I've seen quite a few people complaining about how expensive it is to shoot film. Many are selling off their film cameras, expressing shock at the cost of film today.
I'm not sure that shooting film is any more expensive to shoot today than it was back in the 1970s -- in inflation adjusted terms it could be even cheaper.
I think that part of the perception that film is expensive is based upon people being accustomed to shooting digital, where the cameras can be ridiculously expensive, but the digital "film" is essentially free.
To really appreciate the cost of digital photography you'd have to amortize the cost of a digital camera across the number of "keepers" it produces. That will give a fair estimation of whether digital is cheap or expensive compared to film. Digital seems cheap when we ignore the cost of a high end camera and focus our attention on the "free clicks", but much of the time those free clicks produce nothing useful and the number of keepers is what really matters.
I'm not convinced that it costs more to shoot film than to shoot digital. Even if you don't do your own processing, film seems cheap. Today there are great film cameras that are almost free to buy. Adjusted for inflation they're dirt cheap. And though film may seem expensive, the cost of a roll of film vs. the price of a gallon of gas today seems less expensive than it was in the 70s -- film was cheap then but gas was even cheaper. And if you DIY processing, the cost of film photography can be quite attractive. Especially if you factor in the cost of a Z8 or Z9 and a full compliment of lenses vs an equivalent F-mount SLR setup.
So what do you think? Is shooting film cheap or expensive? I think it's cheap, which seems to be why so many young photographers have avoided digital and embraced film.
coralnut wrote:
I've seen quite a few people complaining about how expensive it is to shoot film. Many are selling off their film cameras, expressing shock at the cost of film today.
I'm not sure that shooting film is any more expensive to shoot today than it was back in the 1970s -- in inflation adjusted terms it could be even cheaper.
I think that part of the perception that film is expensive is based upon people being accustomed to shooting digital, where the cameras can be ridiculously expensive, but the digital "film" is essentially free.
To really appreciate the cost of digital photography you'd have to amortize the cost of a digital camera across the number of "keepers" it produces. That will give a fair estimation of whether digital is cheap or expensive compared to film. Digital seems cheap when we ignore the cost of a high end camera and focus our attention on the "free clicks", but much of the time those free clicks produce nothing useful and the number of keepers is what really matters.
I'm not convinced that it costs more to shoot film than to shoot digital. Even if you don't do your own processing, film seems cheap. Today there are great film cameras that are almost free to buy. Adjusted for inflation they're dirt cheap. And though film may seem expensive, the cost of a roll of film vs. the price of a gallon of gas today seems less expensive than it was in the 70s -- film was cheap then but gas was even cheaper. And if you DIY processing, the cost of film photography can be quite attractive. Especially if you factor in the cost of a Z8 or Z9 and a full compliment of lenses vs an equivalent F-mount SLR setup.
So what do you think? Is shooting film cheap or expensive? I think it's cheap, which seems to be why so many young photographers have avoided digital and embraced film....Show more →
There are also very good cheap used digital cameras. You are trying to compare buying brand new digital cameras against used film cameras. Include used digital cameras into your equation and all of a sudden a different picture ( no pun ) emerges.
It also seems many members that shoot film also digitize their film so either having the lab do the digitizing ( more cost ) or buying a scanner ( more cost ) or heaven forbid, buying a digital camera to take photos of negatives…which brings us full circle.
Film and processing is expensive, compared to digital. There are plenty of cheap digital cameras available, and plenty of film shooters spend thousands on their Leicas or high end MF film cameras
Trying to compare the 'cost' of film and digital seems like a fool's errand to me. If you value film for how it is different from digital, it doesn't matter how 'expensive' it is.
And if you just love playing with cool old cameras, that's fine too.
Bottom line, everyone spends whatever they can afford on their photography hobby, how they spend it is a subjective personal decision. Film, digital, cheap, expensive, whatever.
Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing people's pics than talking about their gear
chez wrote:
There are also very good cheap used digital cameras. You are trying to compare buying brand new digital cameras against used film cameras. Include used digital cameras into your equation and all of a sudden a different picture ( no pun ) emerges.
Indeed, there are cheap digital cameras. They lower the cost of shooting digital. And they further perpetuate the 'myth' that shooting film is 'expensive.'
Of course, the relative cost of digital really has nothing to do with what this thread is about -- whether or not film is more expensive today than it was during the film era. The cost of film vs. digital is totally irrelevant in assessing the inflation adjusted cost of film. It only introduces what I think of as the digital cheepskate bias.
