is it worth it jumping into this hobby...?

[iridium7777]

as i wrote before i'm almost ready to pull the trigger on an m6 and get away from my dslr and try film on a rf.

now, i know one couldn't (or shouln't) put a $ value on something that makes you happy, but going to buy a couple rolls of film got me worried today.

something to keep in mind:

1) i will not what-so-ever develop my own film.
2) i could care less about actual prints, i want digital (6.1MP equivalent). i need this because i have a website and it's been incredibly easy shooting digital and in minutes having my photos online.


so my question are these:

1) what is the best place to develop b&w (through mail order, or if you could suggest something in connecticut close to hartford that would be great)

2) i don't think there would be a problem developing color?

3)how do i get my scans to 6.1MP quality? i found one place online that develops a roll of b&w for 5$, extra 5$ if you want to push/pull it, plus $19.99 to put them for you on a CD in 25MB/photo size

3a) how the hell does one convert dpi scan to MegaPixel equivalent?😕

4)is there a good budget scanner that i could buy and scan my film myself? get a roll developed for $5 and just scan it myself? i'm wouldn't want to spend more than $200

5)all the guys here that post your b&w how do you get them into digital medium?

i know it's a lot of questions, but spending $16 on two rolls of film (probably much cheaper if i bought in bulk) and considering how much it would cost me to actually get the picture onto my website, the camera cost could possibly be a drop in the bucket compared to actual cost of operating.

thanks.

 

[peter_n]

Welcome to the forum! 🙂 I can't answer all your questions but I would suggest you start with a chromogenic B&W film like Ilford XP2 or Kodak B&W 400CN. These films scan extremely well and are developed in a standard C-41 color process. You can develop very conveniently in a local lab and get them scanned there too until you get your own scanner. Minolta make good scanners for B&W film but they have gone out of business. You can still buy them but it might be a good idea to look at the lower range of the Nikon scanners.

 

[markinlondon]

If you're not developing your own you should forget conventional b&w emulsions, unless you get a really good lab you'll never get the best results. I'd agree with Peter re the chromogenics. As for scanners, the latest flatbeds are getting very good, but a $200 budget is very limiting.

As for no.5, I either print conventionally and drop it on a flatbed or scan the negative. Either gives results fit for web display. For prints I feel you have to do it yourself, in a darkroom, nothing else comes close.

 

[akptc]

Why not get the R-D1 instead?

 

[Tuolumne]

I have never been happy with B&W film developed and printed elsewhere. I don't care how good and careful the lab is (and very few even high end labs are), nothing compares to doing the developing and (scanning) of B&W yourself. Re: The R-D1 - Yes, I agree. Sounds to me like you'd be much happier with the R-D1 than a film rangefinder.

/T

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Do you really think the M6 is for you? Before you jump into an M6 you might experiment with a lesser rangefinder. Most people work their way up to an M6. From your questions I think that you are more interested in digital.

 

[35mmdelux]

try Walgreens to dev your fotos for starters and get a $200< flatbed scanner, good enough for webwork. Next, hit B&H for Neopan B&W film - great stuff and inexpensive. For color film, hit B&H for Fuji 100 propack, cheap, cheap, and sweet results.

Film won't be faster for the web so you need to decide if that is what you want. RF shooting is a whole other genre to SLRs. Its fast, generally discreet, first class lenses.

Good luck

 

[Thardy]

My Minolta Scan Dual 4 ( dedicated film scanner) has an optical resolution of 3200 dpi, and has files of 4421x3016 pixels. It cost me about $300 new I think. They are hard to find now that Minolta has given up on photography. There are other options with some having higher scan resolution and some less.

The scanner literature should tell you the outputs in pixels just like your dslr...3000X2000 = 6MP

 

[MelanieC]

For web stuff you can use any flatbed scanner that Epson makes. Mine cost $80 new. I'd get a better scanner if I were printing and hopefully will do that in the future but for now this one will do (it's the 2480, which they don't make anymore but they make newer, better ones anyway).

If I were you I'd just buy color film, get it developed at the drugstore (negs no prints), scan it, and convert it to black and white in Photoshop.

 

[daaris]

I second MelanieC. I purchased an Epson 3170 Photo, it was inexpensive and yields great results, it scans negatives also. Photoshop will give you a little more control over the outcome of your pictures(as if you are developing them).

For web use the demands are less then would be for print anyway.

 

[iridium7777]

thanks for the replies

thanks for the replies

and i *am* trying to get away from digital, not going from dslr to digital rf.

the more i thought about it, the less i think i need a high quality digital scan. if i was to print or enlarge i think it would be best to do so from the negative directly? it's just nice to have photo's on the web but i size them down anyways before i put them up so i guess in the end it doesn't matter. as long as i store the negative somewhere i can always bring it to the lab and ask them to print it for me.

and yes, i actually did look at an epson scanner where you can scan the negatives and it was about $99 after rebates, i think that will suffice.

but, why is it ok for walgreens to print color but for b&w i'd have to be developing myself? i think me starting to develop myself would be more prone to messing up the film as opposed to someone that does it regularly?

 

[rover]

You will be surprised how easy it is to do. If you are just starting with film and developing, focus in on one film, one developer and perfect a "process."

As I am sure you are aware, most photo shops in CT are closed. I honestly don't know who processes their own B&W film anymore. The shop I use in Colchester has a guy that does it at his home. Most send it out to "someone." MK Photo moved from East Hartford. I was happy to find them in Glastonbury, but then noticed just this week that it looks like they may be gone.

