fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Film Is Not Dead Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1      
2
       3       end
   

Archive 2024 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?
  
 
bjhurley
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


coralnut wrote:
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.

I haven't seen any evidence that young photographers are embracing film for financial reasons: it's more because film is considered cool. If they are cost-constrained they're likely just using their phones for photography. A lot of young people are buying old digital P&S cameras as well, again because they're considered cool. Their smartphones will get better image quality, but they're after worse image quality: the more aberrations and artifacts and blown-out highlights the better. They're spending money on cameras (old digital P&S and film cameras) because they are cool. The total cost of ownership of a film camera is higher than digital: by the end of this year the cost of my Canon P plus all the film I've shot with it over just two years will likely be higher than what I spent on my Sony A7iii four years ago.

As I've said before in other threads, I don't think it's worth trying to make rational or economic arguments for shooting film. There's no need to justify it. If I fall hopelessly in love with someone who lives far away, am I going to make an economic analysis and determine that it's better to fall in love with someone who lives nearby to avoid all the travel costs? No, because I love the person who lives far away. It's okay to love film even if it doesn't make economic sense or can't be justified on any other rational grounds.

Edited on Jan 28, 2024 at 09:52 AM · View previous versions
Jan 28, 2024 at 09:37 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


It really depends on how you shoot, what you shoot and how many frames it takes to arrive at your final image. If you're just shooting a few images per day, per week or per month, then the comparative costs from soup to nuts are probably going to lean toward film capture, if that is your only criteria for comparison, but you also have to consider film processing time and expense and inevitable conversion to digital. Look at all the "camera scanning" threads.

For a lot of the highly complex macro and still life images I've been making for the last several years, film would both be impossibly expensive and time consuming. A lot of these images are images where it takes 150-250 individual images focus stacked together to make a final composite image, but it's not as easy as that. All too often it takes two or three attempts to get it right because it's impossible to perfectly predict the final result until you actually do it and small corrections are invariably needed.

In order to match the quality, or at least get close, I'd have to shoot 4x5 film, have it processed and then make hi-res scans of it. Can you even imagine shooting 500 pieces of 4x5 Velvia, processing that and then making 500 or more high res scans, drum or otherwise to bring into Photoshop and Helicon. Well, I can't because it would be prohibitively expensive in dollars and even more prohibitive in terms of time. I would not want to even think about making that many scans myself and could never afford to pay someone to do that for me, so, for me, to make these types of images, there is only one way to do them and to spend $20K on the equipment to do that is actually really inexpensive by comparison.

That is by no means a dis on film. Not at all. It's just one example and a real life one that I repeat on a regular basis. Film has its place. Digital has its place and many if not all the film shooters here are using their digital cameras to copy their film images just in order to post them here and elsewhere, so it's not and will never be a hard line separating the two. They work hand in hand and sometimes the tilt goes toward the film and other times not. Just depends on how and what you shoot and how you are going to fulfill your creative vision.

Many of my best and most famous images were shot on film and many of my more recent best images are not. Hopefully we pick the best tools available to realize our vision whether it's film or it's digital.


Jan 28, 2024 at 09:50 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


OregonSun wrote:
Trying to compare the 'cost' of film and digital seems like a fool's errand to me.

Yes. They're different. Like painting with watercolours vs. painting with oil, or a photograph before, and the 'same' photograph after adding AI-generated content; they're different.
Jan 28, 2024 at 10:00 AM
OregonSun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


bjhurley wrote:
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...Show more →


So you're spending ~$70 CAD/roll? I'm curious, what is the breakdown per roll for film/dev/scan costs?

I'm also curious what other people are paying.

My favorite films are in the $9-12 USD range.

Local lab dev is $9/$8 for 35mm B&W/C-41, 120 is $1 more.

There is another lab in town that's cheaper (especially for C-41) but they take a week instead of 1-2 days because they send it down to Portland where all their other stores are. That other lab is the only one offering drop off E-6 locally, which is $9/roll across the board.

I do my own scanning, so I'm spending right around $20 USD/roll for B&W and C-41, closer to $30 for E-6

There is a local B&W darkroom that you can join for $40/month. They provide chemicals, so if I joined I'd need to shoot 5+ rolls of B&W/month for it to start reducing my per roll cost. Of course, there would be the time to dev myself, and the additional cost of paper since I'd also start printing if I joined and I don't print now.

It seems to me that the cost of the gear is a red herring. The initial cost of entry to film or digital photography is very low (free if you already have a smartphone). If people really get into photography (or even just cameras ), they'll spend whatever they can afford to in order to achieve their vision.


Edited on Jan 28, 2024 at 01:01 PM · View previous versions
Jan 28, 2024 at 12:46 PM
white
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


Many very good points have been made here. My comments are more of a synopsis.

Digital camera gear tends to have more ongoing costs as we tend to update both bodies and lenses over time, as there is always new stuff to catch our interest. Yes, there are those who have refrain and do not get as caught up in the refresh cycles. Film gear, once one attains the system they want, does not temp us as much as they are not making any new stuff. Repair and service costs may be more common for film gear simply due to its age.

As most of us digitize our film exposures, the cost of computer power and storage is basically the same, but with the additional need for some sort of film scanning equipment or ongoing scanning service costs.

The ability to shoot greater volumes with digital for no addition cost is both a pro and a con. It frees us to experiment more liberally to shoot a greater volume and to work a subject more thoroughly, which is generally a good thing. In the film only days I was always at least semi conscious of the cost to work a subject. Working a subject is NOT the same as spray an pray. The negative aspect greater shooting volumes is of course more volume to edit through, (although since already digitized and viewed on a large monitor vs a loop it is much faster and easier to do so).

Many will say that the expense of film slows them down and makes them think about each exposure and thus makes them better at their craft. This may be true to a degree, but as already noted this also reduces our experimentation and ability to work a subject. Non static subjects and lighting really demand more exposures to work the fleeting opportunities. If you only take one image, then it will always be your best exposure of the scene, and you will never know what could have resulted from playing around with the subject more.

Is film getting expensive? It definitely feels like it is. And this does greatly limit how much I actually use my multitude of film cameras over digital. The greater work flow of using and digitizing film also limits my use. But there is no replacement of the feel of picking up and using one of the great film cameras of yore.


Jan 28, 2024 at 12:56 PM
mranger211
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


coralnut wrote:
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...Show more →

Comparing the price of shooting film today to shooting film in the 1980s or whenever is completely irrelevant. Nobody has the choice between shooting on film today and in the past. People do have the choice between shooting film, and shooting digital, though. Relative prices are what matters, and shooting film is relatively expensive compared to shooting digital.

As for young people shooting film, I have never met anyone who likes to use film for cost reasons. It is about a cool vintage look and feel. In fact, they all complain about how expensive shooting film is.
Jan 28, 2024 at 01:14 PM
OffTrail
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


OregonSun wrote:
So you're spending ~$70 CAD/roll? I'm curious, what is the breakdown per roll for film/dev/scan costs?

I'm also curious what other people are paying.

My favorite films are in the $9-12 USD range.

Local lab dev is $9/$8 for 35mm B&W/C-41, 120 is $1 more.

There is another lab in town that's cheaper (especially for C-41) but they take a week instead of 1-2 days because they send it down to Portland where all their other stores are. That other lab is the only one offering drop off E-6 locally, which is $9/roll across the board.

I do my own scanning, so I'm spending...Show more →


Local 35mm C41 dev is $5. The bulk of the film that I shot in 2023 was Fujak C200 at ~$8/roll. For that, I'm in it at about $13/roll. I'm shooting more Ektar and Portra 800 lately which run in the $14-$18 range, so those run up the average to about $20/roll for dev + film.

Local 120 C41 dev is $8 and scans are $11. I get scans because I'm still not happy with my 120 scanning setup, and there's also the convenience of just getting an email a few hours after drop-off. I almost entirely shoot Portra 800 (~$15) or Ektar 100 (~$10) in 120, so call it an average of $12 for those. That puts me at ~$32/roll of color 120.

For B&W, I develop at home with XTOL and I don't consider it to cost any more than the roll of film itself. It breaks down to something like a dollar per roll.
Jan 28, 2024 at 03:16 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


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.

Not going to sell any of my film camera gear even I shoot it less these days with increased film prices. Some cameras have quadrupled in value from where I bought them nine to five years ago. Yes, I could make money by selling them now, but I enjoyed them too much and might use them again.

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 doubt this. Compare just film prices 5 years ago and now - the price increase is much higher than based on inflation only. It is simply supply and demand - demand for film increased significantly about the time when prices went up and up again.

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.

