Daylight Robbery? Too right!

[VirtualAdept]

I see analogue wonderland are selling a film by Mr Negative called Daylight Robbery... at £19 a roll. If you used them for developing with a standard scan, you're looking at nearly £34 for a roll before shipping!
Add to that that the manufacturer recommends overexposing it to make the colours vibrant, and it just sounds like they've done a naff job of the emulsion and are trying to pitch it as quirky, rather than just poor.
The sample photos of the cars look good, being black and red, but the shots with other colours just look awful to me.
Analogue Wonderland listing

 

[Plain Nev]

It's a rich man's game.

 

[stevelmx5]

Looks like another Kodak Vision (cinema film with remjet removed) rebrand. The colours in the example photos look like it.

For £19 per roll there are considerably better colour options available for half the price, such as Kodak Gold.

 

[srichards]

Film is expensive. It's all expensive. Think I worked it out that £2.99 a roll in the 1980s which was typical for cheaper colour film is about £12 now. The £19 film was probably the £5 or £6 a roll stuff which was fairly normal for premium film.

The modern mobile phone is probably the cheapest way of doing photography these days. All the other ways are a lot more expensive.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Film is expensive. It's all expensive.

This true and it always was.

I started selling pictures just to get enough money to buy more film, paper and chemistry. However, once you've got a digital camera, photography is now pretty much free of charge. I think this is the best reason not to spend money on film but the opinions of others will vary.

Another reason for using digital is how much smaller and lighter the equipment can be, as shown by a comparison between a Canon FTQL and a couple of Panasonic GM5s...

 

[stevelmx5]

Film is expensive. It's all expensive. Think I worked it out that £2.99 a roll in the 1980s which was typical for cheaper colour film is about £12 now. The £19 film was probably the £5 or £6 a roll stuff which was fairly normal for premium film.

The modern mobile phone is probably the cheapest way of doing photography these days. All the other ways are a lot more expensive.

There are a lot of rebranders taking what is comparatively cheap Kodak Vision, putting it in a different box and selling it as a niche product. Decent colour film doesn’t have to cost £19 a roll, even from the same company retailing it;

Kodak Gold 200 - 35mm Film

Kodak Gold 35mm film is a colour negative film perfect for all types of photography. With its vibrant colours, fine grain and wide exposure latitude, it can handle any light you throw at it. A firm favourite for analogue photographers around the world!

analoguewonderland.co.uk

I’d take Kodak Gold over any rebranded cinema film as it offers properly consistent colours and no unexpected colour shifts. It’s £12.50 for a single roll of 36 frames but is normally cheaper buying blocks of 5.



I use FilmDev for pretty much all of my standard colour dev/scans and their medium size scans are £8.

Whilst sensors/image processing in mobile phones are clearly very good digitally, they’re a completely different medium.

 

[stevelmx5]

I’ve just looked at a link to bulk-loaded FP4 in another thread and noticed that the company selling that are also selling Kodak Vision 250D (which is most likely what the “Daylight Robbery” film is) for £7.99 per roll;

Kodak Vision 3 250D 35mm 36exp – Analogue Cameras

www.analoguecameras.co.uk

Edit - This has the remjet layer still in place, so needs to be processed as ECN2. The OP film looks to have the layer pre-removed.

 

[lindsay]

I'm beginning to see the trend of companies jumping on the bandwagon to sell sub-standard film as quirky to the folks who've been attracted to the retro aspect of analogue photography, ripping them off while they can. I'm late to that realisation and have fallen for it a bit myself.
However the argument about digital and especially phone-camera photography being cheaper so why bother with film, is missing the point. Sure, if you want to do photography cheaply then use your phone. If you want to do hobby photography cheaply, use a digital camera (higher up-front cost but better for the hobbyist). But people who do film, do it for the craic, not because they want to do photography cheaply or easily, it's a deliberate choice to get more out of the activity than the end-product only. I do both, each has it's attractions.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

However the argument about digital and especially phone-camera photography being cheaper so why bother with film, is missing the point.

I don't know about missing the point but for those who want to do the film thing, I say good luck to them.

In the same vein, there are people who print things using letterpress technology. They use everything from the little Adana presses to home made presses with their own wooden type. I wouldn't be surprised to discover people who make their own half-tone plates and print from them onto handmade paper. For some people the journey seems to be more important than the destination.

 

[stevelmx5]

I don't know about missing the point but for those who want to do the film thing, I say good luck to them.

In the same vein, there are people who print things using letterpress technology. They use everything from the little Adana presses to home made presses with their own wooden type. I wouldn't be surprised to discover people who make their own half-tone plates and print from them onto handmade paper. For some people the journey seems to be more important than the destination.

I think that was the point being made. I use various digital and analogue cameras, as well as my phone, but they have different use cases so one doesn’t really negate the other.

This is the ‘film and conventional’ section, so people are more likely to find enjoyment in the act of using film, rather than simply looking it from a financial perspective. Although, the original purchase price of a digital setup (such as your GM5 that’s probably at least £6-800) is the same as quite a lot of film. Digital isn’t “free”

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Digital isn’t “free”

It can be very close to that.

I have a few very useful digital cameras that cost me about the same price as a roll of colour film or quite a lot less.

This Coolpix S10, last of the twist grip Nikons, cost me £25...



... and has given me several pleasing pictures, such as...

 

[Mozziephotography]

I don't know about missing the point but for those who want to do the film thing, I say good luck to them.

In the same vein, there are people who print things using letterpress technology. They use everything from the little Adana presses to home made presses with their own wooden type. I wouldn't be surprised to discover people who make their own half-tone plates and print from them onto handmade paper. For some people the journey seems to be more important than the destination.

Just been into our village/town and there are loads of football supporters drinking heavily, off to watch 22 men kick a ball about. What a waste of money in my eyes, but it's their choice. I love digital but enjoy snapping with film.

 

[stevelmx5]

It can be very close to that.

I have a few very useful digital cameras that cost me about the same price as a roll of colour film or quite a lot less.

This Coolpix S10, last of the twist grip Nikons, cost me £25...

View attachment 461780

... and has given me several pleasing pictures, such as...

View attachment 461781

Of course, that’s a digital camera with a sensor smaller than half frame which will give completely different results to even a basic point and shoot film camera, and cost considerably less than your GM5 setup.

As I said, people often choose the medium and camera to suit their personal preferences. I’m sure a lot of digital photographers would question your use of a 20 year old compact camera, yet there you are.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I’m sure a lot of digital photographers would question your use of a 20 year old compact camera, yet there you are.

This conversation is about the cost of film and I merely pointed out that it is and always has been a very expensive commodity, whereas digital is now a great deal cheaper for those who are more interested in the image than the process. After making many thousands of wet prints, I no longer enjoy the effort required, yet I wish nothing but fresh developer and an absence of light leaks to those who do.

 

[VirtualAdept]

I'm beginning to see the trend of companies jumping on the bandwagon to sell sub-standard film as quirky to the folks who've been attracted to the retro aspect of analogue photography, ripping them off while they can. I'm late to that realisation and have fallen for it a bit myself.

This was exactly what I was getting at

 

[GetBusyLiving]

I wonder about the wisdom of calling a film Daylight Robbery as, let's face it, you wouldn't buy a phone from 'ImASscammer.com', or a car from WarrantyWhatWarranty.co.uk even if they both doubled the price to make it seem 'exclusive'.

I don't think Stella Artois's 'Reassuringly Expensive' type of ad works that well anymore.

I think the company name 'Mr. Negative' does not exactly fill a buyer with confidence, either.