I'm starting to panic

[Cholentpot]

If you're bulk loading film and misusing ECN-2 for stills, you clearly value false economies over qualitative common sense.

MISusing?

Good day Sir!

 

[Don_ih]

Good day Sir!

?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I agree it can (ideally should) be an aesthetic choice. However, I can also get behind the argument of economy. If you're afraid to push the shutter button because of the cost per frame, and as a result, fail to learn/develop the craft of photography - well, that's a missed opportunity and from that perspective, I can see why someone would want to try and get hold of the cheapest film possible. Of course, one could also divert to digital capture. Nothing wrong with that, either.

I have zero qualms about running through 20 rolls of 120 Kentmere 400 to explore an idea/ place - and none about using up 5 rolls of Portra 800 if the idea is worth the material - cost-wise it's about the same (and in the mythical past that people rarely remember well, professional colour film was much more expensive relative to average incomes than people experienced 20 years ago). It's just that some people spend an immense amount of effort trying to delude themselves into feeling owed cheap professional grade film like some sort of cosplaying cinéaste manqué, then get upset when economic & quality control reality (and cinema industry demand) arrives. Frankly, if someone can't learn what they need to know about the basic craft of photography with 10-20 rolls of K400, deep questions need to be asked about the quality of education and the mindset of the learner.

 

[warden]

. (Examples here and here and here) Sharpness can be enhanced by using an acutance developer - PMK or Pyrocat HD do exceptionally well.

Very nice! I’ve been thinking about trying the Kentmere films and you’ve convinced me.

 

[retina_restoration]

Very nice! I’ve been thinking about trying the Kentmere films and you’ve convinced me.

I've found it a very worthwhile film in 120 format but don't care for it as much in 35mm, where the slight lack of sharpness present in Ilford products is a bit more obvious. If all I had available to me was Kentmere in 100 and 400 speeds, I could live with that.

 

[xkaes]

Frankly, if someone can't learn what they need to know about the basic craft of photography with 10-20 rolls of K400, deep questions need to be asked about the quality of education and the mindset of the learner

Perhaps some people who started out in digital -- where you can take pictures endlessly for free -- assume that film works the same way.

I remember the days when a shutterbug would bore everyone with a 30 or 40 slide SHOW. Nowadays it's 300-400 MUST-SEE images.

 

[Joel_L]

but it's a very good film for its price. (Examples here and here and here) Sharpness can be enhanced by using an acutance developer - PMK or Pyrocat HD do exceptionally well.

Those are really nice shots. I'm with Warden, I'll give Kentmere a try.

 

[Joel_L]

I agree it can (ideally should) be an aesthetic choice. However, I can also get behind the argument of economy. If you're afraid to push the shutter button because of the cost per frame, and as a result, fail to learn/develop the craft of photography - well, that's a missed opportunity and from that perspective, I can see why someone would want to try and get hold of the cheapest film possible. Of course, one could also divert to digital capture. Nothing wrong with that, either.

For me, my initial draw was it was an inexpensive way to shoot color negatives. I initially bought a couple rolls to see what I thought of it and ended up liking the look. That's when I bought the 400ft roll of 250D. You might recall the process experiments I did. Since then I have made a few more tweaks and have been happy with the results.

 

[Joel_L]

One thing I learned from 4x5" large format work -- even when film was "cheap" -- was to put more time into each image. Don't just run through a 36 exposure roll and end up with one or two good shoots.

I translated that approach a long time ago to all of my smaller roll film formats -- and nowadays it saves me a lot of moolah.

And if you just can't resist snapping away endlessly, get a half-frame camera -- or a Nickelodeon PhotoBlaster with 150 separate pictures on a 36-exposure roll!!!

Depends what one is doing right? When I shoot 4x5 ( or medium format ) it's mainly landscapes. If I'm out with one of my 35s ( when not trying process experiments ), It's typically wildlife or BIFs. A lot of those are burning 5 or more frames to get the one you want to keep. The rest, which it typically old buildings or machines of all types, yes, I spend more time thinking about what I want.

In the end I will find a way to do what I enjoy, it's just getting harder for many reasons.

 

[mshchem]

And right now, TMY is as cheap as it has been in five years. Lats week I bought some TMX and it was $7.23 per roll of 120. It hasn't been that cheap in years.

In 35mm I still buy 100' rolls of Delta 400, and even though it hasn't been that many years since it was under $100 for the roll, it's still so much less expensive than buying it in cassettes. (Currently about $140 per 100' roll, which means you can roll 36 exposure rolls for about $6.50 each, which is really good for a premium "fast" film)

That said, you can buy Kentmere in 100' rolls for $80, which is about as inexpensive as it gets. Kentmere has its limitations, but it's a perfectly serviceable film if treated wisely. I've used the 100 and 400 speeds and found it very respectable. Yes, I can see a difference in how it performs in terms of tonal scale and sharpness/acutance, but it's a very good film for its price. (Examples here and here and here) Sharpness can be enhanced by using an acutance developer - PMK or Pyrocat HD do exceptionally well.

Sure, film was so much less expensive ten years ago (I remember buying 25 sheet boxes of FP4 for about $90 in 2017!) but everything has become expensive. Buying a respectable latte somewhere is now between $5.00 and $8.00, which seems pretty outrageous compared to five years ago. That's life. Costs rarely go down. Photography has always been expensive.

For me, the bottom line is: putting a price on my emotional wellbeing. If I gave up film photography, I would be very unhappy, and emotional health is priceless.

Absolutely +1!

 

[Cholentpot]

View attachment 389870 ?

This

 

[koraks]

It's just that some people spend an immense amount of effort trying to delude themselves into feeling owed cheap professional grade film like some sort of cosplaying cinéaste manqué, then get upset when economic & quality control reality (and cinema industry demand) arrives.

I'm sorry, I don't see this happening a lot, to be honest. The problems people report with motion picture (color) film don't relate to the fact that these products end up in the user's hand at relatively low costs, or the technical differences with still-camera film. Quality control on Kodak's Vision3 and 5222 product appears to be excellent; we would have seen problems by now if they were there, but they simply aren't. The technical issues people run into are for the most part associated with process control which would be just as problematic for C41, contrast control for the B&W product, and, at a great distance the no. 1 issue: color balancing color negative scans - which, again, is what people find difficult with C41 just as well.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm sorry, I don't see this happening a lot, to be honest. The problems people report with motion picture (color) film don't relate to the fact that these products end up in the user's hand at relatively low costs, or the technical differences with still-camera film. Quality control on Kodak's Vision3 and 5222 product appears to be excellent; we would have seen problems by now if they were there, but they simply aren't. The technical issues people run into are for the most part associated with process control which would be just as problematic for C41, contrast control for the B&W product, and, at a great distance the no. 1 issue: color balancing color negative scans - which, again, is what people find difficult with C41 just as well.

Us who shoot cine film, especially those of us that used to get cheap short ends, know exactly what we're getting into.

 

[retina_restoration]

Those are really nice shots. I'm with Warden, I'll give Kentmere a try.

Thanks, I'm glad you found those useful.
I will state that the Kentmere films do behave differently than the more expensive Ilford products - I find Kentmere tends to offer less separation of values in the mid-upper range than Ilford films do, but you can compensate for that in post (to a degree).

Since I only use the 120 format Kentmere, I find it's sharpness and acutance quite sufficient for my needs, and as I say, you can improve acutance by choosing a high acutance developer, like one of the Pyro developers. Pyrocat HD will definitely enhance edge effects and sharpness.

 

[loccdor]

I recommend Adox Scala-50 A.K.A. HR-50. I see a bulk roll at freestyle for $89. B&H was recently selling 36 exp. cassettes for $6.50, though it's gone up a dollar since. It's great as a negative. It can do infrared. High resolving power. Very underrated and versatile film. It makes 35mm look like medium format if you've dialed in your process to a high enough resolution.

 

[VinceInMT]

…..Photography has always been expensive.

For me, the bottom line is: putting a price on my emotional wellbeing. If I gave up film photography, I would be very unhappy, and emotional health is priceless.

Exactly. And, it is, for me, less expensive than paying for mental health therapy.

Compared to some of my other hobbies, interests, and passions, the cost of photography, for me, is a blip on the budget. I have all the hardware I will need and so it’s only the consumables. My wife, an accountant, runs the household finances like a business and at the end of the year we have our family financial meeting where we go over our budget, incomes, and expenses. She breaks down my hobby costs and photography is minuscule compared to my vintage foreign cars and my addiction to motorcycling. At least my art thing sort of pays for itself with the few works I sell but, like my photography, I want to keep that as a hobby with no interest in monetizing it.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the end I will find a way to do what I enjoy, it's just getting harder for many reasons.

Yes, that's the only philosophy that really helps here and you have my sympathy. I too feel that photography has become more expensive in the last few years but like you I am stuck with it.


pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am a firm believe that "It is never too soon to panic!" Besides one does not need a logical reason to panic.

 

[BHuij]

$127 for 100' of FP4+ still works out to less than a quarter per exposure. Not anywhere near expensive enough for me to hesitate buying more when I run out *shrug*

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Yeah I'll put my hand up and say that Vision 3 is gorgeous used for stills, either scanned or optically printed.

Maybe FP4 used to be $80 per bulk roll, but then I used to be able to go to my local pub and get beer at a pound a pint. Time marches on, and many factors (all discussed at length) mean that cheap film is likely gone forever.

That doesn't mean we can't still be frugal in some ways. Switch to Kentmere or investigate whether Fomapan suits you. Look out for deals on short dated bulk rolls. Check out Freestyle's house brands and so on.

I used to be able to go to my local pub and get beer at a pound a pint. !!
Wow I remember being annoyed when it went to two bob!

 

[GregY]

I'd start to panic if they discontinued FP4+.....

 

[Agulliver]

Photography has always been expensive.

For me, the bottom line is: putting a price on my emotional wellbeing. If I gave up film photography, I would be very unhappy, and emotional health is priceless.

Yep. The only time photography was actually cheap was about 15-20 years ago when people were "upgrading" to digital and there was a flood of excellent used gear on the market.....bricks of film on eBay for a few dollarpounds and floods of cheap film in retailers because manufacturers and distributors had misread how fast the market would crash and there were tens if not hundreds of millions of surplus rolls of film needing to be sold quick.

Maybe it's more expensive now than 25 years ago even counting for inflation and wage increases....but I'd be significantly worse off emotionally if I couldn't do film photography. I'm shooting less colour than I did 20-25 years ago but definitely more B&W.

 

[NiallerM]

I recall when a free film came back with your prints. I left a pharmacy one day with an armful of Kodak, having dropped in about 15 rolls for development.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Ultrafine Extreme 400 is back and I love the stuff. Push a stop or two with no issues. It's not as cheap as it once was but it's still better than paying Tmax prices.

Thanks for the heads up! I really liked this stuff some years ago. Will definitely get some.

 

[GregY]

I used to be able to go to my local pub and get beer at a pound a pint. !!
Wow I remember being annoyed when it went to two bob!

We used to be able to buy a glass of draft for 10 cents (canadian)....since we're waxing nostalgic...& we'd always buy the complete tray the waiter was carrying, or order a tabletop full.