120 film price putting me off MF

[laurencecochrane]

I need more 120 film HOLY CARP the price ! Whilst i love working in MF with my Mamiya C33's Bronica SQA and my Mamiya RB67.. This is far too expensive. Contemplating selling the RB with Prism, grip and 3 lenses, two 120 backs and WLF. My black C33 body. The SQA and 3 lenses, 3 backs 2 120 1 220. Considering this to fund a used Canon 5D R at 50 MP,  I currntly own a 7D mk2. My lovely AUTHENTIC red Mamiya lizard skin C33 display camara I shall be keeping to still do a reduced amount of MF. No idea how to value her anyway.. Also keeping my Canon F1 New, 35mm is not as price sarey and I did regret selling my old type F1 anyway, and still justifies my film scanners existance.. An Olympus e620 and lenses to go too. None of this wlll happen till new year anyway as selling cameras at this time on Ebay is a little slow.. Your thoughts on this desision please.

[SCL]

Sadly, IMHO it comes down to "Use it or lose it". Can't say I'm a perfect practitioner of this rule, but it is a guideline. I still have several rolls of 120 in the freezer...but probably won't buy any more. As for 3mm, I still have lots in the freezer, but again, probably won't buy more. I do love using my Banacks though, so maybe I'll stretch my rule here for a while.

[gary green]

I hear you.  I only shoot Arista 100/400 in 120 film since it's the cheapest I can find at $5.99/roll (USD).  At B&H, if you spend over $49, shipping is free which helps somewhat.

My hobby is collecting and shooting old film cameras, many of which are MF, but I don't really burn through film at a rate that makes me want to give up yet.

[laurencecochrane]

Hear you both Use it or loose it. I agree. This desision is partilal looking forward incase film price seriously dIlutes the cameras values. Get out while going is good. I could allways buy a digital back for the RB or even the Bronica. But at £4k for a used 50 Mp It is a bit out of my price range. Okay the Canon 5D R is not Medium Format but sort of a halfway house that really needs used on a tripod. I will hold onto the 7 D Mk2 as well as it works superb hand held and great for motor sports. The 5D R lacks the high 10fps drive Anyhoo. Not doing it just yet.

Edited December 1, 2022 by laurencecochrane

[c_watson1]

It's also a matter of what survives near you of the old film ecosystem: reasonably-priced film, processing/scanning/printing. That it's collapsed in many places is hardly news. Still, there's mail-order for film material and possibly local/home processing leaving scanning up to you. I did see today that the Film Photography Podcast group is offering Kentmere 120 b&w at $5/roll. Probably necessary to shift to survivalist mode now--get 120 processed wherever and DIY DSLR/flatbed scan negs.

I'm looking at my nice Bronica SQ-B, Mamiya RB67 Pro S, and Mamiya 645 Super kits that deserve exercise. My plan for 2023 is to endure processing costs and DSLR scan b&w negs only. 120 color is a lost cause next to digital but I perversely adore scanned 120 b&w.

The only active market for MF gear seems to be Japan.Look at their prices. Unless you really need to liquidate, hold your MF kits and try adapting to the(somewhat unfortunate)realities of 2023. Don't throw inthe towel just yet. Good luck!

 

[Niels - NHSN]

People complaining about film prices obviously didn't live in the 60's 70's or even 80's

It is only when comparing with the 90's and early 00's that prices seem high. This period is also the time where most of the film producers went belly up, so the pricing  was clearly not healthy for the business to survive.

There are plenty of very affordable ways to shoot MF in black and white also in current times, and Ilford just introduced the lower priced Kentmere series in 120 yesterday.
I hope that turns out to be a success for them. I would love to see Kentmere 400 in 4x5 format.

https://mikeeckman.com/2021/11/a-look-back-at-the-prices-of-film/

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by NHSN

[laurencecochrane]

2 hours ago, NHSN said:

People complaining about film prices obviously didn't live in the 60's 70's or even 80's

REALLY ? Made it to sixty three without doing that ? Back then I was useing 35mm mostly. YES Medium Format has allways been enpensive (long time TLR user) BUT THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND. I am on Disability and can no longer justify the costs of using four MF cameras including the film munching RB67.. Not getting out completly keeping my more than capable, rare red C33 with three lenses, the F1 and the film scanner. Just cutting back..

