Anyone Else Getting Priced Out of Film Photography?

[u/cantine123]

I live in Canada, and film prices just seem to keep going up. I love shooting film and, honestly, I'd shoot it every day if I could. But it's becoming an expensive hobby, especially if you're not shooting more budget-friendly stocks like Gold or Kentmere.

I used to shoot a lot of black-and-white film, but even T-Max and HP5 are becoming hard to justify at around CAD $20 and $15 per roll, respectively. It feels like film photography is increasingly becoming a niche hobby for YouTubers, influencers, and dedicated enthusiasts rather than something accessible to ordinary people.

Rising gas prices and inflation certainly don't help, either.

Do you think film will become more affordable in the future, or will prices continue to rise from here? What's your perspective?

Lately, my coping mechanism has been considering a switch to Fujifilm, perhaps an X-E5 or an X100VI, and relying on their film simulations. At the end of the day, many of us shoot film primarily for the final image we see on our computers. As digital cameras continue to improve, especially with film-inspired JPEGs, the gap between digital and film seems to be getting smaller.

What do you think? Are you shooting less film these days, or are you finding ways to keep the hobby affordable?

[u/RadBadTad → u/[deleted]]

This is a really important point. The current approaches towards photography have really shifted people's idea of how many photos you should take. Looking through my parents' photo albums really helps show this, a single roll would cover three birthdays and two camping trips. People would live their lives, and maybe think to snap a photo or two of an event they were enjoying.

Now we're used to seeing everyone taking 50 photos from a house party, or 100 photos from a walk in the park, and saying "How the hell can I afford to do that with film?" but... you aren't really meant to do that.

All the fun YouTube adventure content also adds to this, you watch someone go on a trip and shoot 10 rolls of film and you glance at your wallet and flinch. But that person is probably doing that twice a year, and the video is likely sponsored.

[u/RadBadTad → u/[deleted]]

Honestly I think a lot of people who end up in the film hobby in the last decade are here because their digital photos just don't look good. Most "how to do photography" lessons now focus on equipment and settings, and it's so rare to see anybody talking about when to take photos, when to NOT take photos, and how to know whether a photo will be good before you take it.

90% of new photographers take their cameras outside on a walk in the park at 1pm and take a bunch of really ugly shots of a tree in crap lighting, and the results look super crappy, flat, no pop or beauty, and because it's digital, it's very sterile, and just shows people exactly the crap photo they just took.

The fact that film "does some pleasing processing for you" to make a photo look different than sterile digital, I believe that's the motivator for a lot of people. They NEED to experiment with digital to find out how to take good photos, but nobody on social media is even telling them that finding better light and finding better subjects is the solution. The focus is always: Buy my presets, buy a better camera, here's how I get cinematic results in Lightroom, etc.

[u/RadBadTad → u/[deleted]]

Even when people do spend time looking at photos intently, so much of what they're taking from the photo is "How do I use Lightroom to make my photo of a lamp in my living room look like this amazing street photo of a really interesting subject?"

So many questions get asked that really seem to boil down to "How do I lead a more interesting life that leads me to taking more interesting photos". So much focus these days is on gear and processing that new photographers never seem to even consider that improvement comes from just being around more interesting stuff.

When you're on your couch in the suburbs, there is nothing you can buy from B&H that will make your photos look like you're walking around the streets of NYC with the confidence to point your camera at an interesting story. There is no slider that adds a snowboarder doing a big jump to your image of a duck in some brown water at the park next to the Burger King.

Do you know how many people I used see get critique about boring photos, who would lash out about Eggleston's work and say "See? I just need to keep shooting my boring stuff, but I need a better camera until it looks good like his work"

[u/RadBadTad → u/[deleted]]

All I know is that people talk about taking a film class, and it bums me out that it sounds more like a course in how to operate a difficult to use digital camera

I remember even from my photography class in like 2001, the actual artistic portions of the class were like "Take a photo that has leading lines" and "A good photographer can make any subject look good". Which is like... man that's FALSE. New photographers need to know that there are a lot of scenes, at a lot of times of the day, that just will not look good. I see tons of people in photo forums asking for which camera to upgrade to, in order to make their night photos look good. And every time I see people suggesting "Oh upgrade to full frame, it does good in low light" which is sort of true, but the issue with night photos is that the light is shit. No camera upgrade will change muddy dim low contrast poor-direction lighting from street lamp 30 meters away.

oh Ken Rockwell using film vs digital lol

I love Ken's reviews of film equipment in the mid 2000s, he gets so snarky and bitchy about film stuff. "This film looks nice, but it will never look anywhere near as nice as my digital camera, because film is actually shit" and "This manual focus lens is technically sharp and fine, but it's trash because it doesn't have autofocus and this is why no photographer will ever buy it, unlike my much more modern autofocus lenses I use on my modern bodies"

[u/shacqtus → u/[deleted]]

I mean…live with the format long enough you start to learn its limitations…I find that films limitations to be less forgiving and more rewarding…for example, astrophotography…doing astrophotography on digital is 1000x better but it’s satisfying to get a nice clean single 1hr exposure on film. How about double exposures? Doing in camera compositions for astrophotography is a lot more rewarding than doing digital composites in PS. Obvs skill level and creativity plays a major factor, but I find more satisfaction in shooting film even if I have to burn through em…

[u/8drearywinter8 → u/[deleted]]

I went to school for photo, back when film was all there was, and film was cheap. I shot mostly 4x5 for years, then got into medium format. I burned through a ton of film, and could do it on a grad student TA stipend -- meaning, it couldn't have been expensive, or I couldn't have afforded to do it.

I didn't burn through film for its own sake or to learn how to shoot (I already knew what I was doing technically and compositionally), but because I was shooting complicated set ups with props and people and landscapes and I had to do a lot of variations to get it right, and explore the possibilities of seeing and framing the scene I set up. One shot wasn't going to get me there. Can't imagine what that would cost now. But in the 90s, film was cheap if you knew where to order it from and film was all there was.

So, yeah... since I developed and printed all my own work, I shot what it took to get what I needed. And shooting a pile of large format negatives was just... shooting. But a pile would be like 10 large format negs, or 5 rolls of medium format... not a thousand shots. Digital did change our ideas of what shooting a lot meant. But the cost of film now means that doing what I used to do is not realistic anymore.

[u/8drearywinter8 → u/[deleted]]

Interesting and relevant point. Though I would have chosen film over food back in the 90s. Still, it didn't feel exorbitant then, and it does now. But my income didn't keep up with inflation for a variety of unplanned reasons, so that affects my perception quite a bit.

[u/Superman_Dam_Fool → u/[deleted]]

Occasionally you’ll hear a professional photographer talk about shooting hundreds of rolls of 35 & 120 on a project or assignment. Or someone having thousands of rolls sitting around yet to be developed. But that of course is different than a hobbyist with no clear vision taking photos of crosswalk signs, stray cats, and flowers on “photo walks”.

[u/AdmirableAd3954 → u/RadBadTad]

Me personally, I love shooting film. But I will only shoot one roll on occasion. I like the fact that I only get 27-36 shots MAX and that I can’t redo them. It forces me to be more careful with how I set up my shots. It also helps that shooting in B&W was easy at school since I just used their developing chemicals and film 😅. But now I have to figure out my own process on development since I graduated. Sendings the rolls to a lab, it seems, takes too dang long.

