Tuolumne
Veteran
Looks like a pretty compelling argument to switch to digital! ;-)
/T
/T
climbing_vine
Well-known
Of course you did. Now you're just being disingenuous. You said it applied to you, said it would apply to the OP, said it applied to me but I'm too stupid to realize it. So what are you saying if not "it's universal?"
As a tip for the future, you won't get such aggressive replies if you don't state universals and try to demonstrate with silly math that people who disagree are idiots.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I really don't see how my posts could be any less universal. I've only talked about my experience with my drugstore and my personal calculation. Nowhere did I say the same applies to you or the OP. Only that it's a data point to consider. Whether it applies in somebody else's personal situation is theirs to decide.
From the way you're throwing around words like "inane," "bare-assed," "silly," and "idiot," I am beginning to understand why drugstore employees mess up your film.
From the way you're throwing around words like "inane," "bare-assed," "silly," and "idiot," I am beginning to understand why drugstore employees mess up your film.
wgerrard
Veteran
Figuring out the cheapest way to go for your photographic habits is really just a matter of running the numbers. You can stay with the status quo, process b&w at home and pay someone else to scan it, or process at home and buy a scanner.
But, I want to recommend that you also consider the enjoyment factor. If it turns out that you do not enjoy processing at home, then that becomes a burden that will detract from your enjoyment of your hobby.
So, you might think first about finding less expensive film and a less expensive processor. Costco seems to get good reviews, but the only way to find out is to try your local franchise.
I do my own b&w in the kitchen. The actual processing takes about 30 minutes, give or take, but setting up and cleaning up adds more time, so I allot an hour to get the job done. I've been trying a number of different films, but once I settle on a favorite I'll obviously buy it at the cheapest outlet. I used to send C41 and E6 out for processing. That was expensive and the results were often less than satisfying. Now, I take drugstore film to Walgreens and the other stuff goes to a local shop for $4 processing.
[ADD: I should mention that it's the scanning at home that takes the longest time. I've got a Nikon Coolscan V ED (used with Vuescan), which is a nice scanner, but it does not ingest whole rolls of film by itself. I need to feed it strips of a few frames one at a time. Add in post-processing time in Photoshop and it adds up. I also found scanning to be numbingly boring, and post-processing isn't far behind.]
But, I want to recommend that you also consider the enjoyment factor. If it turns out that you do not enjoy processing at home, then that becomes a burden that will detract from your enjoyment of your hobby.
So, you might think first about finding less expensive film and a less expensive processor. Costco seems to get good reviews, but the only way to find out is to try your local franchise.
I do my own b&w in the kitchen. The actual processing takes about 30 minutes, give or take, but setting up and cleaning up adds more time, so I allot an hour to get the job done. I've been trying a number of different films, but once I settle on a favorite I'll obviously buy it at the cheapest outlet. I used to send C41 and E6 out for processing. That was expensive and the results were often less than satisfying. Now, I take drugstore film to Walgreens and the other stuff goes to a local shop for $4 processing.
[ADD: I should mention that it's the scanning at home that takes the longest time. I've got a Nikon Coolscan V ED (used with Vuescan), which is a nice scanner, but it does not ingest whole rolls of film by itself. I need to feed it strips of a few frames one at a time. Add in post-processing time in Photoshop and it adds up. I also found scanning to be numbingly boring, and post-processing isn't far behind.]
Last edited:
climbing_vine
Well-known
Scroll up the page a few lines and see where you tried doing the calculation for ME, not you. You explicitly said it applied to me (and hence, I'm sure, everyone--you can't be interested in me per se, you were using it to attempt a universal point).
Another tip: denying what you said when it's a scroll of the mouse away should be avoided.
Nah. I'm a nice guy when someone isn't calling me a moron and then trying to weasel out of it. More on point: these "hourly rate" calculations just aren't germane, because we're not talking about work. Unless you're trying to monetize every waking hour of your day, in which case why are you spending time on an internet forum...
bwidjaja
Warung Photo
Maybe I am just new to the film photography and looking at the negative critically. But sometime I wonder what it means by the result from lab is less than satisfying. Of course this question is for both pro-lab for B&W and drugstore development of a C-41 type film.
wgerrard
Veteran
FWIW, for the time being, I trust my local Walgreens with the rebranded Fuji film they stock and "real" Fuji film like Superia. Experience shows they can handle that reasonably well. I've learned from experience not to take them any Kodak film. Any film with "Professional" on it provokes a "We don't do pro film" response from the kids, and I've learned they have a good reason. And I don't take them any film with irreplaceable images.
People do not make careers working at drugstores. A shop that does good work on Monday might have an entirely different staff on Tuesday. The machine that was clean on Tuesday might be filthy when you bring in your film. The kid that usually does your film might be sick one day and your precious film is processed by the guy who usually stocks the shelves. It's pretty much a crap shoot, so arguing about the quality of "drugstore" processing is pointless because each store is different. If you find a place you like, be happy until they give you a reason not to like them.
Mephiloco
Well-known
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...
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
First week of production on a movie. I'm in camera department. Principal photography started on sunday; We didn't have the camera working until about 5 hours before shooting and had spent the previous week trying to get the rig built and working properly.
The problem is that we're shooting in 3D using Red One's, and all the stuff to make it happen is either first generation or a prototype, so when stuff didn't work, there wasn't anyone to tell us how to fix it or any parts for us to order to make it easier. We had an engineer from Red helping but, but he'd never used any of this equipment outside a lab. Luckily on the first day of shooting everything worked with very few problems. Still, the camera rig weighs 125 lb alone (without including tripod/sticks/hihat) and is a huge cumbersome thing.
This is basically what we're working with. This shot is from another production (that I didn't work on) but our rig is pretty close, a little tidier and less components, but essentially the same rig, complete with the same stereographer (Keith Collea).
So yeah, makes for a 5 AM call time, 8.30 PM wrap time. Can't wait to get my checks and see all the overtime and meal penalties I've built up
jongcelebes
Member
Film: China Lucky Film $0.8
Developer: Micro MF (D76-a-like) $0.25 per roll
Fixer: Hypo $0.2 per roll
Total.... $1.25 x 2 rolls per week... $2.5 = $130 per year.
Well, sometimes I re-use the developer though (and buy T-Max).
Developer: Micro MF (D76-a-like) $0.25 per roll
Fixer: Hypo $0.2 per roll
Total.... $1.25 x 2 rolls per week... $2.5 = $130 per year.
Well, sometimes I re-use the developer though (and buy T-Max).
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Show me where I am applying anything to you personally, and I'll take it back in a second. The calculation you are referring to begins with the words "My drugstore charges..." My. Mine. Personal for me. Get it? I was indeed using your 20 min/2 rolls data point as input for my calculation.
I never called you any names and won't do so now, either, even though you have given me plenty of reason.
I'm on this forum to receive and, occasionally, give advice. I showed the OP one way to save $8 per roll over his current situation. He doesn't have to agree with it, you don't, but you can't argue the fact.
climbing_vine
Well-known
If that's all you meant to say, you should have stopped there. Instead of calling people who develop their own idiots who don't know the value of their time.
You can dance all you want, but that's what you said. End of story.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
I don't really have a local drugstore about ten months of the year and can't process my own for those months. The other two months(not two months together but scattered around the calendar a few weeks at a time), there is too much other stuff going on for me.
And I like the chromoenic BW films.
So, I mail order my processing, develop only and scan. The scans aren't great but they are good and I do rescan the frames I want to do more than post on line with. The last batch I had done was about US$9 per roll. I buy film at a few places on line and shop around so my film costs are minimal--typically I've been paying between $3 and $4 a roll.
Not the cheapest hobby but compared to my golfing friends, I'm way ahead of the game!
If I really wanted to simply spend as little as possible, I'd probably get a 4 x 5 or build another pinhole camera and shoot blue-print paper negs and contact positives.
Rob
And I like the chromoenic BW films.
So, I mail order my processing, develop only and scan. The scans aren't great but they are good and I do rescan the frames I want to do more than post on line with. The last batch I had done was about US$9 per roll. I buy film at a few places on line and shop around so my film costs are minimal--typically I've been paying between $3 and $4 a roll.
Not the cheapest hobby but compared to my golfing friends, I'm way ahead of the game!
If I really wanted to simply spend as little as possible, I'd probably get a 4 x 5 or build another pinhole camera and shoot blue-print paper negs and contact positives.
Rob
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
And where, exactly, would I have said that?
End of story is right. You have no interest in the subject, you're just looking for a fight. Welcome on my Ignore list.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Looks like I'm late to the party again, and the kids who can't hold their liquor are busting up the furniture again.
Anyhoo, just wanted to comment on the actual subject of this thread, then y'all can get back to throwing wild swings.
Many of the responders talked about developing your own, but really didn't differentiate between B/W silver gelatin film and C-41 color. Since virtually all mini-labs, including all the places mentioned by responders (Walmart, Costco, etc) are doing C-41 processing, it seems to compare home-processed Tri-X with C-41 minilab-processed color is like apples and oranges.
I agree that home processing silver gelatin film can be inexpensive; I've done it for years. And I can get it from the camera to hanging up to dry in less than an hour. But if it's prints you're after, it's a bit disengenuous to imply that's all there is to it. Permitting the film to adequately dry to completion, in a dust-free environment, is crucial to good quality home printing. Anyone who says they haven't struggled with dust in this context is lying to you. This'll take usually overnight for the average home printer like myself. And then coaxing quality prints out of each negative is a lengthy, multi-hours-long exercise in the darkroom craft.
So the real issue is about "what's your time worth?" For quick snapshots on color film, the price I pay for film and processing on C-41 to 4x6 prints is well worth the convenience. OTHO, if you're printing a special project, especially to sizes larger than what minilabs do, then it's going to take you a LOT longer to do a quality job in the darkroom. Apples and oranges.
I've also been doing some digital shooting, and uploading the files to the minilab's website for RA-4 prints to 4x6. The results are very good, quality-wise. And if you look into the economics of 29-39 cents per print versus buying your own hardware, software and the endless inkjet cartridges (and photo paper) the minilab route (especially with 4x6 snapshot prints) is easily less expensive than doing it yourself on the PC. And RA-4 prints I prefer for their quality and longevity.
Again, it's about what your end purpose is that determine which route is really the best for you. But from a simple cost-analysis POV (ignoring quality issues) it's easy to see that for color processing the minilab is the least expensive, most convenient method, at least for large numbers of small prints. You just can't pump out that many good prints per hour from a homebased B/W darkroom without doing total crap.
~Joe
Anyhoo, just wanted to comment on the actual subject of this thread, then y'all can get back to throwing wild swings.
Many of the responders talked about developing your own, but really didn't differentiate between B/W silver gelatin film and C-41 color. Since virtually all mini-labs, including all the places mentioned by responders (Walmart, Costco, etc) are doing C-41 processing, it seems to compare home-processed Tri-X with C-41 minilab-processed color is like apples and oranges.
I agree that home processing silver gelatin film can be inexpensive; I've done it for years. And I can get it from the camera to hanging up to dry in less than an hour. But if it's prints you're after, it's a bit disengenuous to imply that's all there is to it. Permitting the film to adequately dry to completion, in a dust-free environment, is crucial to good quality home printing. Anyone who says they haven't struggled with dust in this context is lying to you. This'll take usually overnight for the average home printer like myself. And then coaxing quality prints out of each negative is a lengthy, multi-hours-long exercise in the darkroom craft.
So the real issue is about "what's your time worth?" For quick snapshots on color film, the price I pay for film and processing on C-41 to 4x6 prints is well worth the convenience. OTHO, if you're printing a special project, especially to sizes larger than what minilabs do, then it's going to take you a LOT longer to do a quality job in the darkroom. Apples and oranges.
I've also been doing some digital shooting, and uploading the files to the minilab's website for RA-4 prints to 4x6. The results are very good, quality-wise. And if you look into the economics of 29-39 cents per print versus buying your own hardware, software and the endless inkjet cartridges (and photo paper) the minilab route (especially with 4x6 snapshot prints) is easily less expensive than doing it yourself on the PC. And RA-4 prints I prefer for their quality and longevity.
Again, it's about what your end purpose is that determine which route is really the best for you. But from a simple cost-analysis POV (ignoring quality issues) it's easy to see that for color processing the minilab is the least expensive, most convenient method, at least for large numbers of small prints. You just can't pump out that many good prints per hour from a homebased B/W darkroom without doing total crap.
~Joe
bwcolor
Veteran
My routine is more one determined by time. When I don't have time, it is C-41 with Costco develop and DVD. When I have time it is B&W develop and scan @ home. So, now I'm working 50 - 60 hrs per week and it is color.. if I can find the time to shoot. The days of Costco/Film are almost over. The new locations are digital only.
climbing_vine
Well-known
I know that in some respects it's a whole different ball of wax, but how do you feel about the maybe-serious contention upthread that if you're truly interested in maximizing the budget, digital is the way to go for color?
Personally, I agree with it. In 2009, my own experience is that on a value-per-frame basis a $100 used Canon point-and-shoot absolutely *destroys* any sub-$4k film camera/lens combo with color, no matter how good the dev and print. Except of course in the case where the P&S just doesn't do what you need, such as ultra-wide or slim DOF. In the average case of an f4 shot with 4 or 6 or more feet in focus, I'm starting to think that there's nothing you can do with a film camera that can't be done for 1/10th the cost, *just as well*, in digital, and so the c41 debate is, I guess, just sort of irrelevant. IMO. So far. Maybe.
climbing_vine
Well-known
I told you where. Thank you for the ignore.
robinsonphotography
Established
I know that in some respects it's a whole different ball of wax, but how do you feel about the maybe-serious contention upthread that if you're truly interested in maximizing the budget, digital is the way to go for color?
Personally, I agree with it. In 2009, my own experience is that on a value-per-frame basis a $100 used Canon point-and-shoot absolutely *destroys* any sub-$4k film camera/lens combo with color, no matter how good the dev and print. Except of course in the case where the P&S just doesn't do what you need, such as ultra-wide or slim DOF. In the average case of an f4 shot with 4 or 6 or more feet in focus, I'm starting to think that there's nothing you can do with a film camera that can't be done for 1/10th the cost, *just as well*, in digital, and so the c41 debate is, I guess, just sort of irrelevant. IMO. So far. Maybe.
The one thing that doesn't take into account, however, is the joy of shooting. I used to have a canon g10--in many ways, it produced "better" images (accurate colors, sharpness, detailed files) than the Leica M2 I sold the g10 to buy, but there is NO comparison went it comes to the joy of shooting an M2 vs G10. The m2 feels solid in your hands, it inspires confidence, whereas most cheap point and shoot cameras don't. They don't feel the same when you operate them, and that makes a big difference for me in my decision to shoot a camera or not when I'm only photographing something for my own pleasure, not paid work.
Mephiloco
Well-known
I concur. I shoot with my girlfriend's p&s every now and then, which is a Canon sd780, and it takes great pictures, even in low light (thanks to the IS), but whenever I take pictures with it, I'm surprised when I get a good one because it feels so cheap and small. I feel the same way when I shoot with my digital SLR.
I think it's because I prefer primes to zooms, between 35 and 90mm, making a rf a good choice for me. Even when shooting on the Red, I push for primes, even though they are far less convenient and offer no real advantage aside from speed (which is negligible when you have G&E).
climbing_vine
Well-known
I would absolutely agree with that. I still shoot most of my black and white on silver film because I love the feel of the cameras. I do some BW on a Canon SD800 with the IR filter removed, but mostly on a Pentax ME with Arista Premium these days.
But for color, I do some on the FED-2/Induster-22 combo for both the feel and the quality of the lens, but I go mostly to the *gasp* DSLR (now a Pentax k-x which I use with my manual focus K-mount and M42 lenses).
If I shot exclusively color, I'm sure I'd do more of it on film for the enjoyment--as it is, I fulfill that largely with my b+w. I was only trying to speak to the pure economics in that message, since that's how some people are trying to reduce this.