What price would film have to get to to make you give up ?

Messages
3,616
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

What price would film have to get to before you gave up ? would you ditch photography completley or just go digital ? I haven't shot any film for ages partly because of the rising cost, partly just because I've been busy doing other things + working extra hours due to this Virus thing. I don't really have any interest in digital other than snap shots which again has partley added to my lack of photography over all.
 
It's certainly true that when a film goes into double digit prices, I find myself quite unable to buy it! Which is sad as it would be nice to try the new Ektachrome...

OTOH I have a 4x5 camera, so go figure!
 
It would depend on how much my pension drops relative to inflation. I'm assuming employment pension will drop because of the recession, and government pension will probably be frozen to cover the costs of the lockdown.

As things stand, I'm still buying 10x8 FP4 at around £140 for 10 sheets, if that gives a ball park figure that I'm prepared to pay. I'd expose less rather than stop using film. When (if) film stops being made, it will be back to the old days of making your own plates for me. I've made sure I've got all the information I need if this happens. Happily, you can do this with large format. Like Brad, digital doesn't appeal, partly because of the process (it's more complicated) and mainly because the results are not commensurate with the effort.

Back in 1966 or thereabouts, a 36 exposure Kodachrome cost about £36 in today's money, and people were prepared to buy at that price. Granted, it was process paid.
 
It's all relative, join the never ending chase for megapixels and high ISO performance and you are likely to spend just as much.
Can you really put a price on the way film involves you?
 
Does personal enjoyment not come into the equation?

Unable to work due to health , I now have the lowest income that I have ever had throughout my life ( sauf brief periods of unemployment) yet I shoot film, predominantly large format upto and including 10x8 format.
Sometimes fomapan, but often Delta and FP4.

I develop at home and I print my results.

Yes it costs !

No I don’t have unlimited income nor savings.
BUT it is my pleasure in life, like cycling used to be until recently, like cigarettes used to be as a young man.

A pleasure that I enjoy enough to find money to fund it even if that means shooting less frames or printing less prints.

If we truly enjoy something enough, we will find a way to finance it, usually by making sacrifices elsewhere.

Effectively film / paper manufacturers could shoot themselves in the foot by increasing prices too high as although they maintain or increase their profit margins on the individual sale, if the quantity of sales decline, so do their bank balances .

As for digital, I would prefer to stop photography all together, in effect, if digi was my only form of togging then the hobby would come to a halt purely through my lack of interest / inspiration and enjoyment in using the equipment.
 
Back in 1966 or thereabouts, a 36 exposure Kodachrome cost about £36 in today's money,
That's really interesting to know (well at least I think so) there is a tendency to think that film is more expensive now but with Ektachrome at around £16 even with processing it's quite a bit cheaper now than in 1966.
 
I did wonder about the price comparison. The price of Kodachrome and film in general was relatively stable in the 1960s. As we know, some things have dropped dramatically, while others have just as dramatically increased. When I first started work in 1970, my take home pay was £69 per month. Calculators were just becoming popular items, and "Computer Weekly" advised its readers not to buy one until the price dropped below £100.

And on the other side, in 1968 you could buy 3 lbs of fillet steak for the price of a 36 exposure Kodachrome. Would you be prepared to pay that sort of price for a 36 exposure slide film, even if process paid?
 
Well it is probably a combo of mindset of young and old and how much you earn to whether you use film....the younger members in my family think £10 or £20 is nothing but to me with my mindset it is a lot of money even though I know it won't buy anything much these days. If film goes to say £15 per roll I would have to change\force a change in my mindset to buy it.
Can I do it? well dunno.
 
By the time you've paid for cameras, bags, tripods, filters, lens hoods, straps, petrol, train/plane tickets, lunch, hotels, car parking fees, film processing, darkroom chemicals, paper, ink...and goodness knows what else we all shell out on to capture a photo, the cost of the film is negligible unless you're a professional shooting ten rolls a day.

So in answer to the question: I'll stop when I simply can't afford the whole hobby. In the current climate and my life circumstances, that may mean skipping meals to keep snapping...but that's fine. I could do with losing a few pounds ;)
 
I have been quite vocal (by vocal I mean in writing) on here before about this and personally, if the price or availability of film went to a level where I couldn't afford to do it, I am pretty sure that would be the end of photography for me, although I don't have an answer to where the price would have to reach to get there, although as it stands I can't see it.

Like @FujiLove says above, all things considered, the cost of the film is the least of the equation, really and there is always the choice to learn to home develop and scan, both of which I can do but choose not to as labs can get better and more consistent results. I would have LOVED to be around to shoot Kodachrome and it's one of my frustrations that I will never get to, but the price comparison that @StephenM makes above is somethign I didn't realise as even with dev and scan today, the newly introduced Ektachrome is cheaper that that now (it will never be Kodachrome, though).

And as mentioned by @Asha and @Karl.t1965 , personal enjoyment and fulfillment HAS to come into the equation. Some things you shouldnt have to rationalise or justify by weighing up the costs perframe or whatever and to me, this is my main hobby and I love many aspects of it (and get annoyed and frustrated in equal measure) but it would have to be a pretty significant price rise for me to stop altogether.

Also, I have just been lent a Wista 45 by @StephenM and got some of the new Ektachrome which I haven't yet loaded and at £5.60 a frame before dev & scan, it's getting pricey....although @Woodsy tells me it's addictive. Dammit.
 
I bought quite a lot of film a few years ago and now have a stash that should last quite a long time. Not sure what the cost limit would be when the time comes to restock, but above double what I originally paid (a lot of it has already doubled in price, and will be higher still when bits of my stash start to run out). A big factor in using film for me is the cameras themselves and the general mindset when using them - I started when it was all manual and mechanical and I seem to find that easier or more intuitive than cameras that have auto-clever micro-electronicals. (That applies to both film and digital cameras, and I'm not a fan of sensor dust or battery dependence with digital.)

If film did become too expensive, the 35mm and medium format gear would become paperweights (or possibly get sold to wealthy film buyers). The large format gear would remain and be used with early processes that I do from scratch (I also have a good stash of Silver Nitrate and other basic chemicals). I've always had an interest in early processes, and this became stronger when Kodak filed for Chapter 11. That raised a question about the longevity of film, and what I would do if it was no longer manufactured. I reckoned I'd enjoy the slower process of doing everything from scratch and producing relatively few images. I occasionally do a bit of oil painting, which puts image creation time into perspective - a couple of hours to paint a picture is pretty quick, and faffing about with chems and plates or paper isn't all that different.
 
Last edited:
It would depend on how much my pension drops relative to inflation. I'm assuming employment pension will drop because of the recession, and government pension will probably be frozen to cover the costs of the lockdown.

As things stand, I'm still buying 10x8 FP4 at around £140 for 10 sheets, if that gives a ball park figure that I'm prepared to pay. I'd expose less rather than stop using film. When (if) film stops being made, it will be back to the old days of making your own plates for me. I've made sure I've got all the information I need if this happens. Happily, you can do this with large format. Like Brad, digital doesn't appeal, partly because of the process (it's more complicated) and mainly because the results are not commensurate with the effort.

Back in 1966 or thereabouts, a 36 exposure Kodachrome cost about £36 in today's money, and people were prepared to buy at that price. Granted, it was process paid.
I think that film is probably cheaper now than it has ever been. I used to use Agfa Dia-Direct black and white reversal film in the 80's and I remember it around £10 a roll including processing then so would be well over £20 now.
However, in tose days there wasn't any alternative way of making photographs so you had to stump up.
 
I'm a bit like Nomad in that I've got a lot of ood film in my fridge, so only have to buy occasionally. This has recently been 35mm as I am gradually moving bigger, but FPOTY has meant more 35mm being used for me. As far as pricing is concerned, I had noted elsewhere that AW are charging £18 for Fuji Pro 400H, and this is way beyond what I would want to pay for it, but that's me. As prices increase though, I see myself moving more to home processed b&w rather than cutting back or giving up, and supporting Ilford to keep going while their prices remain reasonable. OTOH, I'm tempted to buy a box of Fomapan 100 4x5 at 50 sheets for £37.95 (delivered) to be salted away in the freezer as a hedge against price rises. There's also 50 sheets of 5x7 Fomapan 400 at £52 from another supplier, if that's of interest to anyone who hasn't seen it. ;)
 
Last edited:
OTOH, I'm tempted to buy a box of Fomapan 100 4x5 at 50 sheets for £37.95 (delivered) to be salted away in the freezer as a hedge against price rises.

I did that last year during a couple of Silverprint's 10% off weekends. I think it worked out at about £29 a box (and I bought enough of that and other stuff to get free shipping). I see it's gone up since I got it...
 
I see myself moving more to home processed b&w rather than cutting back or giving up, and supporting Ilford to keep going while their prices remain reasonable.

I'm doing the same. Shooting, developing and printing almost exclusively with Ilford products now. Using up my old stash of Kodak film and chemicals, not because they're of lower quality, but they're definitely getting expensive and I really want to support Ilford as much as possible.

BTW, their new MGV RC is excellent.
 
Lovely thread, some very eloquent comments on why folk here do what we do, that I heartily endorse. Thank you.
 
I'm not sure I agree with those of you who see the equipment as the main cost, in this context. The question is what price of film would make you give up, if you are currently shooting film (and I presume you are if you are on here) then you already have the kit and providing your kit keeps working (and you don't suffer from GAS then the cost of it is irrelevant to the question. For me, I shoot both film and digital, digital for any casual shooting and digital MF for landscape but when I know I am going to shoot specifically (rather than just out with a camera) I will shoot on film, 35mm for general/travel and MF for landscape. I am fortunate in that current film prices are easily affordable to me and even double would not be unaffordable but that is because I shoot film with purpose rather than all the time exclusively.
 
It's all relative, join the never ending chase for megapixels and high ISO performance and you are likely to spend just as much.
Can you really put a price on the way film involves you?

That's an oft repeated statement that doesn't really hold up. Digital stills tech matured a while ago so you don't need to buy the latest and greatest, and film shooters can spend just as much on gear.

I shoot at the moment a Nikon F, Mamiya 645 and Fuji X100s. All three cameras roughly cost the same secondhand, but of course I don't need to spend on Ektar and dev/scan for the X100s
 
Back
Top