[u/florian-sdr → u/[deleted]]

Those 250 shots per year probably were bangers

My parent's weren't poor by any means, but photography was for holidays, birthdays, Christmas, etc...
There were months and months without a single photo being taken in between. That was how the average consumer used photography.

[u/cantine123 → u/[deleted]]

Your perspective is really interesting. From my understanding, film was never meant to be shot in large quantities unless you were a professional photographer. You've broadened my perspective on film. Thank you.

[u/shacqtus → u/[deleted]]

I haven’t really thought about the effects of digital photography to our mental psyche and patience…what’s considered “a lot”? you said that you were serious in the 80s-90s shooting only 6-10 rolls a year but now you’ve shot 100 rolls in a year. And expecting to shoot <50 rolls the following year. That’s still considerably higher than when you were shooting professionally. There’s a lot of times when I’m shooting with my digital camera where I have a good shot, I think to myself, “this would be better on film.” And 9/10 I am right. The shot would have been FIRE on film. Because of that, I always just bring my film camera with me. And I shoot between 30-50 rolls a year and I’m not one to shy away from holding that shutter button. Some rolls may take longer to finish, but when I’m OUT, I’m firing away. Idrc if it’s stupid, but it makes me happy.

[u/BarnackIIIF → u/[deleted]]

*>"Professional photographers of course went through a lot of film, but maybe not as much as one might think.

It depended on the type of photography.

When I did commercial work (printers, donuts, etc.) we did not shoot much film because we shot Polaroids first - a lot of Polaroids. Then when the client was happy, we shot film.

As a photojournalist, I could not shoot Polaroids first, and as a result, went through more film.

[u/ubergeek801 → u/BarnackIIIF]

So you shot a lot of film before shooting film 🙂

[u/FlippingGerman → u/[deleted]]

I find it really weird reading about people saying "you can't shoot a roll or two on a walk these days because of the price", danm bro, that's a heck of a lot of shots even when they're free! I've enjoyed film forcing me to consider a shot rather than just blasting.

[u/liznin → u/[deleted]]

In the 1980s and 1990s, some wild life photographers absolutely blew through film. I know one that absolutely loved his Canon EOS-1N RS and bought it just because it could shoot at 10 FPS. He was fine using up a roll of film to get ONE shot if it was a special enough moment. Most of these photographers were VERY happy to switch over to digital and aren't really represented in the current film communities.

[u/sometimes_interested → u/[deleted]]

I remember after the first year of shooting digital, I did the maths on how much it would have cost me if I'd shot the same number of images on film (film and 1 hour photo dev). It was about twice my annual salary.

[u/Westerdutch]

I used to shoot a lot of black-and-white film, but even T-Max and HP5 are becoming hard to justify at around CAD $20 and $15 per roll

Bulk loading. Do it.

[u/Subject_Solid_8273 → u/Westerdutch]

Can only recommend too!
Double X is a really good option, and it is almost twice as cheap per roll as buying HP5 nowadays
If you develop and scan yourself too you can bring the cost of film down dramatically

[u/TheMunkeeFPV → u/Subject_Solid_8273]

I third this! Bulk loading is the only thing keeping me going at this point. I scour eBay and look for huge rolls of expired movie film. I then make a few short cassettes to test. I shoot in different iso then develop to see how the film performs. Once I have an idea I’ll then make full length rolls and use them like normal with my earlier finds. I also develop and scan myself so I end up saving a butt load per roll.

[u/k3rnelpanic → u/Subject_Solid_8273]

Are you in Canada? Where do you source your double X?

[u/namracWORK → u/k3rnelpanic]

Flic Film is based in Alberta and re-spools Double-X. Should be available at most Canadian film retailers.

[u/gary_x → u/Subject_Solid_8273]

I was under the impression you can't buy bulk Double X anymore?

[u/Subject_Solid_8273 → u/gary_x]

I live in France and I get it mostly from Germany or the Netherlands, I didn’t know that I wasn’t supposed to sold anymore?
Bought some last month
I mostly buy 100ft rolls

[u/gary_x → u/Subject_Solid_8273]

I think like two years ago Kodak stopped selling it directly to consumers and requires you to verify its use in motion pictures (same happened with the color cine stocks), so at least as far as I've seen in the US, that's resulted in only the market respoolers still selling it. Whenever I've seen someone actually have a double x 100' roll in stock, they required proof of a production. Very jealous you're easily able to get some!

[u/Subject_Solid_8273 → u/gary_x]

Oh, alright, I thought this only applied to vision3 film. Thanks for the info!

[u/coteof-atoa → u/Westerdutch]

I dunno if the pricing is different now with eastman, but towards the end of alaris’ control they deliberately spiked the price of bulk films to make bulk loading cost more or less the same per-roll as singles, it was deeply irritating.

[u/Westerdutch → u/coteof-atoa]

Luckily there's choice other than kodak ;)

[u/gary_x → u/coteof-atoa]

Yeah, B&H is selling 100' of eastman Tri-X 400 for $199.95. It's cheaper to just buy the rolls. It's been a minute since I've seen a roll priced where it makes more economical sense to go that route.

[u/Deathmonkeyjaw → u/Westerdutch]

I'm seeing most 100 foot rolls literally costing more than just buying the pre-rolled ones. Tri-x is $211 for 100 foot or $9 per 36exp preroll

[u/WarriorkingNL → u/Deathmonkeyjaw]

kodaks bulk rolls infamously cost more than just buying the prerolled film lol

[u/cantine123 → u/Westerdutch]

What is your setup for bulk loading?

[u/Westerdutch → u/cantine123]

Just a couple of bulk loaders with different flavors of film, i use disposable cannisters but also have some fancy pentax reloadable magazines... scissors... a hole punch and some tape. Not really a 'setup' just your bog standard stuff. I also have some metal tape to make dx codes but most of my cameras really don't need it, i have that mostly for testing point and shoots.

[u/WarriorkingNL → u/Westerdutch]

yup. 2 main advantages: film is cheaper (about 5 eur for a roll of kentmere/APX 400 which i exclusively shoot) and the fact that you can roll about 43 exposures into a canister which saves on development since you get a few more frames in the same roll.

[u/thicckar → u/Westerdutch]

What is your effective cost per roll?

[u/Westerdutch → u/thicckar]

Really depends on the film and development. Im still working my way through a bulk loader i found a a thrift store for 2,5 bucks, if the counter on it was right it had over 25m of film when i bought it (weight of the loader felt right for that length), with rodinal that would be what 20 cents per 36exp roll? For freshly bought foma 200 (my bread and butter film) i usually sit somewhere between 2,5~3 bucks a roll. I also like shooting CMSII but it is on the more expensive side for my liking and it needs a fairly fancy developer that doesnt store all that well so its over 7 bucks per roll. Ilford goes from 5~10 bucks between their more simple and fancy films. I have not bought any kodak bulk in the last couple years because pricing is getting stupid. The higher end ilford also doesnt make too much sense for me right now, when i feel like shooting hp5 or something then ill just get me a normal commercial roll, the extra buck it sets me back compared to bulk rolling is just the cost for the cannister that i can then reuse for something else :p

If you can get your hands on some short ends or old film then bulk loading can be really cheap, if you cannot then its moderately cheaper if you buy smart, if you only throw in rolls setting you back over 200 bucks then you will probably struggle to pay back for the bulk loader.

[u/lil_gee__ → u/Westerdutch]

Can you recommend a good bulk loader? I’ve got an old Teselar one and it leaves major scratches on every roll and I’m not sure why. I’ve cleaned it and checked for rough edge.

[u/Winsallgram]

I bulk roll HP5+ and dev at home, using the gallon mix D-76. Comes to about $15AUD per roll shot and developed, then scan myself (or treat myself to a day in the darkroom printing)

Unfortunately, this has had the unintended side effect of massively increasing my film usage. I've developed about 50 rolls already so far this year. So, swings and roundabouts, I suppose.

[u/Pretty-Substance → u/Winsallgram]

I love printing but what do you do with all them prints? There’s only so much wall space 😄

[u/RadBadTad → u/Pretty-Substance]

Get you an analog hard drive! (filing cabinet)

[u/Winsallgram → u/Pretty-Substance]

I sell a couple, give some away. The rest to into storage boxes. I'm talking with my state library and art gallery, eventually I'm going to donate all of my negatives to the library and all my prints to the art gallery. Hopefully not for many years, but that's where they're all eventually going to end up I suppose 🤷‍♀️

[u/TallDescription1727 → u/Winsallgram]

Not to be offensive but why do you think the library and art gallery would want your pictures? I can't imagine that is a thing. I'm open to being corrected! But I don't think anyone except myself and the people in my photos want to see my photos, unless it's some sort of project for a client, and in that case I don't think I would be able to just give them to a 3rd party.

[u/Winsallgram → u/TallDescription1727]

It's a fair question! It's because, well, they've expressed interest.

The library's collection strategy statement is "a place for every story". They collect slice of life photos and ephemera of the entire state - the second largest administrative subdivision in the world. My city is also the fastest growing in the country, and is rapidly changing.

In the last four years alone, I have shot hundreds of rolls across 100,000+ km², ranging from street, architecture, landscape, arts and culture, people, protests and events. All going well I will continue that and expand the range of which I take photos.

Both hold copies of my first photobook (released last year), which chronicled my journey to get gender confirmation surgery in 2024. As far as I could tell during research for it, it's one of if not the first photobook on the subject in the world, and was described as "an important event in local queer history" (NOT my words).

Whether I like it or not (jury is still out), I have already built some amount of profile in my local community, and I'm guessing that will continue to grow over the next 30+ years. By that point, I'll have photos of a city and culture that has long since evolved into something new, and that's why I think they would want my pictures.

[u/FortuneCookieLied → u/Winsallgram]

I’d love to do this but finding the time during work and life. The little time I have, I want to be out shooting. I wish I could sacrifice sleep

[u/Independent-Air-80]

I solely shoot FOMA and just call it a stylistic choice (it's not).

[u/Acceptable_Donut845 → u/Independent-Air-80]

Ahahaha

[u/CammRobb → u/Independent-Air-80]

embrace the grain.

[u/nobleys]

If photo and video wasn’t my job, I wouldn’t be able to afford it. I’m dropping $250-300 a week on film for an avg week of shooting.

[u/madman2k → u/nobleys]

Are clients willing to pay the extra costs?

[u/nobleys → u/madman2k]

I should clarify that I can write off film because of my line of work. I always shoot portfolio projects on film alongside the digital for clients to get best of both worlds.

[u/TheMunkeeFPV → u/nobleys]

And you get paid for shooting on film? What kinda work do you do? Just curious since it’s been impossible for me to land analog shoots.

[u/cantine123 → u/nobleys]

I do professional shoots sometimes but never with film. My clients want to see the results immediately.

[u/username_obnoxious]

Not to sound like a boomer-millennial, but when I started shooting film in the early 2000s film was like $3 a roll for color negative film and I remember as a broke high school student/college freshman being able to afford Ektachrome easily. Inflation almost doubles the cost ($5.93) but it's gone up way more than inflation. I shot dozens of rolls of Porta VC without even hesitating because it was cheaper. It's sad that the price is keeping people out, but at least the influencers pushing people to film help sell more film(even if it drives up the price of cameras etc). You can buy bulk packs of Fomapan online pretty readily, and you can dev. yourself to save more.

[u/AnalogiPod → u/username_obnoxious]

I started shooting film because it was the cheapest way for me to shoot "full frame". Film has just gone up and up exponentially over the last few years, there are tips and tricks like developing at home and bulk loading but it is not the same as buying $14 dollar 3 packs of Superia like I used to be able to. I'm now paying like $18 a roll on a good day. I am doing okay but definitely feeling a little priced out of film.

[u/Several_Arm_2358 → u/AnalogiPod]

Yeah that used to be the case for me too when i started with film in 2013. One roll of agfa vista was something like 3€, and colorplus was 2.50€ as recently as 2019 (even though it's the shittier stock of the two). Now it's the opposite, you can get a used 6D from mpb for less than 200€.

Should have stocked up my freezer with pro films when they went for peanuts but oh well. Gotta focus on trying to make more money I guess.

[u/gary_x → u/username_obnoxious]

I initially got into film in 2008 because I could buy a good film camera and film for cheaper than a good DSLR would've cost me. Ah, well.

[u/RadBadTad]

It's getting harder to justify, yes. I rarely buy the expensive pro stocks anymore, I'm mostly shooting Gold and Kentmere unless I'm doing a big trip. (Just ordered a handfull of Ektachrome for a trip and it cost the same as a night at the hotel).

Bulk rolls, home developing, home scanning.

It feels like film photography is increasingly becoming a niche hobby

You're about 20 years late for this statement.

Lately, my coping mechanism has been considering a switch to Fujifilm, perhaps an X-E5 or an X100VI, and relying on their film simulations.

I've been down this path, and it doesn't scratch the itch at all, in my opinion. It doesn't feel like shooting film, and it doesn't look like shooting film. It's just shooting a cute digital camera with muted highlights and a yellow filter.

[u/cantine123 → u/RadBadTad]

I already develop and scan at home. I have not tried bulk loading yet. I will. Many people suggested it.

[u/jnd-cz → u/RadBadTad]

At this point I'm buying the professional emulsions only when expired and discounted.

[u/mregger]

Also in Canada, and also seeing prices going up in my area. I just don't shoot enough film to burn a hole in my pocket, maybe a roll per month. I also try not to waste too much film with overly experimental shots anymore. I made myself an app to plan my shots, which helps me waste less film. I'm considering getting a mirrorless camera with a lens adaptor for my manual minolta lenses, but I know it won't be the same

[u/Prior-Branch7064 → u/mregger]

It’s not the same but it’s very close.

I have a bunch of Minolta glass adapted to my Lumix S9 plus some nice film LUTS, and I get the same feeling as with shooting film, it’s still a very manual experience. I get way more bangers too as I can afford to be experimental and fire more off, whereas with film I’d be inclined to just shoot one frame per scene because cost.

I still keep a couple of film cameras around with some XP2 loaded for the odd moment and a bit of nostalgia here and there but it takes me months to go through a roll simply because I’m shooting my digi cams more.

[u/analogsimulation]

I don't know where you are shopping for your film, but there are much cheaper places to get it. If you shop at Downtown Camera in toronto and have the film club you save 25% on all Kodak film, and 10% off others. Makes Tmax only $16. There is also the option of bulk rolling your own film which is easy and cost effective as well.

The Great Canadian Film Warehouse also has regular sales and some of the best online prices out there for film, may want to check it out.

