Tuolumne
Veteran
Looks like a pretty compelling argument to switch to digital! ;-)
/T
/T
What's with the aggressive tone? I never claimed or implied that my experience is universal.
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.
What film are you using? Somehow I think there is an apples / oranges thing going on.
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.
I don't smoke, but I grok your point about the Stella. 😉
- Barrett
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.