Is the price of film processing making you rethink your digital photo use?

[Tuolumne]

I finally found a local processor that does wonderful C-41/E-6 processing and scanning, both 35mm and MF. But they are very expensive - around $22 for a roll. The scans are turly excellent - good colors and contrast, very sharp, ready for big enlargements. But I must say, I am a bit put off by the price. 4 rolls of film will be almost $100. That quickly starts to add up. I know I could just get the film developed and scan myself, but I don't always have time for that. I could also stop shooting C-41 B&W and develop my own silver emulsions. Again, even more time consuming than just scanning. So, more and more I have a hard time not going out with my R-D1, although I really like shooting my film rangefinders.

I also wonder what the availability of "free" digital processing has done to my perception of the cost of film processing. I remember back in the '80s and '90s I was perfectly happy paying $18/roll to good 1 hour photo stores for 36 prints and negatives. Figuring inflation, $22/roll may be even cheaper than the $18/roll in the '80s. But I resent paying it because digital is so much cheaper.

Just some thoughts on what the economics of film vs. digital have been doing to me lately.

What have your feelings been about this and what have you done?

/T

 

[thomasw_]

hmm, well i find shooting bw film and processing it myself is quite cost effective insofar as i don't mind the time it takes. for the amount of kodachrome 64 colour slide film that i do shoot, you are correct, it takes me from 2-3 weeks to get it back with only mounted slides and i pay my local save-on foods roughly $11 cdn/roll for the cost of development/shipping etc. But nothing beats the colour in kodachrome 64 or the tones of bw film imo🙂

 

[wgerrard]

You can't get around the fact that film has recurring costs that digital does not. Ten rolls @ $22 will get you a digital p&s, or some fat memory cards, or a plane ticket from JFK to the west coast. (Me? I'd rather have the plane ticket.)

 

[M. Valdemar]

I buy all my film for a dollar or two at most, close-dated or short-dated, and I store in the freezer.

I get my film developed for $2 at the one-hour-processor, no prints, develop only, and I scan the film myself.

 

[mikeh]

I tried Shopper's Drug Mart here in Canada for the 1st time last Sunday; I was shocked. I paid $7.10CDN for 24 exp and $7.85 for 36 exp, and that included prints and CD's! The CD's scanned at 600-800kb per pic and looked beautiful. And the negs weren't scratched.....
I wish I knew about them earlier, dammit. Someone posted here that they were getting rid of 35mm processing, I sure as hell hope not.

 

[JJW]

Are you a professional photographer?

If you're just looking for a decent job for the money, you should take your C41 to COSTCO. They soup and scan to CD for under $5 a roll. I've delivered their scans to clients with minimal cleanup and they have been very pleased.

Then if you then spot a winner among your shots, you could have it scanned to a 100MB TIFF file if you need to.

Digital has high capital costs and low variable costs. Film is the opposite. Excellent quality film cameras and lenses are dirt cheap now. So it depends how much you shoot, what you are using the images for and whether you care or not that they survive.

If you already own the film cameras and gear and need to purchase a new digital camera then the implicit cost of digital, accounting for the initial capital outlays, is actually quite high for someone who shoots only a modest amount.

What I have done is keep my film cameras and bought an Olympus C8080W P&S. The camera does a marvelous job for 98.9% of the people who hire me and demand native digital deliverables or rapid turnover of the camera files.

 

[Stu W]

I buy all my film for a dollar or two at most, close-dated or short-dated, and I store in the freezer.

I get my film developed for $2 at the one-hour-processor, no prints, develop only, and I scan the film myself.

I too have a local 1 hr lab that knows what they're doing. Also $2 a roll for processing only including an index sheet, $7 if I want it scanned to disk in Tiff. When I'm lazy I let him put it to disk, when I'm not I scan it myself. Basically you're looking at about $3 a roll to continue using your classic cameras. Stu

 

[varjag]

If you buy a medium-class DSLR for $3000, proceed to take 3000 shots and trade it in for upgrade at half price couple of years later, it works out at 50 cents per shot. Or some $18 for 36exp.

I think that explains the urge of many digital amateurs to shoot as many frames as possible and brag about it to us film users 🙂

 

[M. Valdemar]

I also have a dozen high end digital cameras and I use them too.

I don't really calculate costs per frame or anything like that, I just like to use the cameras, both film and digital. Since I'm naturally cheap I don't end up paying too much for anything.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Digital processing is not as cheap as it may sound. Consider the initial start up. 1. Photoshop 2. Photoprinter that can make large prints 3. Good Paper 4. Proper Ink 5. Programs to match the images from screen to printer 6. Storage disks 7. And, you should really have a separate computer system for the film work that is not connected to the net and 8. additional programs as necessary. This outlay is quite a bit as an initial outlay. That is for a full digital camera and system. Now you can fully use the digital system but it still does not include the film system. Add your film system to your computer & you need a scanner. Does your home have an entire room to dedicate to Photography? One needs to look at the entire picture: Initial outlay v. periodic costs. Computer systems that are installed in the home have life expectancy and are continually being updated & modernized so that too will have additional costs.

