Rangitoto2025
Well-known member
There is an option: Learn to process the film by yourself, it's fun and rewarding !
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
3 rolls of 35 mm film have cost me $168.00 including processing!
- Thread starter Gene J. Paull
- Start date
grsnovi
Veteran Member
Considering they now seem to cost close to $7000 new, $1500 seems reasonable.
Overrank
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,920
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 4,436
Apparently there a glut of 120 film on the market at the moment, so you should be able to find some cheap(er). Realistically, prices are never going to be what they were in 2015, because film was being sold at cost as it was cheaper than disposing of it. The prices have dropped a lot though - Kodak Gold is £7.50 whereas in 2019 it used to be about £5 - £6. US prices are lower than the U.K., and the U.K. is lower than lots of other places.
I suspect film prices are back to their historic level now. I suspect the problem is that the film price is compared to the “free” price of d*****l. I do doubt though if in many painting forums they worry too much that pencils are cheaper.
Michael Firstlight
Veteran Member
Phototherm stopped making new units just a few years ago (the main tech went private offering support and rebuilding used machines. Used units should go for only $1500-$3500 depending on their condition, the model (SK4 or SK8 typically), and what they include (the drums etc.). Unfortunately, there's one reseller on eBay that gouges nearly double the going market rate for the used units they resell.
Mike
Fun and rewarding yes!
Free? No. Inexpensive? No. A way to save money on processing? Maybe? End of day, probably not.
Because the chemicals aren't free. A quality scanner and software aren't free. Paper and enlarging hardware aren't free (if you print). Building (or renting time at) a darkroom isn't free. Those are all major-major-major expenses. Do you live in an apartment and you don't have free space to renovate into a darkroom? Welp. SoL I guess.
I love shooting film (!) but there's no rejoinder to how much more expensive it's become since the pandemic.
In February 2020, a 135 roll of Ektar cost $4.95. Portra 400 was $6 or $7, or a five-roll box was ~ $35. Now (if you can find it in stock anywhere, which continues to be a problem) a single 135 36-exposure roll of Ektar will set you back $13.50. One roll! A five-pack of Portra 400 is $74.95. And of course Fuji 400H is just gone, like so many other great, mainstay emulsions.
In early 2020, shooting 135 and having it developed / scanned / returned by a reputable lab cost you ~ $1.25 a frame. Now it's at least $3 a frame. At least. And shooting 120 is considerably more expensive, again, than that.
It's nuts. 135, especially. I guess I can understand "premium" expenses as you push into the quality and artistic reach of medium formats and especially sheet film, but $3 a frame for 135? Ooof.
No wonder the new Pentax 17 is a half-framer--cuts the per-pop cost back down to $1.50!
Overrank
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,920
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 4,436
Warming over the prices from https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64549647
Film prices through the years from the Argos catalogue (at the time and in 2024 GBP). One roll of Kodak consumer film (Kodacolor II, Kodacolor Gold etc) in the largest size listed (20 exp, 24 exp and 36 exp)
Year |Then | Now
---------------------------
1974 | 0.49 |7.05
1975 | 0.66 |8.19
1976 | 0.76 |7.59
1978 | 0.99 |7.33
1981 | 1.49 |7.61
1987 | 3.00 |10.47
1991 | 3.50 |9.46
1996 | 4.50 |10.29
1999 | 3.50 |7.33
Current price for Kodak Gold 200 (Analogue Wonderland) is £7.50
When I first did the table in 2020 film was historically cheap. It’s now at the low end of historic prices.
That it doesn’t feel like it is down to (a) forgetting how expensive film was 20 or 30 years ago, and (b) comparing it to £0 (d*****l)
I’m struck by how expensive film used to be when I compare the number of rolls I took pre-digital, and what I’ve taken since. I probably shoot more film every few years now than I did pre-digital, and that was mostly down to affordability.
Film prices through the years from the Argos catalogue (at the time and in 2024 GBP). One roll of Kodak consumer film (Kodacolor II, Kodacolor Gold etc) in the largest size listed (20 exp, 24 exp and 36 exp)
Year |Then | Now
---------------------------
1974 | 0.49 |7.05
1975 | 0.66 |8.19
1976 | 0.76 |7.59
1978 | 0.99 |7.33
1981 | 1.49 |7.61
1987 | 3.00 |10.47
1991 | 3.50 |9.46
1996 | 4.50 |10.29
1999 | 3.50 |7.33
Current price for Kodak Gold 200 (Analogue Wonderland) is £7.50
When I first did the table in 2020 film was historically cheap. It’s now at the low end of historic prices.
That it doesn’t feel like it is down to (a) forgetting how expensive film was 20 or 30 years ago, and (b) comparing it to £0 (d*****l)
I’m struck by how expensive film used to be when I compare the number of rolls I took pre-digital, and what I’ve taken since. I probably shoot more film every few years now than I did pre-digital, and that was mostly down to affordability.
