Relative cost of film compared to...

[John_4185]

The Film Choice thread was getting too warm for my Minnesota blood. :)

By pure luck I aquired a lot of exposed glass plates and was struck by the photographer's 'candid' photos - things that I had not expected to find. He clearly took a lot of pictures in spite of of what I think must have been an expensive medium.

So I ask - does Net Wisdom here have any figures for what B&W LF media cost over the era? It might be interesting to compare it to the cost of living and other things, possibly for a reality check today.

[Paul Butzi]

Life is short, the art is long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgement difficult. Fortunately, film is cheap.

[John_4185]

Fortunately, film is cheap.

Of course you are right, but the question fosters some consideration.

The question might shed some light on history. Costs of living have changed. At one time clothing accounted for one of the most expensive items of ordinary living, while shelter and transportation were the least expensive. Today it is almost the opposite. How might have the expense influenced photographers and outcomes when, for example, a dry plate or two cost as much as food for a family of four for a day? (I have a series of glass plates that might have been considered at the time a reckless or wastefull. Three images are of the photographer's wife and two children, very casual, smiling. laughing (to a point of some blur) in an undistinguished, common and rather poor setting. And there are more of the same. They are remarkable today for just that. IMHO.)

Regardless of the historical perspective, today all the digital amateur photographers I know aquire equipment and expendables without considering the total expense in terms of their best images. Do amateur film photographers do the same? Do they really understand that (for now) film is really cheap in terms of their best images? Or am I just totally wrong?

(I use the term Amateur in the classic sense: one who pursues a goal without compromising upon the product in order to sell it. Perhaps we should revert to the root term: Amator.)

[John Cook]

When I was in art school in 1967, a brand new Toyota Tercel could be had for $1350.

Pan Pacific Camera on LaBrea Blvd in Hollywood sold 4x5 Riteway holders in a box of three for $9.99

A Calumet View was $99, a new Crown Graphic about $200, my first Technika (with lens, grip, optical viewfinder and rollfilm back) more like $900.

I also bought a new Rollei TLR and Leica M4 for $400 each.

A 100-sheet box of 4x5 Plus-X was $6.

[John Cook]

Oh, and I drove a 1958 Porsche Cabriolet which I had purchased used in 1960 for $2495. on my $5000 per year salary.

[Frank Petronio]

When I worked as an assistant at Kodak I used to shoot twenty 8x10 Polaroids just for the hell of it, while waiting for the "senior" photographer to get back from his mid-afternoon tennis date.

So yes, film was cheap back in the day. Or maybe that was just Kodak's culture?

[Dan Fromm]

John, I shoot roll film and I don't know much. What I do know is that every time I take a shot I've spent $1.25. This does make me a little thoughtful, doesn't stop me.

Cheers,

[Brian C. Miller]

How much does a piece of glass cost?

We presume that since they used glass plates, that therefore the base material was expensive. However, at that time they had the economics of mass production on their side. They used either dry or wet plates, and I don't think the coating added too much to the cost of the base plate.

And what is the price of gelatin-coated glass compared with Dagguereotypes? That is a far more difficult process, and yet these images on silver metal were exchanged quite often.

[Joseph O'Neil]

For what it is worth, I find film cheaper than digital memory. I have a couple of 1 gig chips for my digital camera. Sure, they do not wear out, and they are re-useable.

But I have a small stack of 4 year old, 16 meg cards. Originally those cards cost me the same price as my 1 gig did recently. Not only that, my new (or newer) digital camera will not take my old cards, even if I wanted to use them.

Film is cheap, IMO, compared to anything else in photography.

joe

[paulr]

someone with book learnin' should be able to compare the increase in film cost to the general rate of inflation over the years.

of course film has costs more now than in the days of yore; the question is, is it actually more or less expensive, and by how much?

[Mike Kovacs]

No, I think film was much more expensive in times past relative to inflation. The price of silver commodities has come down a lot.

[Erik Gould]

Frank-- you shot off 20 polaroids for fun while working at Kodak? That does say something about the culture at EK.

[William Barnett-Lewis]

Using the $6 for a 100 count box of Plus-X in 1967 and the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator at http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html the inflation alone adjusted price for it would be $33.93. I paid IIRC $54 for a 50 count box of Tri-X a couple of weeks ago...