 

 

 

[jose_angel]

I think the expense on film is not worth it unless you develop it and print yourself in a b/w home darkroom at a reasonably good quality levels.

Professional equipment, edition and printing of digital images is even more expensive. Shooting film (b&w or color) to get digital archives is the worst choice IMHO. Shooting digital to have loads of images stored without printing them is the way amateur photography works right now, I guess... Well, maybe just a few prints from time to time.

I find much easier (and cheaper!) to get a quality traditional b&w print at home that sending a digital archive out for printing. And much faster, too.

But I'm quite pessimistic. My guess is that film (chemicals and papers too) are in the deadline. Price raising will kill them.

Edited December 2, 2022 by jose_angel

[Niels - NHSN]

1 hour ago, laurencecochrane said:

REALLY ? Made it to sixty three without doing that ? Back then I was useing 35mm mostly. YES Medium Format has allways been enpensive (long time TLR user) BUT THIS IS GETTING OUT OF HAND. I am on Disability and can no longer justify the costs of using four MF cameras including the film munching RB67.. Not getting out completly keeping my more than capable, rare red C33 with three lenses, the F1 and the film scanner. Just cutting back..

If you follow the link, you'll see a price comparisons adjusted for inflation.

I understand decisions has to be made due to personal financial circumstances here and now, but the factual price difference between past and present adjusted for inflation shows that the situation is not as crazy as it is often made out to be.

I would say we were spoiled in the 90's and 00's to an extend that it affects our memory of what was before.

Edited December 2, 2022 by NHSN

[laurencecochrane]

44 minutes ago, NHSN said:

If you follow the link, you'll see a price comparisons adjusted for inflation.

I understand decisions has to be made due to personal financial circumstances here and now, but the factual price difference between past and present adjusted for inflation shows that the situation is not as crazy as it is often made out to be.

I would say we were spoiled in the 90's and 00's to an extend that it affects our memory of what was before.

I know. It is a matter of perspective. Just feel it is getting a bit out of hand. Digital users shoot a mountain load OF CARP PICTURES ( in the hundreds ) and select VERY FEW ( Composition ? What is composition ? ) Then BLUFF with and FAKE with Photoshop..Photoshop, Do not start me, KEYBOARD SKILL NOT PHOTOGRAPHY  Granted PS or is it POS ? ( I do hate it ) it has its uses for editing, adjustment NOT THE HORID FAKE GARBAGE commonly seen. A lot of these FAKERS do not even know what perspective is BASIC ART PRINCIPLE.. Us old timer film users have learned over a long time to be VERY selective and precise in what we actually shoot. This is a habit hard to shift I still find myself highly selective when shooting digital. Old habits die hard.

Edited December 2, 2022 by laurencecochrane

[Niels - NHSN]

I am currently helping a local camera-shop testing a large batch of used film cameras - because film cameras is my interest - I don't care much for digital - but the shop also buy and sell used digital cameras.

Perfectly fine digital full frame cameras of yester-year (like a Canon 5D mk II which I noticed today with less than 5000 frame counts) cost only a tiny fraction of a current full frame digital camera.

I can only say that if I were to be in a situation where I couldn't afford film, such a camera would easily nurture my desire to photograph. Optimise to the best JPG directly out of camera, no PS, just send the files directly to the online lab for chemical prints or your own inkjet printer, and Bob's your uncle.

I would certainly miss film photography, but my life would be easier and my wallet thicker.

[oldwino]

If continuing to use film is this painful for you, there’s no reason not to stop using it. Back in the day, we had no choice, but now we do. There are plenty of fine digital cameras around that make nice black and white images, and even better color images. Many can be had for little money, as most everyone wants the “latest and greatest” to take pictures of their cats. 
I love using my film cameras (of which I probably have too many), but in today’s world, you only shoot film because you want to and can afford to. There’s no “need to” involved. 

[Ken Katz]

4 hours ago, laurencecochrane said:

"Digital users shoot a mountain load OF CARP PICTURES ( in the hundreds ) and select VERY FEW ( Composition ? What is composition ? ) Then BLUFF with and FAKE with Photoshop"

I suppose that a bunch of decades ago, folks using LF and MF complained about those young "whippersnappers" using 35mm and just blasting through 36 exposures and reloading in 30 seconds, and shooting another 36 exposures, all the live long day. It got even worse in the 1960's with SLRs with motor drives and large capacity film backs.  250 mostly crap images, and by accident, maybe get a few decent well composed shots.

