This is the kind of thing that comes out when you decide to prowl around the Japan Camera Hunter website at 3:30 in the morning. I thought it had some merit, so I’m posting it here.
Anyone who doesn’t shoot film because it’s “too expensive” isn’t going to be enticed by having cheaper film to shoot. Even if it were $1.00 a roll they wouldn’t do it, not only because of the price of developing/scanning, but also because they’re constantly being reminded of the cost every time they want new pictures. Never mind that there are people out there GIVING away film cameras (I know because I’ve had several given to me) and that the entry cost for film photography is so incredibly low, compared to spending thousands of dollars for a DSLR.
These people forget how much they spent on digital equipment because they pay it all up front, so paying $10.00 to take 36 pictures doesn’t seem like a deal to them. Never mind that they’d have to shoot maybe 200-300 rolls before it equals the cost of that digital camera they bought.
By comparison, since I took up photography in 2009, I’ve shot around 60 rolls of film. For about $12.00 per roll (say $4.00 for film and $8.00 for processing and scanning) that comes out to $720.00 in 5 years. That’s an average of $144.00 per year, at the equivalent of a roll of film per month. Now compare that to the cost of going to Starbucks… Let’s say $5.00 per visit once per week (quite a conservative estimate, really; some people do that shit daily) for a year would be $260.00.
For the first 3 years I shot Fuji Superia (which I really love) or expired film wherever I could find it, to keep my costs as low as possible. I bought a 4-pack of Superia 800 from Wal-Mart early this year for $12.00 and one could easily keep the costs as cheap on the b&w side with Kentmere and Arista.
So shooting film is expensive? Hardly.