It’s funny to think that people will use digital, which cost little in the moment, to capture their family moments like birthdays, yet spend a ton of money on film to shoot random things like gas stations and basketball hoops. In twenty years which of these photos do you think people will actually want to look at?
I'm never inclined to go back and look at digital photos. Some people print the digital ones so they can do exactly that, but then you're kind of edging switching to film. I'm very inpatient as a person (A.D.D. - aka I need my dopamine NOW), however the time to get film developed and photo's printed creates the motivation to go and look back at photos. Since there is a lot of effort and patience put in. Plus it looks great.
My comment here is more a reflection about what was said in the video, that back in the day people only bought film to shoot family moments, they didn’t spend money to take photos of random things like gas stations. But the today those special family moments are taken on digital which costs little, and people are going out of their way to spend money to take pictures of gas stations. Which is interesting because the family photos are more valuable than the gas station photos. To me at least any way.
The standing joke for much of film era post WW2 was having to bear through a friend or family members slide show of their vacation trip to Grand Canyon or Yosemite. I am Baby Boomer that has gone back to film. I got my first real camera when I was 18 in 1970. It was a Yashica A TLR. It wasn’t anything close to a top tier medium format camera. Photography never has been cheap hobby. By 1972, I had my first 35mm SLR. A Canon TL QL. Even though Canon was already selling their FD lens equipped cameras. i used this camera with FL lenses until 1980 when I replaced it with a Canon AT-1, their manual version with the A series of cameras. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that I picked up a used Canon A-1, and really started acquiring a decent selection of But most people shooting film weren’t taking pictures as a hobby, they were recording life’s special occasions and events. And it was recorded on negative color film. And frequently it was shot on 24 exposure rolls. Less expensive, and youbb” and it was never cheap. This was Kodak’s bread and butter, snapshots. Then there were the amateur photographers. There has always been different tiers of amateur. There has been those that could afford Leicas and Hasselblads. In high school, I had a teacher that was shooting with a Hasselblad, but I learned darkroom from a professor in college that did portraits with a Yashica Mat and shot weddings on a Pentax Spotmatic. It ain’t ever been cheap. Back to film. Serious folks never shot negative color(except), we shot black and white or color slide film. The dream was to generate something that could be sold as stock or as prints for competition. The only time you shot film was when you shot a friend or family members wedding (I hate weddings). Or shot a birthday, anniversary, or some other family event. But it cost money to purchase film and get it processed. Everybody had a cache of unprocessed film that they were waiting to get processed when it wouldn’t sink you to pay for it. Very few kept film in the fridge. You bought it when you could. Digital made it easy, but not as much fun.
The funny thing is now I love going through their vacation photos. I'll sometimes buy people's old slides at estate sales and scan em, I absolutely love finding neat things like their 1982 vacation in Paris, that trip to New York in 1968 amazing and beautiful look at history. One of my favorites I found was a woman's old large format (4x5)! of half dome and Yosemite.
Depending on how tired you get messing with film, I can see your point to a degree. If I was to shoot film today, it would be exclusively black and white. I would develop the negs and scan them myself. My experience with labs recently was terrible. That cemented my dedication to my wonderful and incredible Sony cameras. I was a Nikon guy in the film days. I realized that I still had lots of fun as I did in the past. I also realized how much waste was created in film days. Now I have a couple of SD cards in my A7R3. I can delete or save images. I don't have chemicals to deal with. I can print only those images I want. I can upload a photo to social media like Flickr if I choose. The point is that photography is fun no matter the medium you use. It's the benefit of not creating waste, having prints made no one cares about or are so terrible you throw them away. The delete key on my computer works wonders. Do I miss film? Hell no.
Great vid. I think the point that most people weren’t buying film to use on a regular basis is equivalent to most people don’t buy digital cameras. They buy a phone and take pictures without much thought.
And lets not forget how much a modern day smart phone costs (and thats without network costs), the same if not more than an entry level to Pro-Am digital camera (and thats without a lens).
I second the “without much thought”. I’ve had to grab a phone from someone‘a hands and turn it 90 degrees on occasion. Like when a group shot is being taken. I might be married to one particular person that this scenario describes.
@@nickpalance3622 Damn cellphones didn't create photographers. They are worse than snap shooters with an instamatic. A $300 cellphone by Apple sells for $1,000 or more. Yep, it doesn't cost much to make a phone. Not much inside the little case. Or course, that Apple iPhone user will upgrade next year or to just to keep up with the Jones. And the cost of a cellphone grows each month, phone bill. A camera is purchased once. No lease, no subscription.
