Today it's possible to build a brand-new 1957 Chevrolet, in full steel, right down to the badges and trim plates. Every piece is available and if one is careful and supplies the labor, it can be done for right around the cost of a 2011 Impala.
The point being that even though it isn't financially feasible for General Motors to build a new 1957 Chevy, there is enough interest and healthy market to support a very sophisticated cottage industry of suppliers.
Pick your favorite, 1930 Model A, 1957 Chevy, 1968 Mustang, 1969 Camaro, all available.
Is it really inconceivable that film cameras will not be built again? How about a kit fitting roll film to the back of a converted digital body?
Black and White film should be around for a long, long time but Reasonable People will understand that price increases are inevitable.
Why would you use less than the best film?
If you have spent your money on good equipment and then spend your time and intellect in arranging to make the best images why would you use less than the best film?
A better way to reduce costs is to not make exposures you will never use.
Because for many the choice does indeed boil down to either using "less than the best," or using nothing at all. They are already not making exposures they will never use. And likely quite a few more that they would have used, had they been able to afford to make them. For them, the option of choice is simply not available.
Originally Posted by laser
Times are really tough. Especially for those on fixed incomes. And those who make film.
I'm exclusively an Ilford user now and will stay that way for reasons of peace of mind. I too have had to cut back due to the current prices. But will I call for Ilford to absorb every last penny of their increased manufacturing costs - driven largely by soaring commodity prices over which they have no control - just so that I selfishly don't have to?
Of course not.
In this new normal era of permanently reduced demand for traditional photographic products the surviving niche markets are heavily symbiotic. Shared success and shared sacrifice is the new world order these days. We need them, and they need us. If either side goes belly up, both sides do.
So I will continue to purchase as much as I can - without hoarding - whenever I need it, and pay what I must when I must. That's the best I can do, and satisfies my responsibility to that symbiotic mutual dependency.
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
I only buy film cheap. Why? I don't find that expensive film is somehow superior, but every film is different and has a unique character. I've never had a cheap film fail me. So I simply don't see a reason to pay 3-5 times more. Especially as a "broke student".
Originally Posted by laser
I like my film stirred, not shaken.
Lets take a step back here and look at this.
If your a pro you have every right to complain about every single thing that attacks your business and increases the amount of money you have to spend out of what would be profit you could use to buy the little things that make life better like food. If you are going to complain fine, just no whining, you knew people were going to change the prices before you got into this job.
If your like me and shooting for fun then you really can't complain all that much either, prices rise all the time, what you have to look at is your joy per percentage of your paycheck ratio, if it is remaining about the same over the years then what is the problem? If you are getting more joy for less money then great, you are ahead, or you were spending more on equipment than you should have been back when you were getting less joy per unit money. If you are getting less joy per unit money then you are spending too much, or this is not your thing, did you just buy a new camera or build a darkroom, that will ruin the joy per unit money balance quick.
If you are thinking more about what the photo cost than how much you enjoyed shooting it, you need another hobby or something else to shoot. I take ill composed, poorly framed, crooked photos and I get the blur form not paying attention to shutter speed. But you know what, when I look at my photos and when I take them I think about what I did wrong, how I might improve, how I like what I did, when I see a blur, or lose something in a shadow I am more upset about the lost moment than the money.
If you are more worried about the money you spent than the moment you lost or captured when you look at a photo you really are not getting the point.
Maybe that cheep film gives me the look I want, did you ever think of that? I have a film locker that has at least one roll of every single film Kodak makes today in 35mm (except new Portra160) and most of the 120 films they make. I have all that film because sometimes Kodak Gold is the right film, sometimes it isn't. I have some Fuji and other brands for the same reason, but I like the Kodak look, if I found some cheep film that I just knew I could photograph something with and it would look great, I would buy that too.
Originally Posted by laser
Last edited by bblhed; 08-09-2011 at 03:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by bblhed
CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!
Maybe we should ask those who use "cheap" film (which I prefer to call "inexpensive" film due to the obvious negative connotation in the first word used here).. maybe we should ask - how many complaints do you see on APUG about inexpensive films vs top of the line film?
So, see many complaints here on Kodak, Fuji or Ilford film lately?
Also, if you mean B&W, then what about color? Should we throw that out the door?
Last edited by Photo Engineer; 08-09-2011 at 06:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.
The sad thing about the way film is going (the way of the Dodo) is that today's films are the best we've ever had in color and B&W. With the exception of slide film I say even with the ones we've lost we have the best films now that have ever been made. I can still afford to shoot it so I'm happy to continue using them while I can.
I shoot expired film not for cost but for effect and for nostalgia, to shoot films I used to shoot decades ago. I sometimes try the inexpensive alternative films today because they feel a bit like some of those old films. Some days T-Max or Delta is too good, even FP4+ and HP5+ are just too sharp and too grainless but thankfully I can still buy Delta 400 or 3200, underexpose it and develop it in HC-110 for glorious grain...