Slide Film, A CALL TO ARMS! : SHOOT IT OR IT WILL DIE

dallard said:
Thanks for the reply Christian! Look forward to hearing news on the numbers required to keep processing going. It looks from your website that the cost has gone up to $20/roll for develop and high res scans even for RFF members. Is this true or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I can't verify this.

As I said earlier in the thread, Dwayne's total comes to $18 and change, which includes processing, mounting, scans (6mb), and shipping back, plus 50 cents for each additional roll. This doesn't include what it would cost me to mail my film to them.

I want to use Precision, but I have to be honest, I'm going to go where the best deal is.

If Precision can beat it, and still make money, of coarse, I'll go with them.

Can someone verify the cost?

What's the best cost of the web for processing and scans?
 
wilonstott said:
I can't verify this.

As I said earlier in the thread, Dwayne's total comes to $18 and change, which includes processing, mounting, scans (6mb), and shipping back, plus 50 cents for each additional roll. This doesn't include what it would cost me to mail my film to them.

I want to use Precision, but I have to be honest, I'm going to go where the best deal is.

If Precision can beat it, and still make money, of coarse, I'll go with them.

Can someone verify the cost?

What's the best cost of the web for processing and scans?
Click to expand...

Our $20 Cost is for our high quality scans which you can find the full list of options here: http://www.precision-camera.com/cat...ilm-scanning/ultra-high-resolution-scans.html

The scans resolution breaks down like this:
35mm Roll: 4181x6305px

6x4.5: 4824x3533px
6x6: 4760x4832px
6x7: 4815x5902px
6x9: 4815x7588px

Comparing this service to Dwayne's is apples to oranges. If you want simple 6MB scans, the cost goes down significantly.

I do not mean to be rude on this point, so please don't take it as such, but your thread is confusing, if you just want the cheapest and you don't really care about quality, then why not just always use Target and Walgreens?
 
PrecisionCamera said:
Our $20 Cost is for our high quality scans which you can find the full list of options here: http://www.precision-camera.com/cat...ilm-scanning/ultra-high-resolution-scans.html

The scans resolution breaks down like this:
35mm Roll: 4181x6305px

6x4.5: 4824x3533px
6x6: 4760x4832px
6x7: 4815x5902px
6x9: 4815x7588px

Comparing this service to Dwayne's is apples to oranges. If you want simple 6MB scans, the cost goes down significantly.

I do not mean to be rude on this point, so please don't take it as such, but your thread is confusing, if you just want the cheapest and you don't really care about quality, then why not just always use Target and Walgreens?
Click to expand...

Oh no, no offense taken, and I don't take it as being rude.

It's my fault for not doing my my own research.

I'm simply looking for the best deal, and thank you for explaining it to me.

You've sold me, you have my business.
 
wilonstott said:
Oh no, no offense taken, and I don't take it as being rude.

It's my fault for not doing my my own research.

I'm simply looking for the best deal, and thank you for explaining it to me.

You've sold me, you have my business.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear! Like I said, we do offer lower priced scanning options, but the original RFF deal is our highest quality scans at an awesome rate.

Personally, I just do the cheaper ones now as kind of a proof sheet and then scan the keepers at home on my V500. But, what I do at home tends to not come out as well as getting the full roll scanned in house with the high-res service. (I just do this to save a few pennies)
 
PrecisionCamera said:
Our $20 Cost is for our high quality scans which you can find the full list of options here: http://www.precision-camera.com/cat...ilm-scanning/ultra-high-resolution-scans.html

The scans resolution breaks down like this:
35mm Roll: 4181x6305px

6x4.5: 4824x3533px
6x6: 4760x4832px
6x7: 4815x5902px
6x9: 4815x7588px

Comparing this service to Dwayne's is apples to oranges. If you want simple 6MB scans, the cost goes down significantly.