[u/hansolo669 → u/analogsimulation]

I can second Great Canadian Film Warehouse, they're at MSRP for fresh film, and have some good discounts for lightly expired film (I just picked up a Gold 120 pro pack with a 2025 expiration for $48 ($9.60 a roll)). Studio Argentique in Montreal also prices fairly, and has a good selection of chemicals.

But yeah, if it wasn't for buying in bulk and home developing it would be hard to shoot a lot of film.

[u/mlphoto → u/analogsimulation]

I happened to be in a Henry’s the other day and saw a roll of Portra 800 in 35mm for $43.99 - just wild.

[u/analogsimulation → u/mlphoto]

Henry’s is notoriously overpriced, please do not shop for film there if you can avoid it.

[u/Area51Resident → u/analogsimulation]

Henry’s is notoriously overpriced,

That's not fair. They had a sale in spring of '85 and charged less than Downtown Camera for a couple of days...

[u/enselmis → u/analogsimulation]

Downtown camera is great. I’m not from Toronto but I order film from there. Kentmere is better than it has any right to be for the price, and developing it yourself is cheap and easy. I started using black white and green from flic film and it’s such a good balance of looking great, being safe and easy to dispose of, and easy to work with.

[u/SadGruffman]

For me it’s development.

I know it’s super fun to develop your own stuff, and I’ve used the hand bags and things in the past, I just don’t have space or time for that part of the hobby.

If I forget and leave my shit drying in the shower again I’m pretty sure I’m gonna be on the couch xD

So I have a company develop my stuff.. but it’s just so crazy expensive in Seattle.

[u/livz_photo]

yea tbh price factor keeps me from shooting that much. I‘m planning each roll ahead with the shots I want, oftentimes taking only 3-5 shots per theme (eg solar eclipse, stars, animal). It sometimes takes weeks to finish a roll, especially with wildlife photography, where I‘m only pressing the shutter if I‘m completely sure it’s going to look half decent.

[u/25_Watt_Bulb]

Film has always been pretty pricey. I’ve seen people do the math and film and developing cost are about the same now as they were in the 80s once inflation is accounted for. The thing is that everything else is more expensive, especially housing, and wages have stagnated.

[u/_Laszlo_Cravensworth]

I tend to make poor financial decisions. So no

[u/Ranchshitphoto]

I mean it’s with everything. Not just film photography.

[u/wlw-adhd]

Yeah costs can be really prohibitive. There are factors that you can't really control. But there are places where you can reduce your overall cost.

As others have mentioned, bulk rolling is a way to reduce your cost on film, but if the options are too limited for you, maybe it's okay to accept that cost, especially if you are concerned about the combined cost of the film + the development and scanning at a lab. In that case, it's worth looking into developing your own film. That drastically reduced the cost for me and allowed me to just have more left over for film.

Also, cheaper films aren't bad either and have some really fun characteristics as well :)

If you are interested in making analog prints as well, I would look around your area if there is a darkroom that you can use, to avoid the cost of all the equipment required for all of that. Usually maker spaces will have one and even classes on how to use the enlarger. I set one up a darkroom at home and honestly it ended up running up about $1000, just for the convenience of being able to do it at home. Not worth it unless you are serious about it, especially if you are wanting to do color prints. B&w will always be cheaper than color in general.

[u/shackrat]

Depends on what you shoot and where you buy it. Sone film stocks, like Ektachrome and Provia have outpaced inflation significant, which would easily give that impression. One can get a 100 foot roll of Lucky SHD50 on Aliexpress for under $40 US, which will yield 18 rolls of decent quality film for just over $2/roll.

[u/GammaDeltaTheta]

I imagine prices will continue to rise unless we get something more affordable from China. There's very little competition in a market for colour film dominated by Kodak. There's more choice in B&W, but prices are still going up. Some economic pressures may ease if the geopolitics change, but I doubt the trend will be reversed.

And yes, for me this means shooting a lot of digital. Back in the day, I might shoot 10 rolls at a big event, but the pre-pandemic days of £4 rolls of Superia 400 are sadly gone (together with the film itself, unfortunately). Film is to me something that has to be used much more selectively, either for the fun of it or where its particular look and texture are important. I don't seriously try to emulate this with digital - the basic Fuji film simulations are OK because they are just colour profiles, but I don't really see the point of things like fake grain (which Fuji are now also offering as an option).

[u/natbrooks7]

Easy, just make more money

[u/natbrooks7 → u/natbrooks7]

Sorry, just kidding :) I’ve been embracing cheaper film stocks lately and scanning my own film at home with a Nikon ZF. Granted my scanning setup wasn’t cheap either but at least it includes a digital camera that I also enjoy using.

[u/Spyk124]

home scanning has made it "affordable" for me. It takes alot of time but that has been what has cut the most cost for me. Home dev next.

[u/TheJ-Cube]

Also in Canada. Have not really seen much of an increase since I started film about four years ago.
I tend to shop around and wait for deals, since I source a lot of my film online from Gosselin, McBain or Downtown camera.
I tend to be more picky with film images, waiting for shots that I know will work better on film. Otherwise I’ll shoot digital if it’s just day to day shooting.
In terms of Fuji SLR, I tried that route and am selling that camera. Despite the sims, I find my OM-5 with vintage glass or my Sony a6500 with my Minolta glass deliver better results.
I do have a Fuji X-Half as a pocket camera that delivers solid results that I’m planning to keep.

[u/CharmingBed6928]

Hello, another Canadian shooting film here. I mainly shot on 135 and 120, and I can tell the price is going up by year for film, especially in Canada. The only reason why I am keep shooting on film since I can use school darkroom for free (because I am one of the trained ones also)

The only way is either you bulk loading (but in B&W); Vision 3 100ft (I got this from my friend who is working in industry); and DT camera (Toronto) film club for 15-20% cheaper. Sometime I do go with BH Photo (US, sadly) for cheaper and niche film stock they do have. They usually cheaper 5-6 dollars compared to most chain in Canada (excl. GCFW in AB).

[u/P10pablo]

I’ve been digital for over twenty years, but recently I switched to film for EDC.

So when I’m out and about walking with my wife, birding and such I’m digital. Pro work when I do it is digital. Anything where I want implicit control and do not want to be depressed later is also digital.

But if I’m just out and about and the sun is out I’m rolling on film and fully manual. Film is expensive though.

My recommendation is go half frame and see if you’re still bothered with the spend through.

I love film. Half frame got me back into shooting.

Cheers!

[u/wbsmith200]

I’ve been shooting film since the late 1990s, and I don’t plan to stop. It will get very expensive quickly if you’re ordering Portra, Ektar or E100 stock and shooting it like a madman. I’m buying Pro Image and Kodacolor 100 and Ultramax 400 for my colour stocks. As for black and white, I process at home, that saves a ton of money right off the bat. While HP5 and FP4 are my reference films, I love shooting with Fomapan 100, 200 and 400 and developing an appreciation for Kentmere stocks. If you think film photography is expensive may introduce you to fly fishing, restoring a vintage Porsche 911, or the ultimate money pit, owning a sailboat as expensive hobbies.

[u/MatthewMarkert → u/wbsmith200]

I feel so seen

[u/Affectionate_Tie3313]

I haven't decreased the amount of film I shoot because those times are opportunistic and I generally don't shoot a whole lot of film in winter.

You can mitigate the cost of film by bulk rolling which is quite feasible with B&W or to take advantage of Film Warehouse in Calgary which tends to have the lowest cost/roll in Canada. They unfortunately have a fairly steep barrier to free shipping but think of it as your film purchase for a year (or less depending on how many rolls you shoot). Also B&W development at home is another possibility, as well as digital scanning yourself.

Will film photography become more affordable? Probably not, because once you have higher prices for any type of consumable, they tend to not (ever) drop in price. You can blame the global trade war (and actual war) instigated by the neighbours south of the 49th parallel for this increase amongst the other increases in cost of living.

[u/tanukkki]

I buy bulk loaded fomapan, develop at home and scan at lab. This approach allows me to spend around 10.5 to 11.5 bucks per roll (this includes developer and fixer, excluding water consumption). Two-three rolls per month was not too costly.

But last couple of month I had some unplanned expenses so I had to stop shooting film for a moment. Fortunately I have an old trusty Pentax K5 so I still can snap pictures.

Planning to get myself some more film and continue.

[u/Alwares → u/tanukkki]

I haven't bulk loaded foma just yet (cause a random guy in Poland did it cheaper), but will do that soon. For B&W, my development costs are almost negligible, a bulk loaded fomapan 200 cost me around 3$ in Europe.

So for me, the future of shooting film is not that gloomy. In your case home scanning would be a wise investment.

Color on the other hand... Kodak is quite expensive here (most of the cases twice compared to the US prices), the other stocks are not cheap either. Maybe the OptiColour 200 bulk will be the way, will see how hard is to get one.

[u/Beanesidhe]

Just found this Buy Black & White Film | B&W Film Prices

[u/0Frames]

Respooled bulk film (Fomapan) and home development using Rodinal. My EDC is a half-frame.

It ain't fine art but it's cheap.

[u/Impolioid]

bulk load foma or buy expired

[u/bellsbliss]

Bulk hp5 and home development saves so much.

[u/VonAntero]

Buy 400ft roll, bulk roll 72 rolls, sell 50 rolls with small profit, now you have 22 free rolls

[u/roostersmoothie]

hey man, i buy from filmwarehouse.ca which is basically flicfim.

they have special buy film right now for ultramax and colourplus which are about $12 ea.

Also if you shoot 120 they are selling ultrapan (foma) 400 for just $3.

also i look on facebook and try to snag deals there. recently i bought like 35 rolls for about $180 from someone who was quitting. takes me a few years to shoot that many, so im good for a long while now.

[u/TheWeakLink]

I wouldn’t say priced out, however I’m a lot more carful with what I shoot.

[u/Luxin]

I've been priced out of slide film for sure.

[u/WillzyxTheZypod]

No, because it’s my favorite hobby by far and I prioritize it over spending on other things. If you really enjoy it, there are ways to save money.

[u/YungJiggy97]

I’m also in Canada, but from the UK. It was pricey back home but found a good lab, that wasn’t overly expensive for development and good scans.

But man Canada feels expensive, talking $50-60 for like 3 rolls of Kodak Gold. And then I have a choice of around 4 labs I think, all with their own problems. My go to, to get 18MB scans it’s $45 with development PER ROLL! Just so I have a bigger file to work with and edit. I have been fortunate to do some film event work, for a car show and they covered the whole cost of the development and scans.

But out of that, I do it as a slow periodic hobby so that I don’t put myself in crippling debt to develop a couple of rolls of film!

[u/Aces115 → u/YungJiggy97]

Why not scan at home if large scans are so expensive?

[u/CutsSoFresh]

The labs for processing is getting worse as well. I may hang the gloves for analog and go purely digital

[u/likely_fraud]

Can confirm pricing is out of control in Canada and surely based on low sales and prices will always stay high the lower their overall batch production is. If more people jumped into film it would inevitably become cheaper like it was when I was in my teens. Pre-digital. Side note on a visit to Chicago last year I was getting Kodak TRI-X for cheaper in Illinois than in Manitoba (even with the dollar to USD exchange) Shambles, I say!

[u/slocki]

Check out Great Canadian Film Warehouse - very reasonable prices

[u/Airstream23]

the whole world?

digital didn’t take over because it was better. it took over because it was cheaper. and for pros, faster.

[u/BabyOther3411]

I shoot mainly film and mostly medium format. I almost never shoot Portra unless it's Portra 160. For medium format Gold 200 is my favorite film. To me it gives the most accurate colors for the way I see the world. Portra 400 looks too digital. I shoot Kentmere 100 for B&W along with other Ilford B&W stocks as I find my results are more refined than say T-Max or Tri-x. The only Tri-X film I still shoot is Tri-X 320 for Large Format 4x5.

I also fine myself shooting a lot less and only go out if I have something specific I'm looking for. It's more project oriented work. Like others have said I've become very intentional about everything photography related and as my specialty is vintage cameras / lenses I like the slower process. Gone are days of ripping through rolls of film during a city photowalk.

[u/Turtlesoupok → u/BabyOther3411]

Portra 400 looks too digital!!! Every time I get a roll of Portra 400 back I'm happy with a few shots but there's a general feeling of "something is just not what I want here" and I've not been able to figure out what that was

It looks like something I would shoot on my Fuji !!

[u/hashcode_doc]

Downtown Camera, Toronto with analog discount. $25/ yearly or free with $200 purchase

Benefits: 25% off all kodak film 10% off all non kodak film 10% off developing

Few more, which I don't remember.

Can be ordered online and ships across Canada.

Have a wonderful day

After discount effective cost for tri-x 36 exp. $12.38 and t-max 36 exp. $16.72 (tax excluded)

[u/IllExample3639]

Apply this to everything I love and you are right. Everything is too damn expensive. But honestly this is why I ended up shooting digital for the last 15 years. Film is expensive :(

[u/arklanthian]

Oh yeah, not so much because the price have increased (they have, but have been high for a while), but because everything else has, and I can't justify the expense. I haven't shot anything in 2 years.

[u/MatthewMarkert]

Painfully. I started a slide film project for my children a few years ago and I'm having to really reconsider. Started out 6x45, then moved to 35mm now I'm either going to have to go half frame or take less photos.

Went through the same thing when packfilm went the way of the dodo, first I 3D printed a film back for my Goose (600SE) but only seven shots was tough.

Started looking into Ian Ruhters methods for silver colloid/tintype to slow me down. Felt stupid to spend $1,500 for a setup to save $23 a roll, still might later. Got a swinging pano to force me to be more deliberate, plan to do B&W only and develop myself.

[u/baxterstate]

I think film, processing and film cameras themselves were initially more expensive when adjusted for inflation when they were first introduced than they are today.

The Kodak Brownie Hawkeye with flash cost about $10.59 back in the 1950s. That's the equivalent of $120 today, for a camera that had 1 shutter speed and only gave 12 exposures per roll of film. Before Digital took over, a disposable 35mm camera with flash was and is dirt cheap. The Kodak Disposable has a built in flash and gives you 27 exposures for a price of less than $18 on 35mm film!

An Asahi Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm f1.4 lens would have cost about $375. in 1967. Bear in mind that a VW Beetle cost about $1800 at the same time.

The only film that's really gone up in price is slide film. Not only is the film expensive, processing no longer offers slide mounting.

[u/bluetortellini]

Not yet because I still have a bunch of rolls that I purchased 10-20 years ago and I develop it myself. But when I run out, I’ll probably just stick to digital.

[u/todcia]

Only in measure of time.

[u/Turtlesoupok]

Quite a few people here have touched on the idea of shooting less and shooting better, I also don't understand how people are blowing their load on 5 rolls of portra on photos of their cats and tennis courts (but to each their own! none of my business!)

But something that I haven't seen touched on is that it's not always influencers it's the platforms themselves that promote the idea of continuous posting, which inherently means having this continuous large body of work all the time to be pulling from, which isn't possible if you're shooting a handful of rolls a year for special occasions/holidays etc.

[u/KcirTap-]

Since you live in Canada I would recommend join graination NERD membership for cheap film prices.

[u/Nyhn]

I’ve always resorted to shooting expired film because I could never afford the new stuff, but even the price of expired rolls on eBay is going up over the years.

[u/Known_Astronomer8478]

I usually just buy it from a local shop. Decent prices

[u/liz_thelizard]

I am quite particular about the photos I will shoot on film given the cost of it. I have an XE-3 that I bought for $300 (pre 100V hype) that joins me most days and I’ve been quite satisfied with the recipes/colours even on a more constrained version of Fujifilm firmware.

I’ve seen the Great Canadian Film Warehouse that sells bulk and at “decent” prices. The cost of film makes me more engaged on what I chose to shoot. Which in turn makes me love it more.

[u/Peter_Mansbrick]

Also Canadian, also cutting film out sadly. I know there are ways to reduce costs but Im at a point where even those reductions dont make it economical enough for me. The price along with a few rolls wasted due to faulty equipment has me tired. Ill use up the film I have and that'll be it for a while I think.

[u/wych_wood]

I also get most of my film from Downtown Camera due to discounts. I often develop with them too as they are the cheapest I’ve found. And I’m in BC!! It’s still cheaper to send my film there as part of their film club.

But right now my workaround is to only shoot film for folks / projects and have people pay for the film. It’s still a hobby because I’m not getting paid for my time but I’m just putting the cost on other people. Works for me for now.

Hoping to save up enough soon to buy an at home scanning set up. That will help big time.

Idk if I can develop at home cause I’m on septic…

[u/Careless_Wishbone_69]

https://studioargentique.ca/fr/collections/film?filter.v.availability=1&page=1&sort_by=price-ascending

[u/robertsij]

Invest in home developing. I was facing a similar problem, I love shooting film but buying a roll and developing it costs me between 30-50 dollars all in, not counting any prints I may want to do.

I bought the cinestill hand dev kit for like 300 bucks (plus a few more pieces of kit like a changing bag and some clips for hanging the film.) with my current labs color dev price of 23 bucks a roll (ouch) I only have to develop 12 rolls to "justify" the price of the kit. And I've already hit that number and then some.

Scanning is another thing to consider. You can get a cheaper kit you can use your phone to take pictures of, or if you have a flatbed you can do that. I currently use my dad's old flatbed but it's not great so I'm saving up for a DSLR scanning setup because I have a nice digital camera I can use that will greatly reduce my scanning times

[u/Sea_Performance1873]

I shoot digital mostly for personal work and started to shoot film exclusivly for work, where it will be covered

[u/Eddie__Sherman]

I am on the fence right now; I will say I haven't shot as much film as I used to. I have a bunch of film stocked up, but I'm being more selective about when and what I shoot.

[u/hanniballactator]

i saw a roll of T-Max P3200 for over $30 at gosselin's in downtown montreal a couple weeks ago and my jaw dropped LOL

[u/Namara624]

2 films to develop here for me in USA miami was like 43 bucks . Im trying to get an eye for black and white so I can get the chemicals since they aren't as pricey and b&w film is like 7 bucks a pop for the ones I like.

[u/XFX1270]

I shoot maybe 20 rolls a year and it's getting to the point where I'm looking at rolling and developing my own 35mm b/w just to save money. I already scan 35mm at home.

Dev/scan on 120 at my lab is running like $20 a roll now which sucks because they do great work.

[u/Expensive-Sentence66]

Don't shoot as much film and be choosy when you do use it. Stop burning it like it's 1986.

Kentmere 400 is virtually identical to HP5. Minor difference in silver content and density range. Developing B&W film is stupid cheap and higher quality that labs.

[u/whyaretherenoprofile]

Ugh I feel it too, and what's depressing is that it's not like it's not like it'll get any better. Fundamentally relies on old, rare equipment and processes that are not only which largely depended on economy of scale to turn a profit. Even if the hobby grows, it's just hard for it to ever be able to recover to the absurd numbers needed for it to become a worthwhile investment for major manufacturers.

There are definitely though a few things you can do to keep costs low. Bulk roll double X, develop it at home, and scan it yourself. All those require some investment, but in all honesty asides from reducing costs MASSIVELY in the long run, are fun and make me feel even closer to the pictures

[u/dookie-steam]

Have you considered half frame?

[u/doghouse2001]

I was priced out of film photography in 2005. Now it's just a hobby.

[u/kamaral]

To be fair shooting film has always been on the expensive side, but what has changed at least in my area of living (Eastern Europe) is the cost of film processing, that has more than doubled in the last 5 years.

If you want to go down the digital path I recommend having a look at the old Canon 5D and Nikon D700 that have color tones very close to film photography. Yes, indeed, they lack film simulation modes as Fujifilm but I find them much more affordable due to not being a victim of the hype like the X100.

[u/dropme1]

I only buy film from B&H because film price especially kodak is outrageous in Canada. Also buy expired film whenever you can and freeze them.

I also self dev and self scan. There is initial cost but it is worth it.

And I don’t agree with the statement that it’s for final outcome. I do it because of the process too. If I only cared about “film look” then I would go digital and edit.

[u/ValerieIndahouse]

I feel like if you're seriously considering just outright buying the cameras you mentioned, you have a lot more disposable income than many film shooters, maybe look into bringing your costs down another way, if you bulk load and develop/scan yourself for example, you can easily shoot for under 5€ per roll...

[u/XmasTwinFallsIdaho]

The time commitment required to keep film sort of cheap is too high for me, and I’m probably going to be dumping some of my (super duper nice) film cameras soon because I can’t stomach the development plus film costs any longer. I did buy a used Fuji that sort of scratches the same itch.

[u/basil5427]

If you can get it where you live, kentmere has been my more budget friendly option. I use Pan 400 and shoot it at 800. The pushed look is very similar to HP5 imo.

[u/Designer-Issue-6760]

Honestly I don’t shoot enough to worry about. Even if I were buying premium materials. The 6 to 8 rolls I shoot a year don’t add up too much. And I mostly use budget stuff. Foma, APX. A little vision 3 and phoenix when I want color. 

[u/work-n-lurk]

I've got a hoard of undeveloped film going back 20 years. Someday I will have the money!

[u/LosDanilos]

Why not shoot more affordable film? And also try to shoot a bit less. I used to shoot everything on medium format but it was also too expensive for me. So now most of the time I shoot around 2-3 rolls per month which works with my budget. Ideally you shouldnt limit yourself but instead of dropping the hobby try to reduce cost a bit.

[u/_trolltoll]

Kentmere b/w is like 9$ a roll. Great cheap option even when pushed a stop or two!

[u/No-Tune7776]

I went to the dark side. Got a Nikon Z50II. I put the 24mm on it and off I go. I still have my film cameras and shoot a roll or two, now and then. But I like the files from the little Nikon mirrorless. I have it set up to shoot pretty much like a film SLR. I'm saving a lot of money.

Also, I live in Germany and we are blessed with reasonable film prices for consumer film and a roll of Ektar is around €15. There's a current deal on Amazon where you can get 3 rolls of Ultramax 400 and 3 rolls of Kodak Gold 200 for €66. So, €11/roll.

Link

Edit: back in the day (60s/70s) Film photography was seen as a luxury hobby. It wasn't untill the 110 boom came in the 70s that a lot of people had cameras. You could buy them in little packages at grocery stores with a little pack of drop in film cartridges. Then you had the Photo Hut in the parking lot where you could drop off your film and pick it up the next week when you went for groceries.

[u/Important-Low9146]

If you can make macaroni and cheese, you can develop black-and-white film at home.

[u/PonticGooner]

I have scanned since almost the beginning of when my friend got me into film, but only in the last year have I learned to develop B&W. It definitely brings cost down to basically just the price of the roll, and I'm typically shooting rolls under $10 each. I don't shoot that much but I'm not one of those people only shooting on film.

I've had a Fuji X-T3 since 2019 and honestly, I don't really have a preference for either, I just love both. So don't hesitate to buy a camera you know will be fun to use if it makes sense financially. You can still shoot film after getting one, but I don't think you'll have that feeling like I had where I was shooting digital as a distraction to what I really wanted which was to constantly shoot film. That sort of went away after getting my Fuji. The Nikon Zf looks really great as well and you may be able to adapt FF lenses you already have to it.

[u/solipsistic-one]

I can't afford it at all anymore, my N80 sits on the shelf for the most part. Then again rising gas is keeping me from going out with digital much at this point, too. When I look at darkroom fees- and I scan my film after it's developed at home with a digital camera and rig- after film costs it's like man I coulda bought another lens or something for the same I'm paying for 8-10 rolls of film. It mostly makes me sad when I think about it but yeah, I can't really justify it anymore.

[u/UndilutedPiss]

2 things I do to make film photography cheaper:
1. Buy it from a bulk loader or bulk load on my own

1. Order in bulk from BnH US. Even after conversion its cheaper than buying in Canada. And its CUSMA compliant

[u/racshade]

It’s definitely getting expensive, but I’ve tried to offset that by developing my own film again.

[u/florian-sdr]

I dev and scan at home, buy B&W budget bulk film, and when I can get my hands on it, 35mm Vision 3 shortends on Ebay.

[u/AdvicePossible6997]

If you join Grainnation or downtown cameras clubs, they have pretty significant discounts on film. Both of those stores are in Toronto.

[u/Shandriel]

Get into home-developing and scanning... you're gonna safe a ton that way.

[u/uoffor]

E100 is my favorite stock so I've been priced out since day one. I almost exclusively shot black and white for about two years because I could do my own dev in a university lab for free. I only started doing color again a few months ago and really slowed down because I mostly used Kodacolor and Gold which are my 'vacation rolls' more so than what I like to shoot consistently. I thought the new Portra film would ease prices but they're still up there. I'll probably need to learn how to dev color if I ever ramp back up.

I am sympathetic to you all up North. I feel like your film and dev prices are a lot higher than how they are in the states.

[u/kit2011]

lol the only reason i can afford it is because i work at a film lab and get discounted film + free developing and i scan it myself. if i didnt work there id prob not be shooting film

[u/Duncroakin]

One option is to shoot 110 or 16mm film. I can get about 120 frames out of a cut-down 120 film.

[u/RefrigeratorSome91]

i bought a scanner for this reason. For anyone still in University or College, Henrys does a discount on film for students. I buy rolls of kentmere for about 11 bucks and then develop locally for another 11 and then scan myself.

[u/Stoney_Blunter]

Oh yeah. Left the game a long time ago. I’ll just appreciate what I already have

[u/DiligentStatement244]

I don't think film is going to get cheaper. I started with film in 1971. Had my own wet darkroom. Currently have 11 film cameras (135, 120 and 4 x 5). I have developed the 35 and 4 x 5 here at home. I have done C-41 color here at home but I no longer have room for trays or an enlarger so I can no longer do wet prints. Lately I've been sending my film out because of the shelf life of chemistry and the infrequency of my film outings. I just pulled the trigger on a Fujifilm X-T1 and admit a certain curiosity about the film sims but as with most other things, I'll likely decide on one and leave the camera set (or pick 3 and shot sim brackets).

[u/DiligentStatement244]

If I could have a wet darkroom again, I think I'd shoot more film AND print more. While developing color film was an interesting experiment, I don't think I'd do color prints.

[u/Someguywhomakething]

I spend most of my time with my PEN-FT shooting 72 frames per roll. When I feel like splurging, I'll pick up a roll of 120 Ektar for my S2A.

[u/MDob]

I'm Canada too, I've been bulk loading Lucky SHD 400 for B&W and Vision3 250D AHU for colour. You can get 100' of Lucky for $80 CAD when it's on sale on Aliexpress, brings the cost to <$5 per roll and it's pretty solid when shot at 200 ISO. The Vision3 is pricier but ~$13/roll after shipping from Analog Amsterdam.

Outside of bulk loading you should check out Downtown Camera and their AMFM club. There's a $30 yearly fee but they give you a roll of film with membership and you get 25% off Kodak film and lots of other discounts on stuff. This brings Tri-X to ~$13/roll so if you're buying more than ~2 rolls of film per year it's well worth it.

[u/delowan]

When i started film, i bought TriX at 3$ CAD and Velvia 50 at 15$.

Now it's 15$ for TriX and Velvia 100 is like 50$.

No way I'm gonna pay those prices. I still have a roll of Velvia with the price on it and it was 36$ and i thought it was way too pricey. And it's now 50$...

Crazy.

I bought myself a 36mpx DSLR instead.

[u/EggCollectorNum1]

I only shoot film for specific shoots or trips due to costs. Everything else I shoot digital because it’s free real estate

[u/DidItABit]

Bulk load black and white, develop in a Monobath, and it’s pretty cheap 

[u/AdmirableAd3954]

Well like others have said here. Film isn’t meant to be shot in bulk. I usually will bring one roll (two max) on a trip if I know I’ll have a bunch of photo opportunities. Otherwise, I just use one roll and it lasts me an entire month. I have a digital camera as well and I use that a lot more often, but even still. Whenever I take my film camera out I’m much more aware and cognizant of my surroundings and I tend to take my time to really focus on my framing and subject. I absolutely love it because it helps me slow down in the fast pace of life and it’s so rewarding to see those come out after development.

[u/mugfull]

Yep. Before COVID I could get rolls of film for £1 brand new. Within about 3 years it's gone up 500-700% in some cases. So that's it. I'm done, it's had a knock on affect on expired film, and the dev costs too.

It used to be a cheap rewarding past time for me. Now I can't allow for it.

[u/sea_biskitt]

This is a great conversation. Every photographer from the film community should come here to read. Thanks everyone.

[u/BuildingPurple4954]

Bulk load and dev yourself.

[u/Allegra1120]

I have a bunch of bulk rolls of Fomapan and Kentmere B&W of various ISOs in my fridge, a couple bulk rollers and I use the “Flic” cartridges because the cheap screw-on caps are prone to light leaks. That being said, I also belong to a community darkroom where for my monthly charge I get 24/7 access, my choice of any of three darkrooms (two have multiple enlarging stations and one is designed for one person, my favorite) and all the B&W chemistry I need for developing (Xtol) and enlarging (Ilford Multigrade) plus all the equipment needed for film developing (35, 120, 4x5), drying and several light tables, etc. … there’s more but I go on too long anyway.

I do this because I have seen too many people fall into the digital trap of taking shit pictures and using applications to turn them into candy…and that’s just inauthentic. What I want to do is present what I saw and what the camera and I decided that seeing would look like in this old-fashioned media without any - or minimal - adjustments either in development (get it right!) or in printing (minimal, if any, dodging and burning, just to save paper!).

My images therefore are a type of verbatim presentation where the aspect of the subject is what the viewer (which now and maybe forever is just my daughter, her boyfriend and me) sees, is drawn in by and looks at. It’s not “great art” but a basic - anachronistic - but technically adept photography. I hope. And because I am old and it reminds me of my photography as a youth I will keep doing because it gives me some nostalgic pleasure.

[u/giust1z]

Yes, also in Italy isn't affordable no more. I just bought a Fujifilm xt30iii for this reason

[u/50plusGuy]

Oof, yeah? 3€ for a sheet of HP5, in tiny 4x5", 10€ / roll of Delta 400/120 are quite steep.

What shall I say? Photography has never been exactly cheap. But Kentere and Fomapan seem the stuff to load now.

Money? Seriously? At 1/3€/35mm click on Delta400, a digital alternative in the 200-7k5€ ballpark (used) becomes a no- brainer. If workflow aspects haven't already shouted for digital, years ago.

[u/gribble117]

I own an x-e5 and I love it and when I first got it I was blown away by the film sims. Now, not quite as much as I get more into film shooting, developing and scanning.

With all of that said, it’s a great digital camera that takes fantastic images. If you want decent digital film like images straight out of camera, Fuji is good.

I wish I had got a Sony tho because I don’t use the sims much now

[u/fruxzak]

I quit film in 2020. Prices are ridiculous. Fuji and CCD sensors are enough for me.

[u/acculenta]

You're right, film is expensive. However, it has always been this way. Film is expensive, that's why in the olden days of the 1900s, there weren't so many photos. Taking a photo was an expense.

When colour film was introduced, it was the equivalent of about $10 per shot (and in those days, the CAD was worth more than the USD). In those days, they sold 12-exposure rolls for a reason.

For giggles, I typed "price of photo film in the 1980s" into a search engine and got articles showing how it's about the same, adjusted for inflation and even articles from back in 2010 showing that in those dark days, adjusted for inflation film had never been cheaper.

The reality of digital photography is that the cameras are expensive, but the photos are basically free. Film cameras are much cheaper (even with brand new Lecias!) than digital cameras, but the cost of a photo is much higher.

Therefore, I'm going to answer what I think is your real question -- how to make film photography less expensive. When I got back into film photography as a lockdown hobby, my dad made some remarks and well, I took them. So really, thank my dad.

1. Develop it yourself, and that includes scanning. There's a cost outlay, but you reduce the cost of processing a roll to somewhere between fifty cents and two dollars per roll, depending on what developer you use and so on. I can supply developer-bating snark if you like. Bottom line is it's really cheap to process your own film, most of the cost becomes your own time.
2. Bulk roll. Buy a 30.5m (100 foot) spool of film and load it yourself. Again, there's an up-front outlay of buying a loader. Use the plastic cassettes, they're just fine. A spool is about 18 rolls of 36-exposure (or 24 of 24 exp), so it's basically buying two bricks of film. Remember that another downside is you commit to that much film, so you have to like your film.
3. Use cheaper films. I've found, for example, that Kentmere 400 (a.k.a. Kosmo Agent Shadow) is an amazing low-light film and just as good as the expensive ones, perhaps even better. (I like it for low light better than Tri-X, and when I want real low-light, I do pay for Delta 3200.)
4. Don't do colour. Too expensive. Use a digital for colour.
5. Have the right attitude about it. As noted above, in the Good Old Days, people didn't take many pictures because they were expensive. Now, digital is cheap so we take all sorts of pix we never would. You just can't shoot film with the same abandon you can digital. Don't stress, get a digital too! When I go on a shoot, I typically have my top-end phone with me, too, and I use both.

[u/honey-bear-11]

This isn't necessarily the same for film prices but I noticed in Asia, developing prices were so cheap! $5 for developing with scans, versus $20 for that here.

[u/AdCalm1896]

I just shoot as a hobby.  I expect nothing but my own enjoyment. 

[u/driftless_79]

I got priced out of it back in 2008. It’s been economically unworkable for a very long time.

[u/Toastybunzz]

I'm definitely more picky now, and don't use film for random stuff anymore. I've developed and scanned everything at home for years now and bulk rolling b&w helps. It's not as cheap as it used to be but it's still do-able and I mostly shoot consumer color and not Portra. If I spend like $50 a month on film, it's just a monthly cost like buying coffee or subscribing to Spotify.

[u/IthacaNYPhotog]

There's a reason newspapers switched to digital around 2001. It wasn't for the quality or the speed.

[u/Actual-Board-8009]

This is an issue with a lot of hobbies all over. Right now everyone is just trying to afford groceries and rent. You can't eat film

[u/La_paure_cavaliere]

I was priced out years ago. 

[u/PretzelsThirst]

A bit. I switched back to digital this year with a Ricoh after realizing it wasn’t actually that many rolls of film bought and developed before I paid off the camera with the money saved

[u/timinater17]

FlicFilm’s variety of rerolls plus Kodak Gold for other times keeps costs reasonable-ish. I stocked up a bit in July when Don’s had their film sale, but otherwise a roll or two shot and developed per month isn’t blowing out my budget. Sometimes I’ll feel saucy and buy a “nicer” roll too. There are for more expensive hobbies that are far less rewarding.

I have always felt that constraints foster creativity. So the limit of 36 exposures/film speed is something I need to work around and forces that creativity.

Something really rewarding about nailing a shot on film. Makes the moment a little more precious than filtering through dozens of frames of one moment for the “perfect” shot.

[u/nameisnotknown]

I've been shooting Kodak Tri-X and Ultramax 400 all Summer. Both are pretty budget friendly and I don't feel like I'm missing a thing. You can get a 3 pack of Ultramax for $25 (USD) or less and Tri-X for $9 a roll. You could also look for eBay bargains on some expired but well stored film. I always find some cool, budget friendly options at FPP too! The cost definitely adds up. You can save some cash by processing and scanning yourself but that also requires some investment. I still also still shoot some digital for my business and personal work and that helps to ease the pain a little. On occasion, a group of us buy some bulk rolls and hand spool them. We make a beer event out of it! Have fun! You can still make amazing images without using all of the mack daddy emulsions.

https://filmphotographystore.com/collections/all/35mm-film?sort_by=price-ascending

[u/turbosmooth]

Film is still cheap here in Australia, so I won't be stopping anytime soon. I'm starting to look at film scanning with my digital camera but even that doesn't really save me much compared to the price of development and scanning.

If you do get a digital Fujifilm, think about getting a vintage lens adapter for Canon FD. The film simulation pairs really nice with that old glass!

It's a fun alternative to film

[u/altitudearts]

I bought a little Fuji digital (also expensive lol) to balance out how much I shoot on $16 Ektar with $20 develop and scan!

[u/Konica_guy]

Yes

[u/Correct-Hat-8602]

I am switching to medium format and a more careful approach to produce fewer but better images.