Expensive film photography?

[antonroland]

Hello everyone

I keep seeing many folks making the statement that film is expensive and I am curious to know how things weigh up between S.A. and the U.K.

I shoot 120 roll, ordered ex B&H, landed in S.A. at about £6 per roll.

I buy ID-11, Perceptol or Microphen at approximately £8-£9 per working liter of working (stock) solution.

I courier colour to a pro lab roughly 400 miles away and I am charged £4 per roll for development.

Scanning works out to just shy of £29 for one roll of 15 645 frames, medium size scans for prints up to A3. These scans are not quite done on the best of the best drum scanners but not on A4 flatbeds either...

This to me is hugely affordable but I would like to know how these rates equate to typical U.K. prices...

Cheers

 

[freecom2]

It's quite simple, really.

Film used to be - expensive to get into (equipment was top of the range and costly), and expensive to maintain with all the consumables you mentioned.

Then most people compare that to digital, which is expensive to get into but relatively cheaper to maintain (there are accessory costs, but they don't really fall into "consumables").

And that's why you get that "film is expensive don't bother" all the time; the thing is, as we all know, film equipment is now so cheap to purchase compared to when it was new that it looks more like this:

Film: cheap to get into, more costly to maintain
Digital: more costly to get into, cheap to maintain

But people love to write off film full stop, so there we are. Often the people who say that film photography is expensive seem to be those who are happy to drop £1000s on new bodies and lenses every few years, but seem slightly oblivious to that fact!

 

[antonroland]

It's quite simple, really.

Film used to be - expensive to get into (equipment was top of the range and costly), and expensive to maintain with all the consumables you mentioned.

Then most people compare that to digital, which is expensive to get into but relatively cheaper to maintain (there are accessory costs, but they don't really fall into "consumables").

And that's why you get that "film is expensive don't bother" all the time; the thing is, as we all know, film equipment is now so cheap to purchase compared to when it was new that it looks more like this:

Film: cheap to get into, more costly to maintain
Digital: more costly to get into, cheap to maintain

But people love to write off film full stop, so there we are. Often the people who say that film photography is expensive seem to be those who are happy to drop £1000s on new bodies and lenses every few years, but seem slightly oblivious to that fact!

Exactly!

 

[mrjames]

happy to drop £1000s on new bodies and lenses every few years, but seem slightly oblivious to that fact!

but the difference is that lenses and bodies still have resale value, if you buy new then you're a fool, but if you buy used you buy at a low and trade on a high then you'll never lose money- particularly on lenses. I've shot my 1dmk3 professionally for 2 years now, and I could sell it tomorrow for what I paid for it 2 years ago- meaning that it cost me nothing.

imagine 2 photographers
photographer A) buys a 5dmk2 second hand for £1000 and a 50mm 1.4 for £200, shoots for a year, doesn't get any better at photography and sells the 5d2 for 800, and the lens for 200- he's lost £200 for a whole year of shooting

photographer B) buys a pentax spotmatic for £20, a takumar 50mm 1.4 for £60, and shoots 1 roll of film a week at a cost of £6 a roll at jessops, and £7 for processing (so £13 a roll- or 36p a shot), after a year that is then £676 and that is money he will never get back, perhaps if he was selling prints he might reclaim that cost, but most likely that is money that just goes to waste- sell the camera and lens for £80 and you're still down £596.

Film is expensive to learn on, I wasted all my pocket money on film, it was only after 20,000 frames on digital that I feel I can do justice to film- although I don't think I really care for the 'film' look that people seem to love about film

 

[excalibur2]

but the difference is that lenses and bodies still have resale value, if you buy new then you're a fool, but if you buy used you buy at a low and trade on a high then you'll never lose money- particularly on lenses. I've shot my 1dmk3 professionally for 2 years now, and I could sell it tomorrow for what I paid for it 2 years ago- meaning that it cost me nothing.

imagine 2 photographers
photographer A) buys a 5dmk2 second hand for £1000 and a 50mm 1.4 for £200, shoots for a year, doesn't get any better at photography and sells the 5d2 for 800, and the lens for 200- he's lost £200 for a whole year of shooting

photographer B) buys a pentax spotmatic for £20, a takumar 50mm 1.4 for £60, and shoots 1 roll of film a week at a cost of £6 a roll at jessops, and £7 for processing (so £13 a roll- or 36p a shot), after a year that is then £676 and that is money he will never get back, perhaps if he was selling prints he might reclaim that cost, but most likely that is money that just goes to waste- sell the camera and lens for £80 and you're still down £596.

Film is expensive to learn on, I wasted all my pocket money on film, it was only after 20,000 frames on digital that I feel I can do justice to film- although I don't think I really care for the 'film' look that people seem to love about film

erm that's not my film costs:-

Film dev and scanned to a CD @ 1 film a week for a year = £208.....For that £208 I have the choice of sixteen 35mm cameras to use (all bought for peanuts) and am not stuck with one boring DSLR.

BTW one film a week for an ordinary amateur is heavy going.

 

[raathistle]

To put film costs into perspective for those of us not shooting in the land of 35mm and the like, it costs me either £35ish for a box of either 20 frames of Astia (unlikely I'll be able to get any more) or the same for 10 shots of portra 160. These then cost £3 each to develop, giving me a total cost of about between £5 and £7ish a shot.

This is all large format colour work (only 4x5) and on a 2 week trip I can shoot about 70 frames. At home it's more like 5 frames in a heavy week.

Large format colour work is expensive all round, but infinitely more enjoyable for me to smaller format or digital, its just a good job I'm single and don't drink like a fish!

 

[freecom2]

but the difference is that lenses and bodies still have resale value, if you buy new then you're a fool, but if you buy used you buy at a low and trade on a high then you'll never lose money- particularly on lenses. I've shot my 1dmk3 professionally for 2 years now, and I could sell it tomorrow for what I paid for it 2 years ago- meaning that it cost me nothing.

imagine 2 photographers
photographer A) buys a 5dmk2 second hand for £1000 and a 50mm 1.4 for £200, shoots for a year, doesn't get any better at photography and sells the 5d2 for 800, and the lens for 200- he's lost £200 for a whole year of shooting

photographer B) buys a pentax spotmatic for £20, a takumar 50mm 1.4 for £60, and shoots 1 roll of film a week at a cost of £6 a roll at jessops, and £7 for processing (so £13 a roll- or 36p a shot), after a year that is then £676 and that is money he will never get back, perhaps if he was selling prints he might reclaim that cost, but most likely that is money that just goes to waste- sell the camera and lens for £80 and you're still down £596.

Film is expensive to learn on, I wasted all my pocket money on film, it was only after 20,000 frames on digital that I feel I can do justice to film- although I don't think I really care for the 'film' look that people seem to love about film

It is expensive to learn on, I definitely recommend digital for learning exposure and the basics.

Most of us here shoot both and know the benefits of both, and fair enough if you don't like the look then so be it. You shoot with what you want, and enjoy it

One roll a week is a huge amount, and rolls and processing don't usually cost that much - especially if you are shooting one roll a week, you'll quickly find cheaper sources for both!

Besides, let's be honest, this hobby is going to cost a fair amount whicher route you go down. Yes, you can only lose a little bit if you buy and sell used, but the outlay is realistically a lot to start with anyway.

 

[mrjames]

erm that's not my film costs:-

Film dev and scanned to a CD @ 1 film a week for a year = £208.....For that £208 I have the choice of sixteen 35mm cameras to use (all bought for peanuts) and am not stuck with one boring DSLR.

where do you get your processing done, because I was going to use club35 and could do with somewhere cheaper

also if I could find film cheaper that would be good too, jessops were doing 3 for 2 so I bought a armful of rolls, but i'm out now

I do like film, I have a 35rc, a zenit e, and a spotmatic- digital I have a pair of 1d's for professional shooting

BTW one film a week for an ordinary amateur is heavy going.

but if you don't take pictures- how are you supposed to improve? If you buy a camera and only shoot 10 frames a week you're not going to get any better as a photographer, sure the better you get the more selective you can be, but in the beginning stages you need to shoot shoot shoot to get a feel for photography, and on film that is very expensive- I improved my eye for photography 10x quicker shooting digitally just because I was taking more pictures

