Film photography, expensive or not.

Mozziephotography

Mozziephotography

Messages
1,936
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I started using film in January 2025 and I'm loving it. Bought a few cameras off ebay, had a few gifted and other outlets as well. How much has it set me back and should I dust off my digital cameras. With people buying the film for me, Xmas and birthday, that's certainly cut the amount spent on photography down by quite a bit. Taking into consideration all the other costs, it amounts to £8.50 a week. Having shot 40 films over the last 21 months, I'm happy with the outcome. Don't drink or smoke or have subscriptions to any TV channels, surely it's worth the pleasure I get from this step back in time. I have quite a few friends who often take part in road races, spending anything between £18 and £40 for a 10k race. Trainers are well over a hundred pounds and last for 500 miles. Happiness is paramount.
 
Happiness is paramount. :agree: (y) (y)

At 20p/mile driving is a big part of the expense for my photography (film or digitat), getting my films processed is about £25 per film (never mind purchasing the film it'self) so I'm careful when I use film so I don't waste it. Sometimes I use a film per week but other times I can go several weeks using digital. I'm not ritch by any means but a bit like petrol for my motorcycles I don't really count the cost of my hobbies I just budget for them.

I'm alos very fortunate to have a wife that doesn't mind my expensive hobbies.
 
Kevin Allan said:
That's not much more than the cost of a coffee and a scone. Sometimes the film might not work out, but then again a scone can turn out to be so crumbly that it's difficult to eat in a dignified manner.
Click to expand...
I hate it when you buy a scone and they give you a couple of those small packs of butter which are out of the fridge. I usually stick them under my arms to soften them.
 
Film for my 5x4 camera often costs £50 for just 25 sheets, add to the developing & printing materials it's pretty expensive (particularly when I mess up) and I guess that's on top of the lenses/cameras & darkroom (I don't want to thin of the cost there)

The satisfaction when it turns out OK is much greater than mere digital.
 
Regardless if it’s film or digital, for me part of the joy of photography is capturing a moment or a moment at a place.

I’ve got lenses that are “worth it” to me just because of one photo they’ve let me take. I’d have paid the cost in a heartbeat just to get that one image that will bring joy, sadness or a fond memory vividly to mind.

You can’t buy happiness, but sometimes you spend a little* money and it sets you up for happy times.


*that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. ;-)
 
I have been doing a lot of digital recently but was going to do last weekend's photowalk on film until I realised too late that my stash of KM400 and Tri X was all gone !!!! *
I could have called in at WEX on my way to Stratford for replacement film but instead took the digital camera, looking at the shots I took they would have been very different had I used film, not better just different.


* Gone as in my Son has returned to Uni having spent the summer going "Dad can I get some film (from the flight case of film in the basement) ? " and I am sure the last three rolls of Tri X followed him to Birmingham, the KM400 would have been used during the summer. In that respect it has recently been expensive for me but not for him.
Let's not talk about the Portra 400 120 either...


Edit: I do not begrudge him as I have enjoyed how he has taken to learning photography and the time we spent together though the Nikons he has become fond of are a little more questionable. :)
 
Last edited:
I shoot about 30 rolls of 120 a year, I pay for the film and the developing but scan myself. It can be expensive depending on film stock, but I often stock up on film on deals (Black Friday, Wex loyalty promotions, discounts, etc)

Some of the cost is offset by the rising values of film cameras, I like to try different cameras and I’ve found found that moving them on after I’ve had them 3-4 years results in a tidy profit which can help offset the expense.

That said there is something really satisfying about nailing a shot on film, I just don’t get the same level of satisfaction with a digital shot, and that in itself is worth the expense
 
It feels expensive sometimes. Have blasted through something crazy like 60 rolls since March. Lots of new films keep appearing so I am a kid in a sweet shop. Many were bought years ago so I am pruning the stash down.

I was thinking about it the other day. Modest colour film used to be about £3 a roll and I used to get paid about £3 an hour. Now its about £12 and minimum wage is £12 an hour or so it’s not actually more expensive than 30 odd years ago.
 
If it makes you happy. Seems appropriate! Messing about with film - the cameras, the films, shooting it, processing it, tweaking in PP, all make me happy. I have loads of expired film in the fridge-freezer in the garage, all sorts, I just want to get out with it more often. It makes me happy.
 
