cost of slide film

<p>Why is slide film almost twice as expensive as color negative film of approximately the same iso (and not taking into account processing which is also more expensive for slides)? Compare E100g and and Ektar 100 at Freestyle. I can think of a number of reasons for the cost differential but they don't entirely convince me.</p>

<p>Both have a different look. If you are projecting there is no option. If you are scanning there are many options. If you are making wet print enlargements well in this day of age go with the C-41.<br>

Unless you have shot and had both properly processed and can look at your final product in your mind you will have to just try both out. And Slide processing is pretty cheap if you have a Wal-Mart handy and they send off. It is under $5.00 a roll and it takes 4-5 days. It goes to Dwayne's or a Fuji lab depending on where in the U.S.A. or Canada you are.</p>

<p> I only mentioned North America because you mentioned Freestyle. </p>

"Both have a different look."

 

Is that why slide film is more expensive?

<p>You pay for the look you want. :-) If you want that look. I like many slide films I have a projector but I do find some are great to scan and get a look I want.</p>

<p>Larry; It's true what you say, but I'm not sure it explains why slide film is almost twice the cost of color negative film. By the way, I can get color negative film developed, no prints, at a local drug store for less than 3 dollars. Getting slide film developed, not mounted, is, for me, at more than twice as expensive. Of course there are fewer places that do slide film (E6 processing) so that probably explains the cost difference for processing.</p>

<p>Supply and demand...</p>

Here (Osaka) slide film is more expensive than negative in 120 format, but processing is cheaper. For professional film the total difference is quite small.

<p>Slide film has always been more expensive than print film in my memory, going back to the 1970s. The emulsions are different, so I assume the manufacturing costs are higher. Supply and demand is also an issue, even more so today with only a fewer people shooting film at all and only a relatively small fraction shooting slides. Can't speak to currennt prices, but slide processing traditionally has been far, far cheaper than print processing because it only has to cover the cost of developing, not prints. Haven't done much of either lately, but a roll of print film at the local MotoFoto with one set of 4x6 prints was around $13, while I never paid more than maybe $7 for slide processing. Sending a 36 exposure roll of Portra to my old wedding/portrait lab where they made salable-quality 4x6 proofs was around $35.</p>

<p>Sales of C-41 films are easily 10 times higher than E-6 films. High volumes allow the fixed cost of keeping a film in production to be recovered from more rolls of film. Also, slide film volumes are getting so low that each production run is very small, a few master rolls, which increases the cost per master roll, since there's a fixed cost to "switching gears" at the production line.<br>

Additionally, E-6 processing is a lot more expensive than C-41 developing, because the chemistry is much less stable, goes bad faster. Also, the E-6 chemistry goes bad whether you use it or not, so as E-6 labs process less film per week, but have to replace chemistry on a fixed time schedule, the cost per roll has to go up.<br>

Simply, all slide film is in a economic death spiral that's much faster than color negative film.<br>

This is why Kodak released Ektar film as a C-41 film -- they know the economics of E-6 are collapsing, so they offered a film with a very similar look as C-41 film.</p>

<p>Slide film is more expensive because slide film users are willing to pay more. All prices are set at what the market will bear. The manufacturing cost sets the minimum price, but prices usually have little or no relationship to manufacturing cost. </p>

<p>Years ago, the business plan for color negative was to cut the price to maximize volume. That was deemed to be the way to maximize profit. Slide film (and most professional films) have always been lower volume. The projections were that lower price wouldn't gain much volume so prices remained higher. </p>

<p>In days of old, slide film was primarily used by professionals, so cost was less an object. Nowadays, slide film is a specialty item that sells at much lower volumes than negative film. So manufacturing costs cant be spread over millions of rolls as with negs.</p>

<p>When I got into photography in 1997, the beginning-to-end cost of slide film was much cheaper than print film. I bought all my film + Fuji mail processing from B&H. At that time, a 36 exp. roll of Fuji Sensia 100 and a Fuji mailer was $6.24; Velvia was $8.28. I don't recall exactly how the price was separated - it is shown in combination on my old receipts. I think Fuji mailers were $2.79 back then. Print film was indeed inexpensive, but processing was about $7.00 and up.</p>

<p>Just because I had the time to dig it out, here's a scan of a film order from 1997. Made a mistake in my other post about the Velvia price.</p><div></div>