konicaman
konicaman
There has been a lot of threads discussing the price of film vs. the price of digital. This is not one of those 
I am just taking a historical outlook. I buy old photo books when I find them in thrift shops. Recently I found what we call the Danish photo Bible (Jeg fotograferer) which has been seen in many editions from the 50'ies to this day. This one was from 1963 and a couple of pages were dedicated to the economy of photography. Buying, processing and getting prints from a 136/36 film was app. 100 Dkr. (12 £) at the time - now that is about the same price that we pay today. Looking at the value of our Viking money in 1963 compared to their current value, you would have to multiply 6-7 times! So in that perspective film is not all that expensive
I am just taking a historical outlook. I buy old photo books when I find them in thrift shops. Recently I found what we call the Danish photo Bible (Jeg fotograferer) which has been seen in many editions from the 50'ies to this day. This one was from 1963 and a couple of pages were dedicated to the economy of photography. Buying, processing and getting prints from a 136/36 film was app. 100 Dkr. (12 £) at the time - now that is about the same price that we pay today. Looking at the value of our Viking money in 1963 compared to their current value, you would have to multiply 6-7 times! So in that perspective film is not all that expensive
Roger Hicks
Mentor
You're absolutely right that today it's cheap in inflation adjusted terms, and in terms of what many people spend on many hobbies.
On the other hand, compared with the literally thousands per year professionals used to spend on film, Polaroids, processing and courier bikes, it's no surprise that a $20,000 camera can look like a bargain.
Cheers,
R.
On the other hand, compared with the literally thousands per year professionals used to spend on film, Polaroids, processing and courier bikes, it's no surprise that a $20,000 camera can look like a bargain.
Cheers,
R.
AFenvy
Established
I still can't understand the people that say they don't shoot film "because they can't afford it". Really? I am broke 90% of the time and I have to say a couple dollars here and there for film doesn't even begin to hurt my budget. Unless you are going to burn through roll after roll every day, I can't see it being this "huge expense" people gripe about. I mean who complains because a package of 18 eggs costs $2 at a grocery store? If a roll of film is going to break your budget how can you afford your internet bill to go online and moan about it?
PatrickONeill
Well-known
expectations.
as is. "I shoot 500 images of the party, and since it was digital it cost me nothing!"
or.. "I shoot 13 rolls at at party, and that cost me nearly $170! in processing and film"
as is. "I shoot 500 images of the party, and since it was digital it cost me nothing!"
or.. "I shoot 13 rolls at at party, and that cost me nearly $170! in processing and film"
kshapero
South Florida Man
Best line of the year!!!!!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Did you answer the "how long does it take for you to shoot a roll" thread?
Do you order prints? Scans?
When I had more budget problems than I have now, the cost of film, and much more the cost of development, scanning and prints was a significant issue. Things like slide film were out of the question.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Pssst....
RolleiRetro 100 @ EUR 1.43 a roll (36 exp) from MacoDirect.de when you buy 50 rolls at once.
It's my favorite discontinued film, so only I can stock up
RolleiRetro 100 @ EUR 1.43 a roll (36 exp) from MacoDirect.de when you buy 50 rolls at once.
It's my favorite discontinued film, so only I can stock up
craygc
Well-known
Given what I have invested in Leica and M-mount glass, an M9 would probably be the logical choice if I were to go digital. However, given that my scanners are a sunk cost and then looking at what I've shot over the last decade and how much the film and processing has cost - I still wouldn't have spend even close to the price of an M9 (would probably even go close to cover my scanners as well). Im not professional and the time issues doesn't bother me too much - its my hobby and therapeutic and I enjoy all aspect of it
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Yeah, but it's a B&W film, so in order to get actual pictures you have to develop the film yourself and then either buy a good scanner ($$$) or to spend a lot of time in the B&W darkroom, and in addition to the time those enlargers and easels and timers and trays and light-proofing a room for it and the paper and chemistry cost a fair bit of $$$ too.