Last edited:
Bob Janes
Veteran Member
Have you considered doing your own development?
grsnovi
Veteran Member
That might explain their pathetic web presence.
SelrahCharleS
Veteran Member
If you aren't printing you don't need a darkroom. Developing negatives can be done with a Paterson tank and a changing bag. If you also have a digital camera "scanning" with those is low cost and can produce quite good results. Otherwise I agree it's still pretty expensive.
My issue is I shoot film in a low enough volume I have to worry about storage and wasting chemicals by not using them quick enough.
My issue is I shoot film in a low enough volume I have to worry about storage and wasting chemicals by not using them quick enough.
Last edited:
The Point and Shoot Pro
Veteran Member
For developing, I am going with this.
CineStill Film JOBO DUO Film Processing Kit JOBO-DUO-KIT B&H (bhphotovideo.com)
Only because my developer I use is 2.5 hrs away. However, I may just get them to develop everything and I can scan using my epson photo scanner.
CineStill Film JOBO DUO Film Processing Kit JOBO-DUO-KIT B&H (bhphotovideo.com)
Only because my developer I use is 2.5 hrs away. However, I may just get them to develop everything and I can scan using my epson photo scanner.
I loved film photography. In its day. BUT. i would never want to return to those days A lot of expense and cost before one even knew if any pictures were any good and worth saving. Today before i went back to film i would get an i phone. Oh and there was a silly saying at the time. FILM IS CHEAP.
this is really not a helpful response to the op. no one has to shoot film if they don’t want to. but why comment negatively on a forum that is pointless to you?
Gene J. Paull
Senior Member
Hi! I'm the OP. One solution to cut down the costs - wait for the winter months to send film for processing (don't have to use expensive UPS overnite) and just order very low resolution basic scans. Then I can detail scan to .dng with my Coolscan V the ones I really want to process.
Thanks for all the responess.
Thanks for all the responess.
Excuse me. So its just YOUR opinon that counts. If something is put on here that doesn't agree with you its classed as not helpful. He wasn't asking for help. Just stating the Massive high cost of film. I stand by what i said. I loved film. IN ITS DAY. But not today. Far too expensive. FOR ME.
The Point and Shoot Pro
Veteran Member
No, your opinion is valid, just not in this thread. It does not help the OP. Now, if someone was asking if film is worth it today, your comment would hold more water. I, for one, think film is great. Yes, processing is a little expensive, but You can get the awesome pro gear now for pennies on the dollar. Like I can buy a nikon F5 for 400 bucks. The digital equivalent is 5999.00 in the D6. This is just one example.
Plus there is something about film cameras that is not available in digital the mechanical feeling of everything. It's wonderful. Instead of a lame generated shutter noise from a speaker, you get a satisfying "SNICK" then the motor or using a lever to advance the film.
There have been numerous helpful responses to this thread with various suggestions on how the OP can enjoy film at a more enjoyable price. Your comment that film was only cheap "in its day" does nothing to help the OP figure out a way to participate in a hobby he is clearly interested in.
Film may be over for you, but not for everyone. There is no need to rain on someone's idea or asking for help.
Also, if you had read through the entire thread, you would have seen this post that shows current film prices near historical lows.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I still question why you are commenting on a thread for an activity that you wish to avoid.
I don't think you have to wait until winter, although perhaps waiting until late September would be better to avoid the major summer heat; not sure when it starts to really cool down in Texas.
I'd also personally skip low res scans if you plan to scan them yourself anyway. It's an easy expense to cut since you already have a scanner.
Michael Firstlight
Veteran Member
j,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, you've been a DPR member for a long time with many posts I see, but I am curious - why did you post your opinion here in the Film forum? Who are you trying to message and what is your aim, or is it simply to hear yourself in an echo chamber? Your post does smack of being an antagonist - like walking into a massive group chess match and yelling "I hate chess. I used to play it but now I only play checkers!" Yes, your comment comes across to everyone here as ridiculous - what did you expect?
I chalk up these types of posts to a class of people who are either envious, seeking confrontation, threatened, or simply attention seekers to make such comments clearly out of context. regardless of the subject - film, vinyl records, bocce ball, or whatever. As I said, you are entitled to say whatever you want within the TOS, but pretty much everyone here simply finds such behavior ignorant and not useful for maintaining the respect of other DPR members - but some simply don't care about respect.
Mike
--
The one thing everyone can agree on is that film photography has its negatives. It even has its positives and internegatives.
Last edited:
Bill-in-KY
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 213
This post is two months old, and replies, but I'm going to add my thoughts too. First, I would never take film to a place for processing if they don't return negatives. Might as well use digital. One big factor in using film, for me, is to have the "hard copy", the processed film. I can keep it and scan again any time, maybe a bigger scan at some other time.
I haven't used film in a year or so. I just looked this week and found that what I was using has gone up a dollar, at B&H Photo. That is where I was buying it, and where I'll buy more when I get around to it. I switched to them because the shipping cost was lower than at the other place I ordered from. It was the minimum, not jacked up. It is probably more now because the Postal Service has kept increasing their prices.