Last edited:
I have started using film, and I really enjoy it.
To begin with I used digital, but that did not cost a lot, second hand and a few lenses from trusted sellers on E bay.
The film camera with lens was about £70, a 50mm lens was about £60, so not a massive amount.
Film, most I have paid for a roll is £12 but normally it is about £7. And I have a couple of med formats, one at no cost and one at £27 pounds all in.
So far so good.
Now the processing, per film (B+W) developed, scanned , digitized, sent to me, negatives sent back to me and postage paid for comes to about £17.
To slightly off set that, points are earned for all purchases and can be used at will to buy film etc.
I am far from well off, but is this hobby expensive, no its not for me.
What it has done is made me very aware that in modern life things are very much only as expensive as you want them to be.
The most expensive thing is buying poor equipment, or spending thousands on kit etc that will not do much more than reasonably priced equipment.
So I sort of limit myself to one or two films per month, I try and get 36 exposure, same price to process as 24 or 12 film.
If I get 36 nice photographs, per month, that comes to less than a £1 a day, after the initial purchase of the camera.
I don't count fuel etc, because that is part of the cost of living, or I park and walk for miles to get shots.
For me I look at it like this, digital cameras are great, I go out and take 120 photographs, only 10 of these photographs are going to be used and it costs nothing but time and effort.
So in reality, film photography is not expensive, no more than any other hobby.
When I started drinking beer it was 33p per pint, and I made £18 a week.
My dad bought a Mini for £1050, brand new, be lucky if you could get a service and front brakes for that price now, let alone a car.
So no film is not expensive,
 
My photos are definitely as a rule not good value for money, if the end result is your measure; however for most film togs, I believe it's not really the end result that matters asa much as enjoyment of the process, from e2e. At least imho.
 
St Johns in the Vale.JPG

There is something about loading a roll of film into a 40 year old camera, finding a view to snap, having to focus while wearing a pair of glasses, checking the settings, sending off the film to be developed, waiting for the scans to come back (best part), doing a bit of editing and ... feeling chuffed when everything comes together. Way more satisfying for an old bloke like what I am. Love it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, shooting on film is expensive. If you develop the film yourself, you also have to factor in the cost of chemicals, which aren’t exactly cheap.

But you can save money.

After all, how many photos on a roll of film are really worth developing?

You just have to resist the temptation to press the shutter button when you know the shot won’t turn out worth keeping anyway. That way, you can save the expensive film for the photos that are truly worth it.
 
Andreas Thaler said:
You just have to resist the temptation to press the shutter button when you know the shot won’t turn out worth keeping anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I often spend time sizing up a shot, moving around the subject to find the best composition, or waiting for things to move into or out of frame or the light to change to get the best result. And quite often, after doing all that, I decide it's not worth the frame of film and move on.
 
I think this is a yes and no answer....

Yes, it's expensive per shot compared to digital, but depending what film you shoot, and how often I guess the cost drops significantly. I've not shot any film since a July holiday. Edit, I shot a roll at Castle Combe Circuit maybe the end of August. So for me, the past few months have been pretty cheap :ROFLMAO:

Another way to look at it, which I like to do, is cost vs time and enjoyment. If I can load a roll of film and go out all weekend, then cost per hour is pretty low. Especially when compared with how much other "entertainment" will cost you..... ie cinema, bowling, etc
 
As I'm largely an LF shooter, with some MF as well, yes buying film has become expensive. But the move to LF for my personal work around 1986, (I'd been shooting LF for work for 10 years before that), also meant typically I was only carrying 6 DDS film holders, so 12 sheets of film when out shooting, I did add a 6x9 roll film holder fairly quickly, That makes you disciplined, you don't shoot unless your confident there's a good image to be made.

That discipline then cascades down to smaller formats, initially I was also using an M3 Leica, but 35mm prints don't hang well alongside LF or MF on an exhibition wall.

FishyFish said:
Exactly. I often spend time sizing up a shot, moving around the subject to find the best composition, or waiting for things to move into or out of frame or the light to change to get the best result. And quite often, after doing all that, I decide it's not worth the frame of film and move on.
Click to expand...

I do that approaching a subject, subconsciously, I meander watching how the subject changes, Most of the time I arrive at the right spot with choice of lens in mind, I rarely need to reposition.

The Meander (Menderes) is a river in Turkey, named by the ancient Greeks, early agriculture silted up the estuary, early Greek cities like Prienne, Miletus, Myus, once by the sea are now inland. The bends and ox-bows gave it the name. There's also a Little Meander river, these are areas I've made many images :D

1793211255967.png

Heralkia on Lake Bafa was once once the coast !!!!!

Ian
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Exactly. I often spend time sizing up a shot, moving around the subject to find the best composition, or waiting for things to move into or out of frame or the light to change to get the best result. And quite often, after doing all that, I decide it's not worth the frame of film and move on.
Click to expand...

In the field, pre shutter button, culling :)
 
Andreas Thaler said:
Yes, shooting on film is expensive. If you develop the film yourself, you also have to factor in the cost of chemicals, which aren’t exactly cheap.

But you can save money.

After all, how many photos on a roll of film are really worth developing?

You just have to resist the temptation to press the shutter button when you know the shot won’t turn out worth keeping anyway. That way, you can save the expensive film for the photos that are truly worth it.
Click to expand...
True and my problem is I've run out of subjects to shoot e.g. been there done it.......the only thing left for me is going to places on my motorbike, but looking at my shots many are boring and look like record shots, if you are not lucky you need to really stop for maybe days at a place to get best lighting conditions, choose the best view etc etc
 
Hi all, I am new to this forum but here is my pennyworth (well that is cheap anyway!) As an ancient who was professional for quite a few years i found that most editorial jobs did not pay for your film or paper, so it always paid to consider what was in front of you before making exposures. Shooting for personal work I would look to be able to keep the majority of what I had taken, rather than one image a roll.
Also, whilst digital may seem cheap because it costs nothing at the point of exposure, there is camera, memory cards, computer, monitor, programmes etc before you get to printing any of the images.
 
excalibur2 said:
True and my problem is I've run out of subjects to shoot e.g. been there done it.......the only thing left for me is going to places on my motorbike, but looking at my shots many are boring and look like record shots, if you are not lucky you need to really stop for maybe days at a place to get best lighting conditions, choose the best view etc etc
Click to expand...
All you have to do is buy a new camera, and the subjects will come back :p
 
That is really the only way to get great landscape photographs unless you are extremely lucky. When I was photographing stone circles for an exhibition years ago I would camp by them for 2 or 3 days ‘waiting for the light’.
 
Andreas Thaler said:
All you have to do is buy a new camera, and the subjects will come back :p
Click to expand...
:) with 26 cameras and about 50 lenses I have enough to play with o_O .......after about 40 years now playing with B/W again for night shots but run out of churches, pubs and interesting villages etc locally, :(................my moon shots were crap in the past I should really not accept defeat and try again.
 
excalibur2 said:
:) with 26 cameras and about 50 lenses I have enough to play with o_O .......after about 40 years now playing with B/W again for night shots but run out of churches, pubs and interesting villages etc locally, :(................my moon shots were crap in the past I should really not accept defeat and try again.
Click to expand...
If you've run out of local architecture, try something different.
Subjects in motion might open a whole new realm...

I generally end up choosing the theme for our local photo workshop, and now our numbers have dwindled to the point we can't afford a hall it can get challenging, especially in the winter. Fortunately there are loads of things we've done before that can be revisited with minor changes. Tonight it will be light painting/Shaped Bokeh/UVIF
 
Petrochemist said:
Subjects in motion might open a whole new realm...
Click to expand...
Well don't you think us filmies have to accept a digi camera would be better for things like taking umpteen motion shots..erm and I aint got a decent digi camera anyway even if I wanted to use one o_O
 
LeeRatters said:
I shot a roll of film at a track day a couple of months ago ;) :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Well same here as recently got through a lot of film showing my grandson racing around the secondary track at Brands hatch also old motorcycles leaving the annual Banbury run but wouldn't waste film on anything that I considered not interesting or important to me. It was funny at Brands hatch as I was next to a Photographer with a super duper digi camera and the weird look he gave me using my T70.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well same here as recently got through a lot of film showing my grandson racing around the secondary track at Brands hatch also old motorcycles leaving the annual Banbury run but wouldn't waste film on anything that I considered not interesting or important to me.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why would you? I must admit, the most fun I've had with film is when the subject excites me. Then I'll shoot a roll of film, just like that. But those ocassions are few and far between, and the demand for frugality is paramount.
 
In film photography, there’s also the matter of cameras and lenses, which you actually still have to operate by hand—with a certain feel—just like machines.

One example is the Nikon F3 with its accompanying manual-focus Nikkor lenses. It has metal buttons that you have to press firmly, and sharp-edged adjustment rings, such as the one for the aperture on the lens. To set the ISO, you have to lift a ring against spring tension, and zooms are adjusted by hand.

It’s all hard work—perhaps comparable to a pilot switching from an Airbus (a digital camera with touchscreen controls and automatic functions) to a Spitfire (Nikon F3), where there are virtually no automatic features. You fly the Spitfire—and the F3—by hand :cool:

Especially in winter, when it’s cold, that takes some motivation.
 
Andreas Thaler said:
In film photography, there’s also the matter of cameras and lenses, which you actually still have to operate by hand—with a certain feel—just like machines.

One example is the Nikon F3 with its accompanying manual-focus Nikkor lenses. It has metal buttons that you have to press firmly, and sharp-edged adjustment rings, such as the one for the aperture on the lens. To set the ISO, you have to lift a ring against spring tension, and zooms are adjusted by hand.

It’s all hard work—perhaps comparable to a pilot switching from an Airbus (a digital camera with touchscreen controls and automatic functions) to a Spitfire (Nikon F3), where there are virtually no automatic features. You fly the Spitfire—and the F3—by hand :cool:

Especially in winter, when it’s cold, that takes some motivation.
Click to expand...

But that has nothing to do with the cost of film, so it's off-topic—sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top