KarlG
Established
Yeah, agreed. If it wasn't for shops like Freestyle (although their shipping is so painful it's only worth it for large orders) or the wonders of Ebay, I would find it tough to justify the cost of shooting film.
Still, I've got a guy who can develop my film at $8.80 per roll (both C41 and E6) and I do my own B&W, so that's not too bad at least.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
E-6 and C-41 are expensive to buy and cost more to develop, about 40 cents per shot on 135.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
A question to my Aussie friends: is there not some sort of photo club, or organization, that will band like-minded people together so that ordering from places like Freestyle can become much more feasible, economically?
Seems to me that a hundred or so people, or whatever, banding together, will help everyone save money.
Seems to me that a hundred or so people, or whatever, banding together, will help everyone save money.
gavinlg
Mentor
Paddy C
Unused film collector
At the end of the day film is expensive. I've heard arguments to the contrary but I think them silly.
They usually run along the lines of...if you buy an old slr (with two lenses) for $100 the difference between it and a D700 will buy a lot of film.
With my Pentax 67 I'm at about $1.50/shot shooting colour neg or chrome. And that's after ordering the film from Freestyle or B&H, never mind buying it here in Canada (though not nearly as bad as Australia). And did I mention that's no prints no scans? Obviously less if I shoot and dev my own black and white, but I'm not doing that presently.
Even with moderate shooting and a more apples-to-apples comparison, digital is going to be cheaper in short order.
But when on earth was photography about economy?? I thought it was about spending all you had.
They usually run along the lines of...if you buy an old slr (with two lenses) for $100 the difference between it and a D700 will buy a lot of film.
With my Pentax 67 I'm at about $1.50/shot shooting colour neg or chrome. And that's after ordering the film from Freestyle or B&H, never mind buying it here in Canada (though not nearly as bad as Australia). And did I mention that's no prints no scans? Obviously less if I shoot and dev my own black and white, but I'm not doing that presently.
Even with moderate shooting and a more apples-to-apples comparison, digital is going to be cheaper in short order.
But when on earth was photography about economy?? I thought it was about spending all you had.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I suppose it's all relative.
I'm 71, a self-funded retiree with several cameras to feed. I usually only have film in two.
I shoot selectively with a project in mind - I don't go out and just blaze away. It can take 3-4 weeks to finish a roll. And if I get 3-4 frames I think worthy of printing then I'm OK with that. I've never confused quantity with quality as far as images go.
I buy about three cappuccinos a week @ $3.50 = $10.50. That's a roll of film. With a roll of film I have something at the end of the process. With the coffees I have nothing to show for the expenditure. I play at 2-3 jams each week. A couple of drinks each time @ $5 = at least $20/wk on alcohol - maybe $30. Three more rolls of film. I drive 100km to each jam. In my Subaru diesel that's 5 litres each time or about $15 per week in fuel. Another roll of film.
I don't smoke. Each pack here costs more than a film.
Develop my own film (B&W). Chemical costs recovered by doing B&W development for local camera store @ $5 per roll. Scan my own negatives - need a scanner in the office anyway so no cost. Print selectively on A4 paper - no more than 2-3 from each roll, but Epson ink and Hahnemuehle paper cost is probably $3-4 per print. Let's say the average is $12-$15 print cost per roll. That's roughly the same cost as another roll of film. If I do it in the wet darkroom it's probably somewhere near the same cost - or more if I have to do a number of proofs and test prints.
I could tip the equation towards photography very easily by cutting down the amount of coffee and alcohol I consume. It's a matter of choices made. Do all the people who complain about the cost of photography forego cigarettes, coffee and alcohol so they can spend more on their hobby?
If they choose not to do that, are their complaints to be taken seriously? Probably not. Do they evaluate their images and work on increasing the ratio of 'keepers' to 'also-rans'? Or do they continue to churn through film with a low success rate? I see a lot of images posted in all sorts of galleries and forums that cause me to wonder why the photograph was made at all. If it's part of the learning process, that's fine. But the fact that they get posted for others to look at suggests that some more stringent selection criteria would be a good idea at times.
My point is that photography doesn't have to be expensive. Some discretionary income can be diverted if it's important enough, and some deliberation and restraint in the number of images taken can also help.
It's a lot to do with the decisions we make, and the relative cost of other things in our lives.
I'm 71, a self-funded retiree with several cameras to feed. I usually only have film in two.
