Kodak: "There is a very real resurgence for film"

[supraman215]

I've shot 12,000 frames in 2 years. What's that cost in film?

You're upstart cost comparison doesn't reflect the reality of the cost of film. If you're trying to compare the 2 on cost film always loses. BTW rudimentary PP software is free (GIMP). Maybe I can get started for $70 but the costs just go up from there and they never come down. That's money I could be spending on better equipment as I progress in my photo skill.

It's definitely a niche, artistic market. Not for the Joe Normal.

 

[mairead]

I've shot 12,000 frames in 2 years. What's that cost in film?

You're upstart cost comparison doesn't reflect the reality of the cost of film. If you're trying to compare the 2 on cost film always loses. BTW rudimentary PP software is free (GIMP). Maybe I can get started for $70 but the costs just go up from there and they never come down. That's money I could be spending on better equipment as I progress in my photo skill.

It's definitely a niche, artistic market. Not for the Joe Normal.

It's true that film does represent a continuing cost. However, speaking as someone on a very tight budget at the moment, five dollars here, ten dollars there is easy for the bank account to absorb. Shelling out the money for a DSLR is a whole nother story. Sure film costs will add up over time, but it's not something you really feel as you're buying it.

 

[Mike_E]

Welcome to the forum, Mairead. You are exactly right!

And Supraman, if you've shot 6000 frames over the last two years, you aren't Joe Normal. :lmao:

 

[epatsellis]

I've shot 6k images in just a few months, but expenses were billable and film still made sense. While I can and do shoot digital for most of my commercial work, a surprisingly significant part of my work is still film.