Depending on what size prints you want, processing to be only scanned to CD at CVS is pretty reasonable for C41 film, including XP2 or BW400CN. If you don't want large prints then you can always just print the ones you want at their kiosk. If you find a good CVS with a well trained tech they can do a good job, the one off Exit 24 on the Silas Dean Highway has been pretty good for me.

I had a teacher, pro photog, at Manchester CC, he had a lot of his film processed at the Sam's club in Manchester. They are a high volume processor and are very well trained and maintained by Fuji.

I have never been in there, I wonder even if they are still processing their own film orders??????

Bottom line, processing yourself and scanning I think is the best option. A dedicated film scanner, not flatbed, will give you the best results that can be printed, at home, or by an online service like MPix.

 

[FrankS]

Or maybe digital is the best solution for you. Look at and analyze your requirements.

 

[iridium7777]

@rover

@rover

As I am sure you are aware, most photo shops in CT are closed. I honestly don't know who processes their own B&W film anymore. The shop I use in Colchester has a guy that does it at his home. Most send it out to "someone." MK Photo moved from East Hartford. I was happy to find them in Glastonbury, but then noticed just this week that it looks like they may be gone.

i went to mk today; pretty much the reason why i posted this as soon as i got back from there. the guy told me he just sold his b&w development equipment because he was only getting about a roll in a month and it wasn't worth it anymore. i bought two rolls of film from him, and he had a very low selection too. 😡

i rarely print stuff, i've enlarged some of my digital photos and those were printed at walmart and they were good enough.

it seems all the big boys here are shooting tri-x for their b&w, so that's what i'd like to try; is there a "look" of tri-x that is c41 compatible; can one push c41 to say 1600iso?

i'd really like to try night street photography in b&w with a fast lens and handheld. either way i have to spend more money, and i thought i might as well try film instead of buying more lenses for my digital body.

 

[FrankS]

i went to mk today; pretty much the reason why i posted this as soon as i got back from there. the guy told me he just sold his b&w development equipment because he was only getting about a roll in a month and it wasn't worth it anymore. i bought two rolls of film from him, and he had a very low selection too. 😡

i rarely print stuff, i've enlarged some of my digital photos and those were printed at walmart and they were good enough.

it seems all the big boys here are shooting tri-x for their b&w, so that's what i'd like to try; is there a "look" of tri-x that is c41 compatible; can one push c41 to say 1600iso?

i'd really like to try night street photography in b&w with a fast lens and handheld. either way i have to spend more money, and i thought i might as well try film instead of buying more lenses for my digital body.

Short answer is no, that 's why folks go through that process: to get those results.

Slightly longer answer as to why: traditional B+W film use grains of silver halide to make up the negative image. In C41 film, colour and B+W, these silver crystals are replaced during the C41 development pricess with clouds of colour (or black) dyes. Different look.

 

[Ariya]

I think the M6 is a great idea (having purchased one last week). Developing the film yourself is really easy. For about $30 you can get a tank with a couple of reels - load the reels in the dark and you can do the rest at the kitchen sink. Start with Diafine as developer - you can reuse it over and over and over (you get the idea), you won't have to worry about temperature, and you get a big increase of effective film speed with many films (especially Tri X). And as the other posters have mentioned, the C41 black and white is great for drugstore development or you can always convert color in PS. If you end up with a great Tri X negative, you can always take it to a shop and have it scanned at a really high resolution. For everyday shooting, I use an Epson flatbed. Good luck.

 

[Peter55]

$189 Plustek OpticFilm 7200 Dedicated Scanner

$189 Plustek OpticFilm 7200 Dedicated Scanner

That's correct the $189 PlusTek OpicFilm 7200 dedicated 35mm film scanner is excellent and it ships with SilverFast V6.2.
I pay less than $2.00 for Waldgreens to develope a roll of 24exp. C-41 Color or B&W film. If you bring in 3 rolls the 3rd. roll is free. S that's $4.00 for 3 rolls developed into negatives.

Real siver halide film cost's more and is also more expensive to have a lab develope it. On the otherhand as some have said you could learn to process your own.

KEK.com is a good place to get yourself a secondhand film "M" camara body and some nice second hand Leitz lenses. An BGN grade $800 M5 is the first rangefinder with TTL light metering. 50mm f/2 and slower lenses cost @ $250.
You could get an M6, M7 for not very much money. Or even the M3!

 

[MelanieC]

I don't see the point in paying extra for C41 black and white film when you're going to be doing most of the manipulation in Photoshop anyway. It does scan well and gives good results, and I've liked it when I've used it but I don't use it anymore because, basically why? Color film is cheaper, and I usually like the results better when I use color film and convert to black and white using the channel mixer in Photoshop anyway.

Note, I only do this when I'm processing a color image and it looks like it would be better black and white to me. When I go out intending to shoot black and white, I use normal black and white film and develop it myself. It's ridiculously easy to do. I didn't want to do it either but then I changed my mind. Not saying you will, but it's not that crazy of an idea. It takes maybe 25-30 minutes to develop anywhere between 1 and 4 rolls at a time, then you hang them for about two hours and you're good to go.

 

[ZeissFan]

Stay with digital. If cost and speed are your primary concerns, there is no reason to move into film.

Buying film and then paying to have it processed with be a constant annoyance and continually remind you that you can do it much cheaper and quicker with digital.

 

[tedwhite]

As I have my own darkroom and a studio of sorts, I develop my b/w film ("ridiculously easy,") as someone remarked. Then, because I am so computer illiterate I can't figure out how to get a decent scan from my Plustek Opticfilm negative scanner - or from my Epson 4990 flatbed for that matter - I just make a nice 8X10 black and white print and scan it with the Epson. Then I've got a digital file.

But you are obviously more computer savvy and could probably easily learn to scan negs with the right scanner.