I use this website filmtrackr.com to keep track of what I shoot - cameras, film, dates etc.
The running total so far is 1600 rolls of film.. I would estimate my dev cost (I scan myself and I consider that 'free' as I already have the digital camera) is about $8/roll colour, $1.25 B&W (I use Cinestill DF96 Monobath at $20/bottle).
About half my rolls are B&W so dev costs are $6400 + $1000 = $7400.
I would estimate my film costs - I buy in mass quantities when there is a sale - is about $7/roll B&W (averaged across all sorts of films) and $8 for colour (given the time frame).
So another $5600 + $6400 = $12,000
Total cost $7400 + 12,000 =$19,400.00
Saving grace? Over a 12 year period so the cost of my creative outlet is 'only' $1617/yr....
I don't drink/smoke/do drugs so $4.43/day does not seem too bad. How much is a coffee at Starbucks?
Having the equipment to scan negatives is the biggest cost saver in the long run. The initial start up cost can be fairly steep but considering what a lab charges for mediocre scans, it's worth it.
I paid a hundred USD for a used Plustek 7600i and used it for several years before moving to using a digital camera. That system improved piece by piece over time. I get high resolution scans and the ability to adjust the images to my liking and not leaving the choice to a random technician.
It's worth it to buy enough film to get free shipping. Some sites will have a lower cost per roll but shipping can quickly eliminate any savings.
Load up on the basics, like HP-5 or Tri-X for B&W or Fujicolor. Then sprinkle in some good stuff like Portra or Pan F or some fun stuff like Foma or Flic Film.it's
I've been buying film since Tri-X came in metal cans and still find the prices reasonable, if you know where to look.
@madNbad it's quite a bit cheaper in the US compared to the EU, but it still baffles me that even in the states bulk rolling Tri-X makes no sense, as it's essentially more expensive than just buying 36exp canisters..
Just looked at B&H and the 100' roll is about $180 - so roughly $10 per roll - while it's $8.99 for a 36exp 🤷♂️
As over here, it does make sense with Ilford films like FP4 or HP5 though.. (about $12 per individual roll, but more like $9 if you were to bulk roll it yourself)..
For many time is a very important cost as we all have limited amounts. Personally I see little joy out of taking pictures of negatives…so that would be a cost for me…maybe not monetary…but more importantly time wasted.
Rule of thumb for any avocation one really enjoys: Save all your receipts in a folder somewhere, but don’t ever look at them, and absolutely don’t ever add them up.
Edward Teller wrote:
Rule of thumb for any avocation one really enjoys: Save all your receipts in a folder somewhere, but don’t ever look at them, and absolutely don’t ever add them up.
Exactly why I invested in a freshly serviced Coolscan 5000 recently. Given the scan costs of my preferred lab I calculated it would essentially pay itself off after a 100 or so rolls which I will hit pretty comfortably within the next 2 years. The free Nikon Scan 4 software is also fantastic once you have it dialed in
Additionally the added benefit of being able to rescan a lot of my old negatives where I paid for cheap/poor quality scans is also really great
Edward Teller wrote:
Rule of thumb for any avocation one really enjoys: Save all your receipts in a folder somewhere, but don’t ever look at them, and absolutely don’t ever add them up.
Yeah, I would never do this to myself.
Huss, ignore the evil things the calculator is telling you.
Tina Kino wrote:
@madNbad@ it's quite a bit cheaper in the US compared to the EU, but it still baffles me that even in the states bulk rolling Tri-X makes no sense, as it's essentially more expensive than just buying 36exp canisters..
Just looked at B&H and the 100' roll is about $180 - so roughly $10 per roll - while it's $8.99 for a 36exp 🤷♂️
As over here, it does make sense with Ilford films like FP4 or HP5 though.. (about $12 per individual roll, but more like $9 if you were to bulk roll it yourself)..
I used to bulk roll but now there are fewer films that make the difference in price worth it. Kentmere, Foma and a few others are still in the sub one hundred USD for a 30 meter roll which gets the price per roll under five USD. Films like Kodak Double X cine film have seen increased price because of popularity and shortages due to Kodak making their cine films unavailable to the general public.
The last film I bulk loaded was 5222 and when that was gone, decided to stay with factory loaded cassettes. I figure if people are buying them, they'll keep making them.
I started tracking this in a spreadsheet in 2012. That year I shot 15 rolls. My highest was 161 in 2014. Last year this was down to 3x35mm and 5 sheets. From this year I only shoot 4x5. The film cost no longer makes much sense but my main problem is the hassle now of flying with film (certainly not the 4x5). So I got my digi processing nailed down and that's that.
Stats over the 13 years 2012-2025:
905 rolls of 110/35/120
83 sheets of 4x5
£11,202.37 to the lab
£9,618.48 buying film
Almost £21k. If I add the equipment well that's probably another £5k (net after selling the old stuff). I could have bought a new car for that. Or spend half on a used V10 Audi S8 and the rest on petrol. But hey...