The key is to develop and scan on your own! Film photography on a budget: Minolta x300/370 or SRT Fomapan 100 Light-tight Changing bag Peterson tank Bottle of Rodonal Adofix DIY scanning setup (old DSRL + macro lens+ old enlarger stand + LED light panel) ----- 500-600 USD one time payment + ca 6-7 USD/roll
Even cheaper if you bulk roll Fomapan. Around 3€ per 36 exposures roll (film and chemicals included). The thing is to find a bulk roller for cheap. I paid mine 15€ 2 years ago.
This is so true. I would add, If your'e really keen its not much more to print your own. I just bought a 35mm LPL enlarger for...AUD$20. the rest of it, three trays, some cmeicals are cheap.
@@stratocactus thats how I started a while back: - 30€ sovjet slr - 50€ patterson tank and chemicals - 30€ changing bag - 30€ used flatbed - 70€ bulk roller - 50€ 100ft fomapan 400 thats like sub 300 euro for the first 20ish rolls. If I would pay for normal rolls, development and scanning that would already be 300€ in 20 rolls
About seven years ago I bought ten rolls of velvia and a nikon f4, which uses all the same lenses as my dslrs. I only shoot film those rolls on holiday. I've never been more thankful for my hoarding ways 😂
Before 2020, the thrift stores and charity shops were filled with vintage digital and film cameras, I was buying up film cameras for about $10.00 max, some with excellent lens. Currently nothing is close to it now, just got some Kodak Gold 36 exp. , shot a roll cost me around $15.00 to get the negatives processed locally. I do all my scanning at home. Had I not invested in the time before 2020 with gear, it could be a lot more expensive. I think I managed at least 30+ film cameras in less than 2 years, paid maybe $400.00 for all them. Hard to fine cameras now. The development is the real cost here, back in the 70s through the 90s there were more labs competing for business. Now few and far between. I agree, we have this love/ hate cost thing with gear and film, but having grown up in both, it is part of the hobby or profession.
Ironically I've gotten into film very very late but I find that Japan is your best bet for lower priced everything, I got a nikon F2as in extremely good condition for £212, an equivalent condition cam here in the UK runs a minimum for £350 which is nuts
A nice vid and comparison between prices in different eras. Film was never cheap nor prohibitively expensive in the last decades. You went on vacation and came back with a couple of 36 rolls to print, no biggie, but 5-10 rolls is a whole other story. We are spoilt by digital where you come back with a few hundred photos and no need to print.
I honestly just started printing out 4x6 images every 2 weeks of the digital photos I took and keep them in envelopes or give them to people. Filled the gap when people talk about film being more of a *physical* experience. Honestly, if you’re actually working on projects, printing your stuff etc. it should be all the *tactile* you need in photography…..which most film photographers aren’t even doing. Most film photographers have never even looked at a contact sheet of their work. Photography can be that way using digital or film. It’s a choice.
When I started shooting seriously, a roll of Ektachrome plus processing, was a sizeable chunk of my wages back then. I was commonly shooting two or three rolls every weekend, covering motorsports and anything that took my fancy. Frankly, I don't know how I afforded it. I have a fridge full of colour and black/white film, but to adequately test out the cameras I have acquired in the past decade and half, I mostly shoot the mono, as it's far, far cheaper and I process at home. Only about 10% ever gets printed, using a hybrid workflow, but I've always got the negs for future use. After a couple of hard drive failures and losing a lot of stuff a decade back, I have all my digital images and scans well backed up, more than I thought I did at that time.
I appreciate that you acknowledge the fact that the longer time goes on, the lower the price of the product gets relative to inflation. But it is most definitely not cheap, and I would say borderline expensive; I’ll do a rough price breakdown. So I bought a Canon 70D earlier this year, unfortunately I bought it at something of a high price but hindsight 20:20; I got a fairly nice condition Pentax K1000 as a gift from someone. Canon 70D + 64GB SD card: $365 K1000: $200 (that’s a conservative estate of what it would have been if I would have bought it used) + 36 exposure Kodak UltraMax 400: $9 = $209 development+scan: $10 Development: $7 So you’re out a lot less for the K1000 at first, but with 18 rolls you’re about the same price as the 70D and SD, and that’s 648 photos; but that’s not including development, which would bring your 648 photos to $1,134. I have taken over 3,000 photos with my 70D, now yes a lot of those are fooling around because I can on digital, but I’ve learned a lot also. And I’m fortunate to have an affordable and (supposedly) decent lab less than a 20 minute drive away from me; most places charge around $13 for development not including shipping which is probably $7! That is $29 for 36 exposures of UltraMax! Yes Gold is slightly cheaper, and I mean slightly, but it’s still not cheap. And it seems as though Porta 400 is quite a popular film even amongst amateurs (most don’t even know how to take good enough pictures for Portra to make sense for them) which I can only find for $75 for 5 rolls which is about $15 per roll… Don’t get me wrong, film seems cool, that K1000 is my first ever film camera, and I’ll be receiving Kodak Gold and UltraMax in the mail on Tuesday which I’m really excited about. I just did the light seals and the mirror damper on it too, but it will be novelty that I’ll take like 3 rolls a year with if I even like it enough to.
I think its more about how film photography has a way lower cost of entry than more up to date digital, so people who cannot or less willing to splurge on a digital suite (like young people) are able to get into film, but relative to their film gear the recurring cost of film and all the things it needs done is expensive. Would also say that in this age we have way too many avenues to spend our money like streaming services, eating out, other hobbies ect. and it seems film photography does not take priority over most of them
Mamiya RB67 body cost 550 dollars in 1975. Today that would be 3250 dollars.! Film prices today are about the same. Film prices have always fluctuated up and down determined by the market price of silver. Lab processing has always been expensive. Serious photographers always developed their own film which is way, way cheaper. High end film cameras are incredibly low priced today. They were even cheaper 15 years ago when the used market was saturated with film cameras as people converted to digital. Today film cameras hold their value or even increase in value, so you'll probably get your money back if you decide to sell. Film newbies go into film from digital with the mindset that they should machine gun everything in sight instead of slowing down and being more selective.
I buy kentmere 35mm 36 exposure film for about $6 develop in cinestill df96 that costs $20 and can develop at least 15 rolls and scan at home with my fuji digital camera so that is under $10 a roll or the cost of a big mac meal. Not a bad deal
Photography is actually always a relatively expensive hobby (film or digital) even back in the 80s and 90s, adjusted with inflation. The only time film photography getting quite cheaper-ish is around 2010-2020. Where people start moving into digital photography or using phone as their main camera. People are dumping their old film camera, and company need to empty their film stock before it's expiring, selling it cheaply.
And how many rolls do people typically go through? I tortured myself trying to figure out the most economical way to shoot film, and then it turns out I shoot on average like two rolls a month lol. Some times I'll do much more, but even so, the $10 a roll for what I typically shoot plus $15 for dev and a good scan, it's no big deal.
I think people are unrealistic or unwilling to spend money on a hobby. I understand people may be short of cash at the moment but try taking up painting! The price of oils and acrylics, mediums, good brushes...it just goes on and on. One tube of reasonable paint (small) $16. Try sailing; Skiing; Rock climbing? $23 for a day (that's a roll of film and home developing). Sure, there are cheap hobbies but there are way more expensive ones. Photography is more than just a hobby or a skill; it's an art form that captures humanity, vision, and poetry in every frame. Make each one count.
Bruh, with the cost of living today, and one roll of film costing $30+ for cost of film, developing and postage, plus scans, FILM PHOTOGRAPHY IS EXPENSIVE. If you shot one roll per week that’s $120 per month, that’s nearly $1500.00 per year. So that’s assuming you shot about 50 rolls in one year, which equals to 50x30= 1500 shots. So roughly we’re paying $1 per shot. That’s like buying a digital camera and lens for $1500 and only taking 1500 shots and then throwing it away. Nah Bro, FILM IS WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to make any economic sense at all.
1. shoot cheaper film, develop and scan yourself and you’ll see your price drop significantly lol. 2. if you don’t like thst your hobby is expensive, you could always pick a different hobby lol
@@mikeratledgeguy sunny, I’m in my late 50’s and I’ve shot film for over 35 years. Done it, been there, never going back. I was also a camera collector, had over 200 quality cameras, 35mm and MF. Sold everything one by one a few years ago but just kept one film camera for just in case. Too much time, money, and mess. Film is dead for people that have actually shot it for most of their lives. It’s only for the new hipsters with their scargly beards and going through a phase of finding themselves. It’s a phase, don’t worry you’ll soon be over it after doing it for 5-10 years. Mark my words, I can almost guarantee it.
I am close to 50, learned and shot film for longer then digital and I am still using for for few reasons, main being longevity of film. Digital photos will vanish in time like tears in the rain, negative will most likely outlive any not printed digital photo and lots of printed ones. I kinda enjoy thought that maaaaaaaybe someone will look at my photos when I am long gone and enjoy little trip to past. Also those young hippies enjoy film cause it is not screen, AI, smartphone etc related. Sort of digital detox hobby and I think that sentiment of having something analog in digital world will only grow. May not be understandable for us who grew with film, but for gen. Z and newer generations it may be very appealing.
we can always cut some cost of film buying a bulk ,or going by vision type of film or even a black and white, second where we can save some is developing and scanning at home, developing is very easy and whit some new type of chemistry is even idiot resistant :)
I have been shooting film for over 50 years now and I do see your point to some extent. However, Kodak and Ilford constantly pushing prices up on nearly monthly basis does not help, particularly as digital alternative is much much cheaper to operate and maintain. The prices of film cameras too are on an upward spiral. The main factor being that nobody is making film cameras and what is available on the market now is what there is and that is it. I don't really see how this could be sustained in the long run, sadly. BTW, I wonder if you knew that the chap you featured in your 1970s clips was the late Lord Patrick Lichfield AKA, The Earl Of Lichfield who was a reknowned 1970s fashion photographer and he belonged to the British Royal family. I met him twice. A very well mannered and well dressed man. Those who have travelled in England would have probably seen his estate ' City Of Lichfield ' just north of Birmingham. Just a bit of extra info, I thought. Good Show BTW.
200 for used film camera, 600 for used digital camera. add 100 dollars for SD cards and other things. say 12 dollar + 7 dollar for developing so 19 dollars for 36 shots or $0.52 per shot. say a person buys a camera to use for 50k shots. this is $700 for digital and $26,200 for film. film is clearly exponentially more expensive even comparing old used film camera vs top of the line brand new mirrorless camera. That said, there is something about the look of film that is incredibly difficult to achieve with digital cameras. although I have seen it achieved. either by really dialing in LUTs/picture profile/film emulations etc. or in post using lightroom or alternative.
I often think about the collectibility of film cameras. Like you can get all manner of different lenses for around $100. If you want to collect modern gear you’re paying minimum $1000 for a lens and $3000 for a body. It’s a much cheaper way to go about feeding your GAS. Still the real issue is the GAS in the first place anyway😂
It is many factors. Hardly any competition nowadays to beat this ones prices etc... Plus film is still a Niche thing so it will be expensive. A roll of 120 film is a dollar or 2 cheaper then 35mm film. And unfortunately f Places like 5 belwo and Target carry ilm prices don't fluctuate like gas prices. I did notice that the price of Harmon phoenix 200 film has dropped . And I remember when the dollar stores sold rolls of film. Target sells film again and so does 5 below.
Nice video. But I think that the problem is not really the price and inflation in itself. The problem is the lack of purchasing power today vs then. The purchasing power of a currency is the amount of goods and services that can be bought with one unit of the currency. For example, one U.S. dollar could buy 10 bottles of beer in 1933. Today, it’s the cost of a small McDonald’s coffee. In other words, the purchasing power of the dollar-its value in terms of what it can buy-has decreased over time as price levels have risen. Another good example is that real estate looks something like: Median home prices increased by 195% since the 1960s, while median household income only increased by 26%. So there's more to it than just the cost and inflation comparison. Most of us are just paid less in comparison to before.
Thanks for the great video I'm on a budget so use Kentmeir and Feamo action in 400 speed as well as a half frame and yes its the Pentax 17 which I treated my self to as I had saved hared for many thanks .
@@jonjanson8021 I'm an internationally published documentary photographer. I've shot film for over 45 years. It's ridiculously expensive, even if you develop it yourself. I've developed thousands of rolls of film. I shoot digital cameras now, like most people. Wish you all the best!
Its also just not fair to compare the cost of film to digital because you're not getting the same product. There's not a physical thing associated with digital.
Films are steadily become expensive. Sure. But I never bought more than 3 rolls (mostly shoot in 120) per month. Once I accumulate enough rolls, then will stop buying until all of them are finished. Gear wise, I'm happy with Rolleicord and Mamiya C TLR. No need to buy a Hasselblad (yet). There you go. We still can enjoy shooting film without breaking the bank.
When digital cameras were first becoming commonly available (maybe mid to late '90's) there was a device that replaced the film with a digital sensor. It never became popular because it was expensive and didn't work very well, and digital cameras were becoming more affordable.
It's hilarious how people will subscribe to spotify, netflix, hulu, disney plus, but refuse to buy a 3 pack of Fuji 400 for 24 bucks
that's over 50 USD in Japan
It’s funny to think that people will use digital, which cost little in the moment, to capture their family moments like birthdays, yet spend a ton of money on film to shoot random things like gas stations and basketball hoops. In twenty years which of these photos do you think people will actually want to look at?
I'm never inclined to go back and look at digital photos. Some people print the digital ones so they can do exactly that, but then you're kind of edging switching to film. I'm very inpatient as a person (A.D.D. - aka I need my dopamine NOW), however the time to get film developed and photo's printed creates the motivation to go and look back at photos. Since there is a lot of effort and patience put in. Plus it looks great.
Seems like a giant generalization, fam.
Probably the gas station since I won't have to dig through 200 icloud photos of my breakfast.
My comment here is more a reflection about what was said in the video, that back in the day people only bought film to shoot family moments, they didn’t spend money to take photos of random things like gas stations. But the today those special family moments are taken on digital which costs little, and people are going out of their way to spend money to take pictures of gas stations. Which is interesting because the family photos are more valuable than the gas station photos. To me at least any way.
@@Numin- bruh what? Printing has and will always be part of photography no matter what medium you use...