Regarding prices - rolling your own gets prices a lot lower still. I currently average around 1 EUR for a roll of Kodak Ektachrome E100D slide film by buying movie short ends. But this became attractive only after I found a lab that would cross-develop and scan a roll for 6 EUR for when I didn't mind crazy colours, and after bought a scanner for $600 that could process a whole roll when I wanted normal colours.
Mcary
Well-known
The way I look at it an M9+accessories would cost me around $225 a month for the next three years. Now if I was spending that much money on film and chemical's a month then getting an M9 might make a bit of since but since I usually spend less then 1/3 of that I'll stick with film for now.
Also don't forget that unless you're paying cash for that M9, D3 D700 5D or its a business expense it still cost you $$ each month no matter now much or how little you use it. On the other hand if you spend $200 on film and don't use it this month you can still use it next month or the month after that ext.
Also don't forget that unless you're paying cash for that M9, D3 D700 5D or its a business expense it still cost you $$ each month no matter now much or how little you use it. On the other hand if you spend $200 on film and don't use it this month you can still use it next month or the month after that ext.
thegman
Mentor
Historically, film is very cheap, but we live in an age when things are expected to be extraordinarily cheap (DVD player for £15) or free (software, internet services etc.).
Leica0Series
Well-known
These arguments always revolve around the cost of initial image capture. You never hear, "Hey, I had to buy a $200 external hard drive to back up my images." It's just a matter of when you want to pay. With film you pay up front but storage is cheap, just keep your house from burning down, which you're motivated to do anyway. With digital the cost up front is cheap (leaving aside the price of the camera) but storage is an ongoing expense.
AFenvy
Established
I did see that thread, it takes me 1-2 weeks to finish a roll usually. I scan my own film and get prints at Costco, where three 8x12's cost $5. I shoot slides as well as negative film. I just got 80 slides developed and mounted for free (coupons!).
segedi
RFicianado
^ What he said.
But I do lament the disappearance of almost all film from the B&H Short-dated/Out-of-date section. Years back I bought loads of film, the cheapest being an expired Porst slide film for $1.25/roll...
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I rarely see the flipside of this -- people actually thinking about the true cost of digital. "Is Digital Really That Cheap?"
At what point would it have to reach before film is considered "cheap enough"?
At what point would it have to reach before film is considered "cheap enough"?
cosmonaut
Well-known
Yes it's expensive, but so is golf, biking, hunting or any other hobby. More than digital. It just depends. I read Garry Winogrand averaged ten rolls of Trix a day. I couldn't afford that.
Snacks
Established
I just compared how much I spend per month on coffee versus what I spend on film and reagents. I conclude that I drink too much coffee.
P.S. I just spent $800 on Leica... microscopy slides. Sigh.
P.S. I just spent $800 on Leica... microscopy slides. Sigh.
brachal
Refrigerated User
I did the math a while back. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think it comes to about 50 cents every time I press the shutter. That's paying for film, processing, and scans. No prints. Doesn't bother me, but I can see some people having a problem with the cost.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Film is expensive if your an Australian ... there's no way around that fact!
If not for the internet and the ability to buy on line outside Oz I probably wouldn't be shooting film.
TRi-X ... nine dollars per roll
HP5+ ... twelve dollars per roll
Fuji Chrome ... close to twenty dollars per roll
Tha last roll of black and white I had processed at one of Brisbane's remaining pro labs cost me twelve dollars.
A roll of E-6 was twenty dollars just to process ... no mounting!
It's all comparative I guess but for me ... film is expensive if I buy it here.
If not for the internet and the ability to buy on line outside Oz I probably wouldn't be shooting film.
TRi-X ... nine dollars per roll
HP5+ ... twelve dollars per roll
Fuji Chrome ... close to twenty dollars per roll
Tha last roll of black and white I had processed at one of Brisbane's remaining pro labs cost me twelve dollars.
A roll of E-6 was twenty dollars just to process ... no mounting!
It's all comparative I guess but for me ... film is expensive if I buy it here.
Nomad Z
Well-known
Been looking at that deal on and off for a little while. It says it's dated 2012 - do you know which month? (I got some from AG Photographic a few months ago, and that's dated January 2012.)