Film Photography Isn't As Expensive As You Think?

In the modern, digital age of cameras, film can get quite expensive. Or at least so we think. In today's video, we take a deep dive in to film prices the last hundred years to see if film is actually as expensive as you think. I think much like me, to many of your surprise, film has been quite expensive, historically. Thankfully, film is seemingly get more popular again, which should help with future prices! (Hopefully). Would love to hear your thoughts on film prices in 2024 in the comments below!

Keaton:

Timeline for Film Prices:

#filmphotography #35mm #analogphotography

[IceBergs]

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

[YeahItsThatBad]

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?

[steve]

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.

[Iamgeoffw]

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.

[alecbaenen]

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.

[masanthar]

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.

[FinnishSuperSomebody]

I actually tried to figure same thing out here in Finland just some weeks ago and just tried to find some information from statistics center (or whatever it is in english, "tilastokeskus" in finnish). They had some kind of "average film price for 24 roll" - no clue black and white or color, but I assume that it was color. When I checked prices from 1984, 1995 and 2000 or so it was easy to see that prices have NOT been so much cheaper back in the days if we also check inflation and what those prices are in current currency.

Surely it is hard to compare directly because prices might have wide variety depending on roll as we have nowadays, also most of the color rolls nowadays I see is 36 exposures but if counted price per exposure I noticed that on some time of history prices have been higher at least by average so yeah, prices have gone up last couple of years maybe but still it is easy to find reasonable priced films at least here in Finland.

Also it was quite rare indeed at least on my social circles that people took lots of photos. For comparison, photography is a hobby for me and I might nowadays shoot roll per day (black and white film) so the difference is huge. Surely, this is a hobby for me but back in the days it has been way to store memories of the events for many, not a hobby same way.

Good video and hopefully makes people think more realistic ways that prices are not THAT insane. Yes, everything costs and it is sad reality of life, but if I buy a beer in a pub it will cost me more than black and white roll of film.

[robertwaffel]

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

[MacShintersbane]

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.

[HoLeeChit]

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.

[TimGreig]

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.

[McQuayPhoto]

Awesome video as always. If you don't mind, what are your thoughts on the Canon eos 1n or 1v versus the Nikon F5?

[Focal_Paradox]

I'm not sure why people think film was ever "cheap." I was bulk loading Tri-X, along with home developing and printing, back in the late eighties and early nineties to keep costs down, not because I thought it was "artsy" to do so.

I think the almost unlimited number of shots you can take with a digital camera in any one session has distorted peoples views of how often we used to press the shutter button back when film was king. Only pro's and the wealthy pressed the shutter button with impunity.

[mgman]

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

[stevinoname]

very interesting information thank you

[Marciniaco]

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 :)

[lensman]

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.

[maxadams]

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😂

[rjbiii]

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.

[dhavidcg]

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.