I don't have much else to add here since I haven't bought a roll of film in about 20 years, but I had to search the grocery shelves today to find the cheapest option for eggs, since apparently there is an egg shortage in the good old US of A.  It would seem to me that if someone wants to continue to shoot with their beloved MF cameras, that buying a used digital back (one with the 50mp Sony sensor) may make economic sense compared with film (you need to do your own math).  Shooting b&w film plus FF digital color (as suggested) also seems like a plan.

 

[c_watson1]

Amuses me that for all the breathless claims of a film "revival," its most reliable confirmation--new/reopened labs--is utterly lacking.

[Mike996]

 

The price of film doesn't seem all that bad to me, but I'm not shooting a huge number of shots.  I recently got back into film after 20 years of digital-only, diving into MF.  With the exception of my Leica M6/one lens, I sold all my film-related gear in 2002.  In my film days I shot 35mm, never owned a MF camera.  Now I own two!  life is strange.🤔

As far as a film revival, companies are certainly producing more film now than 10 years ago.  There are several brands available that I had never heard of in the "old days."  I agree that TriX - which was the only BW film I typically used back then, is too expensive but Ilford HP5 is a couple of bucks a roll cheaper and I've been happy with it.   Foma, Kentmere, Arista, etc are pretty close to the price of film back in the day (adjusted for inflation).  They are said to be "student films" which implies they suffer in comparison to, say TriX or HP5.  That may be the case when compared side by side today but I suspect they are as good as the name brands were 40 years ago.

"I suppose that a bunch of decades ago, folks using LF and MF complained about those young "whippersnappers" using 35mm and just blasting through 36 exposures"

I agree that years ago, 35mm was the "same" as digital today; lots of pictures taken/very few keepers.  I've found that I've always had about the same number of keepers per/hour, regardless of the number of photos taken!  IOW, if in one hour I take 12 MF photos, I have two, maybe three, that I consider worth keeping - I toss the other negatives.  In my 35mm days in that hour I shot 36 (or more) pics...same number of keepers - two or three, toss the rest.  Digital, in that hour - a hundred + pics...same number of keepers only this time I don't seem to toss the rest, they just stay on the drive, taking up space!  

 

 

 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 12/1/2022 at 1:26 PM, laurencecochrane said:

Considering this to fund a used Canon 5D R at 50 MP,........ Your thoughts on this desision please.

In terms of sheer resolution, 50Mp will outdo anything short of 5x4, especially when coupled with a modern lens design. 

My 60Mp Sony a7r4 continues to amaze me with the detail it reveals, far more than any MF camera I've ever used. Plus the dynamic range puts most film completely in the shade - pun intended. 

Having said that; if you own a darkroom and enlarger, then it's hard to beat a good silver-gelatine B&W print from medium or large format. Colour being an entirely different matter, with film not being able to come close with a colour print - unless scanned to digital first. 

Of course, if the desired end result is only a digital file... burning film to get there seems to me like a complicated and expensive route.

Edited December 3, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[laurencecochrane]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:29 PM, rodeo_joe1 said:

In terms of sheer resolution, 50Mp will outdo anything short of 5x4, especially when coupled with a modern lens design. 

My 60Mp Sony a7r4 continues to amaze me with the detail it reveals, far more than any MF camera I've ever used. 

Dont know. I did shoot a while back a shot across the river Lagan in Belfast Bronica SQA, with 50mm WA lens ( 28mm equivilent ). I scanned the negative at the max reloloution about 150 MP ( 6X7 will scan about 200 MP ) BTW on Iso 100 Kodak Ektar. You could clearly read the street name signs on the Custom house side tho VERY SLIGHTLY BLURRED from the littlest amount of camera shake exegarated due to the vast distance. DECENT STURDY TRIPOD USED These street name SIGNS WERE QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY ( Street name signs not the larger font road traffic signs ) and remember a Wide Angle lens. Viewed on Gimp @ 100%. Nothing at all wrong with the resoloution of medium format film. 50 / 60 Mp digitals suffer the very same SLIGHT CAMERA SHAKE ISSUES a tripod really needs used with these high res digital cameras. 

The shot discussed here. Lower resoloution obviously.  Higher res scanned version would not load FUNNY THAT !

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by laurencecochrane

[c_watson1]

"As far as a film revival, companies are certainly producing more film now than 10 years ago."

