Last year I picked up several rolls of expired Kodak slide film – some Ektachrome EPP, Elite Chrome 100, and Elite Chrome 200. I shot a roll of the Ektachrome back in the autumn and was very happy with the results, some of which can be seen here. A couple of weeks back I shot one of the rolls of Elite Chrome 200 with similarly pleasant results. Whereas with the Ektachrome I had used my OM-2n, for this roll I decided to chance it in a point-and-shoot compact – my Canon Sure Shot Supreme. The camera generally does a good job of metering scenes and I wanted to see what slide film would look like shot through a consumer camera. On the whole, I think it did a great job. The images are a little softer than those from my OM-2n, but notby a large margin, and the film itsel gave pleasing result. I doubt the colours are strictly accurate, and I had the subdue a purple cast, but they are attractive nontheless – I don’t shoot expired film expecting it to give perfect colours anyway, my main wish being that it gives me something I like. I’ve added a couple of frames from the roll today and will upload more over the next week or so.
I acquired a couple of new (to me) cameras today. A lady had advertised an Olympus XA3 and Olympus Superzoom 160 on the local Trash Nothing group – where people can advertise items they are giving away free of charge. I spotted the ad first thing and expressed interest straight away. I received a reply later stating the someone else had got in first but that if that fell through then I could have them. I pretty much expected to have lost out on the deal but thn, this afternoon, received another message saying the other person had pulled out and I could have them. I’m looking forward to trying out the simple, and tiny, XA3 (which also has the flash unit), and if the Superzoom works ok, I might run another Travelling Superzoom project like I did in 2019 – this involved loading the camera with a roll of film and them taking a few shots. The camera would then be posted to another participant who would do the same. This would continue until the film was fully shot and we’d then share everyone’s photos amongst the group. The results from that first project can be seen here.
Two new cameras
Are waiting to be tested
Snap snap snap snap snap
Canon Sure Shot Supreme & Kodak Elite Chrome 200 (expired 2003).
Taken on 17 April 2021
Steel City Snapper photography 
Nice job with the expired slide film! I’ve been picking up some rolls that have been listed as frozen or cold stored. I shot some Elite Chrome 100 with my SR-T 101, capturing the cherry blossoms here in Portland:
I’m planning on shooting another Elite Chrome 100 roll with my Olympus Pen EES-2. A bit unorthodox these days (well, shooting slide film and processing it as such is a bit unorthodox) but it’s not like people in the past didn’t use half-frame cameras to do so. And the EES-2 has been freshly CLA’d so I trust the metering.
Good luck with the XA3! I have an XA2 and love it. I’d really like to find an XA4 at a reasonable price…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yeah, here is a link to those cherry blossom photos:
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s nice to see you continue to have good luck with your expired rolls of Ektachrome! I finally got around to shooting one of my rolls of Elite Chrome 100 that expired back in 2003. It was allegedly stored frozen and I believe it as it came out almost as though it were new. It had perhaps a very, very faint magenta shift, but so slight it’s irrelevant.
Sadly, once I use up my small supply of expired slide film, that’ll likely be the end of E-6 for me. What both Kodak and Fujifilm are demanding these days for their reversal stocks is completely out of hand. There’s absolutely no excuse for their greed.
Unfortunately, this greed seems to be spreading to all types of film stocks from almost all manufacturers, as I predicted it would. Even the “budget” (they sure aren’t budget anymore) C-41 and B&W offerings are out of control. I find it seriously disgusting. There’s no way film prices should have doubled, tripled, or in some cases even quadrupled in just a couple of years time, especially with the renewed interest in the medium and thus the manufacturers seeing far better sales than they have in years. For the past three to four years, prices should have realistically been going down, not up, or at the very least holding steady. The claimed excuses for repeatedly jacking up prices don’t hold water. Kodak, Fujifilm, and Ilford have now all three permanently lost my business due to their price gouging. I’m sad to say it, but I’m done with them. I’ll support Foma and others who aren’t exploiting their customers to death.
