Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta
Itís possible that I have the wrong attitude. Maybe, if we enjoy film photography, maybe itís emotionally misleading to compare the price of a roll of film to ďwhat it used to beĒ, and better instead to measure $12 against oneís net income for the year, because thatís the real yardstick which should determine whether film at $12 is ďaffordableĒ or not.
If someone is shooting 30-50 rolls a month, thatís one thing, but for those shooting, say, 3 rolls, 100 shots, 3 exposures every day, itís $36 a month. For a hobby that can bring as much satisfaction as photography, still seems really inexpensive to me. When I was making $1.40/hour I am not sure film felt a lot cheaper to me than it does now, but I bought it anyway.
Home economics is always about choices, but thereís not much one would need to give up to scrape together $36 a month.
Film cameras are cheaper than dirt, as well, literally. Try pricing what it costs to have a load of fill dirt delivered. Golf, fishing, sailing, horses, bowling, most every hobby is more expensive than film photography is all I am saying.
Nobody needs to look at it the way I do, certainly.
I have an old box of 120 Kodak Verichrome Pan that expired in 1959 with the price tag still in tact. Film cost: $0.70, Tax: $.03, Total: $0.73. Per a number of inflation calculators I used, the price for the film in 2019 dollars would be $6.44 adjusting for inflation. The price for 120 Tri-X today at B&H is $6.99 when purchased in a 5 pack.
This seems to back up your concept that the cost of film like everything else in life has gone up. And in this case the cost is just about even with inflation.
I would also add that the old adage remains true; film is still the cheapest thing in photography."