Film Prices
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Whoa
Went to get 3 rolls of film developed at my local camera store today
> $50
> Jesus christ
I don't shoot film very much, but I like it every now and then.
Also, I don't want to do any chemical shit.
>>2768131
FYI: Price also included Hi Res scans, so that was some cost on top of it.
>I like shooting film
>I don't want to do any chemical shit
If you just want to take photos and get digital scans back without doing the in-between part then why not just shoot digital? Of course they charged you way too much to develop B&W for you, nobody ever gets their B&W done by a lab.
>>2768134
I do shoot digital most of the time. That's why I only shot 3 rolls of film in the past year.
>>2768143
Congratulations. You are the same as my Finnish cuck friend who only shoots C41 film for the status it gives him.
Either dev your own B&W, select process only or suck it up. I pay £2.50-5 per C41 process in my local area (35mm/120/220).
C41 is cheap to dev, B&W neg is now cheaper to dev by yourself desu.
>>2768163
Don't own a scanner is kind of the gap.
Dude buy online. HP5 36 is like £20 for 5.
I giggle when I see people buy stuff at retail prices.
>>2768251
He's talking about getting it developed, you moron.
>>2768196
i dont normally post here much anymore because of the typical cancerous gearthreads, but dont get a scanner. you'll get 'ok' results, unnecessarily huge files and a long wait to go along with it. There really isnt any drive for manufacturers to update their scanner lineups that often so the quality never really adds up to the pricetag you're paying.
look up DSLR scanning techniques and build yourself a rig and get it done in a quarter of the time. only issue is there is no ICE functionality when using this method so be prepared to clean negatives like crazy beforehand and then clone out the rest
personally im looking at ditching the scanner and building a rig out of the following
>adjustable copy stand
>cheapish macro lens or lens reversal adapter (currently have a freebie sigma 28-80mm macro K mount lens on my old 450D but tempted to upgrade to 5dmkII + 100 2.8L)
>LED light table (you can build a lightbox using a flash and a shoebox with some white paper as a baffle)
>cheapish film holders (or source some ANR glass from betterscanning.com)
improvise one before spending any money and decide if its a workflow that works for you, the technique absolutely curbstomps the shit out of any scans you can get from a lab (with the exception of using an imacon scanner) and requires less effort to do especially when tethered.
>>2768258
>i dont normally post here much anymore
>because of the typical cancerous gearthreads,
>starts the dslr scanning vs flatbed debate again
>one of the most cancerous topics on this board
Die in a fucking fire.
>>2768131
>shooting b/w film
>not developing yourself
You are just retarded. If you want to be the hip analog guy you have to go through with it and develop yourself. It's not hard, it's not expensive.
I work in a professional photo lab as a side job, do you want to know why it is so expensive? We don't want to fucking do it. It's too much effort for us and we know how easily you could have done at home.
Development times are very important of course. We have lists for each and every film I ever used that are timed to the second. If I develop my film at home I can precisely time it and get the best results. I don't develop each film on their own at work. If I have ten different rolls of film I'll look for a common ground and each of them is well developed, but not as good as it could be.
If you don't want to develop yourself, don't shoot bw film.
>>2768262
clearly you missed this part
>improvise one before spending any money and decide if its a workflow that works for you
i wish i spent $20 on materials as a proof of concept before forking out close to $1000 on a flatbed.
also
>curbstomps the shit out of any scans you can get from a lab
if this last section is up for debate, please direct me to the lab you use and how much you're paying because without shipping internationally, you're looking close to $40 per roll devved and scanned at a decent lab where i live
feel free to stay mad but i suggest you go back to jerking it over MTF charts and sliding a soviet mirror lens into your ass
>>2768271
>improvise one before spending any money
Not everybody owns a DSLR, macro lens, tripod and lighting.
>forking out close to $1000 on a flatbed
What the fuck.
>$40 per roll devved and scanned at a decent lab where i live
Do you live in a prison or something? Shit's expensive where I live and it's half that price.
