End of cheap film?

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Film, processing, printing, sleeving, boxing, obtaining antique equipment or retrieving to new formats from a medium as common as Super 8 is now. Memory Cards are often the price of a roll of film, DVDs are super cheap and hard drives are a great bargain. We don't know what transferring to new formats will require.Film archiving is well and good but to claim it is or will be cheaper given all the variables requires a crystal ball that can foresee the future. Do you have one?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I have all the photos from my family going back to the early 1900's. I took them over when my Mom passed on about 15 years ago. I would have to say the cost to me has been nothing. I just leave them alone and every 5 years or so I look around in the containers. <br>

I still shoot quite a bit of film and i find just putting the negatives in an envelope and putting the year and topics on there works fine for me. I can find most anything I want but i must admit I rarely dig out old negatives. I do look at my family albums where I put the best family pictures and I have thousands of prints in photo boxes. I keep an eye on them as it's easy to scan a photo quite accurately. <br>

Looking into the future however I am going with the external hard drives for storage. I stopped using or buying CD's or DVD's about 5 years ago. They are fragile and wasteful and a poor method of archival. I keep my photos and video on two hard drives. A failure of one is not a disaster. However that has not occurred yet. I replace the hard drives every 5 years so far. I give the old one's to the kids and ask them to leave the photos on there and they can use the remaining storage for movies and games and such. That way the pictures kind of get spread around over time. </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Amazon.com has Fujifilm HQ 200 ISO 24 exp. for about $2.00 a roll with free shipping.</p>

<p>I think these days you have to be a little more diligent on keeping a stock of film on hand. I shoot mostly digital but keep at least a year's supply of film in the freezer. I keep an eye out for who still develops C41 locally. I also keep a stock of B&W chemicals on hand.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I just like to handle my film cameras better. It is a hardware thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've confessed to this before myself. I love my old cameras, and I like to use them, and that means I shoot film.</p>

<p>If only they had actually succeeded in the lost cause of making a digital insert for film cameras, I might have never used film again. Even as much as I used to like Kodachrome 25.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>For me it is a matter of surviving the growing pressures. I no longer go to the nearest lab after it ruined two rolls of film. The new one is farther away but still within a reasonable distance. However, prints of the roll of film I gave it on Saturday were given to me only today, Wednesday. Their developing machine had "a small problem", and of course they have not heard of developing tanks. They kept me waiting instead of having the processing done by another lab as that would have cut into their profits. The work on this roll of film was not of the paying kind; but if I had had a deadline to meet, I would have been properly jacked.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>I just shot an Instamatic 126 roll of 24 that expired in 1985. The price on the box was $2.69.</p>

<p>I can buy a roll of 35mm x 24 color film for about that same price today.</p>

<p>I think that means film is cheaper today than 27 years ago.</p>

[douglas_vitello1]

<p>At current prices for quality local (northern Ohio) E6 processing and film purchased from the big guys out of NYC it works out to about 50 cents (US) per mounted slide supplied in a nice plastic container box.I can live with it considering the cost of just about everything else these days.No need for computers,hard drives dvd's,etc,etc and good for generations.Shoot with more care,enjoy your hobby and don't worry.When the higher prices starts bothering me once in a while I just look up the current cost of a state of the art full frame digital and quality lens and soon I settle right back down.For most of us the gear was purchased decades ago and film and processing are the only costs involved.</p>

[francois_p._garnier]

<p>And don't forget how extremely cheap it is today to get excellent quality gear.<br>

We are saving thousands of bucks on the film gear side.<br>

Today I see lot's of young students shooting with M and R Leicas, with Nikon F5 and F100, with Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax and Hasselblad medium format cameras.<br>

15 years ago even people with quite good jobs had difficulties in affording a Hasselblad medium format system, or a Leica R system.<br>

Now all can enjoy best quality film gear, and fulfil their camera dreams.</p>

[roman_p]

<p>I just don’t understand why nobody complains about ending of cheap SLR’s. I have B&H catalog for 2004 and can find at least 2 SLR’s bodies below $200 and it’s from Nikon only. Now the crappy plastic made in nowhere D3100 is listed for $500 or so. And it doesn’t even have an autofocus motor! Also in 2004 we paid for a 120 roll of Neopan Across $2.40, Provia 100F $2.90, Velvia 100F 4.50 and $2.10 for a gallon of gas. In 2012 Neopan Across is $3.30, Provia 100F $3.80, Velvia 100F $4.60, Velvia 100 $5.30and a gallon of gas is $4.10 my area. Also a roll of Fuji Sureria 200 24ex is $1.75 in Unique Photo. Unfortunately the cost of processing is a different story. But considering the inflation it doesn’t look bad either.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Here's an irony to add to the mix: I remember when buying expired film was a good way to save money. Now it's like vintage wine and more expensive than fresh film! And the Lomography store is amazingly expensive. It makes no sense to me - after all, wouldn't you rather cheap, fairly decent film than expensive, deliberately crap film? Surely, a little Minox EL with Fuji 200 is just as 'Lomographic' as anything that Lomography sells?</p>

<p>There are alternatives like what Fred suggested. I haven't loaded cassettes before but I'm sure it's just a matter of getting used to it. Movie film could work if you knew where to send it. You can get 400' of 5219 (VISION3 500T) for US$50.</p>

[douglas_vitello1]

<p>I believe the biggest issue is not film and processing price but equipment prices as Roman has stated.I'm a Canon guy and the prices of their DSLR's and lenses these days are quite high for such a short life cycle piece of equipment.A lot of us started out with a budget film SLR and hopefully worked our way up to a 'pro' model if we needed it or not (quite often - not) but the catch was we didn't need to upgrade for a very long time unless we were moving to autofocus or another brand system.Quality equipment was never cheap but the life cycle was very long if you are not a impulse buyer.In order to upgrade to the latest 'megapixel' sensor all you really needed to do was walk down to the local photo shop and buy a roll of the latest and greatest film emulsion.I fully understand the attributes of digital and the great things it has done for the business but I also feel that film largely has been thrown under the bus much too quickly by both the equipment and film suppliers.I would really like to see 'cheap' film once again but that is never going to happen in a declining market.Digital itself is starting to go through a transition due to high prices because many are shooting with their pocket smart phones and mirrorless cameras (hate that term - really a glorified digital interchangeable lens rangefinder) instead of expensive bulky DSLR kits.Yes,digital sales appear to be holding up for now but a lot of that is backfill from the natural disasters that have taken place in the past year were many cameras and semiconductors are made.It is going to be a ugly shakedown over the next few years considering the condition of the world economy and inflation.People once again will need to hold onto their equipment for a very long time like it or nor.I hope the equipment is up to the task like a old Canon or Nikon F series.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>" I also feel that film largely has been thrown under the bus much too quickly by both the equipment and film suppliers"</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

Supply and demand. The consumer has been presented with a product they want and therefore demand (digital). The (film) equipment and film suppliers no longer have quite the same demand for the previous incarnation of photographic image making and thus reduce supply and, if they can, raise prices for those items where this is still a small amount of demand.</p>

<p><em>"I believe the biggest issue is not film and processing price ......I would really like to see 'cheap' film once again"</em> </p>

<p>Hmmm.......I believe you're not quite sure on that one.</p>

<p><em>"mirrorless cameras (hate that term - really a glorified digital interchangeable lens rangefinder"</em></p>

<p>If I had one I'd sooner go out with my "mirrorless" than your "glorified digital interchangeable lens rangefinder". I think it needs a bit of work to make it snappy.</p>

<p><em>"It is going to be a</em>(sic)<em> ugly shakedown over the next few years"</em></p>

<p>Assuming you're restricting this to what is available in the photographic world I have to disagree. (I know, you're not surprised :-)) Let's suppose the "ugly" does come about and as a consequence no further new models of camera were released because development costs were just untenable. There would still be the cameras that are around today and whether you hang on to your 2012 camera for x more years or buy a new 2012 camera produced in x years time I think it's safe to say that the technology is actually far enough developed already that for 90%, maybe more, of all photographers the equipment now available is more than sufficient. Very few people will be held back in their image making by not being able to buy a camera that is more advanced than those already available. </p>

<p>If "ugly" doesn't happen then, sure, we'll all (mostly) convince ourselves that new cameras are just what we need as they come out each year but that's only because while disposable income allows we all (mostly) steadfastly ignore the possibility of carrying out a sanity check first.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>It's very easy to process your own film color or B&W at home. Freestyle sells a 1liter Unicolor kit for $18. Reuse the chems and you get many rolls out of it. It's satisfying as well to be part of and have control over the process. </p>

[douglas_vitello1]

<p>The intent of my previous post was to encourage film enthusiasts (new & old) to not loose all hope in the context of The Film & Processing Forum and not feel like obsolete fools because they choose to remain with a medium that they love and can afford using the equipment they now own.Is that not the purpose of this forum?</p>

[Member69643]

<p>One of the few advantages film has over digital is that you can get "full frame" for mere pennies compared to a FF DSLR. I know that when Canon came out with the first DSLR under a thousand dollars a lot of people ditched film. I wonder if the final nail (for most shooters at least) will be someone coming out with FF for under a grand. Wouldn't surprise me if Sony managed it, assuming they still want to stick around in the FF DSLR market. Their A900 is all they currently have.</p>

