Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

I love instax… it’s seriously so good. The wide version especially. I’m addicted to shooting it.

As 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.

Kodak isn't far off from $1/shot retail for some of their film stocks.

Portra 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?

Does that include development?

No, that’s extra. I don’t know if Kodak is selling those chemicals too.

I 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com