I used to use Kodak and Ilford, but they got too expensive for me. In the last couple years or so I used film now and then, and I bought Arista Edu, the 200 version. It worked fairly well for me. I was using converted Polaroid cameras, so there was no use in being highly selective of film, which is too expensive for me anyway. It was more of an experimental project. I converted early roll film type Polaroid cameras to use 120 film. I posted info and photos about this in the DIY section over a year ago, maybe two.
I have to be cost conscious, so I developed film myself. I used to do a lot of that many years ago, and still have a developing tank, a simple round one. In recent time, I developed film in the bathroom. I found out about caffinol and tried that. It worked, so I continued with that. I bought Sodium Sulfite and Sodium Thiosulfate through eBay, and got the other common ingredients at Walmart.
Back in 2014, I was using Ilford film and chemicals, and a Yashica LM. That camera is long gone, regrettably. I like Ilford film and chemicals, but cost is a factor. One thing I liked about their fixer was the low smell. I think I used their stop bath too, because it had low smell, low toxicity. Long ago, I used Kodak stop bath and it affected my lungs. It took ten years to get over that. Acetic acid--bad stuff. In recent time, I used caffinol and skipped any "stop bath" solution, just used water to flush out the developer and then quickly added the fixer. It all worked out fairly well. The only roll that came out not good was one in which I agitated too much. Images were still there, but had too much grain, spottiness.
I have an old Epson scanner, "2450 Photo" I use for film, and I have to use an old computer with XP to operate the scanner. I was using a computer with Vista, but it went bad, so I had to hunt for another old computer and found one with XP at a flea market. They are very scarce in flea markets. That's what I use for scanning. Before I found that XP computer, I copied some negatives and slides using a light box I made many years ago and a digital P&S camera. It worked good enough, or fairly well; not first grade I guess, but good enough for my use. I'm not sending stuff to magazines or stock photo agencies.
Here is a photo of my lightbox and camera set-up:
Next is a photo of a negative:
Here is a photo made with my converted Polaroid 800, using Arista Edu 200 film:
This is the Beaumont Inn in Harrodsburg, Ky. This photo was made with my converted Polaroid 800, using Arista Edu 200 film, developed with caffinol.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on all this. Kind of long, but I tend to get lengthy.
I haven't used film in a year or so. I just looked this week and found that what I was using has gone up a dollar, at B&H Photo. That is where I was buying it, and where I'll buy more when I get around to it. I switched to them because the shipping cost was lower than at the other place I ordered from. It was the minimum, not jacked up. It is probably more now because the Postal Service has kept increasing their prices.
I used to use Kodak and Ilford, but they got too expensive for me. In the last couple years or so I used film now and then, and I bought Arista Edu, the 200 version. It worked fairly well for me. I was using converted Polaroid cameras, so there was no use in being highly selective of film, which is too expensive for me anyway. It was more of an experimental project. I converted early roll film type Polaroid cameras to use 120 film. I posted info and photos about this in the DIY section over a year ago, maybe two.
I have to be cost conscious, so I developed film myself. I used to do a lot of that many years ago, and still have a developing tank, a simple round one. In recent time, I developed film in the bathroom. I found out about caffinol and tried that. It worked, so I continued with that. I bought Sodium Sulfite and Sodium Thiosulfate through eBay, and got the other common ingredients at Walmart.
Back in 2014, I was using Ilford film and chemicals, and a Yashica LM. That camera is long gone, regrettably. I like Ilford film and chemicals, but cost is a factor. One thing I liked about their fixer was the low smell. I think I used their stop bath too, because it had low smell, low toxicity. Long ago, I used Kodak stop bath and it affected my lungs. It took ten years to get over that. Acetic acid--bad stuff. In recent time, I used caffinol and skipped any "stop bath" solution, just used water to flush out the developer and then quickly added the fixer. It all worked out fairly well. The only roll that came out not good was one in which I agitated too much. Images were still there, but had too much grain, spottiness.
I have an old Epson scanner, "2450 Photo" I use for film, and I have to use an old computer with XP to operate the scanner. I was using a computer with Vista, but it went bad, so I had to hunt for another old computer and found one with XP at a flea market. They are very scarce in flea markets. That's what I use for scanning. Before I found that XP computer, I copied some negatives and slides using a light box I made many years ago and a digital P&S camera. It worked good enough, or fairly well; not first grade I guess, but good enough for my use. I'm not sending stuff to magazines or stock photo agencies.
Here is a photo of my lightbox and camera set-up:
Next is a photo of a negative:
Here is a photo made with my converted Polaroid 800, using Arista Edu 200 film:
This is the Beaumont Inn in Harrodsburg, Ky. This photo was made with my converted Polaroid 800, using Arista Edu 200 film, developed with caffinol.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on all this. Kind of long, but I tend to get lengthy.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum