dfoo
Well-known
With a scanner like the 5000 ED it is no big effort to scan, since you can do an entire roll at a time. I insert the film, set the black and point and come back in 1.5 hours.
Film economics
- Thread starter Lauffray
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 7K
mackigator
Well-known
It can be very inexpensive.
Arista Premium (tri-x) $2 a roll
home processed add less than $1
Sams club scan of uncut negatives, $3.
I also own a 5000ED, but lately I just use it when I want to see if I can do better than the Sams scans ... and I can, but the time it takes to do one photo they do the whole roll. So now i just go back and hit the important images with the Coolscan, and, if you only had Sams, you're fine.
Arista Premium (tri-x) $2 a roll
home processed add less than $1
Sams club scan of uncut negatives, $3.
I also own a 5000ED, but lately I just use it when I want to see if I can do better than the Sams scans ... and I can, but the time it takes to do one photo they do the whole roll. So now i just go back and hit the important images with the Coolscan, and, if you only had Sams, you're fine.
photogdave
Shops local
$11 for developing is expensive. My local pro lab charges $5 (CDN)
Mephiloco
Well-known
This thread has got me thinking I should order a brick of arista premium tonight (only have 2 rolls left). Below are a couple shots of arista, in rodinal, scanned on a 4000US. Stand developed for 85 minutes, swirling of tank for 10 seconds at the begining and then again at 34 and 70 minutes. Pushed to 800
It just seems to work so well that my favorite combination is perhaps one of the cheapest.
It just seems to work so well that my favorite combination is perhaps one of the cheapest.
amateriat
We're all light!
Mephiloco: Nice going!
But I will say I don't think I'll be trying that formula anytime soon (85 minutes...? You've the proverbial patience of Job, my friend). Unquestionably nice results, though, again.
- Barrett
But I will say I don't think I'll be trying that formula anytime soon (85 minutes...? You've the proverbial patience of Job, my friend). Unquestionably nice results, though, again.
- Barrett
wayneb
Established
Investing in a $500 (or less) scanner makes sense. Not only can you probably get higher resolution, the ability to rescan and tweak the settings means you can get every roll of film looking the way you want vs. a bit of a crap shoot and no way to rescan. Of course there is the time issue, but if you get a contact print (or make quick contact scans of the strips), you'll know what is worth scanning (not every frame).
I started shooting film about 10 years ago and the scans I paid (a lot of money for) back then are not good, both in resolution and they are very over-sharpened. When I go back and scan some of that material now, I'm surprised there are actually some nice photos.
I started shooting film about 10 years ago and the scans I paid (a lot of money for) back then are not good, both in resolution and they are very over-sharpened. When I go back and scan some of that material now, I'm surprised there are actually some nice photos.
Mephiloco
Well-known
the 85 minutes was overkill, and I only had one roll to develop. On top of that I've been incredibly hungover all day (worked something like 105 hours these past 7 days and celebrated my week ending last night. I also didn't realize until after the film had been in the developer for 70 minutes that I had no fixer mixed.
To be fair, I've gotten similar results at iso 800 and higher at around 20 minutes and 80F, but I honestly felt so bad today I didn't trust myself to getting a good development with dd-x or anything else due to my terrible head hurt. I'm really starting to like stand development because I can just toss in a couple rolls of film and walk away and come back later and not really worry about the temperature or inversions, et al and contrary to what I had read beforehand, it really does push tri-x very well (and it's cheap).
I almost wasn't sure what was on the roll, I thought it would mostly be crap shots (since I just got 2 new lenses, figured they'd be test photos intended to test focus etc), but turns out I got something like 13 keepers out of 35
Last edited:
pakeha
Well-known
emigrate perhaps?😀
1 roll , develope and scan equal to 14 of your dollars here, a little more than a pack of cigarettes/ same as a twelve pack of Stella, sometimes it`s hard to make a decision.
1 roll , develope and scan equal to 14 of your dollars here, a little more than a pack of cigarettes/ same as a twelve pack of Stella, sometimes it`s hard to make a decision.
amateriat
We're all light!
Mephiloco: Quite a story. Don't know what you "do", but getting through 105 hours of anything calls for some sort of celebration/recognition (though some forms of celebration take longer to recover from than others...🙂). Your Rodinal setup obviously allowed you a bit of slack while you hurriedly mixed up that forgotten-about fixer. (Puts me in mind of Diafine, which reminds me that I have an unused kit of the stuff I should mix up soon.)
And, yes, 13 out of 35 on a roll is doing mighty fine.
- Barrett
And, yes, 13 out of 35 on a roll is doing mighty fine.
I don't smoke, but I grok your point about the Stella. 😉
- Barrett
mfogiel
Veteran
Arista Premium 400 in Rodinal 1+100 stand dev, use just 3cc of Rodinal per film. Stand dev is easy, while you develop, you can watch the movies. The only thing you should not save on is the scanner, try to get a used Nikon scanner, and do it yourself at home. Will pay itself very fast and you will gain in quality.
OscarGarrido
Established
In Spain, the costs are the worst in the world.
C41: 4,5 $
B&W: 11 $ pushed +3 $
And C6: 15 $
More or less at best photographic shops, with poor developing, dust and horrible packaging.
I develope my film in my kitchen, very cheap.
C41: 4,5 $
B&W: 11 $ pushed +3 $
And C6: 15 $
More or less at best photographic shops, with poor developing, dust and horrible packaging.
I develope my film in my kitchen, very cheap.
40oz
...
If you shoot traditional B&W, it's a waste of money having someone else process it. you can do as good a job or better for the cost of chemicals.
And while yes, you could be spending that time with your family, you could also be spending that time making money to pay for someone else to do it. Since from set up to being done except for drying it takes maybe half an hour tops, I'm not seeing the time as a real issue. It takes some time to scan, but again, that's time I either invest in doing it myself or making money to pay someone else to do it.
The bigger reason to do it yourself is to inform your exposure and developing. By doing the whole bit yourself, you get a better idea of how you expose and develop for the scene.
And while yes, you could be spending that time with your family, you could also be spending that time making money to pay for someone else to do it. Since from set up to being done except for drying it takes maybe half an hour tops, I'm not seeing the time as a real issue. It takes some time to scan, but again, that's time I either invest in doing it myself or making money to pay someone else to do it.
The bigger reason to do it yourself is to inform your exposure and developing. By doing the whole bit yourself, you get a better idea of how you expose and develop for the scene.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
or four... if we are talking 35mm.
Or you could do Rodinal 1:100 stand development and sit in a comfortable chair for an hour. Then rinse and fix and wash for the next ten - fifteen minutes, and you are all done. Actual time shaking the can? About 15 minutes or less.
Developing film is easy and fun. If you have a dark bag (changing bag) it can all be done in daylight, and with very little investment.
If you used Rodinal, or other similar developer, you do not have to worry about it going bad. Just mix it right before you develop your film.
Now, the drug store processing has to be done with C41 film. (not Tri-X).
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Sorry that you've been unhappy with drugstores, but your experience seems to be the exception. Sure, I get a surprised look from the teen behind the counter when I say "no prints, and could you leave them uncut" but they do it, and it comes out fine. The trick is to find a drugstore that still does a good amount of processing.
So, now for your calculation. You do it all, from mixing chemicals and taking film out of the camera to hanging it to dry, in 20 minutes for two rolls? Have you timed that? Even if that's an actual fact, versus an off-the-cuff estimate, that comes out to 6 rolls per hour. My drugstore charges $2.30 for 24 exposures. Do you work for $13.80 (6 times $2.30) an hour? You can't even get your lawn mowed for that. And this is not even factoring in the cost of supplies.
Yes, time to go to the drugstore and wait in line (BTW if the film counter is that busy, and they still suck, find a different store) does count, but only for dedicated trips. I'm in the drugstore a couple times a week anyway. For example, to buy film.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
What film are you using? Somehow I think there is an apples / oranges thing going on.
If you can get quality black and white developing anywhere except a pro lab, I would be surprised. And they charge about $10-15 / roll for anything they do. As far as I know, minilabs don't do B&W. I could be misinformed, though.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
This is for BW400CN, see my first post.
My whole point is that the OP has another option if he wants 35mm B&W at 400. I agree that home developing is not difficult and the materials can be very cheap. But I take issue with people who simply assume that it's enjoyable for everyone, or even preferable to other ways to spend one's time. Also, I have a freelance occupation, so I know the value of my time very well. YMMV.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
quite right, i missed your post earlier.
climbing_vine
Well-known
Respectfully, that's a bare-assed assertion. You have no evidence which of us, if either, is the exception.
Yes, and in doing that one might spend as much time and ruin as many rolls as one might have done in five years of home processing.
Yes. Yesterday, and the day before in fact. And I'm new at this. It'll go faster soon enough.
Or twelve rolls per hour with a four-reel tank. What I work for is rather irrelevant and arbitrary... why not apply that logic to housework and get a maid? Or driving, and get a chauffeur? You could be working in the back of that car instead of driving...
Again with "find a different store", "I'm traveling there all the time anyway", etc. Not only are you trying to portray your own highly individual experience, routines and "sunk costs" as a universal--but you also seem to have a lot of time to dither around, for someone who is so supercilious about knowing the value of their time.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
What's with the aggressive tone? I never claimed or implied that my experience is universal. But I maintain it's a valid data point for the OP.
And yes, you find me an honest, reliable, insured maid and chauffeur in my area who will work for $14/hr, and I'll hire them on the spot.
And yes, you find me an honest, reliable, insured maid and chauffeur in my area who will work for $14/hr, and I'll hire them on the spot.
goamules
Well-known
On time used for work or pleasure, I personally don't "count" time that the developer clock is ticking but I'm doing what I would want to do at the house anyway; computer work, dishes, read. What's with the idea that it's "work" to spend a little time at home. Maybe my perspective is off, but my days of trying to fit every waking hour into making money ended a long time ago.
On stand development, can someone point me to a link about this (don't want to hijack this cost analysis thread)? I develop all my LF, and do stand dev. One thing I've had trouble with getting back into 35mm after 20 years is the stupid reels. Both rolls I've done had ruined spots where the developer didn't flow between the grooves....Need to see about stand dev. The question is do I use the same reel tank, or need to straighten out the film somehow and put it in a flat container?
On stand development, can someone point me to a link about this (don't want to hijack this cost analysis thread)? I develop all my LF, and do stand dev. One thing I've had trouble with getting back into 35mm after 20 years is the stupid reels. Both rolls I've done had ruined spots where the developer didn't flow between the grooves....Need to see about stand dev. The question is do I use the same reel tank, or need to straighten out the film somehow and put it in a flat container?