Adjusted for inflation, I think film is actually cheaper. But our perceptions of film being expensive seem to be based on the idea that you shouldn't have to pay for the medium. That's an artifact of the digital mindset. I think we've all thought that way at one time or another.
Today I think that film is cheap but photographers are even cheaper. That is to say, the inflation adjusted cost of film seems to be cheaper now than it was before, primarily because the purchasing power of the dollar has gone downhill. Digital photographers seem to be the ones complaining that film is expensive, primarily because the cost of digital is "free" and they don't want to do the math.
Here's an example of the declining value of the dollar. In 1970 one-dollar had the purchasing power that is equivalent to $7.91 today. In other words, today's dollar has about 1/8 it's previous value.
Today a roll of negative film may cost about $10, while a roll of E-6 may cost up to $20. Is that really expensive?
Indeed, there are cheap digital cameras. They lower the cost of shooting digital. And they further perpetuate the 'myth' that shooting film is 'expensive.'
Of course, the relative cost of digital really has nothing to do with what this thread is about -- whether or not film is more expensive today than it was during the film era. The cost of film vs. digital is totally irrelevant in assessing the inflation adjusted cost of film. It only introduces what I think of as the digital cheepskate bias.
Adjusted for inflation, I think film is actually cheaper. But our perceptions of film being expensive seem to be based on the idea that you shouldn't have to pay for the medium. That's an artifact of the digital mindset. I think we've all thought that way at one time or another.
Today I think that film is cheap but photographers are even cheaper. That is to say, the inflation adjusted cost of film seems to be cheaper now than it was before, primarily because the purchasing power of the dollar has gone downhill. Digital photographers seem to be the ones complaining that film is expensive, primarily because the cost of digital is "free" and they don't want to do the math.
Here's an example of the declining value of the dollar. In 1970 one-dollar had the purchasing power that is equivalent to $7.91 today. In other words, today's dollar has about 1/8 it's previous value.
Today a roll of negative film may cost about $10, while a roll of E-6 may cost up to $20. Is that really expensive?...Show more →
Yet everyone complains that food prices are so expensive…but if you price out a basket of food from 1970’s, adjust for inflation, it will be more expensive than the same basket today. So what…food is still expensive.
The reason people compare the cost of shooting film with digital is because digital is an alternative choice…which per image taken come out cheaper than using film in the long run. I see the two as being valid choice…and like you said film photographers are leaving to digital because of the cost differences.
Yes, shoot film for all your reasons, but don’t come out and say it’s cheaper than 1970…if you compare the cost of shooting…you must bring digital into your analysis. There are many reasons to shoot film, cost ain’t one of them.
OregonSun wrote:
Trying to compare the 'cost' of film and digital seems like a fool's errand to me. If you value film for how it is different from digital, it doesn't matter how 'expensive' it is.
Well, I agree -- comparing the cost of digital to film is fool's errand, and anyone would have to be a fool to make that comparison. To be clear, that is not the question that I asked in this thread. It's unfortunate that such a simple question is being obfuscated in the form of a thread hijack that seems intended to pursue the fool's errand.
The relative cost of digital vs. film isn't relevant to the question of whether film is more expensive now than it was in the past, or whether it is cheaper now than it was in the past. I guess some people just can't resist the temptation to always hijack every film thread to suit their own pro-ditigal crusade.
It's important to remember that if you keep feeding the bears, it's only a matter of time before one of them drives off in your car:
coralnut wrote:
Well, I agree -- comparing the cost of digital to film is fool's errand, and anyone would have to be a fool to make that comparison. To be clear, that is not the question that I asked in this thread. It's unfortunate that such a simple question is being obfuscated in the form of a thread hijack that seems intended to pursue the fool's errand.
The relative cost of digital vs. film isn't relevant to the question of whether film is more expensive now than it was in the past, or whether it is cheaper now than it was in the past. I guess some people just can't resist the temptation to always hijack every film thread to suit their own pro-ditigal crusade.
It's important to remember that if you keep feeding the bears, it's only a matter of time before one of them drives off in your car:
Look at your initial post and see how much of that post is discussing digital. Wonder where this comparison to digital originated…if your intention was not to include digital into the discussion, why is your opening post more than 50% about digital.
And I noticed your childish remark in that opening post implying the majority of digital images taken are not worthy…but somehow every film snap taken is a masterpiece. Cruising through the film image thread…I beg to differ.
