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. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I very seldom print pictures but I post around 15% of the images I record fairly soon after taking them and others get used subsequently. That's about the same ratio as I used to get from 35mm. It was probably 50% initial use for roll film but I mostly used roll film when I was going through my "working photographer" phase. :D
  2. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    That depends to a greater or lesser extent on how self-critical the person in question is. One friend rarely rates anything he takes, constantly looking for minute faults, despite generally taking stuff from acceptable upwards. In film days an acquaintance was always boasting about his "cracking shots", which turned out to be mainly ill-exposed and badly focused with the occasional reasonable result.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I discard perhaps 40% of what I take on grounds ranging from technical faults to,just plain why? But it doesn't mean that what is left is any good!
  4. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Nor does it mean that it isn't. Only you can decide if your pictures achieve what you set out to achieve.
  5. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    And we can also be the worst person to assess our own work!
  6. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    The artist proposes and the viewer disposes...
  7. Bandersnatch

    Bandersnatch Member

    Going through that roll of 36 exposure film, loaded in my Nikon F55. I took four shots at every location visited. The simple reason was that your best shot is always the one that the lab ruins. It's Sod's Law really.
  8. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I used Kodachrome regularly for over 40 years and never had a shot ruined by their labs - mostly in the UK, but towards the end in Switzerland (I think) and finally in the USA.

    Perhaps Kodak's quality control was just better than smaller labs doing other processing. I recall a 'keep rate' of 30 or 40%, which made the real cost of these shots more like £1 each. I have been experimenting with scanning some of these with my ancient 11 megapixel Minolta 35 mm scanner, or copying them with a Sigma 50 mm macro lens and Nikon slide copier attachment made for their 60 mm macro (so that I can get a 16 megapixel RAW file), and some of them turn out very well. With the scanner dust is the big problem, and with the copier it is getting perfect focus. But the copier method does allow me to 'crop' before taking the shot so I can get a small part of the image copied at 16 mp.
  9. JMK

    JMK Active Member

    Almost certainly not.When I started photography around 1962/3 the price of a 36 exp of FP3 (no FP4 then that came later.) was around 20p I was earning about £5 per week. Kodachrome was £1.50 ish a roll incl processing. I can get a 36 exp roll of FP4+ for around £4.50 a roll if I buy in bulk from the likes of Morco,com or AG photographic. My income per week now is?????? but for the same percentage of cost I can buy slightly in excess of 2.2 rolls for the same relative cost.
    steveandthedogs and peterba like this.
  10. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    I agree, except that [pedantry alert] in1962/3 the film price would have been 4/-, rather than 20p. ;) :D
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    By 1965 an Ilford 120 film was 4s 10d while a 20 exposure 35mm was 5s 9d or 36 exposures 7s 5d (that's very roughly £6 in our inflated currency). :confused:
    peterba likes this.
  12. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Thanks, yes - I should say that I wasn't trying to give the actual (or relative) price of any film at that time, Andrew - I was simply playing the pedantic git, with regard to the currency. :)
    Andrew Flannigan and Zou like this.
  13. JMK

    JMK Active Member

    I am more than aware of the conversion, I just quoted current monetary value, so younger members would not have to get their abacus devices out.;)

    P.S. They don't need batteries.
    peterba likes this.
  14. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    If anyone is feeling really, really, bored, I can probably give prices from 1915 and 1927...


Share This Page