 

[excalibur2]

where do you get your processing done, because I was going to use club35 and could do with somewhere cheaper

also if I could find film cheaper that would be good too, jessops were doing 3 for 2 so I bought a armful of rolls, but i'm out now

I do like film, I have a 35rc, a zenit e, and a spotmatic- digital I have a pair of 1d's for professional shooting



but if you don't take pictures- how are you supposed to improve? If you buy a camera and only shoot 10 frames a week you're not going to get any better as a photographer, sure the better you get the more selective you can be, but in the beginning stages you need to shoot shoot shoot to get a feel for photography, and on film that is very expensive- I improved my eye for photography 10x quicker shooting digitally just because I was taking more pictures

Well Medium format is indeed more expensive and until I can find somewhere convenient and cheap I'm staying with 35mm for the time being. :shrug:
I'm happy with Asda dev and scanned to CD for £3 (with correction in Photoshop) and film at Poundland shop for Asta @ £1 for 36 exposures.

As for learning about photography for anyone? After four rolls of film and reading a book (or using the net) I would have thought the basics would be mastered and from then on if you have the eye it will come naturally for some VG shots.
My standard phrase is:- if you have the eye you can turn a tin can lying in a road into a work of art.

 

[joxby]

The cost of shooting film ?

This type of thread keeps coming up and we go through the rigmarole of comparing.......comparing what ?

I don't really get involved with these threads because being a simple bloke, I have rather simpler thoughts.
To me it is pointless to compare film with digital, its pointless to compare film with anything.
If you want to shoot film then it hardly matters what paint costs, or RC fuel, clay, cake ingredients and wool, or flash cards....non of em will help create an image on film.

I'm watching the cost of film, paper and developing go up, its not great but in all honesty its not like there is an alternative.

Anyway, I shoot 120, its £5 a roll c41 or e6, develop my own B/W and do my own scanning, I think lab prices in SA and GB are comparable, Tesco and Asda stuff......I dunno, I don't use em.

Learning using film ?......digital has only been around for 15 years, film photography a hundred, nobody complained for a hundred years then suddenly its the impossible mission..

 

[richboyphoto]

First off, don't use tesco. Seriously. It seems they scan the photos in a 40 year old dust cave and employ people with long nails only.

Oliver Barton:

“When you calculate buying a digital camera for serious scrilla knowing it will depreciate in value and be defunct in three years and knowing your computer and hard drive storage will suffer the same fate versus film plus processing and a Hasselblad that’s worth the same as it was 15 years ago, they even out pretty equally.”

 

[excalibur2]

The cost of shooting film ?

This type of thread keeps coming up and we go through the rigmarole of comparing.......comparing what ?

I don't really get involved with these threads because being a simple bloke, I have rather simpler thoughts.
To me it is pointless to compare film with digital, its pointless to compare film with anything.
If you want to shoot film then it hardly matters what paint costs, or RC fuel, clay, cake ingredients and wool, or flash cards....non of em will help create an image on film.

I'm watching the cost of film, paper and developing go up, its not great but in all honesty its not like there is an alternative.

Anyway, I shoot 120, its £5 a roll c41 or e6, develop my own B/W and do my own scanning, I think lab prices in SA and GB are comparable, Tesco and Asda stuff......I dunno, I don't use em.

Learning using film ?......digital has only been around for 15 years, film photography a hundred, nobody complained for a hundred years then suddenly its the impossible mission..

Well what else are we going to talk about and don't forget the lurkers or passing thru' guests that might be persuaded to try film as it doesn't have to be expensive.

 

[mrjames]

“When you calculate buying a digital camera for serious scrilla knowing it will depreciate in value and be defunct in three years and knowing your computer and hard drive storage will suffer the same fate versus film plus processing and a Hasselblad that’s worth the same as it was 15 years ago, they even out pretty equally.”

I have killed many more rolls of film than i've ever lost digital images

my 1d3 is 5 years old and my 1ds2 is even older still
the used market price is pretty stable for these cameras now, so as i've already said I could own and shoot them for a year and not lose any money on them

and don't discredit the cost involved in storing shoe boxes full of negatives- if I shot as much film as I do digital half the house would be filled with film- that's £150 a month in 'film storage', and there would be no redundancy


psychologically people (me included) always assume that buying something outright is a better option than renting or 'pay as you go' options

the thing is that digital cameras absolutely sucked for many, many years until quite recently- so naturally a real old digital camera is worthless because it's a god-dam awful camera
the 5d2 is all the camera most people will ever need and will continue to take beautiful pictures for the next 10 years as long as it doesn't break, people who buy the latest and greatest for no real reason just have money to burn

I don't know why people always think they need to go to jessops and buy whatever's out at the time, older cameras still took magical 'best-available-at-the-time' images.

I'd rather a 5d classic than a 650d, and it would be cheaper! I don't need to shoot at iso 25,600 as you get better images with flash anyway, but the thing I hate about film is that you only have one ISO at a time, and iso 800+ is awful, and I can't really trust flash when I can't preview the results as it's so easily thrown off balance.

we could argue all day long about film, but really the truth is that I have a look to my photos that suits digital better than film

 

[freecom2]

There's no argument! If it suits your workflow, then shoot digital. I do for some things. Loads of people on F&C do as well.

Some digital equipment might hold it's value. Decent amount of film equipment holds value.

Just enjoy whatever you prefer to make the image with, whether that be on a piece of direct positive paper with alternative processes, or on a D3100 and kit lens.

The rest of Talk Photography can be so ridiculously argumentative sometimes that I think it can spill over here... not on my watch :bonk:

 

[donut]

i think that some people have a hard time getting their head around the fact that some people use film because they like using film . this film v digital debate ( which is what the thread seems to have gone in the direction of ) will ,and does ,come around again and again ,then its why do people still ride horses , or drive old cars or ride a cycle anywhere if they have a car ,,,etc etc,,,,,
we just enjoy the whole process however far we take that ,some develope , scan ,then print digitally ,others end up wet printing for the final image ,yes it can get a bit pricey ,but then so does going to the pub or smoking ,or looking after horses or renovating old cars ,,,
anyway back to Anton the op ,,,i pay about £3.50 for ilford hp5 plus ( 120 ) and just under £ 5.00 for a litre of ID11 and print the ones i want in the darkroom ( and no i dont charge myself for my time so its cheap )

 

[AJQS]

Shoot black and white - cheap as chips!

Shoot 35mm Slide and you will be spending 5D3 money in no time!

 

[freecom2]

Shoot 35mm Slide and you will be spending 5D3 money in no time!

It's bizarre how much a roll of 35mm slide costs, even more than its medium format equivalent sometimes.

I hate to say this because I love looking at slides through a negative sheet (or should that be a positive sheet?), but slides are the next thing to disappear - it is heinously expensive to shoot with regularly.

 

[excalibur2]

From Wallace Heaton blue book
Film has actually got cheaper? Well in 1964 Kodakchrome II was £1.75 for 36ex, allowing for inflation that would now be about £29.
FP3 was about 30p for 36exp (in 1964)..today would be about £5
Kodak colour neg was 50p today about £8

Colour neg is the winner.

 

[donut]

thats interesting Brian ,,,photography was quite expensive in the early sixties ,so mainly for those with a fair bit of disposable income ,then it turned cheaper as ( i'm thinking maybe ) we went through the seventies eighties and most of the nineties then it started to go digital ( ?) and the price has gone back up again ,almost turning it back to the niche market again. as a couple of ex pm's once said we've never had it so good ( alright reasonable ) all the time i can ,,, i will

 

[excalibur2]

thats interesting Brian ,,,photography was quite expensive in the early sixties ,so mainly for those with a fair bit of disposable income ,then it turned cheaper as ( i'm thinking maybe ) we went through the seventies eighties and most of the nineties then it started to go digital ( ?) and the price has gone back up again ,almost turning it back to the niche market again. as a couple of ex pm's once said we've never had it so good ( alright reasonable ) all the time i can ,,, i will

Probably lack of competition, price fixing (remember trying to get things cheaper with grey imports) but a few oddities like fine grain B/W developing for any size 120 was 10p which is only £1.60 now. Kodak was the major player for colour film so that explains how we were ripped off........and the crowd in the stock exchange were probably keeping the price of silver high

 

[Ambermile]

... not forgetting half frame here

 

[freecom2]

A lot of people are making comparisons to vacuum tube/vinyl manufacturing (regarding Kodak's demise), how we are likely to end up with a good set of small niche companies better suited to smaller markets - Ilford et al., companies that adapt to the market better with smaller machines.

