raid
Dad Photographer
Today, I was charged $10 for developing one roll of ASA 3200 B&W film. Was I cheated out of money or was this fair practice? They charge $4 for "regular" B&W film developing.
Is a ASA 3200 Film More Costly to Develop?
- Thread starter raid
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 31
- Views 2K
David Murphy
Veteran
Sounds awfully suspicious to me. I can't imagine it's a non-standard process, but I could be wrong.
raid
Dad Photographer
David,
I did not say a word, but I will from now on shoot the 3200 film and store in batches and then mail off for developing. $10 a pop is too much for developing only.
Regards,
Raid
I did not say a word, but I will from now on shoot the 3200 film and store in batches and then mail off for developing. $10 a pop is too much for developing only.
Regards,
Raid
Finder
Veteran
They could have charged you for push processing. Did you ask about the higher rate?
sf
Veteran
that makes no sense at all. UNless, of course, they have to process it at a different speed. My lab has to process DElta 3200 at 1600 for some reason.
Graham Line
Well-known
Raid, you and Shutterflower both need to have a conversation with the lab, if you're getting something beside standard development without asking for it.
I adjust the ISO on my B&W to whatever produces the best result with their standard process, and it would throw a real wrench in the works if they altered the development without saying something. There are too many variables in photography already to deal with random processing.
I adjust the ISO on my B&W to whatever produces the best result with their standard process, and it would throw a real wrench in the works if they altered the development without saying something. There are too many variables in photography already to deal with random processing.
raid
Dad Photographer
I was told that "this film required many chemicals". This does not sound right somehow.
aad
Not so new now.
Many chemicals? How much do they charge for 400 speed B&W? All it takes is a little time-and that may be reason enough.
Graham Line
Well-known
Actually, it sounds completely wrong. 🙄
Maybe you could print out the spec sheet from the manufacturer, or the right lines from the Massive Film Development Chart.
My local shop uses Sprint chemistry, which behaves pretty much like D-76. They're either ignorant or pulling your leg.
What film, specifically, did you have them process?
In s'flower's case, they may have been trying to tell him that Delta 3200 provides a nicer looking negative at 1600, with standard development in their process -- which could be completely true. Hard to say what they meant.
Maybe you could print out the spec sheet from the manufacturer, or the right lines from the Massive Film Development Chart.
My local shop uses Sprint chemistry, which behaves pretty much like D-76. They're either ignorant or pulling your leg.
What film, specifically, did you have them process?
In s'flower's case, they may have been trying to tell him that Delta 3200 provides a nicer looking negative at 1600, with standard development in their process -- which could be completely true. Hard to say what they meant.
Last edited:
ed1k
Well-known
Raid,
It's the same cost for developing by yourself in a smal tank. Just faster film requires longer developing time, as a rule. I don't know anything about labs and their standard process; but I guess they collect quite a few rolls of film that could be developed at once in one bath. 3200ASA is probably out of standard range and requires a "custom work" on their side.
Edit: I mean they have to develop your film longer; as well it's a good reason for other labs to cut development time from required to their 'standard' time and tell customer that delta 3200 looks much better at 1600 (apparently it happens to be true)
Eduard.
It's the same cost for developing by yourself in a smal tank. Just faster film requires longer developing time, as a rule. I don't know anything about labs and their standard process; but I guess they collect quite a few rolls of film that could be developed at once in one bath. 3200ASA is probably out of standard range and requires a "custom work" on their side.
Edit: I mean they have to develop your film longer; as well it's a good reason for other labs to cut development time from required to their 'standard' time and tell customer that delta 3200 looks much better at 1600 (apparently it happens to be true)
Eduard.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
So maybe the extra attention needed made them charge more money. It was TMAX3200, and they never told me beforehand that developing cost would be more than the usual $4 they charge for any B&W film (other than 3200 it seems).
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
I think you got taken on that one. Unless you are developing something like E-6 it should not cost you anymore to develop delta 3200 then it does to develop say HP5 400. Are they developing in a machine where they have to do a special run for your film. I could see it costing more in that case but most small labs hand develop B+W. In that case, yep, you were robbed.
sf
Veteran
raid amin said:
that is total bull.
It's not like some Kodachrome or something. Just B&W film. Very simple chemistry in labs.
raid
Dad Photographer
egpj said:
Glenn,
They use machine developing. So maybe this is the reason for the extra cost. They seem very honest and they do an excellent job overall.
Raid
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
raid amin said:
It still does not wash with me Raid. For example, if I was to use the times for the Ilford films that I use then I would see different times for each speed.
Using DD-X @ 20 degrees C
Delta 3200 @ 9.5 minutes
FP4 125 @ 10 minutes
Pan F 50 @ 8 minutes
HP5 400 @ 9 minutes
So if you bring in some FP4 125 are they going to charge you 12 dollars for the extra half a minute?
Does Kodak 3200 really require so much more processing?
back alley
IMAGES
raid amin said:
by regular what do you mean?
if it's xp2 or another chromgenic then the 4 buck cost would be the same as any colour negative film which is usually pretty cheap.
but for b&w film some labs see that as custom work and charge more.
joe
nksyoon
Well-known
The labs I use charge me extra for Delta3200 - they say it's because they have to reprogram the machine - the standard settings only go to 1600 (or maybe the machine only recognizes DX codes up to 1600?).
darkkavenger
Massimiliano Mortillaro
Here in Prague the cost for developing a negative roll is of 70 CZK (1 USD = 21 CZK) whatever film it is. I'm usually bringing TriX 400, HP5+, Delta 3200, Neopan 100 Acros and Ektachromes. They charge 5 CZK for cutting the negative and placing it in holders. The cost for C-41 films is about 59 CZK.
jgeenen
Established
Getting 3200 ASA out of a Delta3200 or TMAX3200 film with good quality is a tricky job and kind of push processing. From that point of view, getting high quality negs might be worth some extra money. From experience I know that a Delta3200, exposed at 3200 ASA and developped in the standard process just produces "ordinary" results.
oftheherd
Veteran
I have never used TMAX but have checked on the chemicals and seem to recall they are more expensive. Thye do require a different chemical per Kodak, than say Tri-X. ASA 3200 film would require more development time. I don't recall how much. I have no clue how that relates to machine processing. I would not be surprised at some increase in cost. However, two and one half times, with the explanation that it takes more chemicals, sounds off. If they said extra cost for changing chemicals and more time, maybe I could see it. Again, $10 from $4 seems too much. Maybe it's time to develop your own and scan?
Similar threads
