Film Prices

[jeroldharter]

I was feeling bad/guilty recently for spending so much money to participate in the Kodak TMY 8x10 group order through Canham. Then I was looking at the Photo.Net newsletter and learned that the MSRP for a new Pentax wide angle lens for a digital camera was $5000. Then I saw 400 and 600mm lenses for ~$9,000 and $12,000.

Then I looked up medium format digital cameras. B&H has them ranging from $10,000 to $42,000. I suspect that if I bought a new Hassleblad with a couple of lenses they might throw in a small car and a house in Las Vegas.

So I am feeling better about film.

[Drew Wiley]

From their standpoint, it was probably a good idea for Pentax to offer some new
lenses optimized for digital capture because it shows their commitment to the product line. But as I understand it, the lens mount will not be unique, so one could
also use their previous 645 and 67 lenses, which can be acquired at bargain rates
at the moment. In any event, unless someone needs to shoot a lot of images, it is
difficult to amortize this kind of expense, especially considering digital gear depreciates a lot faster than a car - and that is fast! I average only one or two
8x10 shots a week. If half of them turn out to be lemons, that's still a lot of subject
matter in the darkroom, certainly more than I can afford the time to drymount!
Color printing is even more involved, and you can only turn out so many images
as a printmaker. If you're shooting commercially or for stock, it might be another
issue. At my age, I simply can't afford to reinvest; and frankly, I enjoy darkroom
work and big pieces of film.

[Vaughn]

Film has always been the cheaper part of a major photo trip. I shot 28 sheets of 8x10 film on an 11-day trip to the deserts of CA (came home with one loaded holder) -- actually only 9 days of photographing. The trip was longer but some was non-photo-taking related. About 2000 miles of driving @20 MPG = 100 gallons of gas at $3.50/gallon. So $350 worth of gas, wear-and-tear on the vehicle, more money spent on food than I would have at home, an $80 year pass to National Parks and odds and ends -- perhaps $1000 for the entire trip, including the the non-shooting part. The film -- about $100 (including 5 rolls of 120 TMax100) -- so about 10% of the cost. Film is the cheap part.

[Daniel Stone]

Commercially, LF film is dead. But for us guys who DON'T shoot commercially(well, 99% of us ), film IS the cheap part.

people bitch about the price of film, but they're happy to buy $3000 "swirly" petzvals. IDK if those are the same people though .

-Dan

[Nathan Potter]

Film is such a small part of my photograpic excursions that I consider it free. Plus I average in the field only two 4X5 shots per day! I've become very selective about what I'll shoot. I don't need any more mediocre images on file.

Well I just tallied up the % cost of film based on total trip costs. Included gas, lodging, food, time looking and shooting @ $20 per hour - I think it's about 1 to 2% of total.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Thebes]

I recently paged through an old magazine I found from my college days. Correcting for inflation film seems no more expensive now than a dozen years ago. Used film gear is generally cheaper, darkroom gear is much cheaper, soft focus lenses are significantly more.

Film and paper have always been expensive. They only seem more so now because of inflation (use a real comparison like food, fuel, or precious metals, not absurd government figures).

[J Ney]

I was feeling bad/guilty recently for spending so much money to participate in the Kodak TMY 8x10 group order through Canham. Then I was looking at the Photo.Net newsletter and learned that the MSRP for a new Pentax wide angle lens for a digital camera was $5000. Then I saw 400 and 600mm lenses for ~$9,000 and $12,000.

Then I looked up medium format digital cameras. B&H has them ranging from $10,000 to $42,000. I suspect that if I bought a new Hassleblad with a couple of lenses they might throw in a small car and a house in Las Vegas.

So I am feeling better about film.

You've got the TMY so use it... but - speaking personally - I ended up switching to Ilford HP5 when I jumped to 8x10 purely b/c of cost... I can't speak to comparisons to TMY & HP5 (though I've used both) but I think HP5 is a great substitute for TXP (for something like 40% less per sheet).

[Mark Barendt]

You've got the TMY so use it... but - speaking personally - I ended up switching to Ilford HP5 when I jumped to 8x10 purely b/c of cost... I can't speak to comparisons to TMY & HP5 (though I've used both) but I think HP5 is a great substitute for TXP (for something like 40% less per sheet).

I don't mind spending less for equal results, but given all the time I spend, other costs involved, the limited volume of those shots, and all the effort that I put into getting a single LF shot; for me saving 40% on a single sheet of film isn't worth worrying about.

In fact I have come to the point where I'm happy and very willing to spend as many as 4 sheets of my HP5 on any single setup that looks promising because 2 or 3 normal end up as, well "practice".

With TXP I will only shoot 2 sheets in the same situation because I rarely even need a backup sheet.

This could surely be related to my failings or simple dumb luck or the alignment of the stars, but still I normally only need 1/2 the number of TXP sheets to get good results and a backup.

That's better economics for me.

[John Kasaian]

Film, chemicals and paper is an on going expense. As such it is subject to what expendible income I can afford to put into it. Chemicals are the cheaper components, while film is the most costly(unless travel is involved.)
Sometimes the demands of a shoot dictate the film(especially if reciprocity raises it's ugly head) but other than that I don't think normal daylight photography requires a "premium" that cannot be justified in the final print. Just about any modern film thats free from sloppy manufacturing defects will work for me. I'm talkin' B&W here.
Kodak is very well known for thier Quality Assurance, but Ilford, Efke and Foma, IMHO are also very reliable---at least I haven't had a problem with thier emulsions, yet!

[Jim Jones]

I've found the cost of film to be small in relation to other costs in photography. This is nothing new. Edward Weston had to pay $0.27 a sheet for 8x10 film bought in quantity when preparing for a Guggenheim fellowship in 1937. Their new Ford sedan cost $904.12, and gas was about $0.17 per gallon. That makes film sound expensive, but it may have cost less than 10% of the Guggenheim grants.