Joe Vitessa
Well-known
Interesting read and photos on Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2..._and_70s_hollywood.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_ru
"Making a picture was also a lot more expensive. Although today it doesn’t sound like much, Feldman said he would spend around $3 on a roll of film and then additional expenses when developing and printing the images for chemicals and paper. In total, each image would cost him roughly 50 cents."
Does that amount seem high to photogs who where shooting in the 1960s? Maybe not...
"Making a picture was also a lot more expensive. Although today it doesn’t sound like much, Feldman said he would spend around $3 on a roll of film and then additional expenses when developing and printing the images for chemicals and paper. In total, each image would cost him roughly 50 cents."
Does that amount seem high to photogs who where shooting in the 1960s? Maybe not...
Hsg
who dares wins
He has some interesting shots in that article. Considering that he was shooting medium format it does make sense to have cost him 50 cent each.
emayoh
Established
It took me a while to realize that world no longer exists. I used to carry a lot of angst because I could not match the vibe of photos like these. But, now I just accept the world is different, we're different, and photos are different.
Great article. Thank you for sharing it.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
Sounds like BS on the prices...as late as 1974, a roll of Tri-X 120 was 59-65 cents thru mail order.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
I wish I filled up my freezer back then! Of course, I was only 6 at the time...