LikeLike
Curious: Which stocks have “doubled, tripled, even quadrupled” in price? I’ve definitely seen price increases in the last year, but there are always adjustments for inflation. And we’ve also been through a pandemic over the past year, which has stretched supply lines and taxed production. I’ve definitely seen stocks go up by a buck or two (in the US) but nothing in the double/triple/quadruple department. And while I’d like to pay less for film (of course), for me Kodak is pretty much the only player in the color game, so I’ll stick with them for now.
LikeLike
Thanks P. I’ve been very pleased (and perhaps fortunate) with the results I’ve had from the expired slide film. I still have quite a few rolls left too, so should keep me going a while longer yet.
The price of film is a curious one. E6 films have shot up in price recently, as have Kodak and Fuji stocks – although here in the UK Ilford film has only increased marginally. I can still buy a roll of HP5+ for the same as I did five years ago. Kodak B&W films are pretty much double their Ilford equivalents here now, and their colour stocks have risen similarly.
Having said that, I was recently shown the prices of a Kodachrome 64 back in the 1980s which is actually comparable to the prices of current slide film. The 1987 Argos catalogue for instance prices a 36exp roll (including processing) at £6.79. That equates to around £20 with inflation, so it’s not that much less than buying a roll of Ektachrome and paying for processing (although I’m not sure if the Kodachrome price included mounted slides).
Similarly, the same catalogue lists a twin pack of 36exp Kodacolor Gold 100 at £5.99 which would equate to almost £9 a roll at today’s prices.
I wonder if we’ve just been blessed with a few years of low film prices and are now feeling the sting as they level up again? Whatever the case. I wish they’d go down again! 🙂
LikeLike
Regarding the film prices you referred to from a copy of a 1987 Argos catalogue there’s a few pertinent things to keep in mind.
First, the suggested retail and advertised prices stated in print magazines/catalogs was often higher than what the same product could be found for in stores (the street price). This is generally still the case to this day. That said, I can show you all sorts of American print advertisements from the same era as the one you referenced (mid to late 80’s) showing dirt cheap film prices.
Second, back in the 80’s (and definitely in the 90′ and 2000’s), the consumer C-41 film stocks manufactured by Kodak, Fujifilm, and so on were pretty much all available for far less as re-branded drug/grocery/super store film versus their name brand counterpart. They were the exact same emulsions, but with drastically lower price tags. This was well known. As such, it was okay for stores to sell the name brand versions with inflated price tags as a sort of marketing gimmick, and they often did. But today there are no re-branded color films, at all, so the inflated/premium name brand prices are all there are. This causes a far greater disparity in the cost of film “then versus now” than most people realize because they often don’t factor the re-branded equivalents that once existed into the equation.
Third, back in the 80’s the film companies were also still heavily engaged in cutting edge R&D, actively developing new film technologies (e.g. tabular grain, etc.) and experimenting with all sorts of incredible things. They employed hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists and engineers all around the world at various facilities devoted to this work. This obviously added to the cost of a roll of film. But that sort of R&D in the film world ended long ago, so the added cost it required should have, too. Don’t you agree? And indeed it seemed to for a while in the late 90’s and 2000’s. At this point, though, none of the manufacturers have done anything groundbreaking in a very, very long time. They’re long done with such endeavors. Today, they’re effectively just making decades old, tried and true products whose “recipes” are at this point ancient history. The costs to develop said products have long been recovered.
Fourth (but it ties into the third point), in the mid 80’s both K-14 and E-6 were still relatively new processes (within about a decade of being introduced). As such, they were still pretty costly to implement and labs who had implemented them were still trying to recover/offset those costs. This was no doubt reflected in the cost of K-14 and E-6 film stocks offered at such places, not just the cost of processing itself. Obviously, K-14 is now gone (sadly), but E-6 is still here and has been revised many times over the decades, with each iteration making the process more streamlined and optimized (i.e. cheaper).
Fifth, film manufacturing, like everything else, has become far more automated today than it could have ever dreamed of being in the 80’s. There’s less people (employees) involved in the process than ever. There are also far fewer manufacturing plants operational, which means far less overhead. This absolutely *should* be reflected in lower film prices.