Oh…and your attempt of humour…I think you already posted it once. Like a standup comic repeating their jokes…it gets a bit stale after the first attempt.
coralnut wrote:
Well, I agree -- comparing the cost of digital to film is fool's errand, and anyone would have to be a fool to make that comparison. To be clear, that is not the question that I asked in this thread. It's unfortunate that such a simple question is being obfuscated in the form of a thread hijack that seems intended to pursue the fool's errand.
The relative cost of digital vs. film isn't relevant to the question of whether film is more expensive now than it was in the past, or whether it is cheaper now than it was in the past. I guess some people just can't resist the temptation to always hijack every film thread to suit their own pro-ditigal crusade.
It's important to remember that if you keep feeding the bears, it's only a matter of time before one of them drives off in your car:
Yeah, I guess I was mostly responding to your discussion of the cost of film vs digital.
I haven't really thought about whether film is more expensive than it used to be, you may be right on that. Hard to compare directly though, since the popular film workflow these days usually includes conversion to digital instead of printing. It would be interesting to see the numbers on film and chemicals adjusted for inflation.
I understand, everyone naturally thinks about directly comparing film vs. digital, it's the natural thing to do if you're already a digital photographer -- which seems to be everyone today. But I'm trying to break out of that mindset to figure out what film really costs today, and in doing that the price of digital just isn't relevant unless you're making the choice to do film OR digital, and never both. I think that premise if foolish -- I can't imagine that anyone who makes the decision to shoot film could, in today's environment, refuse to have any connection to digital photography. If we assume that everyone has to shoot at least some digital in the 21st Century, then the question boils down to what does it cost to start shooting film? An is that more or less than it used to be? In spite of film's thin market share today, I think it's cheaper.
Those of us who want to shoot film may be forced to budget for it if prices are perceived to be high, but my gut impression is that the budgeting shouldn't be any harder today than it was historically. I think it should actually be cheaper, and we just have to get over the hump of being willing to pay for it. That could be tough after years of being conditioned to not have to pay for per-click media costs with the other format.
That link to the Mike Eckman site did a decent analysis of the cost of film, and it touched on commercial processing, but didn't say anything about the cost of chemicals.
Your question about the cost of chemicals is on point -- I haven't paid attention to the cost of chemicals for several decades, as long ago when I shot Tri-X my chemicals were free (I had free access to a darkroom/chemicals and only had to buy film/paper) and for color I shot Kodachrome (which had to be sent out to Kodak so the chemical costs were invisible). Back in the day I never bought chemicals for B&W or color. I can tell you what it costs today for processing chemicals, but I don't have a clue what they cost in the past so I can't do a comparison.
I think I've mentioned it in another thread, but the workflow for film is changing. Wet/optical printing is going the way of the dodo bird, and even those of us who want to do it are finding it harder and harder to do. Enlargers, papers, chemicals aren't popular any more. Some printing processes are just extinct. Those of us who still want to shoot film are being forced into digital scanning to leverage digital printing. So when it comes to printing, both digital and film end up converging on a common printing method. That either complicates the comparison or it simplifies it, depending on your perspective.
I enjoy the film images thread more than any other thread on this site. IMO it's loaded with great imagery.
coralnut wrote:
I enjoy the film images thread more than any other thread on this site. IMO it's loaded with great imagery.
It’s also the most democratic, light hearted thread on this site. People shooting from the cheapest to most expensive gear, using any and all brands, using any type of film and process, just having fun.
First, if you want to compare film to the 70s including equipment, you should also compare what the cameras cost new in the 70s or 80s. I remember the EOS 3 being a good £1000 or thereabouts new in 2000. That's £1800 today with inflation which is easily within dSLR prices. A Nikon F2 adjusted for inflation today is not far off a Leica M11!
Second, film today is expensive compared to 3 years ago. I paid £10 for Portra 800 in 2020 (I'm looking at the invoice right now). It is £20+ today. The lab cost is practically the same Vs 2020 (if not less adjust for inflation).
So yeah, film today is much more expensive compared to 5 years ago.
Vs the 70s? I don't know really I was 1 year old in 1979. So if you want to compare, when someone says it is this or that you first have to ask relative to when. I bought my first roll of film (with my own money) in 2001.
I have some actual comparison data here. All prices are in Canadian dollars.
In 2020 I bought a new Sony A7iii for CAD $2,989.30 (including tax) and as of this week my shutter count is 25,883. That works out to about 12 cents per shot; this will go down in time as the number of shutter actuations increases.