Unfortunately, the cost of film appaently has gone up a fair bit more than inflation.

[Doug Dolde]

I spend much more on gas and motels than film when I go on a shoot. I think it's false economy to try to conserve film, even Quickloads, in light of that.

[Donald Qualls]

"Film is cheap."

There speaks someone who hasn't had to choose between paying a bill and buying a box (or even a couple rolls) of film, who doesn't have his darkroom on hiatus due to lack of paper to print on, and who doesn't wonder when he'll have to give up photography entirely for lack of materials -- not because the factories are closing, but because even the Chinese products made by what amounts to slave labor are too costly to keep using, if they don't contribute to paying the rent and bills.

All those glass plates of trivial subjects are just like the billions of Polaroids that were spent on trivial subjects in the past 50 years, despite being, for their time, the most expensive way to screw up a snapshot: they're the product of people who, for whatever reason, didn't have to worry too much about the cost of their hobby. Those are the people by which our society judges "cheap" -- the ones who can afford that new SUV and the gasoline to keep it running, even when a disaster kicks the price up 20% almost overnight, the ones who can just drop their plastic to pay for $1500 in equipment when they decide to take up a new branch of their hobby or just because the stuff they have is old and worn and no longer exciting (whether that's a new Tachihara or a bag full of titanium golf clubs). The people for whom "sacrifice for art" means brown-bagging lunch to attend a gallery opening during working hours.

Good for them -- hopefully, they'll keep film alive until I can afford it again...

[Conrad Hoffman]

In high school, around '70-'72, I shot photos for the local real estate agent. I got $5 per 8x10, and that enabled me to pay for whatever film, paper, and chemistry I wanted for my own stuff. I shot about 100X more then, than I do now. If I shot and printed as much today, I'd go broke. I used to mail order Luminos graded paper, keeping several grades in 100 sheet boxes around. If I remember right, they were about $10 per box. I remember buying "pro packs" of 120 Plux-X just by selling a few of those 8x10s. Sure, living at home is a big advantage for a kid, but I can't imagine buying similar materials today on what most teens make at part time jobs. There wouldn't be anything left for video games, cell phone, and gas. IMO, the economic structure is very different today. Mass produced consumer items are dirt cheap, and cottage industries keep lower tech items cheap, but anything speciallized, or with a high labor content, is going to cost you. I'd be curious just how much glass plates did cost, and I suspect it's far less than you might think.

[John_4185]

Mister Qualls All those glass plates of trivial subjects are just like the billions of Polaroids that were spent on trivial subjects in the past 50 years,

Not always, Mister Qualls. In the case I referred to, it is clear from the pictures of his home that the photographer was pretty much an ordinary man. By the pictures I sense that his family enjoyed, at least for the moment, his picture-making.

And his pictures of pre-world war one lasted long enough to find their way into my home in 1998. They serve to this day as substantive, enrichening.

So, here is to the exceptions, perhaps people like us.

Best,

[Wayne]

Film is cheap eh. Maybe someone who feels that way would like to buy me a whole whopping 100 shots of 8x10 Ilford, because I cant afford it. You should be able to get it to me for just under $400 with shipping. Still sound cheap? I'll send you my address.

[Harold_4074]

All things are relative: in the early seventies, I used to figure on $0.25/sheet for Plus-X Professional, in 25-sheet boxes, in Houston, Texas (which is to say: the same as a 12-ounce can of soft drink from the machine in the hall). Coffee, in a student-class restaurant, was about half that.

Today, Ilford FP4 is around $1.00/sheet in the same quantity, whereas a cup of coffee in a similar class restaurant is just under $2.00, and most of the folks that I know think nothing of paying $4-$6 at Starbucks. A soft drink from the machine in the (current) hallway is $0.80, which is a little under the going rate locally, and therefore still at about par with a sheet of film.

Another way of looking at it is cost per hour (for the amateurs among us). Back then, minimum wage was (as I recall) about $1.50 per hour, so a sheet of film cost about ten minutes of working time. Minimum wage is now $5.15 or so, depending on what law applies, so a sheet of film now goes for about 12 minutes of minimum-wage working time, not really all that different.

