>>2727778
Why can't you just scan it with a good film scanner an print it with a good scanner and photo paper? No need to go to the photo store if you invest in a few things. It is also good because you get control over every step of the process.

Spoiler: Not a film photographer, sorry if stupid suggestion. Just intuitively seems more practical.

>>2727795
Well my problem is I don't know enough to know if you're talking about setting up a whole dark room or if you're just talking about buying a straight-to-pc film scanner, if the second; no idea those existed. Very, very new.

>>2727796
I'm talking about buying a straight-to-pc film scanner, and if you need to print then also a good quality scanner and some photo paper. That's probably what most people are doing today.

If you choose this way, though, I do know that digital devices need to be color calibrated so each device displays color in the same way as the others. You can usually select the color profile in the software - scanner software, printer software, image editing software. They all need to be the same so you avoid getting bad surprises (shifted colors) somewhere in your workflow.

>>2727797
Welp, I signed up for a college course on this, as I do not have the money for one of these scanners currently. But this has been very helpful. Thank you.

>>2727778
Huh? >>2727795 doesn't answer your question. You still have to have your film developed before it's scanned.

Look for local photo labs. There are two kinds these days: the lab where they know what they're doing and the lab where they don't. The latter is easily identifiable: they normally have underpaid workers that mindlessly press buttons on printers and don't even know the lab still does film processing.

Later on you can buy stuff to develop it yourself.

>>2727778
cvs, walgreens, riteaide, costco
opefully one of those places still does one hour photo

>>2727805
tfw I'm home for winter and all the stores here are pro ones that charge $14 for 24 exp roll

who fucking does that

>>2727894
It's a niche market these days, what do you expect? Costco and Walgreens still do film dev, or you could do B&W development at home. It's not very difficult, and you can even put Colour negative film through a B&W process and get sweet results

>>2727901
I mean there's a store about an hour from me that does a roll for $9 less

I used to do it at home but I sold my shit like an idiot. no chains do it in the area

reminiscing about the time the CVS next to my work still did it. I'd drop a roll off before my shift and pick it up when I got off.

>>2727901
>defending shills

>>2727778

B&W is easy as shit once you learn. If you do this, I'd develop yourself and print yourself. Silver Gelatin prints on FB paper look fucking great and will make you feel like a boss. They will look way better than any scan and print job.

Shooting color, some people develop it themselves, but I would be hesitant too. Any monkey can do C-41 with a machine, but you want a lab that develops enough that their machine doesn't get shit all over your negs. Their are plenty of places online that do this. Some will do your color corrections for you, too. You can print these optically, but it's much rarer than optical black and white printing.

If you wanna shoot slides, you're probably gonna have to do this via mail. Some dude will probably tell you how he does it at home and it is shit easy, but don't listen to him, at least at first. You're gonna have to scan these if you want prints because, as far as I know, all the papers for printing slides have been discontinued.

A word of advice about color corrections. Some people don't want to do any editing to their pics, and I understand where they are coming from, but when you optically print a color negative you have to set the color balance on the head. There's a lot of variance here so there's no real 'neutral', and even by leaving them all at the 'middle' you've made a decision regarding the colors. Even with optical B&W you have to make a contrast decision. Never mind correcting for any fuck ups the scanner might make. Please take the time to do this!

>>2727778
the camera looks disgusting take off that shitty bent lens filter and make sure the thing even fires..
perhaps try googling film processing in your area? and maybe dont listen to be people admitting they too know nothing about film.
then after allll this throw that camera away and buy a minolta x700.

>>2727778
When people ask these sort of questions, it would really help if they at least provided the country they are in. Generally speaking, I've found local small "one hour photo" labs to the worst places to take anything in. They've got some clunky old minilab sitting in the corner of the storage room mostly unused and the last guy who knew how to service it retired in 2007. They've got some daughter of the cousin of the shop owner who needed an easy summer job who has never even seen film in her life, and she'll be the one processing yours. Expect scratches, massive clouds of dust particles, finger prints, and whatever else.

Google for processing services in your country. Look through the websites. Google up what people are saying about them. Don't be an idiot and settle for some dodgy unprofessional shit. Avoid the one hour photos, you'll be wasting your negatives for convenience, if you'd prefer to do that you might as well stick with digital. Prepare for having to mail the rolls out and wait patiently.