Life is Busy. Finding hard to find time for film......Any advice?

I see it as a no brainer - you should shoot XP2 (EI200), develop at a lab, and ask for contact sheets. Then, you can scan just the 2-3 interesting frames per roll. This will be also a good exercise at editing your pictures. I do not see any sense in going into an inferior and more expensive medium, in order to have the freedom to shoot superfluous frames, that you will end up spending lots of time editing anyway.
 
There are quite a few ways to make the film workflow easier:

I have three or four five-reels paterson. I shoot about 10 to 15 rollls, put them in the fridge, then load all of them, and process them.
I use mostly emofin, but it's time consuming. To save time, you can use rodinal, and so process all the fifteen rolls together, maybe fixing one after the other. If you use stand developement, it's even easier, and you can mix different emulsions if you expose them at nominal EI.

Following a recent thread, It seems a good way of getting a quick drying of the film is to give them a last bath in alcohol.

that's for processing.

For scanning: use a Nikon CS 5000 or 4000 with a hacked SA-21 for full roll scanning, or an Epson v700 for 24 frames batches.
 
Frankly, I have no idea what the best choice for the OP will be. I am a busy physician and I worked in Jamaica for a year with no film labs anywhere. I brought my Rollei MF camera and used it, but I developed the film rolls 2 years later!! I broke down after 6 months and bought a 5D Mark II because the film camera seemed like a dead-end. However, the Rollei pictures smoked the 5D pictures in the end; but I only found that out years later.
 
An alternate possibility is to do what I do which is stick with B&W film, and only develope negatives. Eventually I will wet print, but for now I'm shooting mucho film. Image capture and making photography every day is a lot more important to me than sharing those images, via either digitizing and/or printing.

Also I use 8 reel stainlerss steel tanks so every time I do a tank load its over 300 images.

I also limit my selection of films (Arcos at 100 and Tri-X at 650) to streamline my process. I also only use only one developer (Diafine) for the same streamlining mentioned above. I found Diafine saves me mucho time because it doesn't get poured down the drain and gets reused (no replenishment needed except for spillage). Also because its fast in use, has long-long storage life, and most of all is not temperature sensitive. I found mixing 10 liter batches of ID-11 every month to be too time consuming and inconvenient.

Generally I batch up 25-30 rolls and perform developement marathons that save set-up time, and effectively uses up a freshly made up batch of fixer.

When I have more time I will wet print, but untill then I am shooting as much film as I can, and processing in the most effiient manner at the lowest possible costs.

To me sending out my film to a lab means I will shoot less because of costs.

Cal
 
Colin Corneau said:
Time saving with digital is a fallacy. I'm not saying it's worse or bad, but this notion that all you have to do is 'push a button' and you have a picture is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Depends.

Processing and scanning film is a process that isn't part of a digital workflow, so it's going to require some amount of time that digital doesn't.

It takes me about 30 minutes to scan 6 frames. That's 3 hours for a roll of 36. Post processing takes a variable amount of time per image. My opinion is that it takes me more time to post process a scanned film image than it's digital equivalent. If nothing else, thanks to spotting and dust removal.

In contrast, I can load 36 images from a card and have my software do some basic automated adjustments on every file in about 30 seconds.

That said, the time involved in something we do for fun and enjoyment is less important than it is for a pro. But, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time. I'm surprised the OP has time to shoot, much less process and print.

[EDIT: Backup is not time consuming if you automate it. Or, even if you don't. I backup every hour, with no involvement on my part. A selective remote backup also happens on its own. And, every other day, I manually run a full backup to a separate RAID unit. I can automated that, but I've been lazy. Remember, too, the only way to backup a print is to make another one.]
 
Last edited:
fixbones said:
RobVinc, I do have smaller cameras..... MJU, XA, GR1v. My issue is not bringing the camera......... but the processing and scanning bit. Takes a good day to process and scan 4 - 6 rolls of film........ which I don't mind if i have time to spare.
Click to expand...

Consider being more selective when shooting. Shooting 2 or 3 rolls rather than 5 or 6 will require less darkroom time. Or if scanning, then less scanning is needed. You have to edit and select when you print anyway; so why not do a little editing when shooting?
 
Boy, do sympathize with not having enough time for photography! I sure feel your pain. My solution has been a digital P&S for things a P&S does best. Of course I keep an XA handy as well. I do still shoot with film.

My problem is indeed time, and I just can't shoot as much as I want to. Still, I have about 15 rolls of both 35mm and 120 backlogged up, as well as about 3 sheets of 9x12. I have a great enlarger I have yet to use. Yep, I have a problem as well. At least for scanning, I have an Epson flatbed that does all formats up to 4x5. I even use it sometimes.

Hang in there fixbones, just do what you can. We all have to set priorities. If you don't have even a digital P&S, you might want to try that. I don't think any of them give raw shots, but the 6 MP or above give decent shots you can use to see if you like a digital workflow.

Good luck.
 
Just curious, how many rolls do you shoot on average a week?
For the past five years, I've shot on average 1 roll a week.

