120 film price putting me off MF

[rodeo_joe1]

Some things outstrip the official 'average' inflation figure. For example: 60 years ago the price of a pint of beer in a pub was under 2/- = 10 new pence UK. Now it's nearly £4, a 40 fold increase! Although bottled beer has 'only' increased by about 20x, but it's no longer a pint, just 500ml or 88% of a pint.

So, on the beer standard, an £8 roll of 120 film would only have cost 4/- (20 new pence) about 60 years ago. 

Yet I still drink beer in pubs - occasionally - but gave up buying new film stock over a decade ago. 

One has to get one's priorities right! 😉

[Mike996]

Well, based on my income now vs my income then, pretty much everything is more affordable to me now than it was back in the old days...including a pint of beer!  😆

[conrad_hoffman]

Compared to chicken wings, film's not so bad. IMO, it only makes sense in black and white, home processed and printed (or scanned). Digital is the best thing that's ever happened to color photography. Kodachrome was nice if the scene didn't have too much contrast, but processing and printing color negative film is misery and expense. Not a clue why anybody would want to do it. BTW, just as seeing kids wearing baseball caps backwards, seeing 5x4 makes my head want to explode. It's been and always will be 4x5, unless maybe across the pond. Read your Kodak film box- it contains 4x5 film. 5x4 wouldn't fit in the box because the dimensions are wrong. 😉

 

[Ken Katz]

I can't begin to understand UK money (old or new), but last time in London (2017), I thought the price of beer was quite reasonable, and the cost of single malt scotch a bargain.  A US pint is 473ml, so 1/2 liter glass is a 1.06% improvement!  Of course we still use ounces, gallons, pounds, inches yards, and miles.  Our big bottles of soda are measured in liters for some reason.

[rodeo_joe1]

15 hours ago, conrad_hoffman said:

seeing 5x4 makes my head want to explode. It's been and always will be 4x5, unless maybe across the pond. Read your Kodak film box- it contains 4x5 film. 5x4 wouldn't fit in the box because the dimensions are wrong. 😉

Bind your head up tight Conrad, because you're nationally incorrect. It's 5"x4" and always has been, same as it's 10"x8" and walking on the pavement is the right thing to do.

We Brits invented the Inch, so we ought to know which way round to use it!

Kodak - pah! What do they know? 

But kid's (and adults) wearing baseball caps backwards... I have to agree with you there. 

Overweight lads wearing backward baseball caps and football kit? Kaboom!! 

Edited December 15, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[conrad_hoffman]

Ha, even Ilford knows the truth- it says 4x5 film right on the end of the box! OTOH, maybe those are only for sale in the US. What does a UK box look like? I suppose you have to load 5x4 film in a 4x5 holder sideways?

[kmac]

8 hours ago, conrad_hoffman said:

I suppose you have to load 5x4 film in a 4x5 holder sideways?

 lol 👍

[rodeo_joe1]

19 hours ago, conrad_hoffman said:

I suppose you have to load 5x4 film in a 4x5 holder sideways?

No, we also have 5x4 double-darkslides to hold the 5x4 film. 

Also 'fivebyfour' and 'tenbyeight' just seems to roll off the tongue a bit easier than their reverse counterparts. 

But - vive la difference! 

[Dustin McAmera]

I'm a Brit, and I do say 'ten-by-eight' (but not often; I don't know if I've ever been in the same room as a camera that size, and I haven't printed a ten-by-eight for years), but I would also say 'five-by-seven', by habit. Early Photography shows some old plate packs. They vary: there's a picture of a stack of Kodak packets: there's a pack of 9x12cm, sitting on top of a pack of 5x4 inch; and under that is a pack of 6½x4¾ inch/12x16.5 cm.

Certainly I say 'four-by-five'. That's what's printed on all my current film-boxes. I have current 3¼x4¼ inch film labelled short-side-first, and old British plates the same size labelled long-side-first. I call it Royale with cheese quarter-plate.

When I did some writing for Camera-wiki, size categories had long ago been set up with small dimension first, and mostly in centimetres: we categorise a camera as 6x9, not as 2¼x3¼ inch, though there's no rule about what you call the size in the text. There is an uncommon (Japanese) format that's four-by-five centimetres, so four-by-five-inch has to be called that, at least in the category. People trip over 4.5x6, because we're so used to hearing that one the other way round, or as '645'.

We have a rule about editing that it's not acceptable to go through someone else's writing changing (say) 'colour' to 'color' or vice versa. Whoever starts an article sets the usage for that article, and later contributors respect it.

[david_henderson]

In the 13 years to 2009 I shot virtually exclusively 120/220 via various Bronica SQAi cameras and umpteen prime lenses.  I used about 500 rolls a year .  The film and processing, plus camera servicing a couple of times a year and getting into London to take film to  my lab for processing was costing me about £3500 pa then.  Now I'd imagine more than double that as both film manufacturers and processors would want me to pay the costs of diseconomies of (lack of) scale as well as inflation.  While I was doing that I was happy to do it, but in 2009 I switched to a Dslr FF system.