There are more points that could be made, but I think you get the gist. 🙂
No matter what claims/excuses these companies make for jacking up their prices so severely over the past few years — many of which directly contradict themselves, I might add — I still don’t see any justification for it. I still believe at the end of the day the driving factor here is greed. If it wasn’t greed, if it really was because of external factors beyond their control, then why is it that *some* manufacturers have only had to marginally increase their prices during the same time frame, coming nowhere close to the huge percentage jumps of their counterparts? Foma, for example?
On a side note, I have a hard time seeing how £6.79 in 1987 for a roll of Kodachrome 64, INCLUDING processing, is at all comparable to the average cost of buying and developing a roll of Ektachrome today. Can you help me out? I mean, if a roll of Ektachrome today is £20 (average in-store price, I’m guessing), WITHOUT processing, and then processing costs another £15 (again, on average, I’m guessing), you’re looking at £35 today for film+processing versus £6.79 in 1987. Unless I’ve forgotten how to do math or am missing something, inflation doesn’t even come close to turning £6.79 in 1987 money into £35 in today’s money. As you said, it would be closer to £20. £35 is a whopping 75% more expensive than £20. Also, I’m assuming the £6.79 price back in 1987 included a slide mailer with pre-paid postage both ways (that was typical back then, at least in the USA), further reducing the cost versus today when the customer almost always has to pay postage both ways themselves, on top of everything else. So, realistically, I’d argue that you’re looking at more like £45 (or more) today for the same service £6.79 got you in 1987, after you factor in postage. After all, most people aren’t fortunate enough these days to have an E-6 lab nearby. You should count yourself very lucky that you do.
LikeLike
Hi P. That’s a very detailed response, and one I probably won’t have chance to respond to in nearly so much detail. My apologies for that.
I’ll touch on a couple of points though to clarify where I was coming from.
Firstly, a little background on Argos and their prices. Here in the UK, as in many other places, we had shopping catalogues in the pre-internet days. These were often called “club books” here because, in order to purchase goods, you had to become a member of the catalogue. There were a number of companies operating in the field, including Freemans, Kays, Littlewoods, Grattans and others. The prices in these catalogues were, as you say, considerably higher than the high-street. They were mail-order only and usually allowed payment by installments so you could have something straight away and then pay for it over months or longer. It meant you could have that new TV or flashy new leather coat right away, but you’d probably still be paying for it after it had broken or gone out of fashion. 🙂
Argos was (and still is) a different model to this. They have a chain of high-street stores where, instead of having the goods on display, you would browse one of their laminated catalogues in the showroom area and then jot down the item number of whatever you wanted on a small order form and take it to the register to pay. You’d receive a receipt with a numer and collection point and then wait at the right location while someone brought your item from the warehouse area at the rear of the store. Customers could also take a free catalogue home with them (there were usually piles of them close to the store entrance) to browse at their leisure, although there was no mail-order and you would have to come and order any items in the store itself. The prices of items at Argos have always been broadly comparable with other brick-and-mortar stores – maybe not the cheapest, but not overly expensive either – and certainly far below the mail-order catalogue prices, and the range of goods available can make them quite convenient. The catalogues are now a thing of the past and the stores have tablets for browsing the goods instead. You can still browse at home, but via the internet now, and home delivery and click-and-collect are available.
The other point I’ll reply to is the cost of E6 developing. While prices can vary, my local pro lab charges around £6 for a roll of slide film to be processed. That doesn’t include any prints, scans, or mounted slides. just cut and sleeved transparencies, so the price will go up if those are needed (quite considerably for scans at this lab), but for my needs it’s quite a low cost. It probably also increases where postage is involved, but I’m close enough to drop-off / pick-up in person, so I’m probably seeing cost benefits not available to most. I would be *far* more wary of shooting expired film if I had to pay £15 a roll for developing. 🙂
LikeLike
fishyfisharcade,
Sorry for the delay.
I know, I’m long-winded. Sorry! Don’t worry about not replying to everything I said. I didn’t expect you to. 🙂 I was just trying to bring up a few things that people often seem to overlook when evaluating film costs today versus days gone by. Admittedly, there also are likely historical differences in film costs between the UK and the USA that I’m unfamiliar with, so I’m generalizing based on my own experiences and what I’ve personally witnessed to be true during my lifetime here in the USA.
