The Film Apocalypse and Proper Freezing and Storage of Film

[D. Bryant]

So perhaps there is an element of irrationality in all the hoarding?

Marko using the work hoarding in this discussion is inflammatory and does nothing to advance the discussion and does a lot to imply that people who stockpile consumables are daft or irrational as you put it. IOW, you are insulting those that do stockpile and those who advocate stockpiling.

And suggesting that digital photography is somehow equivalent to film based photography comes across as inflammatory as well.

For me personally I don't hoard or stockpile but as Michael points out for some people having a guaranteed supply of a specific material is essential to their work like Michael Smith and Paula Chamblee. And there are other photographers that could be included on this list as well; for example David Plowden.

And stockpiling isn't limited to film or paper for photo related endeavors. Carbon tissue for copper plate gravure printing is yet another example.

Don Bryant

[Michael Kadillak]

If I kept two freezers full of film as a hedge against possible shortages, I would be using up from the bottom and replenish at the top and so definitely wouldn't feel the need to be concerned about timely deliveries.

Strange thing is, I don't keep large supplies but I'm still not concerned about timely availability of film. For me it's just a hobby that helps me relax, so I'm never in a hurry with it, and even if I do run out of film before getting new supplies in, there's always digital.

A photograph is a photograph, as long as I get to take it.

So perhaps there is an element of irrationality in all the hoarding?

You must be trying to bait me because I am one of the most rational people around.

When I make a film purchase am I at fault to expect an efficient and expedient transaction? This is not the norm online at ANY sheet film reseller in this country. I find it terribly frustrating to have to remember a deal that I previously attempted to complete online and be forced to take time best spent on other matters calling on the status and trying to find out when (or if) it will actually be shipped.

99% of other things I order are all done online without a problem. For some reason these vendors are far more electronically competent.

[Marko]

Even when you are doing purely commercial work, dollars alone are an inadequate measure of return on investment. Nobody does photography on the basis of economics when measured only in dollars.

Perhaps your definition of advocate is one who is making an investment only in his own enjoyment. I do not find that an uneconomic description, nor do I know anyone who enjoys his or her work who is not also an advocate, even if it is sumptuously remunerative. Michael stated a reason for storing in large batches of minimizing the time spent addressing batch inconsistencies. That has economic value even in a commercial setting. For a hobbyist whose time is consumed doing things of far greater economic value, it may be worth even more.

Hi Rick,

Actually, my definition of an advocate is someone who advances a cause. In Michael's case, he makes it clear that he works to advance the cause of using film and approaches this discussion from that angle.

This is, IMO, very different from analyzing an issue with an eye on cost of usage and ownership, which would be an economic approach.

I am not saying that either approach is better or more correct than the other, all I'm saying is that they are two very different methods that serve different angles of view (no pun intended). I am also saying that they are often mutually incompatible, at least when it comes to doing things for emotional, recreational or other noncommercial reasons.

On the other note, and speaking strictly for myself, I do enjoy what I do, both professionally and in my spare time. Photography is a big part of the latter and film photography makes a decent portion of it. And yet, I am not an advocate for any of those things, or at least I do not consider myself as such.

I just thought that introducing economic terms such as "managing market uncertainty", "hedging", "intelligent investment", "consumable", "controlling variables" and such and then following up with statement such as " have no idea how much my film in my freezer costs because I really just do not care" or "This is not about economics for me" when faced with economy-based response was not very consistent. And I still do.

And value is always measured as an opportunity cost. Just because you think only yuppy consumerists might buy coffee at Starbucks doesn't mean you don't have your own spending habits that others would be happy to disparage.

I am actually surprised that you of all the people would misread what I wrote!

I never said anything about those who buy things there, I only qualified the product as an overpriced (definitely) garbage (subjective, but a solid argument could be made) conceived by yuppies for yuppies (ok, wild assumption but rooted in popular and widely held view).

What I did was to question the reason for bringing it up in a totally unrelated discussion. I still do.

And just for the record, I too buy a cup of Joe there on an odd occasion. It doesn't change the fact that it is overpriced, unhealthy and popular.

And if money is to be wasted or invested in the enjoyment of one's hobby the latter is an easy and economically sound choice, even if both choices seem like money thrown away to someone else.

To me, mindless consumption is buying something that does not bring enjoyment commensurate with what it costs. That is what leads to people owning more and being less happy. That is poor economy indeed, but not because it is expensive.

Rick "for whom enjoyment and satisfaction are a hobby's only stock in trade" Denney

We are in complete agreement about mindless consumption.

In my view, money spent on one's hobby or other activity that brings enjoyment and increases satisfaction and quality of life is certainly money well spent, but investment it isn't.

Marko

[Marko]

Marko using the work hoarding in this discussion is inflammatory and does nothing to advance the discussion and does a lot to imply that people who stockpile consumables are daft or irrational as you put it. IOW, you are insulting those that do stockpile and those who advocate stockpiling.

And suggesting that digital photography is somehow equivalent to film based photography comes across as inflammatory as well.

For me personally I don't hoard or stockpile but as Michael points out for some people having a guaranteed supply of a specific material is essential to their work like Michael Smith and Paula Chamblee. And there are other photographers that could be included on this list as well; for example David Plowden.

And stockpiling isn't limited to film or paper for photo related endeavors. Carbon tissue for copper plate gravure printing is yet another example.

Don Bryant

It seems that we have different standards for "inflammatory". In short, and in the context of this thread:

"...hoarding is triggered as a response to perceived or predicted shortages of specific goods."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding

"A stockpile is a pile or storage location for bulk materials, forming part of the bulk material handling process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile

And suggesting that digital photography is somehow equivalent to film based photography comes across as inflammatory as well.

I am not suggesting anything, I simply stated the fact that for me, digital is a perfectly viable method of enjoying photography. I really couldn't care less if some might find it inflammatory, this is not APUG and I would never say it there.

[rdenney]

In my view, money spent on one's hobby or other activity that brings enjoyment and increases satisfaction and quality of life is certainly money well spent, but investment it isn't.

Only if you use a narrow definition of "investment". Many measure investment only in dollars, but with hobbies (and with professions if one is to be happy doing them), one's own enjoyment must also be part of the return, and thus it must be part of the economic evaluation.

People change jobs to make less money all the time in order to alter the role they have with respect to their profession. I did so within the last year myself, and took a cut in pay (a cut now extended for two years by the president), which I consider to be an investment in my own satisfaction. Can that be measured in dollars? Not in a way that would please some, perhaps. But it has even greater value and therefore it is wholly legitimate to include it in an economic evaluation, using economic principles and terms.

All money does is provide a surrogate for value so that value can be transported through society efficiently.

By the way, your definition of an advocate would include every salesman I've ever known, and there is not a breed on this Earth more precise in using dollars to measure progress. More generally: An advocate recommends a position, and may bring economic arguments to support that recommendation (perhaps in addition to other arguments). Thus, I cannot find the distinction between the two that you draw.

Rick "advocating a broad view of economics for such silly pursuits as photography" Denney

[Marko]

You must be trying to bait me because I am one of the most rational people around.

When I make a film purchase am I at fault to expect an efficient and expedient transaction? This is not the norm online at ANY sheet film reseller in this country. I find it terribly frustrating to have to remember a deal that I previously attempted to complete online and be forced to take time best spent on other matters calling on the status and trying to find out when (or if) it will actually be shipped.

99% of other things I order are all done online without a problem. For some reason these vendors are far more electronically competent.

Michael,

No, not baiting. Just an attempt at a little humor, should've put a smiley there.

As for the rest, as I said in my response to Rick, I did get an impression you were being a bit cavalier in your responses but no bad feelings.

None intended on my part either.

We need to collectively lighten up a bit, I find the levels of noise and edginess have gone up a lot lately, as if all the bile from politics and economy trickled down here... People used to be much more relaxed and discussions more civilized and good natured a few years ago.

Marko

[Marko]

Only if you use a narrow definition of "investment". Many measure investment only in dollars, but with hobbies (and with professions if one is to be happy doing them), one's own enjoyment must also be part of the return, and thus it must be part of the economic evaluation.

I do tend to use definitions a bit narrowly. To me it is very simple (perhaps even simplistic): Investment is an economic term so if it earns money, it is an investment, if it loses money it is a loss and if it costs money it is an expense.

Earning money on a good investment certainly brings satisfaction, but not necessarily enjoyment. There are some expenses that do bring enjoyment, a lot of it even, and those represent money well spent I referred to.

All money does is provide a surrogate for value so that value can be transported through society efficiently.

Only if you equate price and value, but you don't strike me as one of those.

By the way, your definition of an advocate would include every salesman I've ever known, and there is not a breed on this Earth more precise in using dollars to measure progress. More generally: An advocate recommends a position, and may bring economic arguments to support that recommendation (perhaps in addition to other arguments). Thus, I cannot find the distinction between the two that you draw.

Rick "advocating a broad view of economics for such silly pursuits as photography" Denney

Not really. As you noted above, an advocate may bring economic arguments to support a position, while a salesman primarily argues for economic gain. Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the difference to me is huge.

[Shen45]

Just a quick note of Efke 100 - mine is expired 2009 and all the same emulsion number. I have my original BTZS test I did in 2005 with D76 1+1 and as I open a new box I will expose a sheet to a step wedge and compare to the original file. So far the results have been as follows --
The original test has a fb&f of .07 and the latest batch is .08. The results are the same for my "stash of Foma 200 as well.
All film is frozen in the freezer at about -18c The results are the same virtually with PMK with both of these films.
I have also used Shanghai 5x4 and have to say it is excellent film. Smooth and sharp.

[rdenney]

Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the difference to me is huge.

My eyesight isn't good enough to split the hairs further, so I'll leave it with you.

Rick "who knows his limitations" Denney

[Marko]

I am growing too old for that too. But I can still see value in your point.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

Marko