Here's another issue that does not seem to be addressed with digital v. analog: With a digital card I can take 600 photos but the battery only lasts for approx. 150. I need 2 batteries - then I can reach between 300 & 400 photos. Will I take that many pictures before loose power? Will I remember to charge the batteries? I very often run into people who forget to charge their batteries on their camera. This is not the cameras fault but nevertheless...In essence a battery lasts for 5 or six rolls of films while an analog battery lasts at least a year and sometimes 5 to 6 years.

Here's another issue I often see people going to film stores & having the pictures on their cards turned into discs & then they print up a number of photos from them at the time. For these people it is the camera that they purchased & the ease of use under these conditions.

For me cost is a secondary issue (unless you are a professional & then there are other considerations) convenience and enjoyment is very important.

 

[dmr]

What do you get for the $22? Is that with prints, or is it develop-only and scan to CD? What kind of resolution do you get on the CD?

$22 sounds a bit high compared to what I've been paying. I can either play C41 roulette at Walgreens for $5 and change, or $8 and change for DO-CD at an independent lab.

I'll very seldom get prints with processing. That saves quite a bit.

 

[chikne]

I'm amazed when I hear that you can get local processing for $2. I can get $2(£0.99) but that's for 24 exposures only, which goes up to $6 for 36 exposures(lack of logic).
Also it's a mail service which means that you have to pay shipping, wait, and expect your film(s) to get lost....

 

[varjag]

I dunno, varjag. I see people changing expensive film rangefinders on this forum much more often than I do my digital gear. 🙂

This just shows that hobby use is not about economy, and film savings point is pretty moot. Besides you are a professional, that's totally different story. But if you find unbelievable that many would say trade in their D200 the day D300 hits the shelves, just check out dpreview forums 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

At $22/roll it would probably stop me.

But you won't print big every picture you take, right? so no need to go to the expensive guys.

For reference, currently I pay $1.69 per roll (C-41) to be developed and cut at my local Sam's. That's about 90% of my pictures.

E-6 and K-14, $4.88 at Wally's developed and mounted, that's both for 35mm and 120 (E-6 only) 😱

Scanning is a one time purchase of a decent film scanner at about $400.

So, film processing cost is still reasonable. And I'm looking into cutting the cost further by developing B/W myself.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I have a preference for film for many applications, but time and money realities are affecting me.
It costs me about $9 a roll to purchase and develop film, plus the time to scan. Of course, with little time to shoot, this hasn't been a major expense recently.

The point often made about high up front expenses with digital compared to film is pretty well dependent on what cameras you are buying. For what I paid for my R3A and a couple of lenses, I could easily have bought a Canon 400D and a couple of lenses. Upgrade my film camera to a Zeiss Ikon and I can upgrade my digital to a 40D. Move up to a Leica and make that digital a 5D.

 

[JNewell]

No, but scratched negatives are (even from Kodak itself!).

 

[myoptic3]

Yep, this is an issue that is difficult to avoid. I know that it has even affected how I use my film cameras. Now, I think about it a little too much before pressing the shutter. Not an issue w/ a digital. If it shot mostly color I would probably go to a DSLR. The shots I have from my old Nikon D50 look very good, and that camera used all of the good, inexpensive glass. Of course by doing so you give up the ability to try different films. I recently ran some Agfa Vista 200 tru a few cameras and the results were fantastic. Incredible color saturation. If you use this stuff, make sure you use the Kodak Perfect Picture processing that the lab sends out to Kodak. My one try w/ Walmart procesing resulted in muddy pics.

If I shot mostly B&W, which is what I do, there is no choice. The films like Tri-X and HP5 are impossible to duplicate in digital. It isn't even close. You can cut down on the costs by buying your film in bulk and developing it yourself in a little container in the sink. But you still have to scan them in yourself, as far as my work is concerned, and that means buying a fairly expensive film scanner and scanning the negs, which is not fun. The scans I have farmed out are not nearly as good as I can do at home, unless I were to request a drum scan, and that is far too expensive.

The other issue is the cameras themselves. The digitals, w/ the few exceptions, feel like what they are---cheap plastic crap, no matter how much you pay for them. The older film cameras are so much more fun to use.

 

[kshapero]

I use Costco which is spectacular. Scans are 3.5 megs each and 36 exposures is $4.22 with the CD. But the parking at Costco really sucks. Plus if I wait there the hour for my CD I end spending far more tha $22. Gotcha!!

 

[dazedgonebye]

Another point....

Many people do trade in their old digital for the latest and greatest, but many people do not. I think the percentage of traders is very high on the forums but not so high with the general public of non-gear heads. Further, the number of trader-upers will likely decline, now that just about any digital SLR you buy will provide results equal to most users's skills.
I'm just now looking to upgrade my Canon 300D, bought used 4 years ago for less than I payed for my R3A.

 

[Tuolumne]

Re: Cost vs. quality at Costoc, Walmart, Walgreens, etc.

Re: Cost vs. quality at Costoc, Walmart, Walgreens, etc.

Most of the posts I've read on the Web say that the discount stores' photo processing is very unpredictable. Sometimes fine; sometimes lousy. Everyone nods their heads and says, Yes, you get what you pay for. That does not seem to be the experience here. Do you find these budget processors to be consistently that good? I walked into my local Costco, took one look at their customer service window (not very inspiring), and walked out. Should I revisit?

/T