In early 2023 I bought a Canon P for CAD $421.43 (including tax) and so far I have shot 23 rolls with it, which works out to 828 frames. My total cost for film, developing, and scanning those 23 rolls was about $1,600. It works out to roughly $1.50 to $2 per shot. Obviously my cost would be lower if I developed and scanned myself but for now I'm having the lab do it. Color film is more expensive than B&W (in general) but developing B&W is more expensive than C41 if you have the lab do it. Scanning is $5 per roll at my lab. For my medium-format camera (Mamiya C330) the total cost (film, development, scan) is about $4 to $5 per frame, depending on the film. I'm not including that camera in these comparisons as I've only shot 2 rolls (24 frames) so far.
I don't "spray and pray" when shooting digital and my keeper rate tends to be higher than for film--mainly because I can nail exposure more reliably on digital and can recover more in raw files on underexposed shots. Plus, the ability to "chimp" (one of the most important advantages of digital) allows me to make mid-course corrections as I go.
Altogether I've shot 75 rolls on four film cameras since I started using film again in 2023, which works out to 2,700 frames, and the total number of photos I was happy enough to post to my "Film" album on Flickr is 167, or about 6 percent. I have 4,886 Sony files rated at 3 stars or higher in my editing software, so that works out to a keeper rate of about 19 percent.
Over the long haul, the equation will change a bit because digital cameras don't last as long as mechanical film cameras (although I still have a digital P&S camera here that I bought around 2005 that works as good as new). Eventually the Sony will die and need to be replaced, but the Canon P should keep going for decades...although it'll need occasional adjustment and CLA.
Despite crunching the numbers, my personal opinion is that I will continue to shoot film regardless of the cost, because I love shooting film. I don't try to justify any of my passions based on economics; most of them are money-losing propositions. I've spent far more on musical instruments and recording equipment than I'll ever recoup from gigs or album sales; same goes for video and photography.
Lately, there has been an increase in the price of film tied to both the renewed interest over the last few years and fewer manufacturers in the business. In historical terms, the price of film has remained fairly stable for the last fifty years.
In 1972, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the United States was about forty cents, a new car cost around thirty five hundred dollars and a roll of Kodak Tri-X was $1.25. In other words, a roll of film was equivalent to buying three gallons of gas.
Compared to today’s prices, ten bucks for a roll of Tri-X is a bargain.
madNbad wrote:
Lately, there has been an increase in the price of film tied to both the renewed interest over the last few years and fewer manufacturers in the business. In historical terms, the price of film has remained fairly stable for the last fifty years.
In 1972, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the United States was about forty cents, a new car cost around thirty five hundred dollars and a roll of Kodak Tri-X was $1.25. In other words, a roll of film was equivalent to buying three gallons of gas.
Compared to today’s prices, ten bucks for a roll of Tri-X is a bargain....Show more →
I agree with the problem with film prices doubling in the past few years -- but I don't view that as a film-specific problem. It's an overall inflationary trend that we're living in, which makes it difficult to observe the rising cost of film in it's proper context.
We're told that inflation is all attributable to Covid but I think the problem runs deeper than the Covid excuse tries to lead us to believe. The money supply has increased so much in the past few years that the Fed has stopped publishing the data for M1 and M2; we're told that the US economy is strong with inflation numbers that are benign, accompanied by 'reasonable' inflation rates when numbers are released -- those numbers are quietly revised upwards after the initial press releases are made and the podium speeches are made that tell us how great life is right now; government debt to GDP continues an incessant climb; food costs are climbing; a new Suburban costs $100,000; the rate of credit card debt is the highest it's ever been and we're being told that the consumer is healthy in spite of being burdened with record high levels of household debt. Although we're told that we're not in a period of high inflation, nobody who actually budgets their expenses believes a word of it. We're all feeling the pain. So I guess my point is to say that although the doubling of the price of film over the past few years has been eye-opening, on a relative scale I don't think film price increases any more painful than the price increases in everything else. Even the price of drain cleaner at Menards is up 20% from what it was only a couple of months ago. Inflation is real. It's everywhere.
Though film has become expensive in the past few years, the price of digital cameras keeps going up as well. It's important to remember that we live in an era of electronics manufacturing where increased manufacturing efficiency is supposed to have deflationary effects on prices so that electronic items are supposed to become cheaper, yet the price of a new enthusiast level camera (Z8) is what, $4,000? When analyzing the cost of these increases, the calculus is more complex than comparing the cost of an enthusiast level camera like an N8008 in ~1990 to a Z8 in 2023. A simple ratio comparison of the prices ignores the truth that electronics are supposed to become cheaper where the cost is on a decreasing inflation-adjusted curve over time. I don't think we're seeing that. In relative terms I think digital cameras are getting more expensive as more technology is packed into them. Nothing is getting cheaper, and I think new camera prices are beginning to cost relatively more, at least at the enthusiast level.
My intent in mentioning the digital stuff isn't to do a direct comparison in the costs of film vs. digital -- that's already been pointed out as a fool's errand and I'm reluctant to go down that route. The only reason that I circled back to mentioning digital was to show that inflation isn't limited to any one thing in particular, it's an across-the-board problem for all of the goods that we're buying where prices just keep going higher and higher.
About my personal preference for film: one of the things that breaks my enthusiasm for the new digital cameras is that I think they're overstuffed with technology. I can't see myself buying a Z8 for $4000 when my preferred mode of shooting is Manual, my preferred method of focusing is manual, and until recently I didn't even own an iTTL flash and I just did manual flash. Since I'm not really utilizing all of the features that come with a new camera like the Z8, whether or not film is more expensive, cheaper, or on a historically flat pricing trend becomes relevant to me.
So I guess this just another long winded post to say that I still think that film is cheap. It definitely feels cheap when buying Tri-X, but not so much when buying Ektachrome.
coralnut wrote:
Though film has become expensive in the past few years, the price of digital cameras keeps going up as well.
This is true, but to do a proper comparison there you should be comparing the price of used digital cameras, since most film cameras (except disposables) being sold today are used. I don't think the prices of digital cameras on the used market are climbing as quickly as the prices of new digital cameras.
I don't notice a specific difference between shooting film and shooting digital, with respect to cost, anyway. Digital has way more up front costs. Film has way more 'as you shoot' costs. I don't waste any time comparing the two. They are different creatures. Over the last few years, I have cut some corners with the cost of film shooting. 1.) I sold off all my medium format (film) gear. 2.) I stocked up on film when I saw prices rising in 2020/2021. 3.) I bought one of Canon's best EF-mount film cameras, the Elan 7S, and sold off the expensive bodies like the EOS 1N, 1V, 3 to recoup some cash.
I haven't bought a roll of film in 3 years. I estimate my current stock of about 200 rolls to have cost me about $7/roll. All that is left is processing at TDR price of $12/roll. A few dollars can be saved by sending in 3 or more rolls at a time; the $5.99 return fee applies to each order, not each roll. No-cost digital downloads of my scans is (obviously) free, too.
I've got about $3500 in digital bodies, and IIRC, about $140 in my one remaining film body. At $22 (film/processing/mailing), it will take some time before my film total costs catch up to my digital total costs. If I need a new digital along the way, I'm out over $1,000. Not so much for a film camera. It's basically a wash.
bjhurley wrote:
This is true, but to do a proper comparison there you should be comparing the price of used digital cameras, since most film cameras (except disposables) being sold today are used. I don't think the prices of digital cameras on the used market are climbing as quickly as the prices of new digital cameras.
I don't think the comparison to digital cameras is really relevant to the price of film shooting. I only mentioned digital in an effort to put geranlized price inflation into perspective.
Back in about 1500 Nicolaus Copernicus observed that different commodities have different time constants in reacting to periods of inflation. In other words, some items react to inflationary pressures more quickly while some items react more slowly. Newly manufactured goods that have built-in labor costs and rapidly consumed commodities that have to be quickly repleted tend to have the shortest time constants, ie: they react most rapidly to inflationary pressures by exhibiting rising prices. I think the differences in the new/used camera prices fit his time constant model.
Tom makes a good point about the difference in fixed costs vs variable costs in making a breakeven analysis. That's the type of analysis that led many young photographers to embrace film instead of digital -- lower sunk costs, higher variable costs, but the startup cost is so low that the variable costs still provide a lower total cost of ownership experience.
Desmolicious wrote:
It’s also the most democratic, light hearted thread on this site. People shooting from the cheapest to most expensive gear, using any and all brands, using any type of film and process, just having fun.
Oh, so very true! People shooting P&S cameras and people shooting Leica all in the same thread, no snobbery, everyone just having fun enjoying the love of film! Dig it!