I wish that I knew what movies cost back then, so I could make a leisure-cost comparison. I do know that a sheet of 8x10, costing about four bucks, gives me three or four hours of recreation, which is a lot cheaper than a $10 movie theater ticket for an hour and a half of entertainment!

I do hope that someone can come up with the price of a glass plate in the twenties or thirties, so that we can compare it with some basic utilitarian expense that is still around (like the price of a work shirt, or maybe a gallon of heating oil).

(I try not to think too much about the fact that when I expose a sheet of film using electronic flash, my hobby is costing me four thousand dollars per second _just for film_ during the actual exposure.....)

[John Kasaian]

$54 for a box of Tri-x? I'm lookin' at $160 a box for 8x10 Tri-x!

I think every 4x5 shooter should buy a box of 8x10 just for the h@ll of it. Then you'll never be tempted to complain about the cost of film again.

Oh, and all that 8x10 you bought but won't be using? Just send over to me! ;-)

[Bosaiya]

"Film is cheap"

Remind me of that when the wife sees the charge for ten boxes of Type 55 on the credit card statement.

[paulr]

i think the "film is cheap" mantra comes from commercial photographers ... everything is cheap if you can bill it directly to the client. it's even cheaper after you take you pro kickback!

[Paul Butzi]

"Film is cheap."
There speaks someone who hasn't had to choose between paying a bill and buying a box (or even a couple rolls) of film...

There speaks someone who has not the tiniest clue about whether I've faced such decisions.

Perhaps, before you spout off with such arrant nonsense, you should actually get some information.

[Paul Butzi]

Film is cheap eh. Maybe someone who feels that way would like to buy me a whole whopping 100 shots of 8x10 Ilford, because I cant afford it. You should be able to get it to me for just under $400 with shipping. Still sound cheap? I'll send you my address.

$4 per sheet sounds cheap relative to the other photographic costs incurred. Gas, lodging, meals, equipment, etc. seem to swamp my film costs for just about any photographic project I've done and I don't see that changing in the future. And, I'm not particularly stingy when it comes to using film.

Perhaps, if you were to promote and sell your work, you'd find that the income it generates would help defray the expenses. A web site is a relatively inexpensive and very effective way to promote and sell work. If you're not willing to put in the effort required to build and maintain your own website, you still might steal a page from Jorge Gasteazoro's book, and auction off prints on Ebay. If you clear $70 per print, selling off six prints would buy you that box of 100 sheets of film.

[John_4185]

$4 per sheet sounds cheap relative to the other photographic costs incurred. Gas, lodging, meals, equipment, etc.

True. I am blessed with a wife who doesn't mind camping or sleeping in the vehicle, living tough. We put our 4x4 RV into storage because of the mileage issue, and now use a station wagon with a tent extension. Of course, that's no help in urban situations and my work is going in that direction.

A PJ colleague who shoots all MF returns from each of his trips with at least 400 rolls of 120 film. We have a big project to begin next year. I suggested that I shoot LF. Color! That idea flew like a lead balloon. However, I am working on an interesting approach to do it regardless. I'll start a pertinent thread on this in a moment.

[RJ Hicks]

Whether film is cheap or expensive is relative to the individual and really is all about priorities. Film is cheap for me because of what I get with my purchase; a negative that I can reprint many times and keep for years. I have spent way too much moola on camera equipment to complain about film prices, in fact right now I am selling some of my less used equipment and in turn buying materials. Compared to a new lens, a new camera, or that lighting equipment that I so lust after, film is cheap, and more important for my photography. I'll gladly give up my cable bill, or my cell phone bill to pay for film, but I'm not giving up imported beer for some cheap imitation.

[Wayne]

Yeah, I know I should put more effort into selling prints, but after 3 years of doing it I learned that I genuinely hate trying to sell myself. Hate, hate, hate it. If I had been more successful I might have a different attitude, but right now I'm enjoying it much more just for the love of it. I'm thinking about the website though, because I really miss the tax deductions...At least when I was tryng to sell I could deduct all sorts of things, even if I couldnt recover the cost.