Sustainability of 8x10 film given the pricing situation

[StuartR]

I know that complaining about price is a true sport on the internet, but I wanted to see what people thought about the current situation. I have only been shooting 8x10 for about five years, but I love it. In smaller formats I have standardized on Tmax 400 and Provia 100F as my main two films for black and white and color. I think both are tremendous products and I really want to support them and continue using them, but the prices have truly climbed to absurd heights. I am a bit unlucky in that Iceland has an additional 33% tax on film (VAT and a customs surcharge), which means that prices are even harder to swallow than for those in the US or many parts of Europe. I look now at FotoImpex and Provia with shipping to Iceland would cost me 650 euros a box for twenty photos, not including processing or scanning (both of which I do myself). E6 chemicals, if you can find them, are pricey and take forever to arrive, as they are not able to be shipped by air (again, a disadvantage of being on an island in the middle of the ocean). So for this at least, we are looking at around 40 euros a sheet all told.

For black and white, thankfully Ilford still has some manageable prices. I would love to use Tmax, but it is not much better. With shipping and tax, Tmax 400 costs me 30 dollars a sheet without processing or scanning from B&H. I know that the prices are a bit better for those of you located nearer to the source or in places with lower taxes, but is it really possible to continue selling the film at this rate? Is this a stealth discontinuation on the part of Fuji, perhaps? There is nothing more spectacular than looking at an 8x10 slide, but I think I bought my last box last time, when it was "just" 330 dollars a box.

I would appreciate to hear from people who might have some more inside information. I remember hearing that Kodak was saying that the current high prices were allowing them to increase production and hopefully lower the prices, and while I have the deepest respect for the engineers and workers at Kodak, I would not really trust the executives farther than I could throw them. What do you all think? Are we all going to be all boutique companies and black and white only pretty soon, or is there a light at the end of the tunnel?

[Tin Can]

How much is Icelandic Vodka?

[Peter De Smidt]

I saw a cartoon on Facebook recently. In it a character said, "What drew me to vinyl records were the inconvenience and the expense!" 8x10 film shows every sign of becoming more expensive and less available. If the experience is worth it to you, then keep enjoying it as long as you can. If not, there's nothing wrong with using other photographic methods.

[Vaughn]

I think it would be cheaper to find some inexpensive refridgerated out-of-date 8x10 film on either side of the Atlantic, travel and buy it, then walk it thru customs back at home with the invoice, and pointing out the film is out-of-date. With the money you save you get a trip off that island! :cool:

[jp]

I think it would be cheaper to find some inexpensive refridgerated out-of-date 8x10 film on either side of the Atlantic, travel and buy it, then walk it thru customs back at home with the invoice, and pointing out the film is out-of-date. With the money you save you get a trip off that island! :cool:

That's a great idea. there are plenty of cheap flights during the dark season between Iceland and the US. Probably could pay for it with a couple boxes of Tmax 400 or FP4+ from B&H.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, there are plenty of wealthy people in this world, or even ordinary people who will spend more on a set of custom wheels than I ever spent for film in a year. Or think about all those with a ten dollar habit twice a day at Starbucks. And if someone isn't buying a lot of sheet film, it has no future. But all of this pricing issue is relative. And all the film and paper manufacturers are raising their prices. I realize that being on an island makes all kinds of things more expensive. But everyone in their own way has to juggle a budget. And if one only shoots what they really hope to print, then even 8x10 film is realistic.

Yeah, I might be a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to pricing, because I stashed away into my freezer enough 8X10 TMax and color Ektar film to probably last me till I'm 80, and bought it at about a fourth the current asking price. But the other half of my strategy is to shoot smaller more affordable film formats when big enlargements are not called for. For example, it's fairly easy to bring along a Fuji 6X9 rangefinder camera even when carrying an 8x10 setup.

I don't think there is any kind of dark sinister plot going on. There has just been a major pandemic, now a serious expensive war in Europe; petrochemicals and all kinds of other things have skyrocketed in price. It's not just film. And Kodak needs a distinct degree of real profit if they are going to go ahead with plans for actually expanding their film manufacture and hiring new people. That's a massive investment requiring highly specialized equipment.

