djpin89
Member
Ok, so the biggest thing as is everyone's problem from continuing a hobby. Price. The cost of film + the develop + the scan can be costly and I am finding this out the more I shoot. None the less, I am addicted and I can't stop (rolleiflex 3.5F). I am early 20's so still on a budget though.
My shop charged me roughly $140 to develop 17 rolls.
I have asked for prints of and (digital cd)scans for most of them(honestly, can't remembered how much I commissioned. at $2 each.
Just for (digital cd)scans is $1.06.
I live in Dallas, Texas and their competitor is more expensive. Now, I haven't seen the prints so I hope they come back ok. I do not have access to a dark room and cannot make one from my current living situation.
More or less how can I make this cheaper, does anyone have labs they send it out to that are more affordable and don't skimp on quality, or scanning methods at home that work just as well?
1.I have heard of using a DSLR to take a picture of the negatives, then upload to photoshop and color correct.
2. Different scanners for more or less the same purpose but their seems to be a lot of opinions and no definite go to.
3. Buy a nice scanner ranging in the $1000's
4. :bang:
Sorrry for the wall, and thank you for the responses.
My shop charged me roughly $140 to develop 17 rolls.
I have asked for prints of and (digital cd)scans for most of them(honestly, can't remembered how much I commissioned. at $2 each.
Just for (digital cd)scans is $1.06.
I live in Dallas, Texas and their competitor is more expensive. Now, I haven't seen the prints so I hope they come back ok. I do not have access to a dark room and cannot make one from my current living situation.
More or less how can I make this cheaper, does anyone have labs they send it out to that are more affordable and don't skimp on quality, or scanning methods at home that work just as well?
1.I have heard of using a DSLR to take a picture of the negatives, then upload to photoshop and color correct.
2. Different scanners for more or less the same purpose but their seems to be a lot of opinions and no definite go to.
3. Buy a nice scanner ranging in the $1000's
4. :bang:
Sorrry for the wall, and thank you for the responses.
mani
Well-known
I haven't got any constructive suggestions for your current situation I'm afraid - genuinely sorry. But I'd just like to balance it by saying that my biggest expenses (and losses) have been on digital cameras over the years, and I'm at least grateful that using film now allows me to have cameras that are vastly superior to their digital equivalents, results that are better and more satisfying, and also spreads the expense over weeks and months and years instead of necessitating a sudden expense of thousands of dollars.
I think a hobby like photography is always going to require some expense. I guess it's up to everyone how to spend their money. But since I switched from digital to film I've saved immense amounts and have much more fun.
Best of luck! I really hope it works out for you somehow.
I think a hobby like photography is always going to require some expense. I guess it's up to everyone how to spend their money. But since I switched from digital to film I've saved immense amounts and have much more fun.
Best of luck! I really hope it works out for you somehow.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
1. 120 film is more expensive to process and scan
2. Why scan every roll of film before you see how they come out
3. 120 film is most effective with large prints IMHO 11x14 or larger
4. Photography is an expensive hobby
5. Analyze what your intended outcome is: If you want to post a lot of images on the net then a dslr is a more effective and means
2. Why scan every roll of film before you see how they come out
3. 120 film is most effective with large prints IMHO 11x14 or larger
4. Photography is an expensive hobby
5. Analyze what your intended outcome is: If you want to post a lot of images on the net then a dslr is a more effective and means
Corran
Well-known
When I was about 24 I bought a Nikon Coolscan 8000 to scan MF negatives. I was in grad school at the time.
I worked my butt off and pinched pennies to buy it. Got a good deal too ($1000).
I was shooting mostly slides at the time. Eventually I sold that scanner (for a profit) and got into 4x5. But anyway, my point here is this - the investment for a scanner, if you want to go the hybrid route, is really just part of the deal. You can get (most) MF cameras dirt cheap compared to new, and a nice MF scanner costs less than most FF DSLR cameras.
Also, do yourself a favor and learn to develop your own film. You will save a LOT of money, and that scanner will pay for itself after 20-30 rolls basically. That's what I figured anyway, and as long as you don't trash it, it's still worth something on the second-hand market.
I worked my butt off and pinched pennies to buy it. Got a good deal too ($1000).
I was shooting mostly slides at the time. Eventually I sold that scanner (for a profit) and got into 4x5. But anyway, my point here is this - the investment for a scanner, if you want to go the hybrid route, is really just part of the deal. You can get (most) MF cameras dirt cheap compared to new, and a nice MF scanner costs less than most FF DSLR cameras.
Also, do yourself a favor and learn to develop your own film. You will save a LOT of money, and that scanner will pay for itself after 20-30 rolls basically. That's what I figured anyway, and as long as you don't trash it, it's still worth something on the second-hand market.
Axel
singleshooter
Maybe you can go with a home-developing-kit for your films and a (perhaps used) scanner to make your daily shooting cheaper?
It could be a way to pre-proof your pictures an decide which one is worth to
go to the shop or to order prints online.
It could be a way to pre-proof your pictures an decide which one is worth to
go to the shop or to order prints online.
YYV_146
Well-known
Get a cheap used NEX-5 and a 30mm F3.5 E-mount macro. This is a lens with 1x magnification (APS-C equivalent). This will allow you to scan 120 with minimum resolution loss. A few hundred shots and you should be able to recoup the cost of the combo. The system is also 45mm FOV so you might be able to have a bit of fun with it as a backup body...
As for the processing costs, that is sadly inevitable in this day and age.
As for the processing costs, that is sadly inevitable in this day and age.
Austerby
Well-known
It's not impractical to make contact prints at home, even without a darkroom.
Get a board with a piece of glass to go over the top and a couple of trays. Buy some 10x8 photopaper (cheapest you can find), some dev, stop bath and fixer.
In the bathroom, with a dim red light, position the negs on the paper under the glass. Switch on the bathroom light for 10secs or so (depending on how bright it is). Then slosh through the dev, stop and fix in that sequence.
It's a magical process and you'll end up with a reference set of prints that you can pick which ones to scan from.
Not expensive to get the kit or to process and is part of the magical photographic process.
Get a board with a piece of glass to go over the top and a couple of trays. Buy some 10x8 photopaper (cheapest you can find), some dev, stop bath and fixer.
In the bathroom, with a dim red light, position the negs on the paper under the glass. Switch on the bathroom light for 10secs or so (depending on how bright it is). Then slosh through the dev, stop and fix in that sequence.
It's a magical process and you'll end up with a reference set of prints that you can pick which ones to scan from.
Not expensive to get the kit or to process and is part of the magical photographic process.
Dan Daniel
Well-known
Are you doing color or B&W? I'll assume color because of the developing costs, but I just want to be certain.
djpin89
Member
You are right, I just took a trip overseas... And so I wanted a lot of the photos but just looking at the negatives I had a hard time telling which ones I actually wanted printed. I do want to post images on the net and I understand a DSLR is more effective means but that could be said for most things in the photography world these days. I am choosing to shoot film.
My outcome is vague, I just enjoy shooting in any capacity with the camera but I want prints of the ones I like because I like the permanence of actually holding the print.
That being said I appreciate your feedback and you are correct it is a hefty price to pay for shooting this way.
djpin89
Member
I am developing color and B&W. Could I develop both using the at home developing?
djpin89
Member
Yes, I shoot with portra, Fuji 400, and tri x, occasionally velvia and hp5
Pete B
Well-known
The easiest way to scan colour negative film is with a Pakon 135+ but the size is limited to 3000 pixels along the long edge. You'll need to run an XP laptop/computer, or run XP in a virtual machine on your present computer. Results are very good out of the scanner, and it is unbelievably quick to scan a whole roll (we're talking a couple of minutes).
For larger scans, look at a Plustek 8100, Vuescan, Photoshop and ColorPerfect. Quite long-winded.
The Pakon is available from these guys:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pakon-F-1...35-plus-for-Noritsu-Fuji-Kodak-/181558100089?
and there is a helpful group with lots of examples on facebookk, here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PakonF135/
Pete
For larger scans, look at a Plustek 8100, Vuescan, Photoshop and ColorPerfect. Quite long-winded.
