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?