On 9 July 2026, Analog.Cafe published its Q3 Film Price Report, tracking 37 film stocks across 13 major stores. The headline number is reassuring: film costs 2.5% more than it did in January 2026, which is below most inflation measures. Coverage picked that up and ran with it — film prices are stable.
That is true globally and false locally, and the difference is the actual story.
Film rose 5.7% in the EU and 5.6% in Canada over six months, and fell 1.1% in Hong Kong. Six months ago the gap between the cheapest and most expensive region was at most 5%. It is now nearly 7%.
The Regional Split
| Region | Six-month change |
|---|---|
| European Union | +5.7% |
| Canada | +5.6% |
| United States | +1.9% |
| Hong Kong | −1.1% |
If you shoot in Europe, the global average does not describe your shelf. You are in the region that moved most, at roughly three times the US rate, while reading price coverage written mostly from the US.
Analog.Cafe's Dmitri Tcherbadji puts it plainly: "In Hong Kong, film became 1% cheaper — but in Europe and Canada, it is now 6% more expensive."
The report notes the spread between regions has widened from at most 5% six months ago to nearly 7% now. That is the finding worth carrying forward. Film is not simply getting more expensive; it is getting more expensive in a way that depends on which border your dealer sits behind.
One caution on the why. The report raises tariffs as a possible explanation for Canada's increase, and it is careful to frame it as a hypothesis — the wording is "it's quite possible that these decisions led to..." No customs data, importer statement or manufacturer statement establishes it. We are repeating the correlation, not the cause.
Which Stocks Moved
The averages hide a wide spread at stock level.
| Went up over six months | Went down over six months | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Kodak Kodacolor (ColorPlus) 200 | +10.5% | Kodak Ektapan (T-Max) 400 | −4.9% |
| Ilford XP2 Super 400 | +10.4% | Ilford Delta Professional 3200 | −3.5% |
| Ilford FP4 Plus 125 | +9.2% | Kodak UltraMax 400 | −2.6% |
| Kentmere Pan 200 | +8.9% | Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 | −2.5% |
Note the names. Since Kodak's rebrand, Portra is Ektacolor Pro and T-Max is Ektapan, and the report uses the new names with the old ones in brackets. If you are comparing prices against an older list, you are comparing against different labels for the same emulsions — we covered what changed and what did not separately.
There is also a quiet result buried in the table. Eastman Kodak taking its own branding and distribution in-house did not produce sweeping price cuts. Only Ektacolor Pro 400 and Ektapan 400 got cheaper. Kodacolor 200 went up 10.5%. If you expected direct distribution to reach your shelf as a discount, it mostly has not.
The counterexample is real though: Tri-X became about 30% cheaper across all stores in 2024 and remains a good deal, which the report reads as evidence Kodak passes savings on when it can.
The Number That Puts It in Perspective
A 24-exposure roll of Kodak Gold 100 sold for $4.60 in the 1990s. Adjusted for inflation that is $11.40 today. Kodak Gold 200 in 36 exposures averages $10.34 in 2026 — twelve more frames, for less money, in real terms.
That is worth sitting with before concluding that film has never been more expensive. Against 2023 it is dearer. Against the 1990s, adjusted properly, it is not.
The methodology matters for reading any of this: the tracker uses single rolls of 35mm film in 36 exposures unless stated otherwise, ignores bulk discounts and includes sale prices. So it measures what a single roll costs at retail, not what you pay if you buy five at a time — which, as our film price guide sets out, is a meaningfully different number.
What To Actually Do About It
If you are in the EU or Canada, three things follow.
Buy in multiples where you already know the stock. The tracker deliberately ignores bulk pricing, which means the gap between its figures and your real cost is entirely in your hands. This is the single largest lever available and it requires no change in what you shoot.
Reconsider the stocks that got cheaper. UltraMax 400 fell 2.6% and is a capable colour negative film. Ektapan 400 fell 4.9%. Acros 100 fell 2.5%. Substituting a stock you were going to shoot anyway costs nothing.
Look at the budget tier honestly. The newer low-cost colour stocks sit well below the majors — we tested Lucky C400 and ran a budget black-and-white shootout precisely because the price gap has become large enough to matter.
And treat developing as part of the price, because it usually is the larger half. Across the 12 labs in Pellica's directory that publish an open price list, the median advertised cost to develop one roll in July 2026 was €10 in the euro zone and $19 in the US. Prices vary enough between labs that comparing the ones near you is worth an evening.
Track What You Are Actually Spending
Regional averages are useful for context and useless for your budget. What you spend depends on which stocks you shoot, how many frames you waste, and which lab you use — none of which appear in any report.
Pellica's film roll tracker logs the stock and the lab for every roll, so your cost per frame comes from your own shooting rather than an average computed across thirteen shops on another continent. When film prices start to depend on your postcode, that is the only figure that means anything.