I shoot selectively with a project in mind - I don't go out and just blaze away. It can take 3-4 weeks to finish a roll. And if I get 3-4 frames I think worthy of printing then I'm OK with that. I've never confused quantity with quality as far as images go.
I buy about three cappuccinos a week @ $3.50 = $10.50. That's a roll of film. With a roll of film I have something at the end of the process. With the coffees I have nothing to show for the expenditure. I play at 2-3 jams each week. A couple of drinks each time @ $5 = at least $20/wk on alcohol - maybe $30. Three more rolls of film. I drive 100km to each jam. In my Subaru diesel that's 5 litres each time or about $15 per week in fuel. Another roll of film.
I don't smoke. Each pack here costs more than a film.
Develop my own film (B&W). Chemical costs recovered by doing B&W development for local camera store @ $5 per roll. Scan my own negatives - need a scanner in the office anyway so no cost. Print selectively on A4 paper - no more than 2-3 from each roll, but Epson ink and Hahnemuehle paper cost is probably $3-4 per print. Let's say the average is $12-$15 print cost per roll. That's roughly the same cost as another roll of film. If I do it in the wet darkroom it's probably somewhere near the same cost - or more if I have to do a number of proofs and test prints.
I could tip the equation towards photography very easily by cutting down the amount of coffee and alcohol I consume. It's a matter of choices made. Do all the people who complain about the cost of photography forego cigarettes, coffee and alcohol so they can spend more on their hobby?
If they choose not to do that, are their complaints to be taken seriously? Probably not. Do they evaluate their images and work on increasing the ratio of 'keepers' to 'also-rans'? Or do they continue to churn through film with a low success rate? I see a lot of images posted in all sorts of galleries and forums that cause me to wonder why the photograph was made at all. If it's part of the learning process, that's fine. But the fact that they get posted for others to look at suggests that some more stringent selection criteria would be a good idea at times.
My point is that photography doesn't have to be expensive. Some discretionary income can be diverted if it's important enough, and some deliberation and restraint in the number of images taken can also help.
It's a lot to do with the decisions we make, and the relative cost of other things in our lives.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Does that make any real difference at all??
For one thing, film can be used well beyond its expiration date. Put the fifty rolls in your freezer, use them one by one for a few years, and be done with it. Expiry means nothing.
And for another, film has a shelf lifespan rating of several years, and even though a December 2012 film's expiration date might be marginally further away than a January 2012 film's, they're both approximately the same age. It's not like the December film is 12 times better and more durable than the January film just because there's 12 months between them.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's strange in this country (Oz) ... currently we can buy an M9 here as cheaply (cough) as anywhere in the world and the X100 can be bought for under $1200.00 if you look around.
But a roll of HP5+ from the same place that can sell you the said X100 for $1300.00 costs $12.10!
It makes little sense!
But a roll of HP5+ from the same place that can sell you the said X100 for $1300.00 costs $12.10!
It makes little sense!
Thomas78
Well-known
For me, shooting 35 mm film slides ist very cheap.
I pay about 6,3 € for film and 6,6 € for development and framing making 12,9 € for 36 (or even 37 ti 38) slides.
This ist about 0,36 € per image.
In 6x6 it is 4 € for film, about 6 € for development and 12 € for the glass frames. So each of the 12 images costs me about 1,8 €.
I shoot about 20 - 50 rolls of film per year.
The mayority of my expenses in photography are (now) related to the GAS and if I would collect digital bodies as I do with film cameras I would expect "loosing" more money to the dropping value of digital equipment than I spend for film and processing right now while the classical film bodies seem to keep their value.
I pay about 6,3 € for film and 6,6 € for development and framing making 12,9 € for 36 (or even 37 ti 38) slides.
This ist about 0,36 € per image.
In 6x6 it is 4 € for film, about 6 € for development and 12 € for the glass frames. So each of the 12 images costs me about 1,8 €.
I shoot about 20 - 50 rolls of film per year.
The mayority of my expenses in photography are (now) related to the GAS and if I would collect digital bodies as I do with film cameras I would expect "loosing" more money to the dropping value of digital equipment than I spend for film and processing right now while the classical film bodies seem to keep their value.
cambolt
Green Spotted Nose Turtle
Yes, there is: RFF!
Seriously though, unless you shoot incessantly, film could never use up enough money that you would really notice, even in Australia, if you are smart about it. I only shoot about a roll a month at the moment so even at $10 per roll I will keep shooting simply because I love it. I also now have 20 rolls of HP5 which I ordered through this magical thing called the interwebs!