>go back to jerking it over MTF charts
You're the one talking about how DSLR scanning 'curbstomps the shit out of any scans you can get from a lab' yet I'm the one who is jerking it over MTF charts?
>>2768131
That's not bad for developing slides, scanning and printing!
But since you did black & white you got screwed and you deserved it for being an idiot.
>>2768265
>you want to be the hip analog guy
Nah, not really. I like having the limits of not seeing my shots. I don't have a lot of self control and always look at the screen, even if I cover it. If it were cheaper, I would buy the Leica M 60 year edition.
Fair point on the developing of film. I could see why people wouldn't want to do it, because, like I said, I DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP MYSELF. I hate chemical shit. Not a fan of doing shit like that.
>>2768279
>Not everybody owns a DSLR, macro lens, tripod and lighting.
I don't.
>>2768465
>I hate chemical shit
Why don't you understand that this is a essential part of shooting film?
That's like saying "I love driving my car but I hate the smell of gas, so I only let other people take it to the gas station and let them refill it" Sure, you can go along like that, but it doesn't make any sense. Shooting film and developing film go hand in hand.
What's your problem with the chemicals exactly, other than "I don't want to"?
>>2768465
>I hate chemical shit.
And I hate you. I still put up with you because I have to. Develop your rolls.
>>2768675
Electric cars yo.
>>2768690
Equal DSLRs in this comparison :^)
>>2768675
>>2768682
Like I said before. I don't care about the chemical bullshit.
I want to shoot film because it's currently the cheapest way to have something act like a black box. If the Leica M 60 year edition was cheaper, I'd go for that.
Fuck chemistry. Fuck scanning. That shit is menial and boring. Film is a sub-par process compared to digital when it comes to processing the images. That said, the actual act of shooting with film makes you think more about your shot, which is nice. Everything after you get home just sucks.
>>2768721
all i have to say about this childish thread is lol
>>2768271
>forking out close to $1000 on a flatbed.
A refurb V550 direct from Epson is like $120.
I prefer flatbed because a scanner tucks away neatly, gives consistent results, and doesn't require complicated and clunky setup or much space. I live in a very small studio apartment and don't really have anywhere to set up a DSLR scanning rig.
However, I don't shoot 35mm, and I've heard flatbeds are pretty much garbage for it. I shoot 6x6 and the scans from that are more than adequate for my purposes.
>>2768721
>I want to shoot film because it's currently the cheapest way to have something act like a black box.
What does that mean? You can pick up an old Rebel Xt for like $150, whereas with film you have to pay however much, every single time you get a new roll, so if you're actually using it regularly, it's going to be expensive. Maybe I don't understand the "black box" thing.
Also:
>That said, the actual act of shooting with film makes you think more about your shot, which is nice.
Why on Earth would this be true? Does digital somehow lobotomize you? Does film somehow enlighten you? I would suggest the opposite, that with film, you can pay less attention since in most cases, nailing your exposure isn't as important, with the higher dynamic range available with most B&W and color negative films.
You can work just as slowly and methodically with digital as you can with film, and you can shoot film just as haphazardly as you can with digital. The variable is you.
>>2768785
Why the fuck would anyone shoot film.
>>2768790
Because being physically involved in nearly every step of the process of obtaining an image of something you witnessed/saw is extremely satisfying and educational.
>>2768721
I wasn't thinking this was a bait thread until now. Good work.
Get fucking duct tape and cover the screen of your camera, work only with the LCD on top. Problem solved.
>>2768838
>Get fucking duct tape and cover the screen of your camera
I actually tried that. It's hard to adjust ISO like that.
FWIW, Didn't start as a bait thread. When I figured out there wasn't a better way, it sure got fun to bait a little bit. :)
>>2768826
So shaking a tube is somehow more educational than editing in photoshop?
>>2768842
>LCD on top
>It's hard to adjust ISO like that.
I'm going to assume you don't have one on your Rebal .. make a stencil out of something, leave the important setting parts visible and cover up the rest.
