OK, we've got the beer scale. How about the hamburger scale?
I know that most of you who don't have the frame of reference probably won't believe this, but I remember paying between $1 and $2 for complete a fast food lunch in the late 1970s -- a sack of hamburgers, fries and a drink. I remember that famous hamburger scene in 1977's Smokey and the Bandit where Burt Reynolds bought a sack of burgers at a roadhouse for $1.50. Watching that movie today those prices seem ridiculously low, as today we'd be lucky to pay less than $12 for a sack or burgers.
That's an increase of 8.5x, which is on-par with the 8x cost factor we've discussed earlier using the Fed data discussed in post #4. Sure, a more complete analysis would compare many factors related to the cost of living, but the 8x figure puts us in the ballpark.
Back then a McDonald's hamburger cost 18-cents (1970) and rose during the mid-70s high inflation period to 28-cents (1975). Today the burger is $2.00. We're still in the same 8x inflation ballpark.
Looking at the East Cost prices for film in 1975, the Modern Photography ad referenced in Mike Eckman's blog (post #7) says that a single 36-exposure roll of Kodacolor 200 cost $2.15 without processing. Applying the 8x inflation multiplier that film should cost $17.20 today but today's B&H price is only $9.99. Film seems cheap.
I'm thinking that film is NOT any more expensive today vs. the past if you do the math to adjust for inflation. The problem seems to be that some peoples' perceptions are skewed by the fact they don't like paying for film, and they don't want to do the math -- so they think it's expensive just because the price seems high and they don't like paying for film and they don't want to pay for processing. Even if film eats into your beer budget, the prices still seem cheap when adjusted for inflation.
In the big scheme of things buying film may seem expensive but it isn't any more expensive today than it was in the past. The numbers suggest that although it still feels 'expensive', film is cheaper today than it used to be. The fact that it was perceived as being expensive back in the old days explains why the average consumer only shot a limited number of rolls of film. Today it's still perceived as being expensive, and people still limit their film consumption. Today there's a lot more photography going on primarily because film is no longer necessary, with the result that digital photos are free with anyone's phone and that makes film seem expensive no matter what it actually costs. Anything that has a cost associated with it can't compete with free.
"In the big scheme of things buying film may seem expensive but it isn't any more expensive today than it was in the past. The numbers suggest that although it still feels 'expensive', film is cheaper today than it used to be."
2020: 1 roll of Portra 800 135-36 for 10.50eu (I have the invoice from fotoimpex in front of me).
2024: 18.99eu for the same.
2024: 10.50 adjusted for inflation = 12.20.
I'd say the numbers suggest that film is a lot more expensive today than 4 years ago. Buford T. Justice said so too. You can't begrudge a 25 year old for not living in the 1970s and paying more for film! Now I'ma gonna go watch that movie again, son!
I think the real question is: does film offer value for money? Regardless of what film used to cost "back in the day", it was the only image storage medium around. Today, not rue anymore.
Is it still worth shooting film when there are other media options which offer real advantages? That's a personal choice now, not an existential one.
On the other hand, if you like to shoot Velvia 50, which was the favorite for many many applications over the years and being one of the sharpest films available, the prices are just a bit different. Thirty bucks a roll at B&H for the film and mid level turnaround on a dip and dunk Refrema at The Icon in L.A. for $12 brings you up to about $46 per roll, more or less with average sales tax, but let's say you need it in two days rather than 3-4, so add another twelve and you're up around $58 per roll or so, plus shipping. Then say, you've gone on a week long trip and shot 40 rolls, well you do the math. It's one thing to base this argument on the cheapest set of parameters you can use but it's quite another this way and we haven't even gotten into real scanning.
But I am not buying either as for me, film photography is c41 or B&W. With those the cost/enjoyment ratio is acceptable. E6 is too expensive - for me - w/ re. to cost per roll, dev costs and time to get the film developed.
Desmolicious wrote:
mpex.com has Velvia for $24 vs $30 at B&H.
But I am not buying either as for me, film photography is c41 or B&W. With those the cost/enjoyment ratio is acceptable. E6 is too expensive - for me - w/ re. to cost per roll, dev costs and time to get the film developed.
When there were a lot of photos processors, E6 was the least expensive way to use color film.
Anyone would have to be an idiot to buy film from the high priced merchant, shoot one roll, mail it, demand two day service, repeat that process 40 times, and then claim it's expensive. That's what I call a slow learner. What's expensive in that context is a series of poor decisions that nobody in his right mind would make. If you're a hobbyist you're just dumb. If you're a pro then you get a pass because it's a business expense that gets passed along to your customers.
Comparisons using Porta -- a premium professional film that didn't even exist in the 1970s -- can't in any way be considered an apples to apples comparison. That's why I compared Kodacolor II 200 to from the 1970s to Kodacolor Gold 200 today -- they're essentially in the same market slot.
I would have loved to compare Kodachrome 200 then vs now, but I just can't get it today.
panos.v wrote:
2024: 10.50 adjusted for inflation = 12.20.
I don't know where you're getting those inflation numbers, but 20% inflation over the period of 2020-2024 does not seem like a credible statistic. That's the propaganda number. The truthful number is much higher.
I see. So we all have to fit the data into what you want it to be and fit the use case to what you expect it to be. Or we're dumb and slow and believe the propaganda. I had to check for a minute I'm not on photrio. Bye now.
panos.v wrote:
I see. So we all have to fit the data into what you want it to be and fit the use case to what you expect it to be. Or we're dumb and slow and believe the propaganda. I had to check for a minute I'm not on photrio. Bye now.
I never said you were dumb or slow, so there's no reason to take offense. But there is very good reason to use due diligence to verify that the numbers that we are presented with are accurate, rather than just accepting them at face value.
Looking at this objectively: I've cited official inflation statistics and the sources for them. If you have statistics that are different it might be helpful for you to present them rather than making an unsubstantiated claim that I'm fitting the numbers to my expectations. I have not been 'fitting the use case to what I expect it to be.' In fact the opposite is true -- I have been applying the scientific method to formulate a hypothesis, then testing or refusing the hypothesis using real numbers. The results are conclusions drawn from facts, not opinions. I welcome anyone else to respond in kind if their opinion is different.
I don't think that an inflation rate of 20% over 5 years is accurately stated, at least not for the US. I am not familiar with how statistics are calculated in the UK, but in the USA the way that inflation numbers are derived have been in a continual state of change since the 1970s, with the method of calculating CPI deliberately being revised so that the consumer price index now excludes the most rapidly inflating prices, such as food, energy and housing. These are items that everyone must pay for, items for which prices are rapidly inflating, but are items that the CPI calculations ignore as being 'irrelevant'. The result of ignoring these rapidly inflating necessities of life is to deliberately understate inflation.
The changes to the method of calculating CPI are established facts, and there are many alternative sources on the internet that continue to calculate the CPI using the traditional formula. Their calculations using an invariant formula state that the actual rate of inflation is much higher than official statistics claim. Here in the US, the official statistics are released that deliberately understate inflation, and in weeks that follow the numbers are quietly revised upwards -- but only after the blue-sky podium speeches are made that cite the lower numbers. The result is that political grandstanding results in deliberate understatement of the numbers, using every means of understatement possible. People who watch the numbers closely tend to see through the ruse. Others just accept the numbers as they are presented.
The problem is that CPI is used to determine inflation-adjusted expense payments, and to minimize those payments the method of calculating the CPI has been deliberately changed many times since the 1970s with the objective to reduce cash outlays. Independent sources that calculate the CPI using the same (invariant) formula over the entire period have determined that the true rate of inflation is higher than what the new/revised formula's output would state.
One of the problems in measuring inflation accurately is that the numbers become less reliable when making assessments over short periods such as 2020-2023. Much of the error introduced in making short term calculations is attributable to the variation in time constants as was recognized by Copernicus over 500 years ago. Inflation tends to be underestimated over short periods because only commodities with very short time constants experience large changes in price over short intervals, while commodities with long time constants take much longer for their inflationary price changes to play out. If your sampling window is too short, you'll fail to recognize the commodities with long time constants and the inflation numbers will be underestimated.
I have doubts about the 20% figure for the referenced time period in the UK. What I read in the Financial Times implies that the rate is higher. But I am no expert about how inflation is calculated in the UK, so that investigation, and the discretion on whether or not to believe the numbers, is up to you.
Film is expensive. I don't think you're going to get 4 rolls of 24 exposure for double or even triple the $6 it used to cost, or 36 exp grey market for 2-3x the $1.79 NYC shops used to charge.
It might be nice to shoot velvia it's $30 though. Fujichrome 100 used to be less than half IIRC, $3.69 or something, but I didn't see anything under $25/roll.
Official statistics claim about 2x today vs 1995-2005, due to inflation, depending on the year you choose. I think you're going to have a hard time finding good inflation numbers matching the increase seen in film
Kodak does recently seem to have been lowering the prices of some of their films. Judging by the sale notices I get from various shops.
So it looks like they tried to push the prices up as far as they could and saw if customers will still bite. And blame it on ‘inflation’ as many corporations have done.
Problem with that business model is they may have lost customers who would never come back. They just gave up on film as it became too expensive. The result of Kodak not playing the long game.
Anyway, we’ll see.
Fuji prices are hard to use for comparison now that Fuji has exited so many markets. Fuji has other non-film business segments that are much more profitable to them and they seem to have decided that they don't really want to be in the film business any more, so comparing Fuji film prices may become another fool's errand. Depending on what Fuji product you're interested in, you might actually be buying a Kodak product.
Kodak may be learning from their misteaks. I think they learned that they don't have pricing power in an era where they are selling what essentially amounts to a discretionary luxury consumer item. Kodak's main competition today isn't Fujifilm -- its digital, where people have the option not to buy film at all.
I had never realized how difficult it was to make film until I watched the 3 hour (3-segment) video on Youtube that I linked-up in one of Fred's film threads. The process of making film is so complicated that it's hard to imagine making any money at it. The one thing that Kodak has going for it is that their film development plant -- which would cost billions to build today -- was built and paid for during the decades where film was the only option, and now they just have to pay to maintain the line. The sunk costs for anyone to get into manufacturing a new line of film are so high that few companies will consider doing it, and those that do tend to skip steps in the process for cost control, with visible compromises that come as a result (like not adding anti-halation layers). This gives Kodak a very wide economic moat when it comes to keeping competitors out of their premium film domain.
I agree with Huss -- I've seen Kodak lowering the prices on some of their films -- but not the professional films that I really want to buy at lower prices. Maybe Kodak saw the error of their ways when their higher prices triggered people to leave film. Maybe with lower prices they're trying to win some of them back. But I doubt that they're going to cut costs on things like Porta and Ektachrome, as people who want those premium emulsions will pay for them. I think where they're most likely to cut costs are on the cheaper films, like Kodacolor Gold, where simply breaking even will help to keep the production line running, hopefully while drawing some customers back into film with the high-pop color emulsions.
Desmolicious wrote:
Kodak does recently seem to have been lowering the prices of some of their films. Judging by the sale notices I get from various shops.
So it looks like they tried to push the prices up as far as they could and saw if customers will still bite. And blame it on ‘inflation’ as many corporations have done.
Problem with that business model is they may have lost customers who would never come back. They just gave up on film as it became too expensive. The result of Kodak not playing the long game.
Anyway, we’ll see.
+1. There is another newer culprit for film which is receiving more and more attention these days: new airport CT scanners. On IG and YouTube more videos popped up recently where people investigated how much harm is done by CT scanners on different kind of films. Actually for ISO 400 and above the effect is not negligible. And hand scanning film by TSA personnel is a gamble to work. I recently travelled with one roll of film ISO 100 speed domestically in the US. It went twice through CT scanners - both times I kept the undeveloped and then the developed and retracted film inside the metal and plastic housing for better protection. At least at this slower film speed, I did not observe any culprit with the developed film. But I would be very hesitant to do it with faster film speeds. In this case, I am fully switching to digital at this point.
I believe more and more amateur photographers who are traveling might be doing the same and deserting film.
I sort of jumped to the end after awhile (sorry); but would make a couple of points;
I see no point in arguing the relative costs of film now vs decades ago: surely the only question is what % of my disposable income goes on photography? More or less than before?
Personally I shoot digital for colour (and converting to B+W) and film with B+W. I dev my own film and tend to stick to stand developing with Rodinal; just so cheap and easy. I have quite a collection of decent cameras (film and digital) and due to the drop in prices over the years…some were (when released) serious money. That said, my two most expensive purchases ever (about a year ago) were a Canon 5D SR and a Bronica GS1 two lens outfit.
If I priced my gear at the selling price back in the day…not sure…£50,000 ish. Probably more…I suspect my Bronica lens collection would have been at least £20000 when released.. Worth today?…maybe £10,000; and most of that value would be in the lens collection followed by the better film bodies I own.
And here’s the thing; the majority of my film bodies are worth a lot more now than the price I paid; all the digital bodies are worth less. Lens prices seem to be very stable.
Sure I have to scan and then print…but my scanner is a perfectly set up elderly Epson V700 (ebay prices now are about what I paid for mine new)…and I digitally print everything so that isn’t a factor in the comparison.
The main point of my post, I guess, is the economics of shooting film vs digital are not always easy to access; and does it matter if one or both is affordable? I would argue that there is a film and a digital setup that meets everyone’s budget; although to be brutally honest; I recently bought a 5D mk2 with the 24 - 105 L for £250 and I cannot see any way I could be a film only photographer without it being far more expensive over time if buying a similar quality film outfit and paying for the film etc.
But I do enjoy using MF film gear, so if it is more expensive...so be it.
An after thought...I have half a freezer full of B+W film.....even that is more valuable than what I bought it for!!
As always with these types of comparisons, it's important to begin with the end in mind. If you're shooting film with the intent of developing and printing your images I don't think it's really even close. With digital I can print a 5X7 image on archival fine art paper for about $0.60. If I'm using a decent RC paper similar to what a lot of film stuff gets printed on the cost is closer to $0.30. Just to shoot the image on something like Portra is around $0.50.
jakelindsay wrote:
As always with these types of comparisons, it's important to begin with the end in mind. If you're shooting film with the intent of developing and printing your images I don't think it's really even close. With digital I can print a 5X7 image on archival fine art paper for about $0.60. If I'm using a decent RC paper similar to what a lot of film stuff gets printed on the cost is closer to $0.30. Just to shoot the image on something like Portra is around $0.50.
Sure, but if your goal is a physical master copy, i.e. an image on film, you would have to factor in the creation of a negative or positive from a digital original. I don't know how much that would cost, but I bet it's more expensive than just using film in the first place.