I do not mean to be rude on this point, so please don't take it as such, but your thread is confusing, if you just want the cheapest and you don't really care about quality, then why not just always use Target and Walgreens?
Click to expand...
It says high res scans are 11.99/roll and RFF members get free E6 development but the cost comes out at $19.99/roll. Does that mean the RFF deal is gone? Or does the $19.99 reflect the new surcharge?
 
PrecisionCamera said:
I do not mean to be rude on this point, so please don't take it as such, but your thread is confusing, if you just want the cheapest and you don't really care about quality, then why not just always use Target and Walgreens?
Click to expand...

I'm even more confused. I thought I understood the intent of the thread and it degraded from "lets protect the industrial base for E6 processing" to "just tell me whos the cheapest."


... and, Wil, please forgive me because I know I was just rude.
 
dallard said:
It says high res scans are 11.99/roll and RFF members get free E6 development but the cost comes out at $19.99/roll. Does that mean the RFF deal is gone? Or does the $19.99 reflect the new surcharge?
Click to expand...

Fixed. It is a $11.99 price plus $8 for B&W or Slide, but the wording was not in the description to indicate that. At the main Scans page it states that those service have an $8 surcharge, but now the pages have clearer wording to indicate that. Sorry for the initial confusion.
 
Gumby said:
I'm even more confused. I thought I understood the intent of the thread and it degraded from "lets protect the industrial base for E6 processing" to "just tell me whos the cheapest."


... and, Wil, please forgive me because I know I was just rude.
Click to expand...

No that's fine, and I understand that you could take that away from what I just said.

Don't get me wrong, I want to support labs--that's what we've been discussing for a tremendous part of this thread.

Be that as it may, I'd still like to get a good deal if that's at all possible.

One of the things that will lead to the demise of e-6 process, in my estimation, is cost for the average hobbyist.

In the long run, sheer expense will make it a tough sell to new-comers, and if we can funnel e-6 through a good lab, at a good price, this is one way to combat this.

So, yes it does have to do with my personal concerns about finances (or lack thereof), but it also has to do with a concern for the vitality of the process.
 
I live in Toronto, so I'm not particularly excited about having to mail my slide film to wherever in the US to get it processed, especially at the prices quoted in this thread.
Currently, I drop my film off at a convenient local branch of a across Canadian Photography store chain called Blacks. They charge me about $11.00 (per roll of 36) for my slides. This includes the mounting. I've been using them for at least the last 20 or 25 years.
While they no longer do the processing in-house, I believe they are having it done locally here in Toronto, and as far as I can determine, they will continue to do so into the future. I have no clue about the costs of scanning and such as I scan my own slides, but if this processor's pricing is of interest to others, I can speak to the Manager tonight about it when I go in to drop off three rolls and report to this thread.
Turn-around is not what it used to be, taking between 1 and 2 or 2-1/2 weeks, but it is what it is. The days of 3-hour turn-around at the local Pro Lab are gone forever.
 
wilonstott said:
.
One of the things that will lead to the demise of e-6 process, in my estimation, is cost for the average hobbyist.
Click to expand...

This is a crucial issue.

The cost of film, processing, and printing is already prohibitive to the average consumer. The price gap between e-6 and c-41 is the biggest barrier to continued supply even to dedicated film hobbyists as the higher price = less volume. Any technical superiority of chrome is lost in that market dynamic. Its nice to have superlative density, but it's not a factor on the spreadsheet any longer.
 
Aristophanes said:
...higher price = less volume...
Click to expand...

This is the death spiral we are now experiencing. Volume diminished due to new methods so suppliers started deleting products and costs are rising.

Anyone who wants to continue using "old methods and products" is just going to have to spend mroe and more money because fewer and fewer suppliers exist.

Money is tight for most people so usage will diminish.

For the rich and/or dedicated users there will likely be options in the future. For the rest... better enjoy it now while it is still possible!
 
