Cost Q re Developing Your Own VS. Sending Out.

M

mikeC

Newbie
Local time
7:36 AM
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
7
Hello All,
Fairly sure this isn't more than my second or third post ... I've learned and continue to learn a great deal here thank you all ...

It's been a year now since I started photographing regularly. I started initially as I've always been interested and I thought it'd be the perfect companion to the lifestyle I often lead ... I'm a musician who's on the road fairly often. One place I'm really starting to see improvement is in exposure ... I don't own a light meter but by a far margin my photos are coming out well exposed in all sorts of available light. This is encouraging.

On to my simple question ... I'm just home from a seven week tour which took me from Boston to Vancouver Island to Los Angeles to Nashville and back home. This afternoon I brought 22 rolls of film to Ritz Camera ... Cost me almost 160.00 to get them developed !!! (this not including the three rolls of TriX they had to send out) I cannot afford this! I have a complete darkroom setup down in the basement I haven't set up (nor do I know how to use) . When I finally get the time to set it up (I have a couple of friends that have offered to help me here) Will I save money compared to sending film out????

Thanks for the help,
Mike
 
For sure, Mike! I'm thinking those 22 rolls could be home processed for less than $50 and done much better to boot.
 
There is no question that it can be done cheaper (far cheaper). Craigslist is your friend for developing equipment, it is available (very cheaply) all the time. Rodinal (for example) can be gotten for about $12 for 500ml, enough for around 50 rolls at 1:50. Just a few more chemicals (fixer, archival wash and photoflo) and your ready to go. The biggest cost, of course is time! :)
 
In response to Daniel's post:

Photography is a hobby, a pleasant passtime. The more aspects of it that you do yourself (and control) the greater the pleasure. Yes, you can have someone else do it for you, but then you're not doing it and some else is doing your hobbie for you which is pretty stupid, no?

Just another viewpoint.
 
there is no question that you will save money developing yourself. You will also see a benefit in quality. Doing the negatives yourself is easy. Printing is easy as well, but the freedom with printing can almost be paralyzing. That's a good thing :)

FrankS speaks the truth - you can do better in your basement for much less. And the enjoyment is much greater than you get picking up the prints from the lab. Much, much greater.
 
You have to decide whether you like developing and printing or not. If so, then you can save a lot of money and have an enjoyable hobby; if not, you're much better off paying someone else to do all the work. It is a lot of work, no doubt about it.
 
I send my film out to be developed and get back a contact sheet with all my negatives sleeved at a very reasonable price. I then scan and print with a Minolta 5400 dedicated film scanner and Epson R2400 printer. I love the results I get.

I have full control of the image, I would argue more control than traditional methods by using Photoshop. I can spot, dodge, burn, adjust contrast, saturation, etc.....there are many fine art papers that I enjoy using for different looks. I don't think that is stupid do you?:rolleyes:

I just don't have the time or desire to develop my own film but I may try it in the future when I have access to a darkroom. I also have well water and a septic system in my yard and I don't know how I feel about toxic chemicals leaching around the property!

I can recommend www.mylab.com without hesitation. They have been in business for over 20 years and I always get good results. If you enjoy the time spent in the dark room then you will save a few bucks....The time I save sending it out is worth it to me but you gotta pay to play! Ink and paper is very expensive too!
 
Here's a start....stop going to Ritz to get your film developed! Many discount places like Walgreens, Sams Club, etc, can present fairly respectable results. Developing only is about $3 at Walgreens...I pay $5 for developing & cd.
 
For sure you can process your films much cheaper than a lab can, after all, they are in the business to make money. Something you do have to consider is printing your negs. You'll end up spending a large period of time down there in your cellar / darkroom especially if you print up from every frame. As has been said, processing and printing are a pleasurable passtime and part of the entire process, but if you put any realistic figure on your labour, a lab will be cheaper, IMHO anyway. Cheers Andrew.
 
Home C41 is relatively expensive and fussy and colour printing is a nightmare. For black & white there's no contest. I'd be surprised if you couldn't buy all the kit you need for the cost of processing those three rolls of Tri-x.
 
Last edited:
Do you shoot color or b/w?
I think developing color at home is really difficult. B/W on the other side is really cheap and quick if you use the right films and chemicals.
Printing is something else. If you really work on a print it can take a few hours and cost you a lot of paper.
If you don't need the highest possible quality buy a nice scanner and inkjet printer. I think it is equally expensive but much quicker.
If you do a lot of color work I would get a digital camera.