At least in my case this is not the case. I made a rough calculation where I am by adding a used MM 246 to replace some of my B&W film photography. After few years years, I will have written off my digital monochrome camera compared what I was used to pay for film. Plus digital provides me with more freedom to travel without facing issues with modern airport scanners, changing and finding film elsewhere etc.

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.

Not how I see and calculated it. I didn't even calculate external lab processing cost - including this a clear "thanks but no thanks" from me (I develop all my films myself).

Today there are great film cameras that are almost free to buy. Adjusted for inflation they're dirt cheap.

Yes, they are out there. Many SLRs for example can be obtained for less than $100 in good condition. Rangefinder cameras can be affordable, too when looking after Russian FED or Zorki models for example.

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.

You can use older SLR lenses very well adapted on all kind of modern mirrorless cameras which I also enjoy doing. That's why prices for example for Canon FD mount lenses doubled or tripled in recent years - more than 10 years ago, nobody was interested in them because they couldn't be used on a modern DSLR and only on film SLR cameras. IMO a modern mirrorless cameras gives you lots of choices ranging from native lens gear to old vintage one independent on manufacturer.

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.

I disagree but continue shooting film much more selectively since last year. I slopped using color negative film for example. Here the film price is IMO not worth the difference and PP from digital. Slide color film and B&W film are a different story and still make sense in specific situations. I am now using about 70% digital and 30% film in my photography and don't feel I am missing out on something.




Jan 28, 2024 at 04:42 PM
coralnut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


mranger211 wrote:
Comparing the price of shooting film today to shooting film in the 1980s or whenever is completely irrelevant.
It's only irrelevant to people who are young enough to lack experiences and or memories of the past. For those of us who do have experience and memory of the past, comparing prices gives us perspective about the relative value that film provided to us then vs. now. Experience matters to people that have it. It doesn't matter to people who don't have it.

Relative prices are what matters, and shooting film is relatively expensive compared to shooting digital.
When you don't have a frame of reference the analysis becomes simple as many variables drop out of the equation.
Jan 28, 2024 at 05:34 PM
bjhurley
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


OregonSun wrote:
So you're spending ~$70 CAD/roll? I'm curious, what is the breakdown per roll for film/dev/scan costs?



Hah, that'll teach me to post anything with numbers before I have my morning coffee. When I first started shooting film again last spring, I calculated that it was costing me roughly $1/frame and somehow this morning I thought I had calculated $2/frame, so the costs I posted were about double what I'm actually paying. Sheesh.

Portra 400 is about $29 CAD per roll, and C-41 development is $8/roll, scan is $5 per roll. That's $48 with sales tax. I can nearly halve that by shooting Fomapan 400, which is $10/roll; B&W development is $10/roll and scan is $5/roll.

Sorry for the inflated numbers.
Jan 28, 2024 at 05:45 PM
panos.v
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


coralnut wrote:
It's only irrelevant to people who are young enough to lack experiences and or memories of the past. For those of us who do have experience and memory of the past, comparing prices gives us perspective about the relative value that film provided to us then vs. now. Experience matters to people that have it. It doesn't matter to people who don't have it.

When you don't have a frame of reference the analysis becomes simple as many variables drop out of the equation.



I just don't follow this argument. All you're saying is "in my days...". Well in your day in the 70s the F2 cost $600. As per the FED, that is close to $5000 today. So $5k for a film camera today that needs film at $20/roll vs $5k for a camera that doesn't.

If you want to do used I can do that too. I can buy a EOS 3 for $300. I bought a used 6D for $500. That's 10 rolls of film difference and I'm not even counting the procesing.

As to whether film is more expensive today vs 70s inflation adjusted? True, it is not (or not far off it)! But it is a lote more expensive than 3 years ago. Which tells us that film 3 years ago was a lot cheaper than the 70s.

So what time frame are we talking about? 10 years? 20? 30? Not to be too dark but if you were buying film in the 70s as an adult then you're probably not going to be concerned with film prices in 2030. Just like people born in 1990 are not concerned about prices in 1970s. It is not "experience", it is biology! There was no film in 1700. So does that have to do anything with anything?
Jan 28, 2024 at 06:08 PM
Geoff D F
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


To me the biggest cost of shooting film is the time cost. I takes time to purchase film, take it to a lab for development, collect it, etc. While I get my lab to scan the film, if there is a shot I like I will scan it at home and adjust to my taste, thereby taking more time.