>>2768843
Similar, yes, as most of the features from photoshop come from a darkroom background. Ever wondered why the dodge and burn symbols look somehow similar to your hand and the cardboard cutouts you use to doge and burn? No? Oh, right, you never printed a picture of yours in a darkroom before but are still hating ..
>>2768848
1) you don't know me, and when you swing in the dark and miss, it's embarrassing for you.
2) What is the darkroom equivalent of the curves adjustment layer? How about hue saturation layer? Frequency separation? Digital processing is literally decades ahead of anything anyone ever did in a darkroom, and the fine tuning capabilities, not to mention the no-cost nature of digital experimentation, put it way way out ahead.
You will learn more with a digital workflow than you will by pouring someone else's chemicals on someone else's film, and putting light through it projected onto someone else's paper. You don't have nearly the control you think you do.
>>2768131
>I pay 3$ per roll for dev and I own my own scanner
>only ever pay a lot for dev if I do slide film(10 per roll)
You should look into different stores for development
>>2768845
>I'm going to assume you don't have one on your Rebal
Leica M does not have LCD on top. It has physical dials for Shutter & Aperture, but nada for the ISO unless you get the M 60 year edition.
>>2768884
>curves
>saturation
>not darkroom
i get it. hes retarded and not in a funtional way.
>>2768935
So no answer, just vague implications and condescention? not sure why I'd expect anything else from you in particular.
>what is the darkroom equivalent of curves.
Go on, I'll wait. How do you work on the equivalent of a curve, raising deep shadows, lowering mid shadows, adding specific contrast only to skin tones, and adding or removing contrast from just highlights? be sure the way you list doesn't leave you with HDR level halos, too.
If you can answer that, we can move on to selective saturation boosting, or color unification.
>>2768941
wow, the digitography freshman really hasn't the slightest clue about how a darkroom workflow looks like and he's still overconfidently digging himself deeper. that or a very dedicated troll, it's just too uncannily self-incriminating and awful.
A healthy dose of sage¬ reply will remedy both cases, though. Ito, don't waste your time, consider the above.
>>2768721
kill yourself my friend
>>2768842
>I actually tried that. It's hard to adjust ISO like that.
and you can't adjust ISO in the same roll while shooting with a film camera anyway.
this is some top tier bait, 10/10
>>2768946
>shit, you can't do any of that with a darkroom, but admitting it would poke a hole in the "film is better for learning" thing, so... better just keep being condescending. I'll drop my trip, but not change my posting style, and people will think that I'm a different guy, and that there's more people on my side! Fuck I'm tearing this shit apart!
-Translated by Bing!
It would have been a lot easier to just answer. That would have made it pretty clear who was right and who was wrong, but I guess this works too.
>>2768941
I'm responding to bait, but oh well.
>raising deep shadows, lowering mid shadows
different grades of paper, strategically under/over-exposing and then over/under-developing
>adding specific contrast only to skin tones
using higher contrast paper, burning the specific area and dodging around it
>adding or removing contrast from just highlights
see above (also remember that reversal film handles highlights much better than digital cameras)
>selective saturation boosting
colour enlarger filters, developing at slightly different temperatures
>color unification
not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I would say printing on monochrome paper
>inb4 "ewww i dont wanna touch chemicals and shit grossss that takes tooo loonngg :((("
this thread needs to be buried like we buried chernobyl
>>2768941
You can do all of that...it's just a royal pain in the ass.
>>2768999
Actually, chernobyl is a pretty cool tourist destination now. it's starting to become safer now.
>>2768895
How the fuck do you get away with $3/roll for c41?
Man... the chemicals wouldn't even be worth that much.
I really want to get gud at film dev so I can start doing e6 and enjoy beautiful colours.
I'm not sure I can dev film in my apartment without pissing my dad off.
>>2769038
The reactor itself was hastily buried in cement at the cost of many lives. They are in the process of erecting a new steel containment shield over it at the moment.
So it was an apt metaphor.
>>2769225
Stores charge that much because they buy in bulk and re-use chemicals.
Home dev for C41 is unable to compete with bargain processing.