But exactly how much more? Good luck finding actual time series production figures. Instead there's just this sort of chatter about percentage increases:

https://kosmofoto.com/2020/01/eastman-kodaks-still-film-production-more-than-doubled-in-the-last-four-years/

Are the current Fuji film shortages accidental or intentional?

 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:09 PM, laurencecochrane said:

Dont know. I did shoot a while back a shot across the river Lagan in Belfast Bronica SQA, with 50mm WA lens ( 28mm equivilent ). I scanned the negative at the max reloloution about 150 MP ( 6X7 will scan about 200 MP ) You could clearly read the street name signs on the Custom house side tho VERY SLIGHTLY BLURED from the littlest amount of camera shake due to the vast distance TRIPOD USED These street name SIGNS WERE QUITE A DISTANCE AWAY

That sounds like pretty run-of-the-mill stuff that I regularly see from my 60 Mp A7Riv. Fit a reasonable lens and it resolves right up to its theoretical limit of 130 lppmm. Make that over 200 lppmm if the subject stays still long enough for a pixel-shift sequence. A sturdy tripod is a given, of course. 

OTOH, I've never seen a clean 130 lppmm resolution on any film with a usable ISO speed in any practical real-world test. More like topping out at 60 - 80 lppmm with just-discernible contrast.

OK, you have to adjust that film resolution for the increased frame size of medium format. But film resolution isn't clean (100% contrast) resolution like digital. Since the dye-clouds of colour film are about 3 microns in diameter, the maximum theoretical resolution is about 150 lppmm... and then you need far more than 1 or 2 dye clouds to define an image feature. Those multiple dye-clouds randomly gather into about 10 micron clumps and drop the average resolution accordingly.

Anyway and whatever; on a practical level a 50 or 60 Mp digital sensor easily resolves far, far more detail than can be seen by eye directly looking at the subject. And in most cases the limit of depth-of-field restricts such fine detail to a small slice of the subject. Outside of which it doesn't matter how high the resolution of the recording medium is. 

I've shot plenty of 120, 220 and 5"x4" film and I can honestly say that a 50 or 60 Megapixel FF camera fitted with a decent lens will easily compete with, or outdo, any film at a comparable ISO speed. And when you get above 400 ISO, film gives digital no competition whatsoever.

I shot, processed and printed film for well over 40 years, and I didn't give up those hard-won skills lightly and for no good reason. I saw that digital was better in nearly every way and reluctantly , via scanning, relearned my way into an all digital workflow. Given a nudge, I admit, by the ridiculous time and materials cost that film involved, and that was the case even more than 15 years ago.

Edited December 4, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[laurencecochrane]

The only reason I scanned that high a resoloution NEW SANNER (at that time). Arseing about out of pure curosity to see exactly what would happen. Need to or want to use it, even recomending it ?  NO !   BTW I never use anything over 100 ISO.. Have tripods. Even my digitals remain at 100. Sports and wildlife the only exeptions.

Edited December 4, 2022 by laurencecochrane

[oldwino]

On 12/4/2022 at 7:56 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

That sounds like pretty run-of-the-mill stuff that I regularly see from my 60 Mp A7Riv. Fit a reasonable lens and it resolves right up to its theoretical limit of 130 lppmm. Make that over 200 lppmm if the subject stays still long enough for a pixel-shift sequence. A sturdy tripod is a given, of course. 

OTOH, I've never seen a clean 130 lppmm resolution on any film with a usable ISO speed in any practical real-world test. More like topping out at 60 - 80 lppmm with just-discernible contrast.

OK, you have to adjust that film resolution for the increased frame size of medium format. But film resolution isn't clean (100% contrast) resolution like digital. Since the dye-clouds of colour film are about 3 microns in diameter, the maximum theoretical resolution is about 150 lppmm... and then you need far more than 1 or 2 dye clouds to define an image feature. Those multiple dye-clouds randomly gather into about 10 micron clumps and drop the average resolution accordingly.

Anyway and whatever; on a practical level a 50 or 60 Mp digital sensor easily resolves far, far more detail than can be seen by eye directly looking at the subject. And in most cases the limit of depth-of-field restricts such fine detail to a small slice of the subject. Outside of which it doesn't matter how high the resolution of the recording medium is. 

I've shot plenty of 120, 220 and 5"x4" film and I can honestly say that a 50 or 60 Megapixel FF camera fitted with a decent lens will easily compete with, or outdo, any film at a comparable ISO speed. And when you get above 400 ISO, film gives digital no competition whatsoever.

I shot, processed and printed film for well over 40 years, and I didn't give up those hard-won skills lightly and for no good reason. I saw that digital was better in nearly every way and reluctantly , via scanning, relearned my way into an all digital workflow. Given a nudge, I admit, by the ridiculous time and materials cost that film involved, and that was the case even more than 15 years ago.

I read an interview with Stephen Shore a while back where is talked about a project he did with the Hasselblad X1D (the original one). 50MP sensor. He said that he and his printer thought it was showing 8x10 level resolution. 

[glen_h]

On 12/1/2022 at 11:08 PM, NHSN said:

People complaining about film prices obviously didn't live in the 60's 70's or even 80's

(snip)

 

 

 

In the early 1970's I was in 7th and 8th grade, doing yearbook photography.

My favorite was Freestyle 100 foot rolls of 35mm film for $5.

I believe inflation adjusted, that is a pretty good price.

Last I knew, Kodak 100 foot rolls cost more than the comparable number

of 135-36 rolls. 

But there are some less popular 120 films around.

You can get Foma 120 from Freestyle for less than $5/roll.

I sometimes put some in old folding cameras, or even old Kodak box cameras.

A few years ago, I put a roll of VPL 120 in a Brownie 2(F), (which is actually brown),

suspecting that I was the first ever to put VPL into a Brownie 2(F).

(It is tungsten balanced, and I had a filter to hold over the lens.)

 

Anyway, for black and white at $5/roll, and develop it myself, it isn't so bad.

There is a nearby C-41 lab that will develop only 120 for $8.50.

[Niels - NHSN]

3 hours ago, glen_h said:

 

In the early 1970's I was in 7th and 8th grade, doing yearbook photography.

My favorite was Freestyle 100 foot rolls of 35mm film for $5.

I believe inflation adjusted, that is a pretty good price.

 

You are right, that was a very good price, but maybe not as amazing as it sounds. The "Inflation Calculator" says the following: "What cost $5 in 1971 would cost $34.66 in 2021". Today, A 100 foot roll of Foma 400 cost the equivalent of 44.50 USD when I look at current FOTOIMPEX prices (before tax). ($44.50 would have been $6.50 in 1971)

For some reason the pricing of bulk film has evolved weirdly.
In the 70's my rule of thumb was that my price of BW bulk film pr. roll price would be around 30% compared to pre-rolled - that was the only reason I could afford shooting. Should I have pay pre-rolled price photography would not have been my hobby.
Today Ilford bulk pricing is closer to 60% of pre-rolled, and Kodak bulk BW film is so expensive that it is not worth the bother to roll them yourself.

[glen_h]

13 minutes ago, NHSN said:

You are right, that was a very good price, but maybe not as amazing as it sounds. The "Inflation Calculator" says the following: "What cost $5 in 1971 would cost $34.66 in 2021". Today, A 100 foot roll of Foma 400 cost the equivalent of 44.50 USD when I look at current FOTOIMPEX prices (before tax). ($44.50 would have been $6.50 in 1971)

(snip)

 

Thanks.  I didn't do the calculation.  It seems that I was a little off, though.  Only $4/roll.

And that includes shipping.

Well, postage costs were much different then.

First class postage was $0.06. 

 

But yes, Foma is affordable now.

 

I still have about half of a 100 foot roll of PanF+ that bought recently outdated and kept refrigerated at half price.

And I have bought some film on eBay, of various ages. 

Some in sizes that you can't buy new.  I have some VP116 and VP122.

[John Crowe]

I considered a return to 120 film a couple of years ago but in my rural location the cost of film, processing and shipping was too prohibitive.  Instead I added two medium format lenses that allow me to shift and stitch using a shift adapter on my 5DSR.  Shifting and stitching with a 17 TS-E made selling my 6x6 and 4x5, twelve years ago, more palatable.  Medium format lenses are much sharper than we were lead to believe in the 80's, and work extremely well on the 5DSR.  The adapters are relatively expensive so choose which lens system you want to proceed with, if you decide to try this.  I am achieving equivalent files to an 85-225 MP sensor and the results are superior to 6x6 Velvia 50 and likely quite close to 4x5 Velvia 50.