Cost of sheet film & quantity per box thereof

[John Kasaian]

In Michael Kadillac's thread on Kodak's improved TMY, and elsewhere here, the issue of the cost of sheet film has been brought up. I had just visited two websites where I buy nearly all my film (Badger Graphic and Freestyle) and it occurred to me that the cost difference between emulsions is, well, kind of trivial. Of the five emulsions I shoot in 8x10---TMY, TXP, FP--4+ and Arista.edu100Ultra, the diffference between the highest (TMY) and the lowest (Arista.edu100Ultra) cost is around a dollar a sheet. If I include HP-5+ and FOMA's versions the spread is still about the same and the difference between the TMY and the bulk of the others (Kodak, Ilford and Foma) runs about a dime per sheet.

The past where Kodak film is priced disproportionally higher than say, Ilford is in the past (I won't speculate on whether Kodak was artificially higher or Ilford was just sold too cheaply--it is needless to say the sheet film market has been and is going through growing--or is it shrinking?--Pains!)

When I think of the cost of the chemicals to soup each exposure, the cost of film is trivial. The lesson then, is to shoot the emulsion you enjoy using.

A much larger issue is budgeting in order to buy film. The student or hobby-ist isn't likely to part with vast sums of money for film, so here the cost becomes an issue---a fifty sheet box is a considerable amount to invest in, especially for an untried emulsion. OTOH if it is an emulsion you like 50 sheets is a convenience and often less per sheet (though not all that much less.) The 25 sheet box is the standard, it seems and I think people are more prone to spring for an $80 box of 25 sheets than $150 for a typical 50 sheet box, but those 50 sheet boxes are nice! When I shoot Foma 100 I actually prefer buying the Arista label which comes in a 50 sheet box over the original Foma in 25 sheet offering (the cost difference between per sheet the two isn't so great that I find it to be a consideration)

OK thats my morning ramble. What are your opinions?

[Nick_3536]

My last order from Freestyle cost me about $40 in shipping. 100 rolls of 120. 100 sheets of 5x7. If I split that order half it wouldn't have saved me much if anything in shipping.

So for me the cost of shipping means I order bigger amounts but less often. It's a pain when I forget something but otherwise works.

Smaller boxes would force me to order more boxes for the same total number of sheets.

I've no idea what chemicals you're using but chemicals are a small fraction of my film costs.

[BradS]

I have to agree with you John. I used to worry about the cost of the film and try to get the best value. I wasted a lot of time and energy and still worse, probably lost some potentially good shots. Frugality with regard to film is folly. Compared to the cost of blowing a shot, the cost of a sheet of film is insignificant.

I have since decided to shoot pretty much only kodak Tri-X in B&W. Could have just as easily chosen TMY and may have if it were as widely available as TXP.

I must say that TXP has it's quirks but and may be one of the most expensive but, it has never let me down - and that assurace is worth it.

[Capocheny]

LOL... great morning ramble John!

I think the cost of a sheet of film relative to the time, effort, and energy spent in "getting the shot" is pretty inexpensive.

Secondly, the intangible value of that sheet of film relative to the "enjoyment" one derives from getting the image (and seeing it up on the wall is), as the Mastercard advertisment says, "priceless!"

Thirdly, when you look at the cost of a 50-sheet box of paper and compare it to the cost of smoking cigarettes (spread over the same period of time required to expose, process, and print those 50 sheets)... the cost of the 50 sheets of film is pretty minimal!

Lastly, life is too short and, if you enjoy photography... what the heck! A 50-sheet box of film can be a good reason for why you bust your a** off at work every day!

Ok, ok... I'll get off the pulpit now!

Cheers

[bigdog]

Frugality with regard to film is folly.

Photography is not for the faint of wallet.

[Daniel_Buck]

I've often wondered if it's possible to buy a large case of film, 'bulk' film at a cheaper price in the long run? Like a case of 500 sheets or something?

I don't shoot very much though, only about 4-6 sheets per weekend. That's not much, considering each sheet is about $1.

[BradS]

last night, I took my accountant and our two kids out to Chineese. War Won-ton soup, pot stickers, lemon chicken, salt-n-pepper fish, mu-shu chicken and hot tea all around. The bill came to right around $60. add a tip and I'm easily at the cost of a 50 sheet box of TXP - in 5x7 to boot! A nice meal lasts a night. 50 sheets of 5x7 film lasts...what, a few months or so? (and a well printed photo from that box last a life time!...or, more!)

Film is cheap! Buy the best you can afford and don't worry about it.

[Dirk Rösler]

As Mike Johnston put it, photography is not a way to save money but something to save money for.

On the other hand, I just shot two packs of Velvia Quickloads handheld yesterday within two hours...

[SamReeves]

Yup, especially large format photography which can come down like a bunch of bricks in your pocket book. But we do it anyways!

I have jumped Kodak's ship though when they changed the Tri-X formula around 2001 or so. Tried some HP5 and have stuck with it since it is a bit cheaper.

[Nick_3536]

I've often wondered if it's possible to buy a large case of film, 'bulk' film at a cheaper price in the long run? Like a case of 500 sheets or something?

Don't know about film but the local shops used to stock paper in 1000 sheet boxes.