In contrast, with digital I have transitioned to mostly shooting on Fujifilm cameras and use different films sims to produce JPEGs SOOC. It is kind of like shooting slide film in that once shot and developed that's it. Except development is instant.
Jan 28, 2024 at 11:56 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


Geoff D F wrote:
To me the biggest cost of shooting film is the time cost. I takes time to purchase film, take it to a lab for development, collect it, etc. While I get my lab to scan the film, if there is a shot I like I will scan it at home and adjust to my taste, thereby taking more time.


True that the time factor makes a big difference between digital and film. Since film is purely a hobby for me, this is okay. What bothered me was the time needed to scan 36 frames with my Plustek 8200Ai scanner where every frame has to be moved manually. I have now improved the 35 mm scanning using my Epson V850 flatbed scanner that the results between both scanners are indistinguishable. I have downscaled the amount of needing scanning time significantly using the V850 instead via batch scan mode. All 36 frames per film are done with 3200 ppi for each frame in less than 20 minutes using two film strip loaders (with 3x6 frames loading in one set) one after each other.


Jan 29, 2024 at 10:33 AM
Desmolicious
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


Geoff D F wrote:
To me the biggest cost of shooting film is the time cost. I takes time to purchase film, take it to a lab for development, collect it, etc. While I get my lab to scan the film, if there is a shot I like I will scan it at home and adjust to my taste, thereby taking more time.

In contrast, with digital I have transitioned to mostly shooting on Fujifilm cameras and use different films sims to produce JPEGs SOOC. It is kind of like shooting slide film in that once shot and developed that's it. Except development...Show more →

If time is a concern then 100% you should shoot digital.
Jan 29, 2024 at 11:03 AM
mranger211
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


coralnut wrote:
It's only irrelevant to people who are young enough to lack experiences and or memories of the past. For those of us who do have experience and memory of the past, comparing prices gives us perspective about the relative value that film provided to us then vs. now. Experience matters to people that have it. It doesn't matter to people who don't have it.

When you don't have a frame of reference the analysis becomes simple as many variables drop out of the equation.



If the point you want to make is: "in the olden days everything was much more expensive", or "boy, did our standard of living go up over the last 50 years" then you are definitely correct. And I would 100% agree with you. But to me that seems to be a somewhat pointless exercise. If you are truly interested in making inter-temporal "relative cost of film photography" comparisons, you would have to compare the price of film to the median disposable income, or to a price index of other leisure activities to get to the "relative" part of the comparison. And, like panos.v said, include the price of a camera (and a set of lenses). It might well turn out that the relative cost of film photography has fallen, I honestly do not know. But intertemporal comparisons are difficult, and depend on a lot of assumptions. And other than for nostalgic reasons, I (personally) don't see the use.

Any time you are interested in making a decision (do I want to shoot film or digital? do i want to take that disposable camera clubbing tonight?), the past is irrelevant. All that matters are current prices/income.

A great article about film prices: https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/
Jan 29, 2024 at 02:00 PM
Geoff D F
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


Desmolicious wrote:
If time is a concern then 100% you should shoot digital.


I mostly do shoot digital, but the benefits of film make it worthwhile for me to shoot film occasionally.
Jan 29, 2024 at 05:28 PM
Desmolicious
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


Geoff D F wrote:
I mostly do shoot digital, but the benefits of film make it worthwhile for me to shoot film occasionally.

Digital is fantastic. There are times when I wonder why I don't use it more!
I just like film so much - which makes up for any inconveniences. I think part of the charm of film IS it's inconvenience!

But man, I get such a kick - every time - from pulling out a roll from the developing tank and seeing the real physical images for the first time.
Jan 29, 2024 at 06:30 PM
coogee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


Film works for me, no complaints on that. My only gripe on cost is that it has recently doubled in price here in Australia. It costs around 3 beers to get a colour roll on, slide film is like 5 beers! Oh well!!
Jan 29, 2024 at 07:53 PM
panos.v
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


coogee wrote:
Film works for me, no complaints on that. My only gripe on cost is that it has recently doubled in price here in Australia. It costs around 3 beers to get a colour roll on, slide film is like 5 beers! Oh well!!

Prices on a beer scale. Excellent!


Jan 30, 2024 at 03:04 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]
p.2 #20 · Film is NOT Expensive -- Or is it?


4 rolls of 24 exposure Fujicolor used to cost about $6. Fujichtome 100 used to be like $3.69 from NYC.

So yes, film is expensive
Jan 31, 2024 at 01:15 AM
1      
2
       3       end
FM Forums | Film Is Not Dead Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register