Thanks for the info about Argos. Being American, I wasn’t at all familiar with them. They sound pretty cool, especially back in the day! In the USA, department stores like Sears and Montgomery Wards offered similar catalog-style services once upon a time. I sure miss those days! Life was far simpler back then.
That’s awesome that your local lab only charges £6 for E-6 processing! That’s seriously just about the lowest I know of, anywhere. So, I guess we can bump my estimate for a roll of slide film plus processing in the UK down to about £26 *if* you have access to a local lab with nice prices like yours, or £36 (I’m estimating £5 both ways) if one has to pay shipping costs, which I’m guessing most people likely do. By the way, being curious, I dug up the 1987 Argos catalog you referenced and found the “Kodachrome 64 plus processing for £6.79” in reference. Processing *was* handled via a slide mailer (as I assumed), shipping to them *was* prepaid (as I also assumed), and return shipping was a mere 30 pence per roll (nearly irrelevant). So, especially factoring in shipping (which we should as that most directly compares to the Argos price in question here), I still see today’s costs, even at a very affordable lab like yours, as far more expensive than what £7.09 (£6.79 plus 30p return shipping; approximately £21 in today’s money) was back in 1987. Even accounting for inflation, we’re still talking about a roughly 70% higher price point today to shoot slides than in 1987, if we’re measuring what you pay locally, plus shipping, against the 1987 Argos price. That’s by no means a small difference, or at all inconsequential. I see the same to be true for costs in the USA (actually, generally much worse), despite all sorts of people constantly acting as though shooting film today is cheaper than it’s ever been (and defending the present state of things, which isn’t serving any of us well as it gives the film manufacturers/retailers an excuse to rip us off). It absolutely is not cheaper. I have to wonder exactly where those people used to buy film and get it processed. Truly, I do. They certainly weren’t shopping the same places my family was.
Here in the USA, I only know of two labs that still have *somewhat* fair/reasonable E-6 processing costs. There are likely other ones here and there that do, that only cater to their local customers, but I have no access to any such labs (again, you’re very fortunate that you do). So, the two I’m talking about here cater mainly to mail-in customers. One of them charges $9, $11, and $10 for 24-exposures, 36-exposures, and 120 E-6 processing, respectively. While I find these prices a tad high for a consumer (non-pro) lab, they do offer free shipping both ways if you spend enough in a single order, so it is somewhat reasonable overall as long as you send in at least a few rolls to get the shipping covered. The other lab charges $7.50, $8.95, and $8.50 for the same services, but the customer has to pay for shipping both ways (ouch). So, unless you’re sending in quite a bit of film at once (I’d say at least five rolls with them), the total cost is simply much too great. In both cases, this is for processing only (no scans or prints). Good resolution scans dramatically increase the price, just as they do in your situation. Just in case you’re curious, the closest walk-in-and-drop-off E-6 lab to me is well over a hundred miles away, unfortunately, and their prices aren’t great because they effectively have a monopoly in the city where they’re located.
I will say that, despite the two aforementioned labs being the cheapest options for me, if either of them increases their prices any more — even slightly — I’ll stop giving them my business and start developing E-6 film myself. The same is true for C-41. If they start getting greedy, they’ll go from receiving a fair amount of business from me year after year to receiving none, zero, zip, nada. So, if they ever happen to see this (unlikely), I hope they’ll take note.
Regardless, I’m in agreement with you. I, too, wish film prices would go back down again. Sadly, as long as a fair number of people continue to staunchly defend/promote today’s high prices and support the companies demanding them, I don’t see that happening. Instead, I think it’s far more likely such behavior is ultimately going to destroy the film community/industry altogether, and leave all of us without film in the future. If and when that happens, no doubt those defending, promoting, and supporting outrageous film prices will be standing around asking each other, “what happened?”, despite it being blatantly obvious.
Well, I wrote another book. Sorry (again)!