<p>FWIW B&H and Adorama both sell Kodak Gold film for awesome prices, and it's all great stuff.</p>

[roman_p]

<blockquote>

<p>Supply and demand. The consumer has been presented with a product they want and therefore demand (digital). The (film) equipment and film suppliers no longer have quite the same demand for the previous incarnation of photographic image...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I remember I read a forum post on the “Choose Film” website sometime in 2007. It was the time when Fuji came out with its latest products - Provia400X and Velvia50 (II). The Fujifilm UK had been asked if they did appeal to major camera manufacturers to support with promotion and commercializing the new Fujifilm emulsions. The Fujifilm UK answered yes, they did, but they had gotten the negative response. At that time Nikon had at least two film cameras and 3 scanners at full production mode. And they refused to promote their own products (BTW all scanners were made in Japan) virtually artificially killed the sale. Don’t forget that Nikon, same as Canon, Sony etc. is a member of so called CIPA (Camera & Imaging Products Association). This mighty “digital gang”, uniting major Japanese digital equipment manufacturers , is committed not to promote film and film related equipment even suffering from losses. That’s how they are trying to secure their future. And even the best product doesn’t have much chance to survive if it’s not advertised and commercialized properly. And such thing like “demand” in modern commercial world is pretty much controlled by the amount of billions dollars which are being poured into our public media and pro photographic associations to provide brainwashing practice to consumers (in official language of CIPA authorities it means “rising awareness”). And this is a really ugly thing.</p>

<p>Also Mac just a reminder to you what Douglas said that the purpose of this forum is to encourage photo enthusiasts continue doing what they really love to do and to keep the tradition of photographic art in its best form. And your comments which are nothing but simply repeating of that what we’re constantly hearing from our corrupted photographic media don’t have much sense to be posted on this forum.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Mac just a reminder to you...the purpose of this forum is to encourage photo enthusiasts continue doing what they really love to do and to keep the tradition of photographic art in its best form.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is not the purpose of this forum. The purpose of this forum is clearly stated in the "About This Forum" box on the front page of the forum:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Discussion of issues related to film and home and commercial film processing<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mac should be able to say whatever he wants as long as this is within the forum guidelines as stated above, along with the photo.net Terms of Use. Please don't lecture users who are following the stated intent of the forum. If you think someone is posting outside what is acceptable (which, I will point out as a moderator, isn't happening here), then you can email the Contact Us link at the bottom.</p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> Since this thread started I have been looking around for color film in stores. We went to Yosemite last weekend and I was in a gift shop at Glacier Peak in Yosemite and they were selling Superia (not cheap) and then I was in a market in a neighboring town and they also were selling Superia (not cheap) and I decided to purchase a roll of the 400 which is in the camera. However the term cheap is a bit relative to the person using it. I can at best shoot a roll of film and process the negatives for $3.00. Our Target sell Kodak ASA 200 for $6.00 for a 3 pack and they will process the film for $0.95 + tax per roll. Also BHPhoto sells film cheaper then that but you have shipping charges to deal with. Sometimes they have free shipping. I have a plustek that I bought last year and I enjoy using it. I cannot sit down and scan an entire roll right away but usually over a few days is not a problem. </p>

<p>Anyway cheap is relative to the person doing the spending I suppose. I find $3.00 a roll pretty cheap. Kodak Pro film has enough cost to it that I do not generally shoot it but I keep a few rolls at hand in case I need a higher grade film. I enjoy the B/W C41 Kodak film and I try to keep a few rolls of that around also. Currently I have none. </p>

<p>One thing I like about shooting film is I want to have the negatives. It's a back up system that I trust. I have external hard drives also and they work fine but I do not trust them. I also find film photography a bit more fun as a hobby as there is more interaction from my part and that gives it a more personal feeling to it. My F100 uses AA batteries which is nice and a set of batteries lasts about 1 year before a recharge is needed. It has a big beautiful viewfinder and since it's full frame I enjoy knowing that a 24mm lens will always be a pretty good wide angle lens. Being a hobby I only have to please myself. I do not want to buy camera's that cost thousands of dollars but I do want gear that works nice and will pay what I need to. A real good F100 cost maybe $400.00 these days at the top end for a used one. That's a price that a family guy usually enjoys. </p>

