Transparency Expense

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by rolleiman, Nov 20, 2013.

  1. rolleiman

    rolleiman Member

    Messages:
    281
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The cost of transparency film for me, coupled with processing costs has risen to the point where it no longer makes financial sense to use it for shooting general stock subjects. Instead I've been experimenting with colour negative film which is cheaper. I've been particularly impressed with Kodak Portra which seems to scan well.

    Have others made a similar switch? What has been the reaction, if any, from Stock Libraries?
     
  2. landscapepics

    landscapepics Member

    Messages:
    56
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    Newcastle up
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I don't shoot specifically for stock, but I do have some landscape and nature images accepted by Alamy and Getty; these include both transparency and colur neg (mostly Portra) and the libraries concerned don't know or ask what capture medium was used - even whether if it is digital or film.

    Of course, actually making sales is a different matter .... but my tiny number of sales do include both colour negative and slide.
     
  3. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In what 21st Century world does it make sense to shoot "general stock" with anything other than digital? Enquiring minds want to know. :confused:
     
  4. BMbikerider

    BMbikerider Member

    Messages:
    830
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Location:
    County Durha
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I simply LOVE transparency film but I agree it is so expensive now that I think twice before using it. My last lot was the reincarnated Agfa Precisa whic did actually turn out extremely well with well saturated colours but not over the top. In fact the colours are some of the best I have seen - and very neutral. They scan beautifully too.
     
  5. DREW WILEY

    DREW WILEY Member

    Messages:
    4,779
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Some of those stock houses already have so many older transparencies on file that a few more won't make much difference, unless its specifically contemporary subject matter. Things have sure changed. My brother would get four thousand dollars for one-time rights to publish a single 4x5 color transparency back in the mid-60's. Extrapolate that into today's currency! What digital has done is make anything equivalent worth about a five dollar remittance now, if you're lucky enough to get paid at all. So why would any 21st century photographer even bother? ... But Rol, neither you nor I belong to the 21C anyway.
     
  6. JaZ99

    JaZ99 Member

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I guess it depends on the market. In EU the E-6 films are slightly more expensive (Provia 100F 5 pack costs 28.4 EUR, Portra 160 costs 22 EUR), the chemistry is slightly more expensive, too (Tetenal 5L E-6 kit costs 90 EUR, C-41 costs 75 EUR), BUT I find E-6 easier to master, the results are superior, too. As long as E-6 is available I will stick with it.

    J.
     
  7. Richard Man

    Richard Man Member

    Messages:
    398
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I used a lot of 35mm slides a few years ago, then switch to mainly B^W. Last couple years I started with 4x5 and tried color negs for a few months, but just prefer the colors and grains of E-6. The choice is very limited now in the 4x5 format, but I will stick with that and B&W for film use. The cost is significant :-( but at least developing my own helps a lot.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2013
  8. rolleiman

    rolleiman Member

    Messages:
    281
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2011
    Shooter:
    Medium Format

    For me it's down to cost. If you're shooting digi for stock sales, most libraries are demanding bigger & bigger file sizes, that only the latest (and most expensive) full frame digi SLR's can achieve. When I can fulfill that demand with my reliable battery free s/h Rolleiflex, costing a fraction of the latest digi wonder, then what's the point of investing serious money into a digital outfit?
    To add to the argument, fees from stock sales have taken an almighty tumble over the past couple of years, and may even dry up altogether because magazines etc., are prepared to use pics. from people's i-phones providing they're free.