In Part 2 of this series, I was able to show where Bruh could get his per-shot cost of Kodak Portra 800 color film in his Pentax 67 down from $3.37 to $1.91 just by developing and scanning his film himself.

And honestly, that is still a lot of money per shot. Especially since the dreaded Kodak price increase has actually taken affect now, and this is the new reality that all of us live in.

Now let’s go a little deeper to address some fallacies, and maybe save even more money.

First – Do you, as a film-shooter-on-a-budget REALLY need to shoot 6x7 medium format film? How large are you printing? Or are you not printing at all, with most of your shots just being scanned and posted on Instagram with the hashtags #filmisnotdead, #portra800, and #pentax67?

And Second – Does it really need to be Portra 800 film, one of the most expensive color film stocks out there?

Here’s where I’ll be up-front and honest – I personally love shooting medium format. I love the different aspect ratios available, the different cameras, the tactile feel, the sounds, all of it. But I am also in my early 50’s and have a lot of disposable income. And have never once complained about the cost of film. And I print my work. Sometimes big.

I can’t conceive of any scenario where I would stop shooting medium format film.

But that’s me, and we are talking about Bruh here. So focus.

If the majority of your output is Instagram or social media with the occasional small print, 35mm is MORE THAN ENOUGH. I say this because I personally have printed 20inches x 16inches from a 35mm negative and a proper scan with no issues. Many iconic images that we know that have been shot on film have been 35mm. I once went to an exhibit and talk held by Steve McCurry, and looking at a huge 30inches x 20inches print of the Afghan Girl in person, you’d never know it was from a 35mm negative. It was stunning.

ATTRIBUTION: Subject Sharbat Gula Owner Steve McCurry

In theory you could sell that Pentax 67 for a really nice Nikon F-series camera, and have some money left over for some nice, fast lenses and extra film. And then really cut down your cost per shot.

But wait, there’s more.

Fuji 200 color film available at many big box retailers

Portra 800 is insanely expensive. Do you really need 800 speed film for the majority of your shots? If you were shooting with a nice and cheap 50mm f/1.4 lens on your Nikon you could probably shoot an ISO 200 to ISO 400 film all day long, while still getting that shallow depth of field “look” that many associate with medium format. But wait, you shoot at night or low light? That’s what a tripod is for. I shoot ISO 50 speed film at night quite often on a tripod.

Also, if you were willing to look at other “consumer” color films like Fuji 200 or 400, your cost per roll drops quite a bit. The mid-west chain of Meijer grocery stores carries Fuji 200 speed 35mm film in 3-packs for $21. With taxes let’s call that $7.50 per roll cost. (I won’t even mention the time last year when they were running it on sale for $12 per 3-pack and I purchased a ton of it that’s now residing in my freezer. #hoarder)

Fujifilm C200 consumer grade film. I shot this image in one of my panoramic cameras. I typically always have a 35mm camera with me loaded with a roll of this or Fuji 400 in it.

At $7.50 a 36-shot roll and developing yourself, we are now down to real economy #’s. That works out to about $0.25 per shot including your film and developing costs. A far cry from the original $3.37 per shot.

You can cut that in half if you decide to shoot black and white film and go really frugal on your purchase like a Kentmere or Fomapan film choice. Or just watch for good deals when they pop up.

So, the reality is, if you really want to be able to use that glorious #filmisnotdead hashtag, you have to be willing to keep it alive.

Otherwise, if its just a quick fad for you to get more followers, then find some other hobby that’s cheaper. And quit complaining.

Jeremy

PS: I haven’t even touched on the many 35mm film cameras out there that are half frame, and give you 72 shots per roll. Do the math.