<p> So if I shoot 2 rolls of film a month that is 24 rolls at $3.00 each (film and develop) and that comes out to a whooping $72.00 a year. That is a cheap hobby. I spend more then that on coffee, or guitar strings and bicycle tires or many things that I do that I could give up reluctantly. Well maybe not the bicycle tires as I commute on a bicycle. It's to far to walk. In the real world I spend more the $72.00 because I do buy some pro film and occasionally on a trip I will shoot 4 or 5 rolls of film. A good guess would be that I spend $200.00 a year on film and processing. Still a cheap hobby. </p>

[rossb]

<p>When I spend money I like to feel that my spending is going to a place that I can appreciate. If I buy a Chinese product then it goes to China. (lots I do not like about China) and if I buy American then the money stays in America (lots that I do not like about my own country). However I try to keep the money at home or if not possible then to Japan, Mexico, Canada and Europe and other places as well. I spend time trying to figure it out. I will pay more within reason. Since mail order shopping conceals the country of manufacture I do not buy on-line that much. Plus it is bad for your credit card balance anyway. I guess my point is if you buy Kodak film then you support American and Mexican labor. I think that is a good thing. When you process your film at a lab someplace then you are supporting a job for that person and place. I see that as a good thing. If I lived in Japan I would certainly shoot fuji film. </p>

[wblynch]

<p>I absolutely love Kodak and Fujifilm consumer color films. They are great and they are cheap. I hope they remain available for the rest of my life - and longer.</p>

<p>I also wish we still had real Agfa and Ferrania color films to buy.</p>

<p> </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I stopped in for film and batteries at Unique Photo [Fairfield, NJ] earlier today. My bargains include Kodak Portra 800/36 @ 9.95 ea., Fuji Superia X-Tracolor/36 @ 3.19 ea., Elite Chrome 100/36 @ 7.99 ea., Kodacolor 200/36 @ 1.75 ea. and finally Fuji 200/25 APS for 4.50 ea. I might have bought more than 4 rolls of Ektachrome but they seem to have a good supply for now. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>The X-Tracolor was 400.</p>

[roman_p]

<p>Jeff, I didn’t try to lecture anybody. Yes you’re right regarding the opinion expression within forum guide line. But talking about this old goofy “no demand for film” myth, Mac seemed to attempt to make a stir rather than to bring any value to discussion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess my point is if you buy Kodak film then you support American and Mexican labor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cool stuff, Ross. But unfortunately Kodak stopped making E6. And this is what I’m shooting most. However, don’t think that shooting Fujichrome doesn’t bring any value for supporting our businesses. The cost of E6 processing is almost twice more than the cost of a chrome roll (120). I’m doing about 45 E6 rolls annually and splitting processing between my local pro lab and Dwayne’s. Plus I’m paying postage to USPS. So I prefer to invest $350 every year to national economy than to spend 2000-3000 buying Taiwanese made digital equipment. I agree with some members saying that shooting film seems to be cheaper nowadays than it was 20 yr. ago. And this digital invasion has caused big damage to our national economy forcing thousands of labs and small photo shops to shut down. It takes time to heal the wounds.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Mac seemed to attempt to make a stir rather than to bring any value to discussion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

If you think he violated the Terms of Service or the Community Guidelines, then you can email the Contact link at the bottom of every page. Telling him you think he violated something, particularly something that doesn't exist, is not helping. If you think it's a myth and he doesn't, you will have to live with that.</p>

[roman_p]

<p>Those who are yakking on every forum that there is no demand for film practically don’t believe is this themselves. Yes, I believe that this is the myth and pretty much can live with it. But what I will live with has to be your least concern.</p>

[rossb]

<blockquote>

<p>Cool stuff, Ross. But unfortunately Kodak stopped making E6. And this is what I’m shooting most. However, don’t think that shooting Fujichrome doesn’t bring any value for supporting our businesses. The cost of E6 processing is almost twice more than the cost of a chrome roll (120). I’m doing about 45 E6 rolls annually and splitting processing between my local pro lab and Dwayne’s. Plus I’m paying postage to USPS. So I prefer to invest $350 every year to national economy than to spend 2000-3000 buying Taiwanese made digital equipment. I agree with some members saying that shooting film seems to be cheaper nowadays than it was 20 yr. ago. And this digital invasion has caused big damage to our national economy forcing thousands of labs and small photo shops to shut down. It takes time to heal the wounds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Kodak is out of the E6 business they say so what can you do. Shoot Fuji and be happy. A person can only do what they can do. Like you said you are shooting E6 and having it processed, helping to keep some labs open and employees working and paying taxes. It's a win situation. <br>

I had a roll of film processed at Target today. I am new to the Target thing so the jury is still out. Today I asked the women if I was the only person shooting film and she said that there is a steady business of film being processed. I did not ask if it was disposable camera's or people with regular camera's like mine. </p>