Desmolicious wrote:
I use this website filmtrackr.com to keep track of what I shoot - cameras, film, dates etc.
The running total so far is 1600 rolls of film.. I would estimate my dev cost (I scan myself and I consider that 'free' as I already have the digital camera) is about $8/roll colour, $1.25 B&W (I use Cinestill DF96 Monobath at $20/bottle).
About half my rolls are B&W so dev costs are $6400 + $1000 = $7400.
I would estimate my film costs - I buy in mass quantities when there is a sale - is about $7/roll B&W (averaged across all sorts of films) and $8 for colour (given the time frame).
So another $5600 + $6400 = $12,000
Total cost $7400 + 12,000 =$19,400.00
Saving grace? Over a 12 year period so the cost of my creative outlet is 'only' $1617/yr....
I don't drink/smoke/do drugs so $4.43/day does not seem too bad. How much is a coffee at Starbucks?...Show more →
I just don't add the numbers in my head. Ignorance is bliss.
Cutting down on cost has been a focus for me over the last year. Limiting camera purchases*, selling off what gear I don't use, all that fun stuff. Same as you with the bulk film and homescanning.
I agree with what others have said where homescanning is the biggest single money saver. Even with buying a camera body I think my home scanning set up came to about $550ish total. The earliest rolls I shot need to be re-scanned at a higher resolution, just doing that with the rig versus sending them off to another lab will have already made the scanner pay for itself.
*I may or may not have foster-failed an M4. Maybe.
Here's the algorithm for how to get film for free.
1. Buy twice as much as you need.
2. By the time you shoot "your" half, the other half doubles in price.
3. Sell the other half.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 indefinitely.
chez wrote:
For many time is a very important cost as we all have limited amounts. Personally I see little joy out of taking pictures of negatives…so that would be a cost for me…maybe not monetary…but more importantly time wasted.
I would agree that the biggest cost for using film is the time needed to get to the final digitized photo and/or print. It takes considerably more time to PP a negative even when using the newer software tools like NegativeLabPro and digital camera instead of scanning. IMO this workflow is nowadays for hobbyists and enthusiasts - I also enjoy sometimes to grab my development tank to develop film and then being amazed when the photo appears digitized on the screen - it is never the same as digital. I don't mind the time spent for my hobby.
Why I scaled down with film photography in recent years is more in regard to film prices. Even 100' rolls of 35 mm film - and I roll all my B&W films myself - have significantly increased in price. Color film I pretty much stopped buying since I don't see much of a value compared to digital here.
Wow, I recently got into film photography, and photography in general. Seeing all this math is kind of warning me what I’m getting myself into 😭 But I guess every hobby costs money in some way. I should check out the website and start using it too!
omyo52 wrote:
Wow, I recently got into film photography, and photography in general. Seeing all this math is kind of warning me what I’m getting myself into 😭 But I guess every hobby costs money in some way. I should check out the website and start using it too!
Stick around - we'll show plenty of ways to make it more affordable!
I think what attracts some people to film is the low cost of entry with incremental costs depending on use. Financially, I think that's probably easier for people to justify depending on their income.
Desmolicious wrote:
Stick around - we'll show plenty of ways to turn this whole endeavour into more of a money-sink than you'd have ever dared to imagine!
Some calcs from my latest order yesterday (that's here in Germany and all prices include 19% VAT):
120:
Kodak Gold: 10.69€ + 6€ for C41 processing = 1.67€ per click on my Pentax 67
Kodak Portra / Ektacolor 400: 18€ + 6€ processing = 2.40€ per click
Kodak Portra 800: 22.15€ + 6€ for processing = 2.81€ per click - ouch!
Ilford HP5 / FP4: 9.98€ + 8€ for BW processing = 1.80€ per click
Kentmere 400: 6.43€ + 8€ processing = 1.44€ per click
Kodak Ektachrome: 22.40€ + 12€ for E6 processing = 3.44€ per click
35mm:
Kodak Gold (3-pack): 9.96€ + 6€ for C41 = 0.44€ per click
Kodak Ultramax (3-pack): 11€ + 6€ processing = 0.47€ per click
Kodak Portra / Ektacolor 400: 19.49€ + 6€ processing = 0.71€ per click
Kodak Tri-X: 10.95€ (oddly cheaper than HP5 right now, which has gone up a lot!) + 8€ for BW processing = 0.53€ per click
Ilford FP4: 12.00€ + 8€ processing = 0.56€ per click
Kentmere 400: 7.39€ + 8€ processing = 0.43€ per click
My takeaway is that 35mm and especially the consumer color + BW films is still okay-ish. 120 and especially Pro color in 120 is frickin expensive.
Also: assuming an average of 0.60€ per pic in 35mm, a used Leica M10-P pays for itself after approx. 8.333 images, or 231 rolls of film. I shot 46 rolls of film last year (mix of 120 and 35mm, but mostly 35mm), so it would take me 5 years of completely replacing film to justify the cost of the Leica. But then the results don't look like film and it also doesn't operate like a film Leica, so...
