Serene Life

by garik

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

How has the price of a (typical/common) roll of film changed over the last few decades?

I am trying to get an impression whether film is getting more expensive (and if so, how much) as a result of decline in usage/production. I am not interested in a particular brand or type of film. Data about any common types of film would be fine as long as the examples are comparable (e.g., size, number of frames, quality, or fanciness).

share|improve this question
6  
Is that pun intended? Price of film developed... –  dpollitt Jun 28 at 16:02
1  
Super good question! :-) However, you ask a different question in the title and the body. Are you interested in the price of an (undeveloped) roll of film (by the way, what roll? :-) or the film+development? If latter, are you interested in the cost of development in house (that is, you get the raw chemicals and do it) or get it developed? –  TFuto Jun 28 at 20:38
4  
Pun was not intended...at first. But whatever gets this question more exposure ;) Also clarified the title to match the body. –  Michael Mauderer Jun 28 at 21:07
    
I imagine that looking at things like minimum wage/purchasing power would also be relevant: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/ --this is supposing you're interested in US cost, which you might not be. –  moorej Jul 12 at 19:44

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted
+50

I'm no expert in this area but I did find a quite interesting blog post from Jim Kasson Photography:

In 1957...Kodak Tri-X... Twenty exposures were 85 cents, and a 36 exposure roll was $1.15.

And that roll of Tri-X, the one that sold for $1.15 in 1957, or $8.43 in today’s dollars? You can still buy one. It’s changed a bit; it’s twice as fast and has finer grain, but you can no longer reload the cartridges. It’ll cost you $3.93 at Calumet.

The blog post was written in 2007. A quick check at B&H Photo shows a single roll of Kodak Tri-X 36exp ISO 400 selling for $4.99 today.

The Consumer Price Index inflation calculator shows that $1.15 in 1957 dollars has the same buying power as $9.74 in 2014.

Assuming that Jim remembers very accurately what he paid, I would say that a roll is about half of the cost today as it was in 1957. I'm too young to know anything about the 50's and I'm also no economics expert.

Film development gets considerably more complicated. The reason is that at one time the cost of the film included processing, and at others you had to process it at home yourself in a dark room, and obviously today you have a few options too with variable pricing.

share|improve this answer
    
On a side note RIP Calumet. –  moorej Jul 12 at 19:25

More "exposure" LOL you're funny. As for film, i am fifty years old, and growing up my dad owned a drug store. We sold all the typical films back then, 110, 35 mm , Polaroid and the cute little flash bulb packs. Of course Polaroid was the hot new thing and very expensive! We thought. Maybe 8 dollars a pack? 110 was a couple dollars and fancy 35mm three or four dollars.

share|improve this answer
3  
And so has it got more expensive? Or less? –  MikeW Jul 3 at 23:49
2  
Interesting answer, but incomplete. You'd have to account for inflation here. –  Max Jul 4 at 8:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.