rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

A recent post on UHH entered into a discussion of color film cost. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-748476-1.html

Oddly, people still try to compare film and digital. They are two entirely different media that accomplish close to the same thing. I can do things in each that are difficult or impossible to accomplish in the other. I thoroughly enjoy the entire process of taking and processing film photographs.

There were comments made to the effect that film was dead, which is erroneous. There are quite a few people shooting film in various formats and posting them on Facebook.

Another was the cost of film. So, I'll address this cost and primarily black and white film, as that is what I use.
Film expense:
1 roll of 100ft Ilford HP5 - $80.00
1 liter of developer Ilford DD-X - $20.00
1 gallon of Kodak fixer - $13.00

100 feet of film yields 18 rolls of 36 exposures Cost per exposure is $0.12
1 liter of developer - 50 rolls or 900 exposures Cost per exposure $0.02
1 gallon of fixer - 50 rolls or 900 exposures Cost per exposure $0.01

Each exposure costs $0.15.

120 and 4x5 formats are going to be higher. If memory serves, each 120 negative costs $0.75, and a 4x5 negative costs approximately $1.50.

Now, these numbers are from about a year ago. Some of the items may have gone up in price. However, the actual cost is still not all that much. So, people who are declaring film to be too expensive to use are making statements based on other than fact.

For me, nothing compares to the excitement of seeing images on film as it is pulled from the wash and set up to dry.
--Bob

BartHx

Agreed!

NMGal Loc: NE NM

Bob, just from my perspective, film would be too expensive simply because I would have to have it developed and printed. I never learned to do my own. For you, it works and I am glad it does. Enjoy it!

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

A lot of years ago, when I shot film, processed and printed, I loved doing it. There was something special about making/seeing things happen. This was with having only the most rudimentary, inexpensive equipment, and winging it, as it were. When I wanted to do something, I had to set everything up in the bathroom - and then put it all away when finished - after spending most of the night. Controls - what's that? I actually produced some good things, though! I loved it, but no way I could do it now. I certainly do enjoy post processing, but it's just not the same!

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Although I sold my last film camera, I believe film is far from dead. I think the important thing you bring up is film and digital are in fact two different media that deliver similar results. I never had the time or the space for a real darkroom. A second bathroom with blacked out windows was never satisfactory. For people who had, or had access to, dedicated darkrooms seemed to enjoy the processing of film as much as taking the shots.

Shortly after getting my first 35mm camera, an Argus C3 I switched from B&W, processed at Parr's Drug Store, to Kodachrome because I couldn't compete with the shots coming out of personal darkrooms.

Boris77

I do not think that your cost information for B&W will be of interest to many people. I did the darkroom thing dedicatedly for over 50 years, and now consider it a very dead issue despite my having everything to start up instantly, except maybe new camera batteries. My last two darkrooms included many comforts, including reasonable ventilation, two working enlargers to move projects along, a music system - but it was a crude life compared to sitting at a computer. I do remember the smell of hypo. I doubt that my lungs could tolerate it now.

At no time in my 65 years of photography did I meet many people interested in B&W results. All the fine tuning I did to create a print just to satisfy myself probably contributed to my high blood pressure. It was a great hobby for meeting people, and I do admire a good B&W silver print, but the part in-between was torturious.
The single thing worthwhile remaining is the silver print; they are all stored in the basement.
Boris

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Here's my story concerning film costs.

Retired now I spent 38 years as a college/university photography professor and so of course an active photographer. I made the switch from film to digital early in the new millennium buying my first serious digital camera in 2005.

With a family to support I was responsible to budget appropriately. I sat down and determined my yearly film costs. I shot mostly 120 roll and 35mm and all my chemicals (B&W and most color) were no cost as I was able to use the resources of the various labs I taught in. I wound up with $1400.00 per year (2003-5 dollars). I sat down with my wife and told her I'd be buying some new digital camera hardware but that I would save the family $400.00 per year by limiting myself to a camera budget of $1000.00 per year. CAVEAT: I got to bank the $1000.00 in any year I didn't spend it. So when I upgrade to a Canon 5d for example I had banked 3 years previously. Basically that's worked out.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It does put things into perspective for people that think $120 a year is a lot to process digital.

srg

I also did the darkroom thing when I was younger. It was quite magical. I still have some of the photos that I took and developed then. However, on the whole, nothing compares to the ability to shoot and process in color.

BartHx

Even amortized over a reasonable expected life span, what is the cost of the computer(s), editing software, digital photo printer(s), etc. for digital photography? Nobody seems to take those expenses into account when comparing film costs to digital. If we take those costs into account I would expect the difference between Bob's B&W numbers and digital numbers would be considerably less. I have been processing and printing B&W for well over 60 years and silver prints are permanent. I also occasionally print from family negatives that are well over 100 years old and experiencing no degradation -- yes, the nitrates do need to be stored and handled carefully but so do a lot of things. What is the life span of digital media and will anyone be able to read those files in 100 years? As Bob points out they are apples and oranges. Digital users have no reason to discount film and film users have no reason to discount digital. Too many of us do both and variety is the spice of life. Use the one that you enjoy.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’m certainly not discounting anything and really just software because most people are gonna have a computer anyway. And it’s not the people getting photo editing specific computers, they’re not the ones complaining about software. I also didn’t include anything about printing because his numbers also didn’t include printing and many don’t print. As for being viable in 100 years I covered that more in depth recently in another thread. Essentially if the images are important enough then whatever backup system is being used would certainly evolve with the times. I’m not trying to drive a wedge between film shooters and digital. There is value to both. I’m just pointing out to those that complain about paying for software that they were probably paying a lot more per year when they were shooting film.

BebuLamar

Bob B&W numbers don't apply to color. If I want B&W I would stay with film because the cost of film B&W is still reasonable and you need to really do your darkroom work to shoot B&W.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I appreciate the cost calculation, but cost isn't the issue as the two are very different art forms under photography. I shoot film and I shoot digital. I started in film. I love film. Film has it's own look. Digital has it's own look (some call it sterile) and no, digital image noise does not look anything like film grain. You can still buy glass plates from Pictoriographica LLC (although they are in the process of moving right now) and there are those who make their own light sensitive silver halide solutions and coat their own plates. How much do you think that costs? They do it because that's the media they choose to express themselves in.

I still use my very old Mamiya 645 1000s medium format, completely manual camera bought around 1980 and usually shoot Kodak Tri-X 400 B&W film. I process it myself in HC110, scan it in on an Epson V500 photo scanner, process in LR / PS then print on a Canon Pro-1000. If you scan at a high enough resolution, you can maintain the character of the film.

Digital is much less expensive after you've sunk money into a camera, glass, and computer. i can take thousands of images after that initial investment for virtually no cost and because of that I take a lot more pictures than with film, but there is just something special about the look of film.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's what I've been doing since I purchased my first Nikon Digital. For color, it's been digital. For black and white, both film and digital. I've toyed with the idea of developing a roll of color just to say I did. That is just a bit more money than I want to pay for a thrill of doing color just one time.
--Bob

User ID

Yes, theres "quite a few" film revenants.

(Download)