Gumby said:
This is the death spiral we are now experiencing. Volume diminished due to new methods so suppliers started deleting products and costs are rising.

Anyone who wants to continue using "old methods and products" is just going to have to spend mroe and more money because fewer and fewer suppliers exist.

Money is tight for most people so usage will diminish.

For the rich and/or dedicated users there will likely be options in the future. For the rest... better enjoy it now while it is still possible!
Click to expand...


But we're not dwelling on that, Ed.

Read my first post.

No more talk of death spirals.

We're working it out.

Positivity.

We're playing the hand we've been dealt.

We're trying to make sure it stays possible for a long, long time.

Lock, load, shoot, process, repeat.
 
Gumby said:
This is the death spiral we are now experiencing. Volume diminished due to new methods so suppliers started deleting products and costs are rising.

Anyone who wants to continue using "old methods and products" is just going to have to spend mroe and more money because fewer and fewer suppliers exist.

Money is tight for most people so usage will diminish.

For the rich and/or dedicated users there will likely be options in the future. For the rest... better enjoy it now while it is still possible!
Click to expand...

I think my point, perhaps not well expressed, is that for e-6 to survive it needs to be priced about the same as c-41 for labs.

To get there, e-6 should have a market regime similar to what Kodachrome went through, far ewer labs, even regional exclusives. Support that and petition for that to occur proactively rather than reactively as the market, far too slowly IMO, is doing. e-6 is nowhere near the technical beast Kodachrome was, so the price deferential is volume not material.

Right now the price is spiking well beyond C-41 often because of trans-shipment costs between labs. It's hot potato. Solve that, you buy time until smaller-scale emulsion production is worked out (a whole other kettle of fish).
 
wilonstott said:
But we're not dwelling on that, Ed.

Read my first post.

No more talk of death spirals.

We're working it out.

Positivity.

We're playing the hand we've been dealt.

We're trying to make sure it stays possible for a long, long time.

Lock, load, shoot, process, repeat.
Click to expand...

I understand. I don't want to contaminate your thread with negativity or any kind of bad karma. But from a realist's viewpoint... there are few things that a grass-roots amateur-only effort can do to support an industry that was always reliant on big industry in the first place. There are exceptions, I'm sure... but the success of E-6 was alswysthe kind of economy-of-scale that only professional users could provide. But good luck because I too like transparency film as both process and product.
 
Aristophanes said:
I think my point, perhaps not well expressed, is that for e-6 to survive it needs to be priced about the same as c-41 for labs.

To get there, e-6 should have a market regime similar to what Kodachrome went through, far ewer labs, even regional exclusives. Support that and petition for that to occur proactively rather than reactively as the market, far too slowly IMO, is doing. e-6 is nowhere near the technical beast Kodachrome was, so the price deferential is volume not material.

Right now the price is spiking well beyond C-41 often because of trans-shipment costs between labs. It's hot potato. Solve that, you buy time until smaller-scale emulsion production is worked out (a whole other kettle of fish).
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely... your point is well understood by me!
 
I don't shoot slide film much normally because I can't afford it. But at the moment, I actually have 15 rolls of EPR in 120 waiting to be processed.
I do love slide film very much.
 
Gumby said:
I understand. I don't want to contaminate your thread with negativity or any kind of bad karma. But from a realist's viewpoint... there are few things that a grass-roots amateur-only effort can do to support an industry that was always reliant on big industry in the first place. There are exceptions, I'm sure... but the success of E-6 was alswysthe kind of economy-of-scale that only professional users could provide. But good luck because I too like transparency film as both process and product.
Click to expand...

p.s. I was much a much more poitive and idealistic person when I was 31. Subsequent years of experience has beaten me into a more realistic (maybe even negative) approach to life. It is what it is... for the most part. :)
 
I am happy to see this thread. I love slide film and I try to shoot is as much as I can. Let's hope we can keep it around for years to come (and at reasonable costs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom