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

Tuolomne, digital is certainly more economical for a high-volume shooter like you. However I still think in a casual amateur context, the talk about *savings* is way out of proportion. Some folks feel strange need to rationalize their preference for convenience (and there's nothing wrong with that) in terms of hard cash.
 
Another issue involved here is archival longevity. Convenience & cost are probably the key factors in my mind, but I also wonder about the wisdom of having all my efforts stored as ones and zeros on a media I'm not sure I can trust (yet). I feel more comfortable knowing I've got a film negative to fall back on if necessary. So...

I do the Costco thing. Film development plus CD for $5. I use the CD scans as a digital proof sheet. If I find an image I'm particularly interested in, then I'll put it through my Nikon scanner.

I can see that using a digital camera is WAY more convenient. But after using a D80 for a few months I found that I missed the mystery, excitement, and thoughtfulness involved in film photography. I like how using film makes me think hard about what I'm doing before I press the shutter button. Knowing that it costs a significant amount of $ each time I trip the shutter makes me think much more about what I'm doing. With the D80, I felt like I was becoming a camera "couch potato"... just watching the LCD.
 
I shoot film because I hate the feel of the modern hi-tech polycarbonate (cheap plastic) bodies of the modern automated image collector. I almost swoon at the sound of the sound of the shutter on my M3 and the film advance is almost a relegious experience. I shoot film and don't plan to change in the future.
 
Around these parts you can't swing a cat without hitting a Walgreens or Costco. Negs and a CD about $5. As to the digital vs. film debate, I use a point-and-shoot digital for snapshots and film for the keepers.
 
Yep, I get the C41 develop only at $2.00 pretty much anywhere-it's got to the point I don't want to even SEE the scans or prints, as my idea of how they should look is a bit different than the lab, and I don't want to be influenced when I set up to

One place even does my 120, $5.00 develop only.

I do still think about digital, but since I only shoot to please myself and the folks who ask for a portrait now and then, I stick to what I know-for now.
 
Seeing how I just paid Snapfish $100 for their prepay discount on development of 50 rolls of film, it's not discouraging me. I don't shoot film because it's cheap or economical and find most arguments that film is competitive to digital in an economical way to be blind. I shoot film because I want what it offers, and am willing to pay a reasonable price for it. When I'm not, the DSLR comes out.
 
After developing my first sheet of 4x5 film I know that there is a time and place for everything.
Digital you can great results with a fast workflow.
I like results from film, especially black and white film, better then digital. Workflow is obviously not as fast but I find it more enjoyable.

Time and place for everything.
 
I digital, and lots of it. I also shoot a lot of slides negative film. When my processed film is returned to me, I can hold it in my hand. With my digital cameras I can hold the flash card in my hand, but I can't view the images with using more electronic gadgets. For my own work, I'll stay with film.
 
I am currently travelling around Rio de Janeiro and Brazil generally, where surprisingly film prints are still less than digital in most corner labs. Additionally, my Leica Digilux 2 and Canon SureShot have BOTH packed up over the past 6 weeks-due to an apparent combination of heat and humidity affecting the sensors.

When pressed, film is still competitive, and far more reliable- and to me, enjoyable to use (but I am not, however, in any way a pro, so have a somewhat different perspective)
 
Last edited:
My film processing setup runs to about the same cost as a D300 or a 5D, not including the dedicated scan PC. I develop my own B&W and spend time scanning the film, but that time is the same as I would spend post-processing digital shots. I guess I could sell all my film gear and run to a D3 or an M8 but neither of them are the camera for me. I'll reconsider when Nikon put the D3 sensor in a compact body and stop hobbling old lens use (or ideally make a camera with classic manual handling) and Leica fix the M8's issues.
Ultimately to me photography is an expensive hobby both financially and in terms of time spent that really makes no sense if I do the math. Wouldn't give it up for the world though :)
 
Ah yes, but how many of those 10,000 are worth showing? ;)

In 2007 I shot over 3000 frames with my R-D1 versus about 20 rolls of film. I like the slowness of the film process and the limited volume. I've got keepers from both formats so the medium doesn't really matter in terms of the final image. For me digital has its place (sports, weddings, anything that is time-limited) and I will make a lot of use of it this year, but I'll enjoy film more...
 
Over here Fuji & Kodak will do E-6 overnight if you drop it off at the store before 1pm (-ish.) Slide film is slightly expensive- $6 for 120, up to $12 for 35mm (Foria 50)- but only about $5 to develop (prints from slide film are expensive.)

Nope, I'm not going back to digital.
 
For Color-Neg. here in DK. i use "Schlecker-fotoservice".
1 135-film, 24 or 36 Exp. develloped, copied and scanned to CD in 3 resolutions is about 10$, wich i dont consider expensive.
Btw. "Schlecker" color film is available for about 1$ each.
 
48 hour processing is about about US$6 here per 5 rolls plus a CD of medium sized scans good enough for 5x7 prints. Pretty inexpensive.
 
One thing I do is use XP2 Super and get it developed only at a local one hr. lab. I then scan and play. The last batch cost onkly $2.59 a roll.
 
I sometimes hate living in "rip-off" Britain.

The standard cost of a roll of BW or colour neg film here (from shops not internet) is around £4.50 - £6.00 per roll. Slide film is more expensive.

Processing (even by mail order) cannot be had for less than around £3.50 per roll.

Scanning to CD starts at around £3.50 per roll for c*** low rez scans going up to around £11 per roll for semi-decent scans at about 6MP resolution.

So just walking in to a photo shop and buying a roll of film and getting it processed runs around £15 per roll. After that you still have to have your own scanner to get the "keepers" scanned at a decent resolution.

£1 = $2 at the moment.

So all this talk of getting film processed for 50p per roll is making me want to puke from envy.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why anyone would scan all their images anymore than they would print all their negs. I process and print my own B&W, and occasionally I run my own E-6. Otherwise I send E-6 in for processing and decide what to scan myself, and when I shoot color neg, I get a contact sheet and decide what to print based on the contacts. I have my own scanners mainly for putting things on the web, but if I want a large print, I'll spring for a drum scan and LightJet/Chromira.
 
I'm not that keen on choosing pictures just by looking at negs.

So either you need a small print which pushes processing costs to near £10 per roll or a CD with all the pics scanned at low rez. Scanning the whole roll is usually done automatically by the minilabs. Think Photo CD. The only reason to scan the whole roll is that it's cheaper than getting individual frames scanned because there is no manual intervention involved.

Contact sheets are not usually available from high-street labs, so that's mail order only and develop + contact is usually around £6-£8.
 
I am a hobbiest not a professional. If I were a professional, I would have to be digital to be competitive. I love how a fine old RF camera feels in my hands. The quaility of construction, the finish and the lack of printed circuit boards, batteries and the cheap feel of a plastic like body are what endears me to a Retina 1a, 2a, an M3 and even a Zorki. A friend gets good results from his D200 because he can operate a computer that takes pictures. However he is lost without the automation and when the hi-tech fails he is finished for the day. But I am still taking pictures. Long live silver salts!!!

Tom
 
My local CVS (drug store) will process and scan to CD a roll of C41 color
or B&W 35mm in one hour for $2.99. (No prints)

Hard not to like that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom