1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Honestly, the price of film these days!

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by Bandersnatch, Aug 2, 2019.

  1. Bandersnatch

    Bandersnatch Member

    I own a Nikon F55 35mm SLR. I decided to put it to good use after leaving it in a cupboard since 2006. I discovered that 35mm film isn't as widely available as it used to be.

    However, I thought that Boots would be the ideal supplier. They had only five brands of film on sale. Two were Fujicolor films. I decided on an ISO 200 36 exposure film. What was the price? £7.99.

    I must've been mistaken thinking that film was cheap because there's virtually no demand for it.
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Yes, you need to buy bulk by mail order to get the price down but it is more expensive than it was.

    Edit: Try silverprint or discount films direct. Sevendayshop seem out of stock on everything so they may have stopped supplying.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  3. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Is film any dearer now than it was 30, 40 years ago? In real terms?

  4. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    There are fewer sellers of film than there were, regardless of various statements concerning revival of film it is a small area of demand relatively speaking. As a niche market it is not going to be cheap, remember it has an expiry date.

    With regard to Boots, they were not a particularly low-price supplier, but there were some discounts on multiple purchases of some types at one point, perhaps that is still the case. I did notice when in LCE last week they carried Kodak Ektachrome at much the same price as online suppliers.
  5. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Film is a funny old market these days. It's not that long (under a decade) since Boots were selling big bags of 24-shot Fuji colour film for about £2 a roll, and even less time since Poundland wer selling it. It's certainly dearer than it was then. 30+ years ago might be a different matter, though.

  6. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    neilt3 and daft_biker like this.
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    From the Wallace Heaton Blue Book 1965-66...
    • Ilford 36 exposure B/W film: 7s 6d (£6.86 after inflation)
    • Kodacolor 20 exposure film: 10s 6d (£9.15 after inflation)
    At that time 35mm colour negative film was only available in 20 exp. cassettes. Extrapolating: 36 exposures would have sold for the equivalent of £16.47. The Resale Prices Act 1964 had stopped manufacturers imposing a fixed price so there might have been lower prices at other shops.

    The main point is that it's cheaper now. :D
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  8. John Farrell

    John Farrell Well-Known Member

    I bought a 100' roll of Kentmere 100 from B&H . Even posted to New Zealand, it is well priced. I load and process it myself, and scan the negatives.
  9. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    I forgot about them , they have a good selection of older oddball size formats .
    Some of it's not a bad price too .
  10. londonbackpackr

    londonbackpackr Well-Known Member

    Kodak colour plus can be pick up for less that £3.00 for 36 exp, Ultramax for less that £6.00. Kentmere is around £4.00 and Kosmos Foto 100 (which is re-branded Fomapan) around £4.00

    There is plenty of cheap film out there, you just have to look around for it :)
  11. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Fomapan 100 £3.19 at The Imaging Warehouse.

  12. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    The last 36 shot roll of Kodachrome 200 I managed to purchase cost just over £10 in the UK (so about 30p per shot).
    This gave great incentive to think before pressing the button (and I use my DSLR the same way), unlike the 'machine gun' approach of many digital users who take many hundreds of shots in a day and then presumably spend ages checking them all later.
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I don't know if "many digital users" is quite right. I regard myself as a prolific shooter and I seldom make as many as 100 shots in a day - more usually around 40. I think my record was 250 shots at last year's Weston Super Mare air show. There are working photographers who seem to regard 1,000 shots as normal but I think they form a very small proportion of the camera using population.
  14. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I met somebody a few weeks ago at a 'heritage railway', and whilst I took 5 shots he was in machine gun mode using a large Canon body and (I think) a large aperture 70-200 zoom. After a few minutes, when the locomotive had moved out of view, I asked him if he knew how many shots he had taken. After a few moments using the camera's LCD screen, he said 'about 300', and then explained that he had owned the camera body and lens for about a year and still didn't understand all the various autofocus options. He also always used the lens 'wide open' in aperture priority mode because this was what the salesman in the shop had shown him when he purchased the camera and lens. So this was the best way to make sure that he got a few shots in focus. I don't think he was a 'working photographer', merely one with a lot of money and no patience to spend some time with the user manual. I'm sure he's not typical, but he's not unique either.
  15. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'm sure that is not atypical. Max burst rate seems to score highly in camera reviews and I've heard a lot of machine -gunning take place from others while photographing birds. Personally I hate sorting near identical photos. If I set the camera on "high" then typically I'll take 3 exposures. My Fuji is impossible. If I set it off single exposure it'll take lots even on low setting.
  16. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I don't see the point of lots of shots of a static or slow moving object. It is not that difficult.

    BIF is a lot more difficult so machine gunning is more justified. Still don't like it.

    If I was using film the cheapskate in me would prevent multiple images. Not being restricted is one of the major benefits of digital.
  17. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Not sure about that. Usually you lock focus for tracking purposes on the first exposure, get that right .......
  18. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Since camera shutters have a finite life, what does taking hundreds of shots each time you use the camera do to the life expectancy of the shutter? For example, if the shutter is specified for 150,000 'actions', and you take 300 shots every time you use it, this might mean a new shutter after 500 outings...
  19. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    People do get through cameras. Canon CPN is oriented to those that chew through multiple 1Dxs per year.
  20. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    A cynic could suggest that the use of machine-gun mode has been popularised by the manufacturers as a reliable way to sell more (replacement) camera bodies. So one person's camera body with 100,000 shutter 'actions' may only have taken 100 decent shots,
    whereas another person's camera body with the same number of 'actions' may have taken 1,000 decent shots.

    I would be curious to see AP asking its readers what proportion of their shots the rate as decent and worth keeping, and how many of these they actually use (for prints, for example). For some people the answers might be 1 % and 'never'.

Share This Page