Take care! 😉
LikeLike
I think the long and short of it is that, whatever the case where historical prices are concerned, we’d all prefer the current cost of film to be as low as possible. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed! 🙂
LikeLike
Hi, adventurepdx:
A couple (two to three) of years ago (2018/2019) you could buy Kodak ColorPlus 200 or Gold 200 in 36-exposure cartridges for under $3 per roll, often even at brick-and-mortar shops. Now it’s $6-7 per roll, or more, virtually everywhere for these two stocks, even at the cheapest online stores. I think Adorama *might* still have ColorPlus for $5 per roll, but they’re the last I know of. Kodak UltraMAX in 36-exposure rolls was easily found for about $3.50-4 (and sometimes less) per roll a couple of years back. Fujifilm C200 and Superia X-TRA 400 in 36-exposure rolls were the same, about $3 (or less) and $3.25-3.50, respectively. 24-exposure rolls of all the aforementioned stocks could be found in the $2 to $2.50 per roll range, again, just two to three years ago. In all cases the costs have pretty much doubled today versus what they were in 2018/2019. Some have literally more than doubled, on average, such as UltraMAX and Gold 200. These are supposed to be “budget” consumer stocks, right? For comparison, just a couple of years ago, 36-exposure rolls of Ektar — a pro film — were equal to or less in cost than *any* of Kodak’s consumer C-41 offerings today, coming in at about $6 per roll the last time I bought a roll in 2018. In 35mm, Ektar is now $10 per roll, minimum, and often much more. In 120, Ektar was less than $5 per roll a couple of years back (the last time I bought any) and Portra 160/400 were in the $5-6 per roll range, too (bought in pro packs). They’re all now up in the $10-12 per roll range. Again, effectively doubled. I don’t even know what 35mm Portra prices are up to now. I quit caring a long time ago when their prices started skyrocketing. When Ektachrome was reintroduced in 35mm just a couple of years back I think it could be had for $10-11 per roll (I bought one roll at the time, but due to the cost I’ve bought no more since). It’s now up to $20 per roll most places, and often more. One or two places are still trying to hold it at $16-17, I think, but I doubt it’ll last (even that’s a ridiculous price). So, again, effectively doubled. It’s a similar story with Ilford. Compared to just two or three years ago, many of their stocks have effectively doubled in cost, Pan F PLUS and the Delta films in 35mm, in particular. Just two or three years ago I could get 100′ bulk rolls of Pan F PLUS, FP4 PLUS, and Delta 100 for $50-60 each. They’re all now $100 plus. Once again, doubled. The same is true for part of Kodak’s bulk 35mm rolls, by the way (at least T-MAX 100). Before it was discontinued a couple years back (maybe a tad longer than a “couple,” granted), the original ACROS could regularly be had for about $4 per roll in both 35mm and 120. After its reintroduction as ACROS II it’s now at a minimum $12 per roll. So, yes, that’s at least TRIPLE what it was in very recent memory. Admittedly, I may have been exaggerating a bit with the “quadrupled” figure in terms of that having happened in the past “couple” of years. But if you’re just talking about “within recent memory,” then no, that’s not really an exaggeration at all. It wasn’t all that long ago that you could buy a roll of slide film for under five bucks. Today, you’re pretty much looking at quadruple that. It also wasn’t long ago that you could buy re-branded 100′ bulk rolls of many 35mm
film stocks (e.g. TRI-X, ACROS, etcetera) for about $20 each. No more. So, yes, while perhaps not in just the last two to three years, it’s still the case that in a relatively short amount of time film costs for those shooting on a budget have easily quadrupled. How many people do you know whose salaries have quadrupled within the past decade, or even two decades? I could continue, but there’s really no point. If the cost of film continues on the trajectory it’s on, the film manufacturers are going to gut themselves. I’m half convinced that’s exactly what they plan on, and that they’re trying to milk their customers for everything they can one final time before shutting down film production for good. I hope I’m wrong, but it doesn’t change the fact that something has to change with regards to the current cost of film. Maybe you can afford it (if you can, I’m happy for you), but I can tell you that for a great many people desiring to shoot a reasonable quantity of film and not just a seldom roll, it’s absolutely not affordable at all. It hasn’t been for a while. I’d argue this is probably true for most amateurs, and it just keeps getting exponentially worse by the day. We desperately need the availability of truly budget options, and yet we basically have none today. This is the first time in literally decades that there was a total lack of budget offerings. Again, with the film manufacturing divisions of these companies doing far better than they have in a very long time (and they have been for several years now), there’s simply no excuse for the massively steep cost increases we’ve seen over the same time frame. It far exceeds the rate of inflation. Increases in raw material costs don’t come close to explaining it either. It’s just greed, plain and simple. I won’t support it.
Sorry for the long response. 🙂
Take care.
LikeLike
Yeah, that was quite a long response! 😉
I don’t really know how to respond, other than this:
I’ve only been shooting again for a year, and I came into this with the mentality that it’s going to cost some money. And due to my relative new-ness (I’m old enough to have shot film “back in the day” but it was whatever I could get at the drugstore) I’m not burdened by the notions of “x stock used to cost y z years go”. Slide film did cost five bucks a roll twenty years ago, but I didn’t shoot it then, and can expect it to be more nowadays. I don’t like the fact that things go up in price, but there is inflation, and there is the very real way how COVID has stretched supply chains and has made a lot of things more expensive. How prices increase doesn’t follow exactly how prices inflate, but I’m willing to wager that it’s close, and any big jumps may have had to do with costs correcting.
I’m not rich, but I still can afford film prices. I do a lot of shooting on ColorPlus (which I can get from $5.25 to $6 locally) so I’m not a Portra-all-the-time type. I’m also lucky to live in a city with a vibrant film photography community with at least four different places where I can buy pro grade film and also get film developed well. And I do know that development is also more expensive now, but looking back at when I worked at a place that offered film developing, it’s not out of line. (In 1997 a 36 exp. roll of 35mm with prints would be $6, at my lab dev/scan of that is $10.50. I made about $8/hr in ’97, $18.50/hr now.)
Even if it’s still more expensive, I’d prefer to buy fresh film. If anything, the prices of expired film on eBay has really jumped over the past year. It’s not worth spending $10 a roll or so for ten year old “I-don’t-know-how-it’s-been-stored” rolls when I could get a fresh roll for the same price or lower. The only value I’ve seen is getting cold-stored slide film, at least when I get two or more rolls from the same seller.
LikeLike
adventurepdx,
Sorry for the delay.
Yeah, as I told fishyfisharcade, I’m long-winded at times. Sorry about that! 😉
It sounds like you have some local shops available to you that offer fair prices, both for film and processing/scanning. That’s great! Consider yourself truly fortunate, though. I do not, nor does a huge percentage of the rest of the film community. But I’m genuinely happy for you that you do!
Ultimately, the point I’m trying to get across is that if film prices continue to follow the trend they have been for the past few years, then in very short order (within a few years) we’re going to arrive at a point where a single roll of consumer 35mm C-41 film may very well cost $10 (we’re already getting close; see: UltraMax), then $15, and then $20 shortly after that; a single roll of slide film may cost $25 (again, we’re already rapidly approaching such; see: Velvia), then $35, and then $45; and a single roll of basic, everyday B&W film may cost $15 (again, we’re already nearly there; see: ACROS II; Delta 3200 *is* there), then $20, then $30… People may act like that will never happen, that such prices are preposterous (and they absolutely are — but I’d say even *current* prices are), and there’s no way the manufacturers would ever take things so far. Well, again, plot the curve for the past five years for various film stocks and I’d argue it’s actually precisely where things are headed, and fast if something doesn’t change. Things are already spiraling massively out of control. If everybody just keeps embracing — and even defending — exponentially increasing costs, what do they honestly think these corporations are going to do to them?