Have fun taking pictures along your way

Fabian
 
Let's not make this harder than it is, especially for the B&W portion. Does anyone really print of a 4x6 of everything?

Just make a contact sheet of the negatives, or get a loupe and look at the negatives. Your mind will eventually get to understand the negative image and how it will print.

I think the real advantage of digital is the ability share and post stuff on the web. If you print stuff, what do you do with it? Show it to your dog, how long will your spouse feign interest?

I'd say develop your film, get a flat bed scanner and digitally do the proof sheet,and then scan and print what you want. The true winners you can take to the darkroom.

I'd have to say that one of the biggest hings for me is that chemicals go bad. Maybe the best thing someone could post is what would be the most shelf stable chemicals to use; developer, (Stop is pretty easy), fixer and wash.

I used to buy powder developed in large sizes and then use my lab scale at work to cut it down to smaller quantities and put it in Zip-Loc baggies. I left work with a passenger seat full of zip-lock baggies full of white powder. Luckily the cops who pulled up next to me didn't see it.

Mark
 
The cost is indeed time dominated.

I have sufficent tankage for 13 at a time, this reduces the cost /13.

2x5 off 35mm
1x3 off 35mm

hangers and weight clips for 15 or so.

The tanks for you, are lurking in the back of dusty photo stores, in cardboard boxes, with make us an offer, on them.

Noel
 
C41 dev + CD is 2.95 GBP here 20mins turn around, if there is not a queue

B&W (non chromogenic) more expensive and longer turn around.

I've done chrome which is more difficult in my tanks when I was poor, the tempering bath is easy, in our climate as the water facuets bracket normal dev temps.

So B&W is easy at home and real cheap, in time and GBP, C41 cheap and convenient local minilab, E6 I post, more expenisive & 1 week turn around.

Noel
 
Well, I run a color darkroom at home and it really isn't any more difficult than black and white. Initial startup is more expensive; I would recommend a processor - the Jobo CPP-2 would be an excellent processor for both film and prints. For prints, you need good viewing conditions. You can also do color with less. It is not a Herculean task.

If you enjoy darkroom work, I would recommend setting on up. Since you seem to be doing large batches - 22 rolls at a time - it can be economical for both time and money. (One roll once in a while is not going to work.) If you are just doing it to save money and have now more interest than that, I would not recommend going with a darkroom.
 
Thanks for such thoughtful replys.

Only reason I'm shooting C-41 is that it's cheaper to process than TriX when sending out. Comes out to around eight bucks a roll at Ritz ... A roll of TriX is something like twelve or fourteen if my memory serves ...

I basically only shoot B&W. When I do get the darkroom up and running I'll start by shooting TriX only I figure. A local pro unloaded ALL his stuff to me a few months back ... I've got boxes of stuff including an enlarger downstairs. All I need is some time at this point to figure it all out.

I'm printing everything I shoot because I'm really on the learning curve at this point. One of my main concerns has been exposure ... I want to know how every attempt came out.

Eventually I'd like to be able to simply make a contact sheet (or use a loupe w/ negs) and choose which photos to print . Maybe then print up the good ones as 8x10's ??? This sounds really cool to me ...

A scanner also would be nice someday ...

edit; Used Walmart a few times and really hated the results. Pretty sure I only saved a buck a roll or something ...

Thank you again all,
m
 
Last edited:
matt fury said:
Here's a start....stop going to Ritz to get your film developed! Many discount places like Walgreens, Sams Club, etc, can present fairly respectable results. Developing only is about $3 at Walgreens...I pay $5 for developing & cd.
Click to expand...

I second this suggestion. Taking pictures is one thing, developing film is another. I use wallyworld @ less than $4 roll.
 
Daniel, I'm sorry. You are correct. I didn't read carefully and was only thinking B+W film processing.
 
For me it was worth it by far to switch from C41 b&w to traditional b&w and develop it myself. Get a developing tank, a funnel, some chemicals, and a film scanner. One way to save money on chemicals is to use Diafine developer. It is stable, so it can be used over and over.
 
The aforementioned Rodinal, and HC-110 are also very stable and economical developers which can be used at high dilutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom