Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Any general tips to save on development/scan costs?
Right now:
- 1 400 TX roll ~= 6$
- Dev of 1 roll ~= 11$
- Scan of 36exp ~= 9$
================
Total = 25 to 30$ every 2 weeks, ~= 650$/year, that's nearly 110 rolls of TX !
So, is developing at Costco/Walmart a good idea? are they any good?
Should I buy my own scanner? is it cheaper in the long run?
Should I start developping my own?
Should I sell my appartment and buy a Leica? oh wait...that doesn't belong here
Right now:
- 1 400 TX roll ~= 6$
- Dev of 1 roll ~= 11$
- Scan of 36exp ~= 9$
================
Total = 25 to 30$ every 2 weeks, ~= 650$/year, that's nearly 110 rolls of TX !
So, is developing at Costco/Walmart a good idea? are they any good?
Should I buy my own scanner? is it cheaper in the long run?
Should I start developping my own?
Should I sell my appartment and buy a Leica? oh wait...that doesn't belong here
kshapero
South Florida Man
Costco is excellent. 3-4 megs scans $4 a roll
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
Is Costco a good place to have film developed and scanned???
I've heard different things about them...I'm looking for another processor ever since my local Ritz closed...
I've heard different things about them...I'm looking for another processor ever since my local Ritz closed...
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Walmart. Low end economics.
Conversely, go almost anywhere and just have the negs developed and do your own prints. Maybe $3/roll (US) to just have negs developed. For special projects dev it yourself.
Conversely, go almost anywhere and just have the negs developed and do your own prints. Maybe $3/roll (US) to just have negs developed. For special projects dev it yourself.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
You'll save hard money if you develop the film yourself. Now whether your time is worth spending in the darkroom is up to you.
Same principals for scanning.
Same principals for scanning.
emraphoto
Veteran
Arista (tri-x) $2 a roll
home processed add less than $1
home processed add less than $1
Steve Karr
Film tank shaker
Please don't go to Walmart for anything.
Just soup it yourself. Pyro is dirt cheap and really great.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I predict you'll get many "develop your own" responses. Economical? Yes, if you don't put a value on your own time, or if you simply find it enjoyable. Roll after roll after roll. While you could be spending time with your family instead.
For me, this calculation looks more appealing:
BW400CN, 36 exp. - $5 (at Freestyle)
Drugstore developing - $3
Scanning depends on your final output needs. For web posting and small prints, a $90 flatbed will do. If you aim higher, dedicated film scanners are getting scarce and expensive. Keep an eye on Craigslist if you live in/near a big city. I've seen a couple of good deals in Boston recently, like a Dual Scan II for $15 (I was too late).
For me, this calculation looks more appealing:
BW400CN, 36 exp. - $5 (at Freestyle)
Drugstore developing - $3
Scanning depends on your final output needs. For web posting and small prints, a $90 flatbed will do. If you aim higher, dedicated film scanners are getting scarce and expensive. Keep an eye on Craigslist if you live in/near a big city. I've seen a couple of good deals in Boston recently, like a Dual Scan II for $15 (I was too late).
Macpod
Established
takes me 30 mins total to develope two rolls....
regularchickens
Well-known
Yes, this. Use rebranded film to save quite a bit.
Mackinaw
Think Different
To repeat what others have said, bulk load and process the film yourself.
Jim B.
Jim B.
amateriat
We're all light!
Well, for me it's a mix: I have the means (changing bag, steel reels/tanks, timers, decent thermometer, chemistry, etc cetera) for processing conventional b/w film at home, I also have great flatbed and dedicated film scanners.
When I have the time I go the soup-my-own rote. When I don't, I reach for the rolls of chromogenic film (Kodak BW400CN mostly these days, or Ilford XP2 Super). Processing gets done at the local CVS, which is fast, clean, local and cheap ($2.40 a roll).
For me, a roll of BW400CN is $4.29. With processing and tax, I come in at a bit under seven bucks a roll. Not too bad for letting someone else do the developing.
Yes, I do all the scanning/printing stuff, but I'm fine with it. Semi-control-freak that I am, it's just as well I don't let anyone else handle those parts.
- Barrett
When I have the time I go the soup-my-own rote. When I don't, I reach for the rolls of chromogenic film (Kodak BW400CN mostly these days, or Ilford XP2 Super). Processing gets done at the local CVS, which is fast, clean, local and cheap ($2.40 a roll).
For me, a roll of BW400CN is $4.29. With processing and tax, I come in at a bit under seven bucks a roll. Not too bad for letting someone else do the developing.
Yes, I do all the scanning/printing stuff, but I'm fine with it. Semi-control-freak that I am, it's just as well I don't let anyone else handle those parts.
- Barrett
Merkin
For the Weekend
Another vote for using Arista film, particularly Arista Premium, which is Kodak Tri-x, over brand name films, although arista.edu film is even cheaper. you have to order it from freestyle photo directly. a quick google will take you to their site.
Home developing is cheaper, and it is rewarding. It is not for everyone. If you are thinking about this route, be sure to ask plenty of questions and search the loads of threads here on the subject. It does take time, both to learn, and to do.
If you decide to keep having your film processed by a lab, comparison shop. Some labs are as cheap as three bucks for a 36 exposure roll for black and white, some are significantly more. A lot of labs don't even do black and white in house anymore. Also ask the labs about their scanning services, and ask about the resolution at which they scan.
Another way to save money if you don't mind waiting longer to get your results is to get a bulk developing discount. A lot of labs will give you a reduced rate if you are getting more than x rolls at a time developed. Granted, it means tossing finished rolls in the fridge until you build up a decent backlog, but you can save a few bucks that way.
If you want high res scans, a good investment is a light table and a loupe. That way, you can evaluate your negatives and then pick and choose which negatives you want to have scanned. Prices vary from less than a buck to fifty bucks or more, depending on film format, resolution, type of scanner the lab uses, etc. Even if you pay three to five bucks a frame, if you are only going to keep one or two shots off of each roll, it can be cheaper.
Every six months or so, take a couple of days and evaluate for yourself whether the quality versus price of a digital camera has reached a point where digital might be a better choice for you. In the long run, digital is cheaper for many, if not most, photographers. It has become cheaper for me recently. It still isn't cheaper for someone who shoots a 50 dollar camera with arista film and home develops with diafine though. It is a very personal decision, and one that is worth taking a look at a couple times a year.
The thing with scanners is that there is quite the learning curve to getting good scans from black and white film. www.figitalrevolution.com is a good site for learning about shooting film, scanning it, and manipulating the images digitally.
Home developing is cheaper, and it is rewarding. It is not for everyone. If you are thinking about this route, be sure to ask plenty of questions and search the loads of threads here on the subject. It does take time, both to learn, and to do.
If you decide to keep having your film processed by a lab, comparison shop. Some labs are as cheap as three bucks for a 36 exposure roll for black and white, some are significantly more. A lot of labs don't even do black and white in house anymore. Also ask the labs about their scanning services, and ask about the resolution at which they scan.
Another way to save money if you don't mind waiting longer to get your results is to get a bulk developing discount. A lot of labs will give you a reduced rate if you are getting more than x rolls at a time developed. Granted, it means tossing finished rolls in the fridge until you build up a decent backlog, but you can save a few bucks that way.
If you want high res scans, a good investment is a light table and a loupe. That way, you can evaluate your negatives and then pick and choose which negatives you want to have scanned. Prices vary from less than a buck to fifty bucks or more, depending on film format, resolution, type of scanner the lab uses, etc. Even if you pay three to five bucks a frame, if you are only going to keep one or two shots off of each roll, it can be cheaper.
Every six months or so, take a couple of days and evaluate for yourself whether the quality versus price of a digital camera has reached a point where digital might be a better choice for you. In the long run, digital is cheaper for many, if not most, photographers. It has become cheaper for me recently. It still isn't cheaper for someone who shoots a 50 dollar camera with arista film and home develops with diafine though. It is a very personal decision, and one that is worth taking a look at a couple times a year.
The thing with scanners is that there is quite the learning curve to getting good scans from black and white film. www.figitalrevolution.com is a good site for learning about shooting film, scanning it, and manipulating the images digitally.
Mephiloco
Well-known
I get my color film developed at walgreens, its like $3/roll. I bring it home and scan it myself since their scans and prints are terrible. B&W film I develop myself and buy expired film or arista premium 400 (tri-x) for $2.19/roll. I bought my scanner as all the local film places charge a fortune for scans. I got my Canon 4000US for under $100.
I did a breakdown in another thread of the actual costs of my film usage, and it comes to a few pennies a frame, factoring in film cost, developer cost, and the cost of the scanner over say, 100 rolls of film.
I did a breakdown in another thread of the actual costs of my film usage, and it comes to a few pennies a frame, factoring in film cost, developer cost, and the cost of the scanner over say, 100 rolls of film.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Develop only - no prints. Print only the ones that are good.
Buy a scanner - Epson V300 is very capable for under $100.
Buy a scanner - Epson V300 is very capable for under $100.
dfoo
Well-known
$11 for developing? Someone is making a good business thats for sure. Send them to me. I'll charge less, I promise!!
Mephiloco
Well-known
Alright a quick rundown again. 17 oz of rodinal is $16, a roll of arista premium is $2.19/roll, my scanner cost around $80 shipped. So, figuring for 125 rolls of film, the grand total comes to $370.
So, 4500 frames, shot, developed, and scanned; each frame comes to $0.08 a frame. So after shooting, each roll costs an extra $.69 to process and scan.
To put things into perspective, my canon dslr which I've had for almost 2 years (XTi) which I bought 2nd hand, has only 5700 actuations
So, 4500 frames, shot, developed, and scanned; each frame comes to $0.08 a frame. So after shooting, each roll costs an extra $.69 to process and scan.
To put things into perspective, my canon dslr which I've had for almost 2 years (XTi) which I bought 2nd hand, has only 5700 actuations
robinsonphotography
Established
I'd buy arista premium 400 (which is tri-x) and rodinal, as well as some photoflo and kodafix from freestylephoto. You can bulk load the arista, but you have to shoot a lot of film before it's worth it by the time you factor in the intial $50 for the bulk loader and the fact that 100' rolls aren't that cheap of the arista premium since it's only 2.20 a roll to begin with. Using arista and rodinal, I estimate i'm spending about $2.50-3 total per roll, which isn't bad at all.
I've got a nikon coolscan 4000ED and vuescan (the nikon software sucks), which does a pretty good job for me, but there are other lower cost options for scanning.
For color, it's tougher, but if you already like to shoot black and white, develop yourself. It really isn't hard at all, especially with such a low-work developer like rodinal which lasts forever and can be used in stand development.
I've got a nikon coolscan 4000ED and vuescan (the nikon software sucks), which does a pretty good job for me, but there are other lower cost options for scanning.
For color, it's tougher, but if you already like to shoot black and white, develop yourself. It really isn't hard at all, especially with such a low-work developer like rodinal which lasts forever and can be used in stand development.
robinsonphotography
Established
Oh and one other idea that just came into my head---you could always develop yourself and then use a service like www.scancafe.com to do the scanning for relatively cheap, if you don't feel like spending the time to scan everything yourself.
climbing_vine
Well-known
Drugstore developing in the long run is more expensive than doing it yourself, *unless* you're lucky enough to have a dedicated, caring person working the machine. Personally I've never found this mythical beast--my experiences with drugstore developing, from Baltimore to Chicago to London to Minneapolis to Dallas to Iceland to Athens--is that it's almost always sub-par (because they don't properly care for the machine), and one roll in four is totally trashed.
I put a high value on my time but personally (as someone who's just started and by the second roll was already getting better results than I've ever had from Walgreens) spending the 20 minutes to dev two rolls in a Paterson tank after everyone's gone to bed is a lot better than spending the money on a gamble at the drug store. If you just don't enjoy it that's respectable, but the time argument is just flat-out inane. I'd spend longer traveling to the drug store and waiting in line twice (once for drop-off, once for pick-up) than I do developing eight rolls.