But it now occurs that a) I don't miss it nearly as much as i thought I would;  b) I don't think my photography is worse because I moved to FF Dslrs  c)  With the money I save I could completely replace my camera & lenses every year if I wanted to (I don't).  

The only thing I can't do is make really big prints.  That used to be far more important to me than it is now and indeed its quite a few years since I needed to print bigger than I can from FF.  My bag's lighter.  I don't have to worry about buying & transporting film. My servicing/repair costs have reduced by 75% because modern Dslr's are more reliable & don't need regular servicing.   Processing the shots for  online use is much easier than scanning film and processing the scans.

I don't think I could begin to justify a move back to MF in either financial or photographic terms

[conrad_hoffman]

I never thought much about it, but I have more MF stuff than I realized. A C330 and several lenses, a Yashica D, a Zeiss Ikonta (520?), a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Century Graphic and finally, a Yashica 44 that takes 127 film. I've got a roll film back for the Graphic, so should probably find some 120 film!

 

[hjoseph7]

I stocked-up a little prior to the prices shooting up like they have. That does not mean I'm comfortable. A roll of 120 film can go pretty fast with only about 15 exposures per roll. The way prices are going now, you are paying $2-$3 per frame which is outrageous.  I'm not an Economist, but I don't see what's the point of raising prices so high to the point where no one can afford it ? Supply and Demand ? Yeah Right !

It's like going to the Supermarket these days and watching people walk right by the meat section for fear of getting sticker shock . You know what happens to the meat that does not get sold, it goes straight into the waste basket... 

[kmac]

It was always going to happen, as the film market shrinks, the price of film will increase, compounded by rotten foreign dollar exchange rates if you're living outside the United States, then there's postage cost and import taxes. I'm happy I half filled my freezer some years ago when prices were lower. Today, even B&W Shanghai GP3 120 seems expensive, but they are producing multiple formats from 35mm to 8x10 and that includes 127, 620 and 220, helping the film enthusiast out. If only there was bulk 120, and a film roller to go with it, that would be good. However, as it is, a sheet of 3 1/4" x 4 1/4" GP3 costs me only AU$1.46 exposed in my Kodak No3. Shanghai 4x5 is not much more for my Kodak No4.

Color is a different proposition cost wise, bulk rolls of that would be good too, but I guess not everyone would want to go to all that trouble, taping backing paper to the film and rolling the film out on a jig in the dark. I do it with 70mm color, it's good fun, I have two expired bulk rolls, and I'd do it with 120 also if bulk was available. That said, I intend to buy the new Kodak Gold in 120, and simply make every frame count, can't wait to try it and see what it's like.

[AJG]

There are probably some film manufacturers and retailers raising prices to see how much they can charge and still sell products, but the underlying economics of scale are driving the price increases. When film was the dominant image recording medium there were incredibly large and efficient production lines along with a supply chain to provide raw materials in quantity.  That's no longer the case and as film becomes more of a niche product price increases will be necessary to continue making it and generating a profit. I'm not happy about this but I am glad that most of the films that I care about are still produced and that their quality hasn't suffered so far.

In some ways these discussions remind me of listening to some of my aunts and uncles talking about buying bread for 10 cents a loaf or a pound of ground beef for 25 cents back in the good old days.  They usually forgot about the $10-15/week salary that they were drawing at the time...

[RaymondC]

From my usage of the Mamiya RB67 and full frame 24MP I have to agree to what others have alluded to between film and digital.  Others obviously would had more experience than I have.  I did get 2 shots scanned by an Imacon and everything else an Epson but yes if you want those detail the better scanner has bonus marks.  Being expensive I kinda treat it like beer or chicken wings esp when eaten out than what it cost to cook.  Every time I take out the medium format camera I cannot offload it.  I haven't used my MF camera for a long time though but it is summer here in the southern hemisphere.  This is purely amateur fun.  For work, oh clearly digital.  

Edited December 19, 2022 by RaymondC

[flavio_egoavil]

Do as large format shooters do. They know how to use the minimum amount of shots.

Here a 120 roll is slightly cheaper than a 135 roll, so the cost per roll is similar. The only difference, of course, is the amount of frames per roll. But there are some people that shoot 135 and feel 36 frames per roll is too much...

 

[RaymondC]

Yes slow down and just enjoy it if that suits your style.  I have thought of selling it numerous times it just sits here much of the time, sure I might shoot the occasional roll but each time I handle it I cannot let it go.  I did get them well depreciated and they might had appreciated in value and the focal lengths are more limited and if one is gonna use it like this one might not need a larger body and a smaller body.  BW is cheaper to develop at home also.  E6 I am thinking of returning but I will shoot in much much less quantities even if they expire sitting in my freezer will just let them freeze.  In the past after some years with no trips I made excuses out just to shoot images and a a bit more freely at the end it wasn't worth it.  Shoulda just sat on my fat bum and left it and not waste the film.  It is like with general travels people associate with one could take as many shots but after the trip there is only a small handful that you may treasure anyway.  Even with digital I don't really shoot a lot of images mind you I am not that into sports, wildlife, events certainly not on travels.  Maybe I should up the rate for travel "memories" however.  I did the same with 35mm film shooting E6 often I would just shoot 12 frames a day (overseas).  

[mjferron]

Now I find my Wisner 4x5 can except both 4x5 and 5x4 film holders which I keep labeled to avoid confusion. 
 

BTW Joe is correct regarding resolution.  High end digital cannot be beat. That does not mean I won’t shoot B&W film but my little Foveon sensor Sigma can in practical terms out resolve any film camera I own, especially given the challenges and sometimes limitations of scanning.

 

[glen_h]

I still shoot film, sometimes, for fun.

As above, mostly I find that it takes too long to use up a 36 exposure roll.

I have enough 35mm film to last more years than I likely have left.  (At least a few 100 foot rolls.)

 

A few years ago, when the Foma Retro film came out  (in 120), Freestyle had a sale, and I

got some rolls of that.  (Even though I have some 20 year old TMax that someone gave me.)

 

The question, then, is how much fun for how much cost.  

What other fun things you would do with the money, instead?

 

Everything is more expensive now, not just film. 

 

[Farside]

On 12/14/2022 at 1:09 PM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Some things outstrip the official 'average' inflation figure. For example: 60 years ago the price of a pint of beer in a pub was under 2/- = 10 new pence UK. Now it's nearly £4, a 40 fold increase! Although bottled beer has 'only' increased by about 20x, but it's no longer a pint, just 500ml or 88% of a pint.

So, on the beer standard, an £8 roll of 120 film would only have cost 4/- (20 new pence) about 60 years ago. 

Yet I still drink beer in pubs - occasionally - but gave up buying new film stock over a decade ago. 

One has to get one's priorities right! 😉

Don't know where you were drinking but the first beer I bought for myself was 1/6d a pint.

I recall the hoopla when the increased taxation brought the cost up to 1/8d, then 2/-. and you can imagine the outrage when it hit 2/6d!

You could barely get drunk on a quid. 🙂

These rises happened within the space of two years, iirc.

In the meantime, I'm happily buying bulk Foma 100 and rolling my own, and the prices aren't too bad. Last time I rolled my own was the early 80s, and it was cheaper in real terms (as another poster mentioned, probably was about a third of the cost of buying ready-mades).

Locally, I can buy Kodak 120 Gold for about €12 and have it processed for around a fiver, which isn't too bad for occasional use. I can stand the cost of that even if I shoot colour MF at the giddy rate of one a week. It's enough to keep the old folders and other MF cams happy with a bit of exercise.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Farside

[c_watson1]

I ditched C-41 35mm and 120 for digital. I still like the look of 120 b&w DSLR-scanned. Keeps the old Mamiya and Bronica gear limber.

[robert_ante]

From the perspective of my own shooting habits, 35mm is used more freely and spontaneously when compared with shooting 120, and 45 much more conservatively. Twelve shots per 120;roll is just about right. Thirty six or 24 fits the way I shoot 35. With 45, while I carry four or five film holders seldom do I use all of them. However, 36 Minox 8x11 seems to take me forever to shoot a roll of 36 frames.

As for cost, all art supplies are relatively expensive. This includes digital, since every time I meet friends who shoot digital, they want to show me their latest camera upgrade. I still use cameras and other equipment I bought in the mid 1960s.

[glen_h]

On 12/14/2022 at 5:09 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Some things outstrip the official 'average' inflation figure. For example: 60 years ago the price of a pint of beer in a pub was under 2/- = 10 new pence UK. Now it's nearly £4, a 40 fold increase! Although bottled beer has 'only' increased by about 20x, but it's no longer a pint, just 500ml or 88% of a pint.

So, on the beer standard, an £8 roll of 120 film would only have cost 4/- (20 new pence) about 60 years ago. 

Yet I still drink beer in pubs - occasionally - but gave up buying new film stock over a decade ago. 

One has to get one's priorities right! 😉

I did happen to visit the London in 1971, and remember the then new New Pence.

But 60 years ago would have been 1962 (from when the above was written), and so old pence days.

 

Otherwise, I mentioned the price of film that Freestyle was selling around 1971.

That is when I was doing school yearbook photography.

Some that I bought from Freestyle were called "Aero" films, and different from the regular ones.

I am not sure how they compare to what Freestyle sells today, though.

In any case, they worked well enough for me.

I did use the Freestyle ASA 40 Panotomic-X, and developed it in Diafine, with EI of 160 or 250.

(Different on different boxes of Diafine.)