Yes, your own circumstances might be exceptional. Here in the US, only color 8X10 film is over $30 a sheet, while even Kodak TMax is less than $10, and Ilford about $7. So you might want to find someone who can buy it in the US and ship it to you affordably, or bring it on their own shooting excursions there. Likewise, it probably just isn't realistic for any lab in Iceland to offer 8x10 E6 processing, while it's relatively easy to find here in the US.

[Alan9940]

TMax 400 is certainly a great film, but all Kodak film has gotten pretty expensive over the past few years. I would either decide for myself that TMax 400 is THE film I want to shoot (and not concern myself with the cost) or look for less expensive alternatives. Like Drew, I stocked up on 8x10 and other formats which will probably last me until I pass on to that darkroom in the sky. Have you considered other film such as x-ray and/or paper negatives?

[Kiwi7475]

It's really all relative. In economic terms, 8x10 film and color in particular, could be considered a pretty inelastic market. After Fuji dropped their E6 8x10 products, acceptable substitutes are very limited (as in limited to Kodak). Are they a necessity? Well, no. But as a photographer, are we really going to be willing to relinquish it completely? For many, probably not. You may choose to throttle back how much you use, or, in b&w, look at cheaper options, or go down in format size. If you already have a LF camera and all the lenses you need, then consider that if you went digital you would easily invest somewhere between $5K and $10K for a body and a few lenses. And probably change bodies in 4-5 years, maybe? Another few $K's when you do. Even at the current cost of film one could do 25 shots of 8x10 E100 for like ~$800 / year (including development at a lab -- I do believe the economy of in house development of 8x10 E6 isn't there anymore unless you do lots and lots). That's quite a bit! Want to do more and not scale linearly? Do 25 shots of 8x10 that count, and use 4x5 for the rest. Too much to even consider doing 25 in 8x10? Scale down to 4x5. The truth is that for most folks here if you shoot E6 8x10 is because you want to -- you could do equally well in 4x5-- you're just upgrading yourself to an experience in 8x10 that you (and I) want to have :-)

To put that in context -- I hope hotels in Iceland haven't climbed up in cost/night as they have in the US, but one can "easily" spend here $1K in just a few days of hotel. Add eating out, visiting museums or whatever, and other things, and instead of a long weekend get away, you could have quickly bought yourself several boxes of 8x10 E100.

Film prices are painful but maybe not as high as they were way back when. For example, you may find this article interesting: https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/
It says for example how in1954, a single roll of 36-exposure 35mm Kodachrome was $5.50 (developing and slide mounting was included). When adjusted for inflation, that's like $56 today.

What I can say is -- learn from others, like Drew in post #6. Make a sacrifice now and buy as much 8x10 E6/C41 as you can possibly buy now, and put it in the freezer. Stash year by year. The truth is that every year you wait you are making it more difficult for you to continue shooting this format.

[lassethomas]

Well I agree with Drew in post #6. If you still think it's worth it you need to invest on a regular basis.
It's like stocks, if you want to be in for the long game you need to buy regulary to even out the risk and cost over time.

Myself I have given up on color for 8x10. I still have a few E100 boxes in the freezer but I'll save them for cutting down to 4x10.
But I regularly buy Velvia and Prova for 4x5 and 120 so I at least can shoot for the coming 3-5 years. Beyond that, who knows.

For b/w I think Foma is OK considering the price. I know some in this thread has had bad experiences but I never had any problems really.

All that aside. I'm actually coming to Iceland on the 2nd of September, doing the ring road for two weeks. Perhaps a meet up or something. Give me a PM if you are interested

[Greg]

Film costs I have just come to just accept. Besides I now shoot a whole lot less film than I did in the mid 1970s through around 2000. What irks me is when an emulsion is discontinued. First LF film was Super XX. When it was discontinued, I bought as much as I could afford at the time. Same with Bergger 200 for LF and ULF. Presently use FP4 plus and have enough in the freezer to last me till I am no longer able to shoot LF and ULF.

[maltfalc]

there's always colour paper and x-ray film.

[Tin Can]

Somewhere today I saw a

KODAK proclamation they were dedicated to make more film

[Michael Wellman]

The other day Kodak did say they are committed to continue to make film as long as there is a demand. On the positive side, it is good to hear that they have decided to do this (unlike Fuji). The do make some of the finest films out there. The downside, the cost of their film and as a ULF photographer I can't use their film unless I purchase an obscene quantity of the film. However, I would rather complain about their prices than see them take the Fuji route and discontinue their product all together

Here's the link to the article on Kodak's announcement.
https://petapixel.com/2023/08/14/kodak-says-its-committed-to-making-film-as-long-as-there-is-demand/#:~:text=Eastman%20Kodak%20will%20continue%20to,commitment%20to%20the%20analog%20format.

[paulbarden]

It seems the sky is always falling, and yet none of us have been crushed by it yet.

[StuartR]

Yes, your own circumstances might be exceptional. Here in the US, only color 8X10 film is over $30 a sheet, while even Kodak TMax is less than $10, and Ilford about $7. So you might want to find someone who can buy it in the US and ship it to you affordably, or bring it on their own shooting excursions there. Likewise, it probably just isn't realistic for any lab in Iceland to offer 8x10 E6 processing, while it's relatively easy to find here in the US.

Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. Drew -- I think you might need to have another look at prices. Tmax 400 is currently 210 dollars for 10 sheets at B&H before tax and shipping. In certain cases special orders can be a bit cheaper, or if you can find short dated films, but in general Kodak around twenty dollars a sheet for black and white now (Tri-X is 18). Ilford is just under 9 dollars a sheet for Delta 100, and I recently bought a box of that to work with. This is my second box. The first one I bought in 2018 had a large visible coating error (a drop shape) on every sheet. It was my first box of 8x10 and not very visible in photos, so I decided not to exchange it and just use the film for experiments. It did not instill me with much confidence in Ilford, however, and was one of the factors behind me sticking with Tmax.
Like many of you I did buy a number of boxes and froze them and am finishing up now. I think I bought ten or fifteen boxes. I only have three left, however, so time is running short. I have also never wanted to be much of a hoarder, as even frozen film is fogged eventually from cosmic radiation, especially faster film like Tmax 400. This is not going to be a factor over four or five years, I would imagine, but I am still in my forties and buying enough film to last the rest of my life is not really practical like it might be for those of my colleagues who are a bit older than I am. I can and do shoot other formats as well, and have scaled back somewhat on 8x10, but I find it very sad, as it is such a beautiful format with a lot of possibilities precluded by smaller formats (such as beautiful contact prints...4x5 is just a bit too small for me in that context).

As for processing, I run an exhibition printing service and used to offer processing for clients, but as Drew hinted at, E6 is not practical to offer here. I do it myself with the Tetenal kits with good results, but no one in Iceland offers it commercially because there is no volume at all and the costs are huge here. It is a labor of love that I am ok to do, though I am jealous of those of you who can walk or drive to a pro lab with a process controlled dip and dunk setup.

In any case, I will soldier along, but it seems to me that as the bar of entry gets higher and higher, I think eventually there is not really going to be anyone left to buy it. I already know some 8x10 shooters from my MFA group that quit using it because the costs were not manageable, particularly in color. I think we are ok for awhile with black and white, but for color? 10 photos for 300 dollars plus processing and scanning? Maybe for certain high end fashion shoots, but harder to see for artists, even very talented ones who sell work.

[Daniel Unkefer]

1. 8x10 Fuji HRU XRAY film. 28 cents a sheet

2. 18x24cm Kodak French Mammography film 38 cents a sheet

3. Agfa Aviphot 24cm humongous roll 60 cents a sheet

4. Lot of expired 8x10 Kodak Ilford FOMA Shanghai et all. Ilford Commercial is fresh

5. 8x10 photo paper

6. Glass Dry Plates make your own emulsion to your taste

Color is a bit of a sticky wicket. Buy outdated?

[Michael R]

I sympathize. It isn't easy. I think particularly in the case of colour one needs to prioritize within the hobby. If it is specifically about the enjoyment of shooting 8x10 film, then you're stuck with the prices and doing what you can to economize - like making fewer photographs. If on the other hand the hobby is solely about the photography and end result, the obvious path in my opinion is to downsize in format. Relatively few people are making darkroom prints from film. Fewer still from 8x10 film and very few from 8x10 colour film. Since the process following film processing therefore involves scanning/editing for some form of digital output, from a practical perspective I'm not sure what there is to be gained from shooting 8x10 vs say 4x5 or even medium format.


Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. Drew -- I think you might need to have another look at prices. Tmax 400 is currently 210 dollars for 10 sheets at B&H before tax and shipping. In certain cases special orders can be a bit cheaper, or if you can find short dated films, but in general Kodak around twenty dollars a sheet for black and white now (Tri-X is 18). Ilford is just under 9 dollars a sheet for Delta 100, and I recently bought a box of that to work with. This is my second box. The first one I bought in 2018 had a large visible coating error (a drop shape) on every sheet. It was my first box of 8x10 and not very visible in photos, so I decided not to exchange it and just use the film for experiments. It did not instill me with much confidence in Ilford, however, and was one of the factors behind me sticking with Tmax.
Like many of you I did buy a number of boxes and froze them and am finishing up now. I think I bought ten or fifteen boxes. I only have three left, however, so time is running short. I have also never wanted to be much of a hoarder, as even frozen film is fogged eventually from cosmic radiation, especially faster film like Tmax 400. This is not going to be a factor over four or five years, I would imagine, but I am still in my forties and buying enough film to last the rest of my life is not really practical like it might be for those of my colleagues who are a bit older than I am. I can and do shoot other formats as well, and have scaled back somewhat on 8x10, but I find it very sad, as it is such a beautiful format with a lot of possibilities precluded by smaller formats (such as beautiful contact prints...4x5 is just a bit too small for me in that context).

As for processing, I run an exhibition printing service and used to offer processing for clients, but as Drew hinted at, E6 is not practical to offer here. I do it myself with the Tetenal kits with good results, but no one in Iceland offers it commercially because there is no volume at all and the costs are huge here. It is a labor of love that I am ok to do, though I am jealous of those of you who can walk or drive to a pro lab with a process controlled dip and dunk setup.

In any case, I will soldier along, but it seems to me that as the bar of entry gets higher and higher, I think eventually there is not really going to be anyone left to buy it. I already know some 8x10 shooters from my MFA group that quit using it because the costs were not manageable, particularly in color. I think we are ok for awhile with black and white, but for color? 10 photos for 300 dollars plus processing and scanning? Maybe for certain high end fashion shoots, but harder to see for artists, even very talented ones who sell work.

[StuartR]

Thanks Michael,
I agree. In color I stick primarily to digital. Other than that, I shoot the most in 6x7, a bit more in 4x5 and vanishingly little in 8x10 (I think I have done around 50 sheets since the beginning). I had thought about using illuminated 8x10 transparancies in purpose built boxes for an exhibition, but the costs involved and the potential of fading make it not cost effective to pursue. I remember reading back in the day that Ektachrome has visible fading after about 15 minutes of total lifetime projection, and though that is with a much brighter source, it still means that photos on display in this way would not last long. At this point I mostly use my 8x10 transparancies as a demonstration for my students. Of course I can still scan and print them, which I do, but as mentioned, 4x5 is not really inferior for most use cases in that sense. Anyway, thank you all for enduring my complaining. I hope Kodak and Fuji can find a way to bring the prices a bit more under control...hopefully from their investments in adjusting their production to match demand. As mentioned earlier, however, prices only ever seem to go up, never down. Rockets going up and feathers coming down, as they teach in economics I guess.

[Pete Oakley]

I might get jumped on but have you considered Foma. I like it but I haven't bought any for a few years now. It used to be shipped from Norway and that's non EU. Always got great service and reasonable prices. Ignore all the crap people push out about Foma, I've always got on well with it, it's just delicate when it's wet.

[domaz]

Color is a bit of a sticky wicket. Buy outdated?

The cheapest way to shoot "color" might be to shoot Blue and Greeen on X-ray film and the Red layer on normal B&W film. That would lower your total price per color frame from $18 a shot to a bit over $8 a shot. Worth the savings? Probably not.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've had good luck with Foma, as well.

[paulbarden]

I might get jumped on but have you considered Foma. I like it but I haven't bought any for a few years now. It used to be shipped from Norway and that's non EU. Always got great service and reasonable prices. Ignore all the crap people push out about Foma, I've always got on well with it, it's just delicate when it's wet.

Agreed. I recently bought a box of Foma 100 in 5x7 and found it perfectly satisfactory. No, it's not quite the same as more expensive emulsions, but you can get good results from it if you learn its characteristics and use them to advantage.

https://flic.kr/p/2oqnzVA
Nothing wrong with that result, as far as I'm concerned.

[jnantz]

It seems the sky is always falling, and yet none of us have been crushed by it yet.

exactly


Agreed. I recently bought a box of Foma 100 in 5x7 and found it perfectly satisfactory. No, it's not quite the same as more expensive emulsions, but you can get good results from it if you learn its characteristics and use them to advantage.

https://flic.kr/p/2oqnzVA
Nothing wrong with that result, as far as I'm concerned.

looks really nice!

[Michael R]

Oh please. I'm crushed by it constantly.


exactly



looks really nice!

[ethics_gradient]

For B&W, try a box of Shanghai GP3. I bought it when I got back into 4x5 a couple years ago and was pleasantly suprised at the quality.

I empathise with your costs. I started shooting wet plate when I was living back in Australia, and we pay 5-6 times what US/EU people do for collodion owing to hazmat shipping.

[StuartR]

Thank you all. I don't think I am as interested in using alternative photographic materials...if it is between 8x10 xray film and 4x5 Tmax, I will probably take the Tmax. But I appreciate the constructive suggestions. I will certainly give Foma and Ilford another look for black and white. I will probably stick with Tmax as long as I can...at least for when it really counts. I have a real respect for Kodak's innovation and workers, so I do want to support it...for color is likely means sticking with smaller formats unless there is something really special.

[paulbarden]

Thank you all. I don't think I am as interested in using alternative photographic materials...if it is between 8x10 xray film and 4x5 Tmax, I will probably take the Tmax. But I appreciate the constructive suggestions. I will certainly give Foma and Ilford another look for black and white. I will probably stick with Tmax as long as I can...at least for when it really counts. I have a real respect for Kodak's innovation and workers, so I do want to support it...for color is likely means sticking with smaller formats unless there is something really special.

FWIW, I've actually come to prefer Delta 100 in 8x10 over any other (similar) film.

[Drew Wiley]

Stuart - I've been shopping from B&H for a long time, along with other sources, including Keith Canham's own film pre-order program. One peculiarity of B&H is that when their inventory of some particular film is running low, they jack the price way way up. I surmise there are two prongs to that strategy : 1) it prevents re-sellers or competitors from filling orders using their own limited inventory; and 2) it allows at least a little reserve to be on hand for any of the routine customers who desperately need it and are willing to pay the extra price. Then, once Kodak is ready to make a volume cut of 8X10 again, and its feast time instead of famine, the price drops significantly down again. I've seen that over and over.

Only certain parties participate in these large volume Kodak 8X10 sheet film opportunities. If you don't like B&H's feast and famine roller coaster pricing, then join Canham's order pool, and wait. Rockets do come back down; but don't expect a soft landing compared to what the same films cost a decade or two ago. The whole point to buy a reserve quantity when the price is relatively low.

Anyway, Foma film is no substitute for TMax quality and versatility, not by a long shot. But if you can live with its idiosyncrasies, you might or might not save money, depending on how many sheets you have to burn to get what you want from it. I have always supplemented my own TMax stockpile with FP4, whenever a slower film speed and a little more toe to the curve was acceptable. HP5 can be lovely too for more moderate contrast scenes. Delta 100 can partially simulate TMax 100 if you shoot it at 50 in order to boost the shadows higher up onto the straight line section of the curve. But there's no question that the current all-round champion of sheet films is TMY400. It does almost everything exceptionally well.

I got a chuckle out of Domaz's suggestion. I suspect he never actually got in the bull ring with that one. At least, I didn't see his name on any of the headstones in the matador cemetery.

I still do true optical enlargements from 8X10 color film, and yes, it still holds a distinct qualitative edge over digital options. But for all practical purposes, unless you do need really big enlargements or exceptionally detailed ones, substituting 4X5 or even 120 color film will conserve some of your money for other things you need, like 8X10 black and white film.

[Jim Andrada]

I've pretty much standardized on film for B&W and Digital for color, although I do have around 100 sheets of 5 x 7 Ektar 100 in the freezer.

[jnantz]

The cheapest way to shoot "color" might be to shoot Blue and Greeen on X-ray film and the Red layer on normal B&W film. That would lower your total price per color frame from $18 a shot to a bit over $8 a shot. Worth the savings? Probably not.

yeahhh. that is pretty cheep but then you have to contact both sheets ( or 3 ) on color paper, or scan them and teach yourself how to make digital trichomes and you have to hope the camera didn't wiggle when you switched film holders, fringing is a drag .. but it's cheep... ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Serious tricolor work involves, first of all, finding a suitable subject outside a studio still life setting which holds steady; second, having a triple set of exposures all with the same linearity with strong separation filters in place, and with as closely matching reciprocity and even development characteristics as possible. By far the best film in these respects is TMax 100. Then supplementary masking is likely to be involved. All in all, once you've burned through I don't know how many boxes of film just to get all the necessary steps calibrated, there is nothing inexpensive about it. Cheaper film options would just make it worse - more expensive, because it's not going to be anywhere near as cooperative or likely as batch to batch consistent. A second choice would be FP4. But why would anyone even choose to do this with 8x10 film if they're just going to scan it, snap align it, and digitally print it afterwards? Pipe dreams.

Of course, if one just wants to fool around with a set of tricolor filters, and is satisfied with funky "artsy" results, there are all kinds of ways to skin the cat. But once I had accurately calibrated my own methodology, I allowed at least $90 apiece for any 8x10 tricolor image prior to actual printing, and that was back when I paid a fourth as much for 8x10 TMax as the present asking rate! And I have the luxury of very precise pin registration carriers and easels. But what I don't have is the luxury of is waiting forever till the right subject turns up. If I lived in the desert it might be different. But here on the coast, it's windy almost all the time. Maybe in another location, in another lifetime ...

But it's safe to assume Stuart won't go that route.

[Michael Kadillak]

Anyway, Foma film is no substitute for TMax quality and versatility, not by a long shot. But if you can live with its idiosyncrasies, you might or might not save money, depending on how many sheets you have to burn to get what you want from it.

Have to disagree with you Drew. I have been shooting Foma 200 in 8x10 for some time now and it has been just fabulous. Ordered another box last week. Great density building character, sharp and great tonalities. And its quality control has not been an issue at least for me. No problems with three boxes I have burned through so far. Its only caveat is reciprocity (which is probably manageable if I were to make it a priority to validate some of the recommendations) and that is where I revert to better sheet film alternatives. Agree with Stuart that 8x10 is the best tool out there and hope he can stay the course with this format. With inflation nowhere near under control we can expect further price increases so we need to up our game with new levels of efficiency in the field and the darkroom.

[Drew Wiley]

I've repeatedly stated my reasons for giving up on Foma film, especially the alleged 200 speed product. Two separate bad batches of 8x10 with zits and cracks on them.
Nowhere near alleged 200 speed. Cannot significantly build gamma (more an issue for the late Michael Smith, who cursed it for that reason, rather then me; but I prefer versatility in a film myself). Abominable reciprocity characteristics; the worst of any film I can think of. Fussy in development; fragile, and it develops very very fast. I'm not saying it's an unusable film by any means. I did get some exceptional shots myself, albeit with a lot of wasted shots due to quality issues. But I am implying very firmly that is has almost no resemblance to TMax quality and versatility whatsoever, or even compared to FP4.

Otherwise, I found the 100 and 400 versions just OK, and certainly not anything with a special look. You get what you pay for. At least their 200 speed offering, even if misleadingly speed rated, is a unique product with a unique look, and with an exceptionally long straight line scale. But despite some people endorsing it, others are still complaining about quality control issues; so at this point, as far as I'm concerned, it's guilty until it's proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said that, the kinds of defects I did experience, which were a nightmare to try to retouch in the enlargements, were small enough that they might not bother a contact printer to the same degree. By small, I mean physically small, but not scarce. It should not be assumed that what is acceptable to one printmaker is acceptable to another. And just so much work goes into 8X10, getting to and fro with a limited number of holders, that is the last scenario where I want to gamble.

[Bruce Watson]

The price of film / processing was never the limiter for me. What was, was the cost of travel. Airline tix, car rentals, meals, hotels, all completely dwarfed the cost of film and processing.

That said, it was clearly noticeable. When I was starting out, every time I'd pull a darkslide I thought about how much an exposure was going to cost me. But then I thought about how much money I'd already spent to get to the location I was in, and how much time and effort I spent climbing up a mountain with full pack, often pre-dawn, to be set up on a scene I could not get in my back yard. Learning to let those negative thoughts go was the hard part -- the Zen of Photograpy maybe.

In the end I learned to be thrifty. Not like you think. I would only "burn a sheet of film" if I thought it was necessary: If it revealed a truth, if that truth revealed an insight, and if I thought that truth wanted to be heard. IOW, only if the scene spoke to me in such a way that I *had* to make the exposure. At the end of my most active period as an LFer I set up on lots of scenes where looking through the ground glass did not compel me to make the photograph. But my "hit rate" of "keeper" to total photographs was considerably higher than when I was starting out.

I'm just sayin' that you might be barking up the wrong tree here. You do have trees in Iceland, yes? Maybe not, but the metaphor might still work.

[Jim Andrada]

Come to think of it, MF digital isn't so cheap either on a per shot basis for folks that don't shoot weddings etc.

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's why I hoard whenever a deal comes up, usually on expired films.
I've accepted the fact that I will never shoot 8x10 TMY again, unless I strike it rich in the lottery. In fact, I probably won't be shooting HP5 in 8x10 either, especially after I retire next year. CatLABS 80 is still affordable.
Over the past few years, I've been shooting a lot of 120...

[Greg Y]

That's why I hoard whenever a deal comes up, usually on expired films.
I've accepted the fact that I will never shoot 8x10 TMY again, unless I strike it rich in the lottery. In fact, I probably won't be shooting HP5 in 8x10 either, especially after I retire next year. CatLABS 80 is still affordable.
Over the past few years, I've been shooting a lot of 120...

Me too!

[jnantz]

I think someone used to have a signature that said "photography isn't for the faint of wallet". it's as true now as it was then.. (20 years ago )
the price of photography has never been cheep, affordable for some, but not cheap.

[Tin Can]

X-Ray is still made

Maybe not in USA

Vets use it world wide

Also Industrial in countless ways

[StuartR]

That is certainly a consideration. That said, I live in the Icelandic countryside, so I am not really paying anything other than diesel to do my work. Rarely I will stay in a guesthouse in another part of the country, and it is expensive, but kind of crazy to say, ten sheets of film costs more than a night in a beautiful country cottage that I stay in, with its two bedrooms and a full kitchen, living room etc...and that is here in Iceland, one of the most expensive hotel markets around.
I am a careful photographer...sometimes coming back with only one or two photos...or none. As I said, I will make it work. I am just concerned that a situation is arising where even being careful will not be enough, because there will be so vanishingly few people willing to pay the extreme price that it will simply fade away. And yes, we have trees, lol. Not as many as most places, but certainly more than you might expect based on the clichés. I lived in a forest surrounded on three sides by spruce and birch trees.

By the way, I had a look at prices from 2005, and at Adorama at least, 8x10 sheet film price has increased at 500% the rate of inflation. It was 3.10 a sheet. With inflation adjustment it should be 4.85. It is 20. So it is not quite "it was always expensive etc". I know that historically it has been at times, but at least in the last twenty years I have been doing it, it has never been anything like it is now.

[jnantz]

By the way, I had a look at prices from 2005, and at Adorama at least, 8x10 sheet film price has increased at 500% the rate of inflation. It was 3.10 a sheet. With inflation adjustment it should be 4.85. It is 20. So it is not quite "it was always expensive etc". I know that historically it has been at times, but at least in the last twenty years I have been doing it, it has never been anything like it is now.

looking at prices in 2005 doesn't really give the full picture. a lot of sh*t has hit the fan since then that one has to take into consideration.

[Michael Kadillak]

but at least in the last twenty years I have been doing it, it has never been anything like it is now.

It is all relative. Ultra Large Photographers got boned in the mid to late 1990's for feedstock for their cameras. It was from an article in View Camera circa 1998 as the magazine was getting started. Super XX and Tri X required required five figure minimum deposits for fulfilling orders from Kodak and sheets of 8x20, 12x20, etc. were close then to where they are as we speak so adding inflation tips the scale considerably. That being said the costs of high end digital printing (from those that are in this domain) I have been told are not holding the price line either. Stock in the freezer is my hedge against the unknown because bailing out of what I love to do is just not an option. I have too much time invested in experience and it keeps me sane and is cheaper than therapy anywhere you live. We are relegated individually to figuring it out.

[Michael R]

looking at prices in 2005 doesn't really give the full picture. a lot of sh*t has hit the fan since then that one has to take into consideration.

Agree, you can't just look at the time value of money. The market for these materials totally changed. Demand (volume) plummeted, and manufacturing of these materials is not easily be scaled to low volumes. Frankly I'm surprised you can still buy 8x10 film, not to mention darkroom papers. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to preach unhelpful "be grateful" crap to OP. It's not easy.

[interneg]

looking at prices in 2005 doesn't really give the full picture. a lot of sh*t has hit the fan since then that one has to take into consideration.

They'll really get a shock when they look at prices from before vast quantities of consumer colour neg subsidised everything else. If anything, today's film prices have come back in line with where they should be than with the distorted prices in the run-up to 2005... After all, how many hobbyists used 8x10 before the mid 2000s?

[jnantz]

They'll really get a shock when they look at prices from before vast quantities of consumer colour neg subsidised everything else. If anything, today's film prices have come back in line with where they should be than with the distorted prices in the run-up to 2005... After all, how many hobbyists used 8x10 before the mid 2000s?

I am still weeping at the loss of photo warehouse's cut film and paper that costs about as much as a Happymeal at McDonalds ..

thankfully silver nitrate is still being sold so when the other shoe drops we can still do what we need to do. it's not quite 1903 but it's getting there ..

[Drew Wiley]

It doesn't cost any more to coat 8x10 color film than more popular 4x5 film. It's all the same, and simply a matter of timing, and impending orders, when to make a volume 8x10 cut. Hypothetically, 8X10 film is safe just as long as 4x5 is, though you might not find it on a store shelf as frequently. And when it comes to "hobbyists",
I've seen a number of them who, at one time, would go out and buy a brand new Sinar P2 and set of expensive lenses, a lot of 8X10 film and holders, go out once or twice, give up on the idea, and just leave all that in some closet for the next twenty years before even trying to sell it. There are plenty of wealthy people who can afford far more expensive hobbies than this kind on one. What does it cost per month for even a small yacht berth here at the Port? And there are lots of huge luxury yachts too. But even the blue collar types on my own street spend more on their speed boat and ATVs every month than I do on film and processing over several years, even factoring 8X10 usage. Some literally spend more per month on their daily Starbucks or other eating out habits. It's all relative.

But let's face it. EVERYTHING is getting expensive. Inflation affects manufacturers too. They have to pay more for what they need, and now some of those necessary components are higher priced in a compound sense since their own overall consumption of them, and their own
purchasing clout, is not what it once was. Just a fact of life. But I myself have been "dry firing" 8x10 for a long time, simply setting up the camera, composing through the ground glass, but only burning a sheet of film if things seem just right, and especially compelling and worthy of an actual print. That does not, of course, amount to 100% success by any means, but it does conserve film by shooting it wisely.

[Michael R]

Yeah it’s all relative. You can easily afford 8x10 film if you don’t fuel your yacht. Choices, people. Choices.

[Drew Wiley]

Most fuel for yachts is free wind. But everything else involved is really expensive. Good yacht varnish is now running around $160 per quart. So for the same amount of annual re-coating expense for even a small yacht (not including labor), you could buy around 650 sheets of TMax 8x10 film.