What do you generally pay for 135- C41 processing?

NL2377 said:
that's actually a common mistake that virtually any lab can make... the kodak bw400cn still has the standard tint of a color film, and therefore can easily be mistaken as a color film. when printing, the printer has to select monochrome in order for the prints to come out true blacks and whites, rather then some variation otherwise.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Still, I would of expected better results from Kodak. Hopefully the Wal-Mart experience wasn't a fluke. They're pricing was better too. Soon, I hope to start developing my own using true black and white film.
 
I used to pay $16.50 per roll of 36. This included development of the negs and prints. The place closed down anyway. Now for neg developing and a scan of 5 rolls to a CD and NO prints I pay about $9.00. The guy always gives me 5% off. It's a mom & pop place in my neighborhood.
 
haagen_dazs said:
how great is the risk of scratching in using the roller transport process?
is it justifiable to take the risk at the lower dev price of 2.50 USD or is it better to pay more for the pro lab.
Click to expand...

as long as the lab techs know what they are doing, the risk is very minimal... of course there's always a chance for the processor to fail... wal-mart's processor here fails about twice a month!

We've never had any problems with our processors... though I must say that my boss keeps them quite up to date, and replaces them even before the time is due!
 
I used to pay $2.00 at a local 1 hour processor for processing only. I never had any scratched film. They more than doubled their price recently. I am going to give our local Costco a shot for $2.09 a roll. I am transitioning back to silver based BW.

Mike
 
dazedgonebye said:
Target charges about $2 for develop only. Their scans add $4 to the process and have been really bad, so I skip them.
Click to expand...

C41 process only at my local pro lab costs £5.40 before sales tax (approx. $10 or so). If you want contacts and/or CD scans you can expect to pay another £15-30 ($30-60) per roll!:D
 
About $3.49 CAD tax in locally for a 1 hour DO, no prints and a CD.

Bob
 
Costco in California, is about $2.50 (US) to develop (they only do C-41) 135, and $2.99 (US) for a scanned CD. The scan files are 3.5-5 MB jpeg.
 
There's a Fujifilm place in Cardiff that I started using lately. Costs are quite cheap too (for the UK!):

Dev only: £2.49
Dev & prints: £4.99 (I don't use this so cannot comment on the quality of prints)
Dev only & scan to CD-ROM: £4.49
Dev, prints & Scan to CD-ROM: £6.99 (CD's at the time of developing cost about £2.00 extra)

I use this place because I recently put in 15 films for development and scanning and the man there agreed to stuff as many scans onto CD's as possible. I ended up paying £4.49 for 2 lots of dev & scanning, and 13 lots of dev only even though all were scanned! He also does TIFF scanning but those files take up so much room so I stayed with JPG's. Overall, I saved about £26.00! That's enough to go and buy a nice second hand RF... ;-)

Or would do if I wasnt getting married in June because my fiancee would kill me if I bought another camera. It's not like I don't always have the last word in an argument: It's just that those words are, "Yes dear, sorry dear, it won't happen again dear, you're absolutely right dear..." ;-)
 
cfoto said:
$11.00 for 36 exposure negatives, single prints and CD at Wal-Mart 1 hour photo. Here's the strange part... I shot a roll of Kodak BW400CN (Black & white C41 processing) and sent it out to Kodak for developing. Came back in about 4 days. Less than stellar. Very sepia toned. The next roll of BW400CN I shot, I dropped off at our local Wal-Mart for 1 hour developing. They're using a Fuji one hour machine. The prints were stellar. No sepia tones. Very good looking black and white. Negatives looked better, also. I would of expected better results from professional Kodak processing. I got the best results from Wal-Mart.
Click to expand...

I also used Walmart and had developing and photo CD, no prints, for about $4.
The CD provides a good reference for further scanning and printing at home. I did this several times and close inspection of the negs showed no scratches or visible mishandling.
 
Wal-Mart wins

Wal-Mart wins

I've tried everyone within a reasonable travel radius from my office & apartment. Walgreens, CVS, Wolf Camera & Wal-Mart. For everyday things, Wal-Mart wins. Good quality. 30 minute service on a slow Sunday morning. Less than $5.00 with tax for 24 or 36 roll film, develop and scan. The scans are small, 1800x1200, but they are fine for now.

I try to stick to 36 exp. rolls to keep the unit cost/neg. down. That means shooting Ilford XP2 Super from Wolf Camera and Kodak Ultra 400UC from Wal-Mart. Nobody in the area stocks Kodak BW400CN in anything but 24 exp. rolls.

If I have something critical to develop, I bite the bullet and go to Wolf Camera for their High Res scans, roughly 4000x3000. That service runs about $20 for developing and scanning. Expensive but the big scans are fabulous. They bring out all the good reasons to use Reala and the DR Summicron.
 
Last edited:
Development is around €2,00 in Lisbon, but that includes scratches, fingerprints, dust and dirt. €3,00 at Fuji's main street, same service.
 
For a dev and scan in 45mins I paid about £2.99 (I think) in Brum city centre, on Sunday previous, 36 exp 35mm.
Scan was pretty low resolution but ok for proofs, the example from 1/3 of the negative
Noel
 

Attachments

  • CopAirp.JPG
    CopAirp.JPG
    100.9 KB · Views: 0
Another question

Another question

My local CVS produces 1800x1200 TIFF files on CD. All of my other sources produce 1800x1200 JPEG files. Is there any quality advantage to the TIFF files?
 
Jon Claremont said:
That Boots deal sounds very very good.
Click to expand...

It's not bad, I agree. However, the print quality varies a lot depending on the operator. (Mostly sepia or greenish tint) Also, sometimes I can get high res CD and others, I can't, depending on who is processing the job.

The digital quality is very good.

Ernst
 
venchka said:
My local CVS produces 1800x1200 TIFF files on CD. All of my other sources produce 1800x1200 JPEG files. Is there any quality advantage to the TIFF files?
Click to expand...
To keep it short (for a change): TIFF files are better for image files you're likely to do a fair amount of PS work on. Roughly speaking, TIFFs have a good deal of "extra" (redundant?) data to work with, and as a result suffer less damage when manipulated. JPEG format is designed to be lean while maintaining image quality, but since a lot of "unneeded" data is stripped away in the name of said leanness, is more susceptible to visible digital artifacts from manipulation. This is why all the scans I make at home are TIFFs; I can work them in PS as much as I feel the need to, save the original TIFF, then make a working JPEG copy for whatever purpose (Web, printing, etc.).

I don't get scans made when having my C41 film processed, but if I did, having JPEG scans from the lab wouldn't be a problem since those scans are usually pretty small compared to mine (their 2-3mb JPEGs vs my 210mb TIFFs), and I, like a lot of people here, would use the lab's scans-on-CD as digital proofs rather than finals.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
I pay €5 for developing (C41) and scanning-to-disc (plus index print) at the Capi in Schiphol Airport. That's with my Airport Employee Discount.
The scans aren't super, but they're workable.
 
The prolab "Taylor Photo" here in Princeton charges (in USD)
bw
36 6.75
24 5.25

c41
36 6.75
24 5.25

that can be double to triple the prices at Walmart, Costco, Target CVS etc etc...
sigh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom