What percentage price increase would it take before you reconsider using film?

What percentage price increase would it take before you reconsider using film?

  • 25%

    Votes: 3 2.4%

  • 50%

    Votes: 10 8.1%

  • 75%

    Votes: 4 3.2%

  • 100%

    Votes: 28 22.6%

  • 200%

    Votes: 12 9.7%

  • I don't care ... I'll pay whatever it costs.

    Votes: 67 54.0%
  • Total voters
    124
  • Poll closed .
Depends! Right now I only buy Arista and Legacy film because they are so cheap, even with shipping! Locally, Tri-X in 35mm is $6 and in 120 it is $3.75- which is quite competitive. If the price went to $10 a roll I would shoot a lot less. When I go London to visit my parents I often stock up on Ilford because at Silverprint it is 30% off if you buy 10 or more rolls. Even with the discount it is still more than Freestlye's generic brands. I dislike Fomapan 400 so much I would go digital if that were the last film on Earth- unless they improve their quality control.:D
 
If film continues to go up as it has I will just use less. Thank God for places that still charge reasonable prices for film and developing and scanning.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I would guess that if costs increased 200 percent, young folks would stop feeding it through toy cameras, setting up a rapid death spiral for film in general and commercial processing in particular.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. The cost of film and processing is akin to daylight robbery here in Australia yet the lomo craze is massive.
 
How much a *click* is it?

How much a *click* is it?

That's how it was put to me back in 1969, when I was buying film (inevitably Kodak in Upstate New York) for my first SLR. Somewhere I actually have copies of Popular Photography from 1968-1970 (high school for me). One of my mentors said "buy bulk it's cheaper. How much a *click* do you pay now? you might as well be shooting Kodachrome all the time!" For B&W add in chemicals, if you're picky.

At US$15 a roll (36 exp) that's, mmmm, $5 a dozen. That's a bit above 120 B&W now, at least Kodak. That's in the 40-50 cents a *click* range.

Medium format is to 35mm film as 35mm film is to digital: Makes you slow down and pick your pix, then compose & expose carefully. This afternoon I was snapping swallows & flycatchers working the surface of the Patuxent River in Maryland - WHEEE! what a rush...just keep cranking the advance on the M4 and hope you caught the little guys before they banked sideways and turned invisible. What will I get, beyond the geek-thrill of running the machine? maybe a "keeper" or two out of my $6+ roll of Plus-X. As Lou Jacobi once said "it's only a 'obby!"
 
Last edited:
Since I shoot a combination of film and digital, the question for me is a little different. I find myself thinking, "How expensive would gasoline have to be before I stop driving?" the more expensive film gets, the less I will use but I think I would continue to shoot some film even when it becomes expensive - I really do not know how to quantify what my threshold for what excessively expensive would be.
 
Interesting question Keith. Like JSU I now have my darkroom in good order, and I'm learning more about exposure, developing and printing every week. I know the end (of the way I currently practice photography) will come, and probably within the next 15 to 20 years, but I expect to be able to enjoy it affordably for at least the next ten years or so.

The availability of paper for printing will likely be the first big hurdle, as paper doesn't keep in cold storage as well as film, and stockpiling probably isn't practical. Alternative processes exist of course (even glass negs if it comes to that), but for practical photography.

I have several years worth of 35mm film in cold storage, and keep buying enough to cover current usage as I can. At some point I'll hit the resistence point and start consuming my long-term stocks instead. But I can't say right now at what price point I'll reach that decision.
 
I would definitely have said I'd pare down, if I hadn't started developing my own B&W film. Much cheaper that way (develop and scan), and I like some of the cheapest films at Freestyle, so prices would have to rise a lot.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I would guess that if costs increased 200 percent, young folks would stop feeding it through toy cameras, setting up a rapid death spiral for film in general and commercial processing in particular.
Click to expand...

I doubt that much film is really being shot by hipsters with Lomos. Most is shot by artists and students in college/art school photo programs. Commercial processing is already dead, has been for years. The last decent lab in Indiana closed 5 yrs ago. I'm surprised so many companies still make film, especially Kodak and Fuji. They're big companies that make a lot of other things; film is no longer a big part of business for them the way it is for small companies like Ilford and Foma. Few people still paint with oil paint, yet about 30 companies still manufacture it. Fewer still use egg tempera, yet there is still at least one manufacturer of it. A small number of users can support one or two small manufacturers.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I doubt that much film is really being shot by hipsters with Lomos. Most is shot by artists and students in college/art school photo programs. Commercial processing is already dead, has been for years. The last decent lab in Indiana closed 5 yrs ago. I'm surprised so many companies still make film, especially Kodak and Fuji. They're big companies that make a lot of other things; film is no longer a big part of business for them the way it is for small companies like Ilford and Foma. Few people still paint with oil paint, yet about 30 companies still manufacture it. Fewer still use egg tempera, yet there is still at least one manufacturer of it. A small number of users can support one or two small manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Roberts in Indy was still doing E-6 the last time I was still there.
 
With the current value of money, I probably would not change behavior as long as the price per roll 120 BW film stays below 1000 Yen (that’s probably around 12 US$) - and that is 3 times the current price of Tri-X in Japan.
I consider myself a film photographer, but the vast majority of my photos are digital snaps. As I put a lot of consideration in each film photo, it does not amount to very many rolls, and considering all the other costs involved in maintaining photo equipment etc. the relative cost of film is negligible.
 
Last edited:
For the last couple of years I've been buying APX100 for €1,50 per roll from Germany. That stock is drying up fast and I will face a reality of €3,50 or more per roll very soon. That's more than 100% price increase for me. But I'm not whining.
 
Unless you use a camera like a mini-gun, film is still very cheap compared to a new digital body every couple of years (or however long it takes for "digital rot" and marketing to make you go and buy the latest version).
 
Chris101 said:
I haven't paid that much attention. How expensive is it now?
Click to expand...

CHEAP, if you shoot black and white. $2 a roll Tri-X from Freestyle (Arista Premium 400; I have 90 rolls of it on my worktable!). Chemicals are so cheap on a per-roll basis that they're near free. Less than $1 a roll for developer, fixer, and photo-flo.

Even color is no more expensive than it was when I was a teenager. E-6 film is about $11 a roll (it was 9 or 10 for pro films when I was a kid) and $10 to process (was about $7 when i was young, so thats increased a little bit).
 
Second part of the question: how much lower an M9 should cost for you to ....

right now, in my book (read shooting arista and home processing/scanning), film is much cheaper than digital
 
Tri-X is $8.00 a roll in NZ more in some towns and it's the cheapest available.

Some of the Ilford offerings are twice that price

Buying in from the USA is about half that cost ... for many Kiwis i would say the line has already been crossed.

I'm sticking with film and the OM-2
 
I think to say commercial processing is dead is probably accurate or inaccurate depending on where you live. Here in London, I can walk to several processors, at least one is a pro-lab doing E6 etc.

But back to the question, I'd probably handle a 100% increase, but not much more. I'm more concerned about the range of films available. If Velvia disappeared, then for me that would be a big deal, as I tend to think film excels for colour, not B&W (that too though).
 
Since I like T-max I am trying Acros now. At 5$ a roll from Fuji UK.

I will be happy to move to Melbourne late september; there I can order from the US without the 27% customs and handling fee we pay in Belgium.

When the price increases enormously I think I will stick with the 6x9 MF format and shoot much slower/deliberate and use digital for anything else.
 
None of the above.

I stocked up on RolleiRetro 100 at EUR 1,43 a piece from macodirect.de and have enough film to last me a decade. 100ft Retro400 was cheap as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top