Even shooting a relatively small amount versus what I would have in years prior, I can barely afford what film and processing costs now if I’m going to shoot enough to even make it worth my while. In fact, I can’t afford many (actually, most) film stocks at their current price points. This includes TRI-X, the T-MAX films, the Delta films, Pan F PLUS, FP4 PLUS, Ektar, all the Portras, Ektachrome, Provia, the Velvias, and so on and so forth. Even if the cheapest, most affordable, “budget” B&W film stocks (Foma, Ultrafine, Kentmere, etc.) get any more expensive than they already are, it’s likely going to force me and countless others out of this wonderful hobby for good. Needless to say, all of this is severely bad for the film manufacturer’s business, as well as for film labs. Actually, since Kodak, Ilford, and Fujifilm have *already* lost my business due to their high prices (except the very, very occasional purchase of Gold/ColorPlus, or C200/CH400), they’re *already* missing out on sales they could otherwise be having if they weren’t charging so much — sales they *did* have just a few years ago. Now they don’t. If it’s true that I’ve quit buying their products due to them being too expensive, it’s got to be true for others also. That’s just common sense. This situation they’re creating for themselves isn’t helping anyone one bit, including their own existence. No new sales from previously devoted customers is severely — and I do mean severely — bad news for them. They may see larger short-term profits during this “fad phase” that film is presently going through (and has been the last few years), but that phase will eventually end. What are they going to do then if they’ve long since lost their dedicated customer base? Long-term I can just about guarantee you what the manufacturers are doing is going to serve them very, very poorly. Simply put, if things don’t change the bottom is going to fall out of the whole film business eventually, despite there being absolutely no reason for it.
That’s why I’ve chosen to vote with my dollars and not support the “big three,” instead opting to support Foma and others who aren’t completely out of control. I wish others within this community would do the same, and stop defending/supporting exponentially increasing prices (even if they can afford them). Otherwise, the film manufacturers and retailers are just going to continue to think they can get away with charging whatever they want, which I’d argue is readily evident by what’s happened in just the last few years (and even the last few months).
Regarding expired film stocks for sale on eBay, yes, I 100% agree with you. It’s ridiculous how much old film often sells for today. There’s no excuse. It makes me want to throw up when I see people actually paying five to ten times more for a roll of twenty-year-old film than it cost when it was brand new and fresh. It’s mostly young hipster types doing this. Sadly, due to this foolishness, they’ve totally destroyed one of the previously best ways to shoot film on a budget — buying expired film at heavily discounted prices. It’s also unquestionably adding to the cost of fresh film and lab processing costs, too. It’s doing nothing but damage to the film community across the board, whether people recognize it or not. I remember when properly stored short-dated film was sold for up to half-off by camera shops/labs, slightly expired film was discounted to the point of costing next to nothing, and huge lots of expired film could be bought on eBay for peanuts. Oh, the good old days when people still had common sense and weren’t just selfishly out to rip off and mess everyone else around all the time, and when businesses/companies who were attempting to exploit their customers rightfully lost the support of those customers. I truly miss that world…
Well, I’ll let you go. Sorry again for my long-windedness! By the way, I enjoyed going through your Flickr photos you linked to above. There’s some good stuff in there.
Take care! 🙂
P.S. Slide film could regularly be found for $5 per roll less than a decade ago. It certainly has not been twenty years since this was the case. Less than twenty years ago (mid 2000’s — not very long ago) you could get a nice 36-exposure roll of E-6 film, such as Sensia or Elite Chrome, *with* a prepaid slide mailer for about $7-8 from the likes of Adorama, B&H, and others. That’s $7-8 total, for the film *and* processing (with mounting included, to boot). Yes, seriously. Consider that for a moment. Today, the same thing would easily cost, at an absolute minimum, four times (quadruple) as much (far more once today’s shipping costs are factored in). If that doesn’t illustrate the point I’ve been trying to make, I don’t know what will.
P.P.S. Also, just so you know, in the interim since my last comment prices on Kodak and Ilford films have gone up yet AGAIN at many of the major USA retailers. I’m not going to list all the stocks that jumped or by how much, but many of the increases are not insubstantial. Do you really think things aren’t out of hand?
