250 in 2015 would cost $5843.43 in 1955. One roll of TriX would account for .006% of annual income in 1955, whereas in 2015 a roll of TriX accounts for .01%. This is worse than it looks because in 1955 the household income would be earned by one wage earner where in 2015 a vast majority of households have at least 2 wage earners.

 

[BrianShaw]

The "old" Freestyle was a fascinating place. My first visit was in the 70's but even then it was full of all sorts of interesting and obscure used and surplus stuff like the aerial cameras featured in the ad . Now it's all pretty and respectable.

I remember in the 1980's going out of my way to avoid Freestyle. What kind of a fool was I? I'm glad I came to my senses eventually. My favorite was Franks, but most of my business ended up being done closer to home and work.

 

[MattKing]

So $1.98 for Kodabromide in say 1955 would equal $17.70 in 2015. 33cents/roll for Tri-x in 1955, $2.95 in 2015. This is just taking inflation into consideration. Today at the evil B&H TriX 36 exp goes for $4.95/roll

It would be fascinating to know how the sales volumes of Tri-X compare between the two dates.

 

[Eric Rose]

Matt I am sure that is a well guarded secret. I also added a bunch more info to my original post.

 

[AgX]

Comparing prices by taking inflation into account is not the whole story.

Better is to compare to the income of a standardized person. But then again it becomes tricky which standard-person to choose...

 

[David Lindquist]

I first dealt with Freestyle about 45 years ago. I think back then a lot of their sensitized products were in fact short dated/ outdated and probably often government/military surplus. They did stand behind their products. Of course today they are one of our treasured resources for film and paper and I say thank goodness for them.
David

 

[David Brown]

Comparing prices by taking inflation into account is not the whole story.

$2.95 for the 100ft Kodak roll would be around $28 dollars today. That the film now cost over $100 is not due to inflation.

In the 1970s, film and paper prices skyrocketed when the Hunt Brothers began their speculation into silver bullion and the resulting spike in silver prices. Costs never fully recovered from that debacle. I was a wedding photographer then, and I remember it well!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I recently moved to Los Angeles on Friday 23 June 1969 but I did not learn about FreeStyle until APUG got me back to developing film.

 

[Jim Noel]

I find it interesting that even military surplus material as a K-20 showed up at a regular photo dealer.

Freestyle started out primarily selling government surplus stuff along with off-brand films and papers.

 

[Jim Noel]

It would be fascinating to know how the sales volumes of Tri-X compare between the two dates.

Matt,
Tri-X was rather new at that time, and had to compete with the old favorite Super XX. Also it was available as both orthochromatic and panchromatic.

 

[bsdunek]

I was buying 8mm Kodachrome movie film from them in the 60's. Even with shipping it was the best price I could find. Kids were young and I went through a lot of film. I value those old movies. Every so often the kids want to see them and they still project great.

 

[RobC]

didn't know the wayback machine went that far back before the web and internet were around.

 

[kreeger]

Ok, so now fast forward - here's a 1990's Reference Freestyle advertisement for comparison.