Scanning that one roll does not take a lot of time at all, because I do other stuff when I'm scanning. Watching videos, catch up with forums, helping my daughter doing her homework, reading a book, on and on and on of stuff you can do while feeding the scanner.

I often marvel at the big deal that a lot of people made about scanning in this forum. It's not that complicated to multi-task, folks. 🙂

Having said that if you turned out shooting 10 rolls per week, then I can start to sympathize with you.
 
30 minutes for 6 frames!? Wow. I was upset about 40 minutes for 36 frames.

wgerrard said:
Depends.

Processing and scanning film is a process that isn't part of a digital workflow, so it's going to require some amount of time that digital doesn't.

It takes me about 30 minutes to scan 6 frames. That's 3 hours for a roll of 36. Post processing takes a variable amount of time per image. My opinion is that it takes me more time to post process a scanned film image than it's digital equivalent. If nothing else, thanks to spotting and dust removal.

In contrast, I can load 36 images from a card and have my software do some basic automated adjustments on every file in about 30 seconds.

That said, the time involved in something we do for fun and enjoyment is less important than it is for a pro. But, if you don't have the time, you don't have the time. I'm surprised the OP has time to shoot, much less process and print.

[EDIT: Backup is not time consuming if you automate it. Or, even if you don't. I backup every hour, with no involvement on my part. A selective remote backup also happens on its own. And, every other day, I manually run a full backup to a separate RAID unit. I can automated that, but I've been lazy. Remember, too, the only way to backup a print is to make another one.]
Click to expand...
 
I feel your pain. Still, going digital wouldn't solve the issue for me - takes more time to actually shoot, review, print, share, etc. for me, than the actual development and scanning.

Unless your primary target is facebook (tongue in cheek, of course).

If you really like it, make some time. Otherwise you'll look back at lost opportunities when you are 40 or so ....
 
Shoot lots of film, do the PP when you've got spare time on your hands. It'll be all the more satisfying when you get some time for them.

Also, having a bare bones kit can make photography refreshing. Having a technical solution for all practical problems makes for boring photos. Be creative, change things up.
 
I personally think there's room for both workflows.

I don't think you have to suffer to prove you love your art. In analog photography, there are photographers, and there are printers. Some do both. Same with digital.

I have to honestly say that no matter how I did it, shooting with film was ALWAYS more of a pain in the ass than shooting digital. If it wasn't the time involved, it was the expense, or someone else's bad scanning, or the drive through traffic (twice) for the lab, etc. Do I love shooting film? Definitely, but sometimes I like NOT wringing my hands over how much scanning I have to do, or how much the lab is going to charge me, or how much time I have to spend mixing chemistry. I don't live in a photo lab...everything is put away after every photo event. So, it's a major ordeal to process seven or eight rolls of b&w...especially when they get shared online anyway, and very few will actually get printed (that's the kicker).
 
I think I'm one of the only people who likes scanning. For me it's become like meditation...ohm mm. Anyway, I shoot only film right now and I have a lab do all the development (mostly color) and i do the b&w when I have time. Then I scan. No time to print in a darkroom nor the space so that is all farmed out.

The bottom line is shoot what makes you happy in the time you have.
 
fixbones said:
davey, not sure if I can be considered experienced but I have done my fair share of processing and developing for the past 2 years.

Problem is I am scanning with a Plustek scanner which requires me to feed it frame by frame manually. Takes me about 40 mins for a 36exp roll of film
Click to expand...

Why would you scan every frame? Can't imagine each is a keeper worth the effort. Use a loupe and light box and scan the ones you intend to print/use.
 
Forgot to add: You can talk yourself into an M9...or you can buy a Nex and adapter for your Leica glass for a small fraction of the price. Once you sell your leica gear to finance an M9 you'll not get it back for the same price.
 
Mate, if you sell your MP and BP M4 to get an M9, then I reckon you've lost your bloody mind.

And AlexanderR above me said it best. I have the same exact scanning equipment as you, but I only scan what I like on the light box. It's crazy to waste your time on 98% of your shots that you won't keep.
 
aad said:
30 minutes for 6 frames!? Wow. I was upset about 40 minutes for 36 frames.
Click to expand...


Yep. Feed strips of 4 or 6 into a Coolscan V, with Vuescan. Five minutes before I save a file is a good average.

The thing is scanning adds nothing to improve the image. You're always trying to inflict the least damage. I acknowledge the benefits of film for people who print. But, for people like me, who do not print and who look at the web as the distribution method that counts, it is increasingly difficult to find a reason to shoot film.
 
Last edited:
Like you, I also have a hectic day-job and loves film photography. Even worse most of my working hours are spent indoors and hardly see any sunlight. Lately it would take forever to finish a roll of film I load. My solution of my situation is:
1. Don't load film on weekdays.
2. Every 1-2 weekly I makes sure I go out for a short photo-outing with my photobuddies.
3. Once a month I will try to make a longer day-trip on a weekend.
4. If im feeling tired or uninspired I won't load my camera because this will usually results in film-wasting. I use my LX3 instead.

Photography is important for me but it's not a responsibility, it's just recreational.
🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom