rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Paul, adding the cost of a lens or two would increase the number of exposures I could get over just the cost of a body.

I have no hesitation or reservation spending time being personally involved and attentive to the processing of my photographs. That is spoken from the artist side of me. If I had to shoot film, in color, and scan with a deadline, etc. I'd definitely have it processed and scanned professionally. But then again, is the client able to wait for that to happen, even if don't locally? I don't think so. So, we're back to the time crunch factor and digital. Which, by the way, was not the intent of this post.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Robert, once again, the intent of the post was to clarify the cost of shooting film from a personal point of view. It was never intended to be a _____vs_____. Since most people are familiar with the cost of the digital camera mentioned, it provided a good basis for how much film one could shoot for a given amount of money. A far better figure to use than the price of a car.

Yes, there are other things to consider, but again, the focus was on cost per exposure for film.
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I now head out comfortably / confidently with just a film camera and a lens or two, same as I do with a digital body. But, I've recognized I would still have less images and technical knowledge of photography if I'd been limited to just film over the past 35ish years and absent the last 15 years of limitless digital shooting.

Load your own / develop you own is another set of skills, where success doesn't begin on day 1. Who is really going start with no skills / modest skills in this area and invest the time, effort and money go get to the point of being successful? That makes time, equipment, and interest significant barriers to entry beyond the basic per-frame cost calculation.

My appreciation of the 'masters' who worked only in film has gone through the roof realizing how hard it is to develop all the knowledge needed to be successful when working just 24- or 36-frames at a time.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Paul, you're correct. Much like digital, there are techniques to learn and apply shooting both mediums. I was not overly impressed with digital for the first few months I was using my first FX camera. Then, through the membership here, especially one member, I learned how to correlate what I did with film to what I should do with digital. That opened the door. Though both mediums are different, they share similarities in different ways. Understanding that allows for the control I wish to have.

Additionally, and a carryover from film, is that one doesn't take a photograph, one makes a photograph. So, "lab" work has never been a necessary evil to me. It's a pleasure usually accompanied by music.

The road goes on forever. Each step accomplishes something new but based on the steps taken before. The road to success begins on the first day, if one is willing to make the journey.
--Bob

BebuLamar

And I switched to digital because I don't purchase B&W film nor process it except a short time when I was taking a photography class back in 1977. The cost (and choices) of color film and processing materials became not only expensive but hard to get. B&H doesn't ship Kodak RA-4 chemicals.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Every successful ending has a beginning. Shouldn't your journey in the 21st century begin with a digital camera?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The cost per image is 0.015 per click...

I am glad you posted this but you do not mention the cost of a camera/lens and that leaves the cost way above the digital world.

Then you are just mentioning film processing. You do not mention the cost of the equipment needed to process as well as the cost of disposing of the chemical properly.

When it comes to medium format the camera cost goes up dramatically too. One can also add the cost of doing all that (as how would you be paid as a lab tech).

I know I am nit picking but if one wants a full disclosure a digital camera is way cheaper to use and also much simpler when it comes to post process as the cost of printing is also an addition when a digital camera only needs a printer and supplies for it...

User ID

It’s pure UHH to rip apart your presentation. But I know you’re not in the least bit surprised. I can ballpark the figures in a heartbeat for the objections that have been raised and there no real substance to the objections:

Based on your reasonable 20k frames of BW equaling one D850 the upgrade to E6 in 100ft rolls with home processing brings that 20k film frames down to about 10k frames of E6 ... still an excellent deal !

If the funds involved are the price of a decent camera at 1/2 the price of a D850 you still have 5k frames of E6, which is 140 36exp rolls. For an ordinary user thaz 2 or 3 years.

The cost of a complete film camera outfit is zero. It is already in use when the user decides to switch or not switch to digital.

One glitch in all the above is that it assumes the digital camera would depreciate to zero in 2 or 3 years ... cuz the comparison is based on the full purchase cost, not merely the depreciation, vs cost of about several thousand frames of E6. The counter argument is that perhaps the digital gear MUST be nothing less than a D850 or maybe a larger digital format, cuz real film photography is a lofty imaging system that lesser digital gear cannot mimic.

Okay. So much for the journey down the rabbit hole ! Your case was verrrrry solid for BW and not much diminished if we consider E6. Naysayers thus far present sorely incomplete arguments. OTOH much as I support your presentation I’m all done with film. The intangibles are personal and subjective and therefore cannot be priced in $$.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you shoot and print B&W, I think you could make the case that silver printing is probably equal or less expensive per print than ink jet. Silver 8x10 multigrade (polycontrast) paper averages about $1.00 per sheet, and while the chemicals aren’t free, the amount used to develop those 25 prints probably doesn’t amortize out to more than 25 cents per print. Depending on your printer, your ink (according to a Red River study) varies from about 50 cents to $1.20 per 8x10, and when added to the paper cost of .50 to $1.00 per sheet, it’s fair to say that an inkjet print costs maybe $1.50 per sheet for a quality printer and paper, so no real difference. If you send them out for printing, you can probably get them for less at Costco and more than that average at a professional printer like Bay Photo.

I would also agree with the many posters that note that we are more careful when we expose film. Recently, my youngest son, who has become the family archivist, has been digging through our large collection of family photos and scanning them. Since mine are almost always accompanied by a contact sheet, it’s interesting to note that almost every image is correctly exposed, focused and “printable” - we were very conscious of the cost when we shot film - very little “spray and pray”, even with a motor drive.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Paul, it was actually the late 90s. A Sony DSC-F-707. The real fun started in 2010 with a Nikon D700. The real learning curve started shortly after, very shortly after, shooting RAW. That was a major step in the journey.
--Bob

I actually owned a couple of Sony cameras to start with prior to the 707.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Rong..., I wanted to focus on the cost of film alone. Camera costs are a variable I didn't wish to research. If one wants to start down the cost rabbit hole, we are going to have to discuss house modifications to build a suitable darkroom, etc. So, again, focusing on the cost per shot of film shows it is not as outrageously expensive as people want to believe.

As for the "one and done" expense of the equipment. I recently helped a friend get set up to develop film. With the purchase of chemical storage bottles, tanks, reels, and miscellaneous bits and bobs, he paid about $100. That is a one time cost.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thank you very much for your contribution to the thread.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

TriX, thank you very much for sharing your personal information, as well as doing some research into the printing part of the process. I generally scan my negatives and print only when requested to do so. Again, thanks.
--Bob

LowellR

I think it all depends on why you take pictures, I am 80 yrs. old, If I were younger and a professional I would have to compete so I would need to get photos ready for market as quickly as I could, everything moves fast these days so its go big or go home. My first camera was one of those fold out I bought at a pawn shop for $8.00, My favorite was a Pentax MX I still use today, my first digital is a Pentax MX1. My point is I don't have to hurry, I love the process. I also brew craft beer, cost maybe a third as much commercial, however if I count the
hours of labor maybe 3 times as much. There is no satisfaction greater than working with your hands.

Ollieboy

Why an 850? Top of the line camera not needed for a comparison.