bwcolor wrote:
I posted this on another thread, but it is relevant here. It brings into doubt that film is really more expensive today than in the past. Fewer places to develop film..for sure. Fewer film choices..probably.. Many more alternatives to film..yup. More expensive..well, maybe not.
“Kodacolor seems to be a good value film. For those complaining of current film pricing, The retail cost of 35mm/36exp Kodacolor 100 at B&H is $8.99. This is $1.11 in 1971 dollars. 35mm/36exp Kodacolor X was $2.75 in 1971, right before it was replaced by Kodacolor II in 1972.“
The prices i gave above $1.79 Korean labeled 36 fujicolor and 4x24 fujicolor for $6 from grocery or drug store ~25 years ago.
OregonSun wrote:
According the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data (FRED), US real disposable personal income per-capita has more than doubled since the '70s. I imagine it is similar for other advanced economies.
And so have food lines and homeless. Go talk to a bunch of 20 something’s and see how much disposable income they have after paying for housing, food, transport, health etc…
Like most stats…they can be made to show whatever agenda people want.
“ Disposable personal income has increased significantly in absolute, inflation-adjusted terms since 1970, with real disposable personal income reaching over $18 trillion in early 2026. However, the rising costs of housing, healthcare, and education mean that while Americans generally have higher incomes, a large portion of that income is consumed by essential expenses, often resulting in lower savings rates and tighter budgets for many compared to previous decades.”
Let’s not confuse disposable income with discretionary income…they are much different. Disposable income is what you get after paying taxes. Discretionary income is what you have left over after paying to survive, like housing, food, medical, transportation…
chez wrote:
And so have food lines and homeless. Go talk to a bunch of 20 something’s and see how much disposable income they have after paying for housing, food, transport, health etc…
Like most stats…they can be made to show whatever agenda people want.
“ Disposable personal income has increased significantly in absolute, inflation-adjusted terms since 1970, with real disposable personal income reaching over $18 trillion in early 2026. However, the rising costs of housing, healthcare, and education mean that while Americans generally have higher incomes, a large portion of that income is consumed by essential expenses, often resulting in lower savings rates and tighter budgets for many compared to previous decades.”
Let’s not confuse disposable income with discretionary income…they are much different. Disposable income is what you get after paying taxes. Discretionary income is what you have left over after paying to survive, like housing, food, medical, transportation… ...Show more →
You're the one that started talking about disposable income. I understand the pitfalls of statistics, but the pitfalls of using anecdotal evidence to arrive at conclusions are just as bad.
And yeah, life is tough for the kids these days, no argument there. A lot of them seem to be able to afford fancy tech and subscription services though. My guess is that they're just spending their disposable/discretionary income on stuff like that instead of photography.
Fundamentally, shooting film has a lot to offer in that it requires that you know what you are doing from both a technical and creative side. It forces you to shoot with only an imagined image resulting in your head and not at the back of a screen. We have now had decades of pray and spray digital shooting habits. I call this digititis. You see many YouTubers explaining how to cull images from thousands of shots taken during the day. Yes, they are proud of the fact that they captured thousands of images that they will never use. Some cameras can even be programmed to start taking photos right before you press the shutter. Feedback is instantaneous. For most, why would you want to start shooting with extreme shooting discipline without any feedback? Shooting with film has a lot to offer, but it doesn’t offer what most are looking for..at any age.
My hard drive with all my digital images, about 150,000, takes up hardly any space. My negatives and slides take up more space than I’m comfortable with since we moved from a large suburban home to a much smaller European city apartment.
I’ll stick with digital for most of my photography and will continue scanning the film negatives and slides. Storage got more expensive, but it’s not that much of a burden.
I shoot film sometimes, but not so much for the results, but for the joy of using those older cameras once in a while.
I've been playing with a film Leica and it's nice and when I see the photos out of it - it's nice to have it in a physical form and there is a certain look and feel that digital copies can't fully replicate. However, there is absolutely no reason to bring it back from a societal perspective.
Even if digital storage costs are rising, it is dirt cheap compared to film. Additionally, film requires expensive and toxic chemicals to manufacturer and develop.
It's certainly fun to play with but there's really no reason for it outside of niche photography.
People still shoot film when on vacations and at parties and such but film is too expensive for random everyday snaps. Many use disposable cameras too so they aren't too invested. Digital is just cheaper.
Film is still popular in weddings and special events so i don't think that's going away as long as film and labs are around.
A dm a couple months ago from a talent I worked with before:
I don't think we'll ever have a complete comeback just because digital will always be that much cheaper and quicker compared to film. On the flip side I could definitely see it eating a larger slice of the photography pie than it does right now.