The standing joke for much of film era post WW2 was having to bear through a friend or family members slide show of their vacation trip to Grand Canyon or Yosemite. I am Baby Boomer that has gone back to film. I got my first real camera when I was 18 in 1970. It was a Yashica A TLR. It wasn’t anything close to a top tier medium format camera. Photography never has been cheap hobby. By 1972, I had my first 35mm SLR. A Canon TL QL. Even though Canon was already selling their FD lens equipped cameras. i used this camera with FL lenses until 1980 when I replaced it with a Canon AT-1, their manual version with the A series of cameras. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that I picked up a used Canon A-1, and really started acquiring a decent selection of
But most people shooting film weren’t taking pictures as a hobby, they were recording life’s special occasions and events. And it was recorded on negative color film. And frequently it was shot on 24 exposure rolls. Less expensive, and youbb” and it was never cheap. This was Kodak’s bread and butter, snapshots.
Then there were the amateur photographers. There has always been different tiers of amateur. There has been those that could afford Leicas and Hasselblads. In high school, I had a teacher that was shooting with a Hasselblad, but I learned darkroom from a professor in college that did portraits with a Yashica Mat and shot weddings on a Pentax Spotmatic. It ain’t ever been cheap.
Back to film. Serious folks never shot negative color(except), we shot black and white or color slide film. The dream was to generate something that could be sold as stock or as prints for competition. The only time you shot film was when you shot a friend or family members wedding (I hate weddings). Or shot a birthday, anniversary, or some other family event. But it cost money to purchase film and get it processed. Everybody had a cache of unprocessed film that they were waiting to get processed when it wouldn’t sink you to pay for it. Very few kept film in the fridge. You bought it when you could.
Digital made it easy, but not as much fun.
The funny thing is now I love going through their vacation photos. I'll sometimes buy people's old slides at estate sales and scan em, I absolutely love finding neat things like their 1982 vacation in Paris, that trip to New York in 1968 amazing and beautiful look at history. One of my favorites I found was a woman's old large format (4x5)! of half dome and Yosemite.
Thanks for watching and commenting, Steve! Love to hear the perspective of you guys, before my time!
Depending on how tired you get messing with film, I can see your point to a degree. If I was to shoot film today, it would be exclusively black and white. I would develop the negs and scan them myself. My experience with labs recently was terrible. That cemented my dedication to my wonderful and incredible Sony cameras. I was a Nikon guy in the film days. I realized that I still had lots of fun as I did in the past. I also realized how much waste was created in film days. Now I have a couple of SD cards in my A7R3. I can delete or save images. I don't have chemicals to deal with. I can print only those images I want. I can upload a photo to social media like Flickr if I choose. The point is that photography is fun no matter the medium you use. It's the benefit of not creating waste, having prints made no one cares about or are so terrible you throw them away. The delete key on my computer works wonders.
Do I miss film? Hell no.
Great vid. I think the point that most people weren’t buying film to use on a regular basis is equivalent to most people don’t buy digital cameras. They buy a phone and take pictures without much thought.
Yep, bingo. Photography has a much higher barrier to entry back then, versus nowadays, literally everyone has a camera at all times.
And lets not forget how much a modern day smart phone costs (and thats without network costs), the same if not more than an entry level to Pro-Am digital camera (and thats without a lens).
I second the “without much thought”. I’ve had to grab a phone from someone‘a hands and turn it 90 degrees on occasion. Like when a group shot is being taken. I might be married to one particular person that this scenario describes.
@@nickpalance3622 Damn cellphones didn't create photographers. They are worse than snap shooters with an instamatic. A $300 cellphone by Apple sells for $1,000 or more. Yep, it doesn't cost much to make a phone. Not much inside the little case. Or course, that Apple iPhone user will upgrade next year or to just to keep up with the Jones. And the cost of a cellphone grows each month, phone bill.
A camera is purchased once. No lease, no subscription.
The key is to develop and scan on your own!
Film photography on a budget:
Minolta x300/370 or SRT
Fomapan 100
Light-tight Changing bag
Peterson tank
Bottle of Rodonal
Adofix
DIY scanning setup (old DSRL + macro lens+ old enlarger stand + LED light panel)
-----
500-600 USD one time payment + ca 6-7 USD/roll
Even cheaper if you bulk roll Fomapan. Around 3€ per 36 exposures roll (film and chemicals included). The thing is to find a bulk roller for cheap. I paid mine 15€ 2 years ago.
This is so true. I would add, If your'e really keen its not much more to print your own. I just bought a 35mm LPL enlarger for...AUD$20. the rest of it, three trays, some cmeicals are cheap.
@@stratocactus thats how I started a while back:
- 30€ sovjet slr
- 50€ patterson tank and chemicals
- 30€ changing bag
- 30€ used flatbed
- 70€ bulk roller
- 50€ 100ft fomapan 400
thats like sub 300 euro for the first 20ish rolls.
If I would pay for normal rolls, development and scanning that would already be 300€ in 20 rolls
Inflkation adjusted metrics are insane....but no one is doing the math...Thank you for this video! Very well explained.
About seven years ago I bought ten rolls of velvia and a nikon f4, which uses all the same lenses as my dslrs. I only shoot film those rolls on holiday. I've never been more thankful for my hoarding ways 😂
Before 2020, the thrift stores and charity shops were filled with vintage digital and film cameras, I was buying up film cameras for about $10.00 max, some with excellent lens. Currently nothing is close to it now, just got some Kodak Gold 36 exp. , shot a roll cost me around $15.00 to get the negatives processed locally. I do all my scanning at home. Had I not invested in the time before 2020 with gear, it could be a lot more expensive. I think I managed at least 30+ film cameras in less than 2 years, paid maybe $400.00 for all them. Hard to fine cameras now. The development is the real cost here, back in the 70s through the 90s there were more labs competing for business. Now few and far between. I agree, we have this love/ hate cost thing with gear and film, but having grown up in both, it is part of the hobby or profession.
Ironically I've gotten into film very very late but I find that Japan is your best bet for lower priced everything, I got a nikon F2as in extremely good condition for £212, an equivalent condition cam here in the UK runs a minimum for £350 which is nuts
A great analysis! I thought I had heard this somewhere before, but I love your in depth explanation.
Thanks for watching!
A nice vid and comparison between prices in different eras. Film was never cheap nor prohibitively expensive in the last decades. You went on vacation and came back with a couple of 36 rolls to print, no biggie, but 5-10 rolls is a whole other story.
We are spoilt by digital where you come back with a few hundred photos and no need to print.
Love the new backdrop, man!
I honestly just started printing out 4x6 images every 2 weeks of the digital photos I took and keep them in envelopes or give them to people. Filled the gap when people talk about film being more of a *physical* experience. Honestly, if you’re actually working on projects, printing your stuff etc. it should be all the *tactile* you need in photography…..which most film photographers aren’t even doing. Most film photographers have never even looked at a contact sheet of their work. Photography can be that way using digital or film. It’s a choice.
When I started shooting seriously, a roll of Ektachrome plus processing, was a sizeable chunk of my wages back then. I was commonly shooting two or three rolls every weekend, covering motorsports and anything that took my fancy. Frankly, I don't know how I afforded it.
I have a fridge full of colour and black/white film, but to adequately test out the cameras I have acquired in the past decade and half, I mostly shoot the mono, as it's far, far cheaper and I process at home. Only about 10% ever gets printed, using a hybrid workflow, but I've always got the negs for future use.
After a couple of hard drive failures and losing a lot of stuff a decade back, I have all my digital images and scans well backed up, more than I thought I did at that time.
I appreciate that you acknowledge the fact that the longer time goes on, the lower the price of the product gets relative to inflation. But it is most definitely not cheap, and I would say borderline expensive; I’ll do a rough price breakdown.
So I bought a Canon 70D earlier this year, unfortunately I bought it at something of a high price but hindsight 20:20; I got a fairly nice condition Pentax K1000 as a gift from someone.
Canon 70D + 64GB SD card: $365
K1000: $200 (that’s a conservative estate of what it would have been if I would have bought it used) + 36 exposure Kodak UltraMax 400: $9 = $209
development+scan: $10
Development: $7
So you’re out a lot less for the K1000 at first, but with 18 rolls you’re about the same price as the 70D and SD, and that’s 648 photos; but that’s not including development, which would bring your 648 photos to $1,134. I have taken over 3,000 photos with my 70D, now yes a lot of those are fooling around because I can on digital, but I’ve learned a lot also.
And I’m fortunate to have an affordable and (supposedly) decent lab less than a 20 minute drive away from me; most places charge around $13 for development not including shipping which is probably $7! That is $29 for 36 exposures of UltraMax!
Yes Gold is slightly cheaper, and I mean slightly, but it’s still not cheap.
And it seems as though Porta 400 is quite a popular film even amongst amateurs (most don’t even know how to take good enough pictures for Portra to make sense for them) which I can only find for $75 for 5 rolls which is about $15 per roll…
Don’t get me wrong, film seems cool, that K1000 is my first ever film camera, and I’ll be receiving Kodak Gold and UltraMax in the mail on Tuesday which I’m really excited about. I just did the light seals and the mirror damper on it too, but it will be novelty that I’ll take like 3 rolls a year with if I even like it enough to.
I think its more about how film photography has a way lower cost of entry than more up to date digital, so people who cannot or less willing to splurge on a digital suite (like young people) are able to get into film, but relative to their film gear the recurring cost of film and all the things it needs done is expensive. Would also say that in this age we have way too many avenues to spend our money like streaming services, eating out, other hobbies ect. and it seems film photography does not take priority over most of them
Mamiya RB67 body cost 550 dollars in 1975. Today that would be 3250 dollars.! Film prices today are about the same. Film prices have always fluctuated up and down determined by the market price of silver.
Lab processing has always been expensive. Serious photographers always developed their own film which is way, way cheaper.
High end film cameras are incredibly low priced today. They were even cheaper 15 years ago when the used market was saturated with film cameras as people converted to digital.
Today film cameras hold their value or even increase in value, so you'll probably get your money back if you decide to sell.
Film newbies go into film from digital with the mindset that they should machine gun everything in sight instead of slowing down and being more selective.
At 2:12 , what is the light on the sides? I have this issue sometimes and have not figured it out.
I buy kentmere 35mm 36 exposure film for about $6 develop in cinestill df96 that costs $20 and can develop at least 15 rolls and scan at home with my fuji digital camera so that is under $10 a roll or the cost of a big mac meal.
Not a bad deal
Photography is actually always a relatively expensive hobby (film or digital) even back in the 80s and 90s, adjusted with inflation.
The only time film photography getting quite cheaper-ish is around 2010-2020.
Where people start moving into digital photography or using phone as their main camera.
People are dumping their old film camera, and company need to empty their film stock before it's expiring, selling it cheaply.
It was in the 50s and 60s.....and I started in the late 40s with glass plates (quarter plate Kodal P1200s).......🤣🤣
And how many rolls do people typically go through? I tortured myself trying to figure out the most economical way to shoot film, and then it turns out I shoot on average like two rolls a month lol. Some times I'll do much more, but even so, the $10 a roll for what I typically shoot plus $15 for dev and a good scan, it's no big deal.
I think people are unrealistic or unwilling to spend money on a hobby. I understand people may be short of cash at the moment but try taking up painting! The price of oils and acrylics, mediums, good brushes...it just goes on and on. One tube of reasonable paint (small) $16. Try sailing; Skiing; Rock climbing? $23 for a day (that's a roll of film and home developing). Sure, there are cheap hobbies but there are way more expensive ones.
Photography is more than just a hobby or a skill; it's an art form that captures humanity, vision, and poetry in every frame. Make each one count.
Awesome video as always. If you don't mind, what are your thoughts on the Canon eos 1n or 1v versus the Nikon F5?
Bruh, with the cost of living today, and one roll of film costing $30+ for cost of film, developing and postage, plus scans, FILM PHOTOGRAPHY IS EXPENSIVE. If you shot one roll per week that’s $120 per month, that’s nearly $1500.00 per year. So that’s assuming you shot about 50 rolls in one year, which equals to 50x30= 1500 shots. So roughly we’re paying $1 per shot. That’s like buying a digital camera and lens for $1500 and only taking 1500 shots and then throwing it away.
Nah Bro, FILM IS WAY TOO EXPENSIVE to make any economic sense at all.
1. shoot cheaper film, develop and scan yourself and you’ll see your price drop significantly lol. 2. if you don’t like thst your hobby is expensive, you could always pick a different hobby lol
Developing and scanning at home has a large up front cost.
@@mikeratledgeguy sunny, I’m in my late 50’s and I’ve shot film for over 35 years. Done it, been there, never going back. I was also a camera collector, had over 200 quality cameras, 35mm and MF. Sold everything one by one a few years ago but just kept one film camera for just in case. Too much time, money, and mess.
Film is dead for people that have actually shot it for most of their lives. It’s only for the new hipsters with their scargly beards and going through a phase of finding themselves. It’s a phase, don’t worry you’ll soon be over it after doing it for 5-10 years. Mark my words, I can almost guarantee it.
Lmao this logic is ridiculous, dude.
I am close to 50, learned and shot film for longer then digital and I am still using for for few reasons, main being longevity of film. Digital photos will vanish in time like tears in the rain, negative will most likely outlive any not printed digital photo and lots of printed ones. I kinda enjoy thought that maaaaaaaybe someone will look at my photos when I am long gone and enjoy little trip to past.
Also those young hippies enjoy film cause it is not screen, AI, smartphone etc related. Sort of digital detox hobby and I think that sentiment of having something analog in digital world will only grow. May not be understandable for us who grew with film, but for gen. Z and newer generations it may be very appealing.
we can always cut some cost of film buying a bulk ,or going by vision type of film or even a black and white, second where we can save some is developing and scanning at home, developing is very easy and whit some new type of chemistry is even idiot resistant :)
I have been shooting film for over 50 years now and I do see your point to some extent. However, Kodak and Ilford constantly pushing prices up on nearly monthly basis does not help, particularly as digital alternative is much much cheaper to operate and maintain. The prices of film cameras too are on an upward spiral. The main factor being that nobody is making film cameras and what is available on the market now is what there is and that is it. I don't really see how this could be sustained in the long run, sadly. BTW, I wonder if you knew that the chap you featured in your 1970s clips was the late Lord Patrick Lichfield AKA, The Earl Of Lichfield who was a reknowned 1970s fashion photographer and he belonged to the British Royal family. I met him twice. A very well mannered and well dressed man. Those who have travelled in England would have probably seen his estate ' City Of Lichfield ' just north of Birmingham. Just a bit of extra info, I thought. Good Show BTW.
3:02 my Trip 35 just arrived in the mail today 💀
200 for used film camera, 600 for used digital camera. add 100 dollars for SD cards and other things.
say 12 dollar + 7 dollar for developing so 19 dollars for 36 shots or $0.52 per shot.
say a person buys a camera to use for 50k shots. this is $700 for digital and $26,200 for film.
film is clearly exponentially more expensive even comparing old used film camera vs top of the line brand new mirrorless camera.
That said, there is something about the look of film that is incredibly difficult to achieve with digital cameras. although I have seen it achieved. either by really dialing in LUTs/picture profile/film emulations etc. or in post using lightroom or alternative.
My Nikon FE was given to me and currently I'm really only getting about 10-12 rolls of film developed in a year. Not too expensive for me I suppose.
You forget about country purchasing power and annual salary
I often think about the collectibility of film cameras. Like you can get all manner of different lenses for around $100. If you want to collect modern gear you’re paying minimum $1000 for a lens and $3000 for a body. It’s a much cheaper way to go about feeding your GAS. Still the real issue is the GAS in the first place anyway😂
It is many factors. Hardly any competition nowadays to beat this ones prices etc... Plus film is still a Niche thing so it will be expensive. A roll of 120 film is a dollar or 2 cheaper then 35mm film. And unfortunately f Places like 5 belwo and Target carry ilm prices don't fluctuate like gas prices. I did notice that the price of Harmon phoenix 200 film has dropped . And I remember when the dollar stores sold rolls of film. Target sells film again and so does 5 below.
Brilliant. Thanks for this.
Nice video. But I think that the problem is not really the price and inflation in itself. The problem is the lack of purchasing power today vs then. The purchasing power of a currency is the amount of goods and services that can be bought with one unit of the currency. For example, one U.S. dollar could buy 10 bottles of beer in 1933. Today, it’s the cost of a small McDonald’s coffee. In other words, the purchasing power of the dollar-its value in terms of what it can buy-has decreased over time as price levels have risen. Another good example is that real estate looks something like: Median home prices increased by 195% since the 1960s, while median household income only increased by 26%. So there's more to it than just the cost and inflation comparison. Most of us are just paid less in comparison to before.
Thanks for the great video I'm on a budget so use Kentmeir and Feamo action in 400 speed as well as a half frame and yes its the Pentax 17 which I treated my self to as I had saved hared for many thanks .
very interesting information thank you
Got a local guy here in NY who charges $20+ for portra 400
that's a steal right? where i live portra is 30usd
@@peruperu-jj8zs Damn! i guess where i live that is a steal! That's expensive in your part of the Globe!
The price for shooting films is insane....
Not if you develop the film yourself which is easy.
@@jonjanson8021 I'm an internationally published documentary photographer. I've shot film for over 45 years. It's ridiculously expensive, even if you develop it yourself. I've developed thousands of rolls of film. I shoot digital cameras now, like most people. Wish you all the best!
At this point I'll start doing paintings like the middle age instead of film.
You will be dealing with 'frames per year.'
Well, I shoot more now in my ‘60s than I did in my ‘30s.
Its also just not fair to compare the cost of film to digital because you're not getting the same product. There's not a physical thing associated with digital.
Films are steadily become expensive. Sure. But I never bought more than 3 rolls (mostly shoot in 120) per month. Once I accumulate enough rolls, then will stop buying until all of them are finished.
Gear wise, I'm happy with Rolleicord and Mamiya C TLR. No need to buy a Hasselblad (yet). There you go. We still can enjoy shooting film without breaking the bank.
all my money is gone ;(
wow great video
*reads title* Try tell my bank account that 😂🖤
Where’s the girl in the thumbnail?
thanks to bills cameras I can atleast develop for cheep, screw you cvs I want my negatives back
labs charge more than film rolls
Even just watching the random Bruce Gilden clips edited in make me mad. What an absolute scumbag that guy was (is).
Are there any film cameras that can take SD cards so you do not have to buy film?
When digital cameras were first becoming commonly available (maybe mid to late '90's) there was a device that replaced the film with a digital sensor.
It never became popular because it was expensive and didn't work very well, and digital cameras were becoming more affordable.
That’s not the whole purpose of film photography😂 instead, you should get those Fujifilm cameras with film recipes/simulation.
Go pack go
Slow down man...
@@rossmansell5877 huh