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 :o 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. :D

[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.

[Greg Blank]

Yep & Digital is a loss leader in every angle one goes. The Federal government "allows" you to write off said camera purchase in the first year. Which means you get 5-6% back and still owe $$$$, big smelly deal. Give me a camera and lens that works for twenty years and is not obsolete and I am happy :)


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.

[Scratched Glass]

Complaining about film prices is like complaining about the cost of a $20 fishing license whey you've got $20,000 boat.

[jeroldharter]

Complaining about film prices is like complaining about the cost of a $20 fishing license whey you've got $20,000 boat.

Not exactly. I understand the point of considering the matter of scale.

Fishing licenses are a pain and a perfect example of a government managed system. They differ in every state and in the provinces of Canada. They expire annually, but not always by the calender year. Each state or province games the system as a form of taxation without representation. They gouge people from other states or countries. Some places it takes an hour to get through the paperwork for multiple licenses. If you fish in multiple states and Canada every years you spend a lot of time, money, and mindless headache managing the licenses. And don't even think about losing one.

Other places allow you to buy a license online, but then print off a temporary license while they mail the original. Ontario requires an "Outdoor Card" in addition to a fishing license. In addition you need a Remote Border Entry Card for fishing in Quetico. Those are applied for separately and require weeks for processing.

If you fly somewhere for a fishing trip it can be impossible to buy a license on a Sunday. Some places you have to specify what species you might catch, whether you might catch them in fresh or salt water, etc.

And try to go fishing and imagine where all the money for licensing goes. I have seen a game warden only a few times in my life and have never checked for keeping fish inappropriately. The money appears to spent almost exclusively on administration and printing booklets outlining the Byzantine fishing regulations.

So at least I can buy film across state lines and get it when I want it.

[Scratched Glass]

For the die hard fisherman a resident WI fishing license is a tiny cost, but then again I'm biased since fishing licences paid my salary for 2 1/2 years until I lost my job because of budget cuts. That is where some of the money went, paying one guy to protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Thank you, and I mean that.

[Mark Barendt]

Each state or province games the system as a form of taxation without representation. They gouge people from other states or countries.

Uhhmm Jerold,

We the Locals of Colorado being fully represented by duly elected persons designed rules and regs that made sense for us.

We, through our duly elected government, do expect you, a foreigner to our fair state, to pay extra if you want to fish or hunt or go to college here.

We Coloradans who actually pay income and property taxes here that pay for the building and maintaining of access to those fishing spots, via our state, county and city roads do fully expect you to chip in if you want to share in the bounty.

You may not see the rangers regularly, but I do.

[Jim Noel]

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

LF film is not dead. Statements such as this only contribute to bring its possible death closer.

The sale of LF film is relatively solid and ILford is a strong producer and supporter of LF. Their annual special order for ultra-large and unusual sized sheet film provides me, and other the opportunity to order not only 7x17" film, but also 2 1/4 x3 1/4 plus many other sizes if I have a need.
Additionally producers in the Czech Republic and other countries in the area are producing some very nice, and different, films which are readily available ina variety of sizes.

[MIke Sherck]

Uhhmm Jerold,

We the Locals of Colorado being fully represented by duly elected persons designed rules and regs that made sense for us.

We, through our duly elected government, do expect you, a foreigner to our fair state, to pay extra if you want to fish or hunt or go to college here.

We Coloradans who actually pay income and property taxes here that pay for the building and maintaining of access to those fishing spots, via our state, county and city roads do fully expect you to chip in if you want to share in the bounty.

You may not see the rangers regularly, but I do.

Hmm. Would you expect me to pay a fee for photographing your mountains or your old mining towns? How 'bout for breathing your pure mountain air or drinking that swill you call beer? ;)

Mike

[mikebarger]

Don't be surprised if that isn't proposed as part of a budget overhaul to reduce the shortfall. :)

[Vaughn]

Hmm. Would you expect me to pay a fee for photographing your mountains or your old mining towns? How 'bout for breathing your pure mountain air or drinking that swill you call beer? ;)

Mike

They all ready do -- it is called a gasoline tax.;)

Also sales tax, bed (hotel/motel) tax, etc -- depending on the state. As Robert Heinlein wrote: "The best things in the world are free -- and they are worth every penny you pay for them."

PS...I remember Oregon charging out-of-state vehicles more for visiting/camping in their state parks for awhile. Pissed a lot of folks from CA off. California threatened (or started) to do the same to cars w/ Oregon plates, and if I am remembering correctly, Oregon backed off.

[Roger Cole]

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


LF film is not dead. Statements such as this only contribute to bring its possible death closer.


He said commercially. Commercially, it if isn't dead it's on life support and due for last rites. True enough that it is, delightfully, quite alive, but mainly from I see among us hobbyists. There are SOME commercial shooters - one was posting here recently about a client who want nothing but 4x5 chromes and he's not sure how much longer he can provide that, but I'd bet that commercial demand for LF film is far too tiny to justify the production we have now, or probably any production.

OTOH, those of us who like to work in LF for art and hobby are apparently enough to keep it alive, at least in black and white - thankfully.

[Mark Barendt]

Hmm. Would you expect me to pay a fee for photographing your mountains or your old mining towns? How 'bout for breathing your pure mountain air or drinking that swill you call beer? ;)

Mike

Well actually yes.

We just use Jeep rentals, hotels, and restaurants to collect.

All tourism is based on a trade of local ambiance for your cash. :D

[al olson]

Hmm. Would you expect me to pay a fee for photographing your mountains or your old mining towns? How 'bout for breathing your pure mountain air or drinking that swill you call beer? ;)

Mike

Well, Mike, actually we do, ... sort of. If you are planning to do your photographing in the back country, there is a thing called the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Search & Rescue Fund. My card cost $12 for five years.

The benefit is that if you get lost or injured and search and rescue has to find you and haul your body out, in most cases the cost is forgiven. Without it they are more likely to bill you for some of the cost, especially if you were doing something stupid.

These are highly recommended and many of us carry them. A hunting license or fishing license provides the same benefits, as well as the Colorado Division of Wildlife License that permits access into designated Colorado Wildlife Habitat areas.