 

[Noah_]

Film isn't going to be expensive to an enthusiast as they'll be willing to pay to maintain their passion. To someone whose just not fussed, of course it's a waste of everything from effort to expense.

 

[Ash.]

I agree that it's not as expensive to get into, but is to maintain.

My film body cost me £35 and 28mm prime for it - £82. (both used of course)

I always look for deals in buying film, and reckon i'd use between 10 and 15 rolls of 35mm a year. developing / scanning them at around £7 a roll. so without doing an sums, £150ish a year for film / dev.

At the end of the day though, if film is a format you enjoy, you're willing to spend money to enjoy that hobby

 

[antonroland]

Some interesting responses here...I think Joxby was the first to go off the rails...all I wanted to know was numbers on chemicals and 120 rolls to see if S.A. prices are way off U.K. prices...

 

[freecom2]

Not especially different, partly because B&H prices are very competitive - obviously shipping, taxes and handling add to that but regardless, still good value.

 

[antonroland]

Not especially different, partly because B&H prices are very competitive - obviously shipping, taxes and handling add to that but regardless, still good value.

Yes, it does seem to be fairly similar...

I only get film from B&H, chemicals are sourced through the local Ilford agents. Scanning is done by a super-pro guy in Cape Town who REALLY knows his stuff.

 

[freecom2]

Yes, it does seem to be fairly similar...

I only get film from B&H, chemicals are sourced through the local Ilford agents. Scanning is done by a super-pro guy in Cape Town who REALLY knows his stuff.

Apologies for the digression, discussion on F&C tends to be a bit more laid back and I'm definitely partly to blame for going off-topic! :bonk:

At least you have local Ilford agents, so the chemicals aren't too expensive - because otherwise those chemicals can be an absolute pain to import, I know the Australians (who already have a hard time trying to do film photography anyway) really struggle when it comes to that.

 

[s162216]

A
I know the Australians (who already have a hard time trying to do film photography anyway) really struggle when it comes to that.

I got talking to an Australian lady on the train up to Glasgow a few months ago and she told me she always used to use a little Ricoh film compact on her travels which was very reliable but she stopped using it and started using the digital equivalent which kept failing and mused that she would like to be able to use her film again. Turns out that film is hardly seen anywhere in Australia now, you can only get it off the internet mainly as few shops sell it and most processing shops etc have gone.

 

[richboyphoto]

I could own and shoot them for a year and not lose any money on them

and don't discredit the cost involved in storing shoe boxes full of negatives- if I shot as much film as I do digital half the house would be filled with film- that's £150 a month in 'film storage', and there would be no redundancy

the thing I hate about film is that you only have one ISO at a time, and iso 800+ is awful, and I can't really trust flash when I can't preview the results as it's so easily thrown off balance.

Sorry to continue but i HAD to reply to this.

a year? a year is no time at all.

£150 a month for shoe box storage in your own house? i'm absolutely baffled as to where you're getting these figures.

Don't use 800+ iso then? not being able to preview the results makes it more fun. you can push film to other ISO's. MF you can have multiple backs for easily changing film/iso speed.

If i was a professional photographer there's no doubt i'd use mostly digi, but as a hobby i find it way more rewarding using film, i believe using film makes you a better photographer, you learn what settings are best for situations rather than just looking at a screen and getting it 'perfect'. Also you wouldn't machine gun the shutter, alot of thought goes into shooting film.

 

[Noah_]

If i was a professional photographer there's no doubt i'd use mostly digi, but as a hobby i find it way more rewarding using film, i believe using film makes you a better photographer, you learn what settings are best for situations rather than just looking at a screen and getting it 'perfect'. Also you wouldn't machine gun the shutter, alot of thought goes into shooting film.

Pretty much how I see things :} well worded.