LikeLike
P-
I’ll answer your last question first: No, I don’t think film prices are out of hand. Not cheap? Sure. Gone up? Yeah. Out of hand? Not really. Yeah, film companies can be greedy, and there is inflation. But there’s also been a pandemic for the last year that’s stretched resources and supply lines. Plus, film uses resources, and those are finite. Yes, the processes may be easier/more efficient to make the film, but there’s more than just that.
But I don’t really want to argue about this anymore. Film prices to you are too much. I get that. For me? I wish they’d be cheaper, sure. But I realized I’d be spending money on this stuff when I got back into it last year, and I don’t have the advantage or disadvantage of watching these prices creep up over years.
One thing I DO want to comment on is your use of the loaded term “hipster”. I know it’s easy to blame everything bad/wrong on “hipsters”, but let’s be honest: Getting younger folks into this hobby has been a positive thing overall. I don’t think there’d be more companies other than the Big Three willing to get into the film-making game again if it wasn’t for a fresh infusion of interest. And the finite supply of old and expired films is going to keep on dwindling and increasing in price, regardless of “hipsters”. Same goes for old cameras. This is simple economics. I’d rather be welcoming to new and younger folks getting interested in film, rather than a dwindling collection of older and older folk, mostly men, closely guarding their “secret” of film photography, complaining that they can’t buy up old slide film for cheap anymore because of “foolish” young folk.
As for me, I’m a middle-age white man in the Pacific Northwest who is by no means loaded, but enjoys shooting film again. And I want to see more people enjoy that too.
Thank you for your compliments on my photos!
PS – My local lab charges $8.50 for E-6, which is about £6.
LikeLike
adventurepdx,
I never said *all* younger folks shooting film are hipsters, did I? No, certainly not. I never even implied it. I clearly listed them as a subset, one which is messing things up on a multitude of levels (and they are). There are tons of young people shooting film who are NOT hipsters. And, yes, I’m all for new generations of people getting into film photography. If they’re serious about it, I have absolutely nothing against them. I’m their biggest proponent. It is primarily *for* them that I’m even bringing up the points that I have, because if things continue as they have been of late, countless young people who have a genuine interest in film will never even have the opportunity to get started due to the extreme cost involved, a cost which did NOT used to be even remotely as extreme. I can assure you this is *already* true for TONS of would-be, young film photographers. They’re being alienated, it’s getting exponentially worse every day, and it seems to me the film manufacturers could absolutely care less (back in the day, they did). Based on what I can see, it certainly appears to me they’d rather exploit the hipster types willing to pay anything for huge short-term profits rather than foster a healthy community by growing the number of devoted young people within it. Film being affordable is a requirement for the latter situation to exist, and the latter situation existing is a requirement if film is going to have a sustainable future.
Is all of this not entirely obvious based on everything I’ve written here? I’ve advocated for the continued existence of affordable film and film services (as well as scanners, chemistry, etcetera, etcetera) specifically *for* younger film photographers many, MANY times before, probably even in the comments on this very blog. Do you honestly believe I think film “belongs” only to older generations? Of course not — that’s absurd.
Take care.
LikeLike
P- That’s why I said “hipster” is a loaded term. It’s often thrown around to paint a broad brush of all Millenials/gen Z/”the Instagram generation”, so if you don’t clarify it, that’s how myself and many others perceive it. And it gets thrown around A LOT, as in “Hipsters are ruining film photography!” So use that word carefully if you don’t want to be misunderstood.
That’s great that you want film prices to go down for young photographers. True, you may have said it in other comments on this blog. But I don’t necessarily read other comments on this blog. And since it doesn’t seem like you have a link to your presence elsewhere on the internet (if you do have one), all I know about you and your opinions are what you’ve stated here. I’ve got only so much time, I can’t go research the backstory on everybody’s comments.
No, I honestly don’t believe film belongs to old people, or young people, or any specific subset, actually. Film should belong to everyone. I don’t like gatekeeperism.
One thing that is forgotten in this whole discussion about film prices is how less expensive the CAMERAS are now. I can get great cameras for a fraction of what they originally sold for. It also means I can try out multiple cameras, vs having to save up for months for one good camera and only one good camera. Because of that I can live with the higher film costs, and I’m sure that some others feel that way too. It’s a balance.
LikeLike