The Pakon is available from these guys:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pakon-F-1...35-plus-for-Noritsu-Fuji-Kodak-/181558100089?
and there is a helpful group with lots of examples on facebookk, here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PakonF135/
Pete
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
i inevitably go back to Film
just can't seem to settle down with Digital
though the Resolution in Digital is truly MAGNIFICENT...
And At Night the high iso capabilities with depth of field are Quite Fab
I'm just not hooked on the way it renders 'Light'
film 'light' seems to pervade all about from the furtherest back to the front
where as Digital seems to lie on top, top surface not the same translucency
hence my dilemma
just can't seem to settle down with Digital
though the Resolution in Digital is truly MAGNIFICENT...
And At Night the high iso capabilities with depth of field are Quite Fab
I'm just not hooked on the way it renders 'Light'
film 'light' seems to pervade all about from the furtherest back to the front
where as Digital seems to lie on top, top surface not the same translucency
hence my dilemma
Spanik
Well-known
Resolution in digital? Take a look at some Provia 50 in 6x17. If it wasn't for the cost I wouldn't shoot anything else. The setup isn't the most practical either...
djpin89
Member
Thank you for the reply Pete.
Do these work with 120 format? Both the Pakon and plustek only mention 35m scanning. However these seems like good options.
Pete B
Well-known
No they don't. I ended up with a Plustek 120 for 120, as I found colour correction frustrating with the Epson V700. I see your rolleiflex 3.5F reference now, sorry for the confusion.
Pete
Pete
mfogiel
Veteran
The watershed here, is if you are dedicated to B&W or not. If not, then don't waste time on film, just embrace digital, and any working camera of at least 6MP that you can stick a prime lens on will be good enough - I bet you can get one for free from someone who has since "upgraded" several times.
However, if you have fallen in love with B&W, the solution is simple: develop and scan yourself. The latest Epson V800 should have fixed the adjustable film holder issue, and this scanner is actually very forgiving for B&W and good for up to 6-8x enlargements. I don't think it costs so much in the US. As to film, I would stick to Tri X at the expense of spending money on some redundant vices. At least you will know you us e the very best. As you will make more money, you can upgrade your scanner and get a printer, but the negs will be already state of the art.
However, if you have fallen in love with B&W, the solution is simple: develop and scan yourself. The latest Epson V800 should have fixed the adjustable film holder issue, and this scanner is actually very forgiving for B&W and good for up to 6-8x enlargements. I don't think it costs so much in the US. As to film, I would stick to Tri X at the expense of spending money on some redundant vices. At least you will know you us e the very best. As you will make more money, you can upgrade your scanner and get a printer, but the negs will be already state of the art.
emraphoto
Veteran
personally i would echo mfogiel. i have a good microtek scanner for the web. with some work and practice i can squeeze great files out of it. for gallery work i have a local lab drum scan the selects and build the cost into prints.
nongfuspring
Well-known
After using a cheap macro lens adapted to an X-E1 I really don't see any need to buy a scanner, IQ is brilliant. I'd just forget about buying a dedicated scanner if you already have an interchangeable lens digital camera, a 16mp APSC camera with a 1:1 macro will give you 116mp files so long as you can be bothered stitching individual files together in photoshop. (disclaimer: I don't think I've ever shot a 6x6 frame with more than 20mp of detail)
Developing is cheap once you have the basic kit, almost negligible. I think there are easy ways of developing colour (C41 stand development) but I've never tried it.
Developing is cheap once you have the basic kit, almost negligible. I think there are easy ways of developing colour (C41 stand development) but I've never tried it.
mani
Well-known
You crop up with this anti-color film diatribe EVERY SINGLE TIME!
GET THIS: THIS IDEA YOU HAVE THAT DIGITAL COLOR IS SUPERIOR TO TRANSLUCENTLY BEAUTIFUL FILMS LIKE PORTRA IS JUST YOUR OPINION. STOP SHOVING IT DOWN PEOPLES THROATS THE WHOLE TIME. ITS JUST YOUR MISTAKEN OPINION.
PS: apologies to everyone else about the shouting.