3 ms·
And yet right now they’re back to chemical photography film being over 50% of their revenue due to the breakout success of the instax instant cameras. Being abl
by kalleboo 1y ago
And yet right now they’re back to chemical photography film being over 50% of their revenue due to the breakout success of the instax instant cameras. Being able to charge a dollar per photo remains an unbeatable business to be in.
- jkrom3 1y agoI love instax… it’s seriously so good. The wide version especially. I’m addicted to shooting it.
- alistairSH 1y agoAs much as I like the end result, I HATE the bulk of the cameras themselves. I ended up with a Polaroid Go. It's relatively tiny. The output is nowhere near as good (arguably awful), but for my use, it's fine. I have 35mm film and mirrorless digital cameras when I want "good" photos.
- vile_wretch 1y agoKodak isn't far off from $1/shot retail for some of their film stocks.
- alistairSH 1y agoPortra 400 is ~$0.50/shot (35mm, 36 exp roll). 160 and 800 are in the same ballpark. What film stock are you seeing that's $1/shot?
- kalleboo 1y agoDoes that include development?
- alistairSH 1y agoNo, that’s extra. I don’t know if Kodak is selling those chemicals too.
- vile_wretch 1y agoI didn't say it was $1/shot yet, though medium format Portra 400 is $16/roll (if buying in a 5-pack) which is at minimum $1/shot. E100G is a bit pricier depending on where you buy it as well. I'm mostly just salty because a decade ago I was paying $6-7 roll for Portra and now (in Canada) it's closer to $35-40.