Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Film (& developing) price
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:33 pm    Post subject: Film (& developing) price Reply with quote
Hi everybody!

Today I've been at the nearest photography shop, next to my office. I've asked the girl at the counter about "film" availability, and she has pointed me to a shelf (small) were the films were sitting.
There were a few brands: Just FUJI (Color and chrome), and Kodak.
Color films were only in 200 and 400 ISO. Chrome in 100 ISO.
Black & White just 400 ISO Ilford.
Prices started almost the same, no matter which kind of film: 6,5€.
There were more expensive ones, but since I was just looking for cheap film just to take out the dust from my old SLRs and try again shooting film, I didn't take care on the more expensive ones.

Developing was more difficult to understand, they had a lot of options, including digital (on CD) developing, and some variations on "light processing".

I bought just a couple of B&W films, and now I've to look for my Patterson tank and to buy some chemicals to do the developing by myself...

It would be nice to know how cheap is film & developing on your side.

Best regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Try to buy film in nearest TESCO I don't remember the exact price , but they have own brand "Tesco" film that would be cheap. Another possibility buy expired films from Internet. B&W film cost here is 2 EUR. Good color film cost 4-5 EUR.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CD scan was very dissapointig to me, result was unusable crap.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
CD scan was very dissapointig to me, result was unusable crap.


That was one of my doubts, how they did scan the film...
A good scan is time consuming and needs a good scanner.
Thanks for pointing it!.

Best regards,
Jes.

Last edited by Jesito on Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And need experienced people who can make it right, so good result would be expensive. I paied 5 EUR for film, another 10 EUR for developing and scanning. 15 EUR cost for nothing ,so I keep myself on DSLR.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
CD scan was very dissapointig to me, result was unusable crap.


Everything you said Jes, about film and scanning is same here in UK. So many people have changed to digital cameras now, so traditional film processing is dying.

I have tried some cheap consumer films but the results were cheap too. My next film I buy will be professional quality. I am not buying any more colour negative film, just slides. I always liked Kodachrome but here we now have to send it to Switzerland for processing, so I will try the Fuji films like Velvia and Provia. For B&W I will be doing all my own developing from now. I have tried Delta 400 and FP4+, next will be HP5+ 400. But I will probably end up using Pan F, my old favourite from 45 years ago!! Smile

I bought all the chemicals and equipment from Speed Graphic. They sell small quantities quite cheap (internet only). I will get the next film from them too. Really good and fast service. They deliver to Spain no problem:
http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/cat.asp?c=66&1=Black+%26+White

If you need any help about chemicals just ask. Smile

Oh, good luck with your Spotmatic bidding! (BTW, make sure it's not a SL, SP500 or SP1000, as they were budget models, sometimes with no metering). You'll probably find you need a new battery and maybe also the foam light seals and mirror buffer have perished. I've done all that on my camera already, so we can share experiences.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I paied 5 EUR for film, another 10 EUR for developing and scanning. 15 EUR cost for nothing ,so I keep myself on DSLR.


OK, digital works out cheaper, but there's a lot of fun in developing and scanning yourself, and getting the pictures looking right with software. Film processing and scanning by cheap labs is all done automatically by machine these days, by people not highly skilled, so I won't be using them any more. I am doing my own B&W processing and for colour I'll be using only process-paid slide film from now on. I plan on getting a better scanner soon, maybe an Epson 4990, and I'll do all the scanning myself. Then it will be a nice Medium Format camera, who knows! Smile


PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:

If you need any help about chemicals just ask. Smile

Thanks!, I'll do, for sure, if my memory is not good enough to recall all the old procedures.

peterqd wrote:

Oh, good luck with your Spotmatic bidding! (BTW, make sure it's not a SL, SP500 or SP1000, as they were budget models, sometimes with no metering). You'll probably find you need a new battery and maybe also the foam light seals and mirror buffer have perished. I've done all that on my camera already, so we can share experiences.


Thanks for pointing it. I'm currently bidding for a Spotmatic SP IIa body, and I'm going to bid up to 30-40€. From the pictures it does look very fine... Although I've been reading some post here on "how to sell in eBay", so I moderate my expectations just to be in working order.

Regarding batteries, I've noticed it does seem to be a problem nowadays. They discharge quickly and are quite difficult to obtain.
I've been thinking in using some kind of external battery (outside the body) with a voltage converter to mimic the internal one. A small hole in the battery cap could bring out a couple of wires... A rechargeable Ni-Mh would do a nice work here, and one could forget about the issue forever.

I'll decide once I put my hands on the camera.
Thanks again for your advice!
Best regards,
Jes.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ Jesito:

Here's a PDF that shows how to make your own battery adapter to allow the use of silver oxide cells in place of mercury - it uses a miniature diode as a regulator.

http://nemeng.com/leica/012e.shtml

Scroll down to the bit about the de Gruijter battery adaptor- there is a link to the manual of how to do it yourself, or you can buy one ready made from him.

Might save you from having to butcher a nice camera.

Last edited by bob955i on Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Bob. The original mercury battery for Spotmatics was a 1.35v Mallory PX-400 or RM-400-R or equivalent, not the PX625. When my cameras arrived they both needed new batteries and I bought a couple of the WeinCell MRB400 replacements. The batteries power only the meter, and I've now found out that the meter circuit has a "bridge" (not sure what it is) which means the voltage isn't critical - the meter gives the same reading at 1.35, 1.5 or 1.6v. I understand there are silver oxide button cells or even hearing aid batteries that fit in the Spottie and work fine. When my WeinCells expire I am going to contact The Small Battery Company. They sell the adapters for PX625 batteries too.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a similar problem with my Lunasix 3 meter that takes two PX625s - Gossen now make an adapter sleeve that allows the use of SR44 silver oxide cells instead so I just got that.

New life for an excellent meter. Very Happy

Regarding the use of hearing aid cells: they're generally of the zinc-air type (you pull off the small tab to expose the air holes to activate them) and only last a couple of months once activated - they also need air as part of the chemical reaction to function so if the battery compartment doesn't have a small vent hole, the cell won't operate properly.

The bridge circuit on a meter basically acts like a regulator again and essentially stabilises the battery voltage.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bob955i wrote:
I had a similar problem with my Lunasix 3 meter that takes two PX625s - Gossen now make an adapter sleeve that allows the use of SR44 silver oxide cells instead so I just got that.

New life for an excellent meter. Very Happy


Mine is a Weston Master V - no batteries needed. Working fine at present but I don't know how long the selenium cell will last.

Quote:
Regarding the use of hearing aid cells: they're generally of the zinc-air type (you pull off the small tab to expose the air holes to activate them) and only last a couple of months once activated - they also need air as part of the chemical reaction to function so if the battery compartment doesn't have a small vent hole, the cell won't operate properly.


Thanks! That solves a riddle! I couldn't work out why the meter seems to go dead and then starts working again after I remove the battery cover. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Peter wrote:
I always liked Kodachrome but here we now have to send it to Switzerland for processing, so I will try the Fuji films like Velvia and Provia.


The Swiss lab is now closed - they redirect it to the sole remaining lab in the US for processing.

If you liked Kodachrome, (I did - I shot K25 for years.) you'll like Velvia as they're broadly similar. After K25 was discontinued and they closed the lab in the UK, I moved to Velvia 50 and shot that until Fuji discontinued it - they've since re-introduced it as Velvia II I believe, but it seems to be pretty elusive.

Velvia 50 on 120 is probably the closest you'll get to having Kodachrome in 6x6 and has to be seen to be believed.

Actually, the one colour negative film I miss the most is Ektar 25 - once you found someone who could develop it properly, it was superb.

I also deal with Speed Graphic and would also recommend them to anyone.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bob955i wrote:

Actually, the one colour negative film I miss the most is Ektar 25 - once you found someone who could develop it properly, it was superb.


Agreed.
The Kodak Ektar 25 and Agfa Optima 100 were the only two colour negative films that I would still use, if available.
For special uses, like still life, the Agfa Ultra 50 was also good.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Thanks Bob. The original mercury battery for Spotmatics was a 1.35v Mallory PX-400 or RM-400-R or equivalent, not the PX625. When my cameras arrived they both needed new batteries and I bought a couple of the WeinCell MRB400 replacements. The batteries power only the meter, and I've now found out that the meter circuit has a "bridge" (not sure what it is) which means the voltage isn't critical - the meter gives the same reading at 1.35, 1.5 or 1.6v. I understand there are silver oxide button cells or even hearing aid batteries that fit in the Spottie and work fine. When my WeinCells expire I am going to contact The Small Battery Company. They sell the adapters for PX625 batteries too.


To follow up this thread, I've joined the Yahoo Spotmatic group so I can look at all their information. There is a really helpful pdf file on batteries which I've uploaded on my website for a short while. If anyone wants to read it click here.

I was right about the batteries for the earlier models SP & SPII, but I didn't realise the SP-F used the PX625. The experts say the meter circuitry in all models can cope with the 1.55v of modern silver-oxide cells and list the alternatives.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Today I've been at the shop where past week I found film and diapos. I've asked for the developing prices, and they scared me: 17€ to develop and print 36 photos... If I add 6,4€ for the film itself, that means that a single film cost is almost the same as the price of the camera itself...
I requested prices for diapo (you say "slides", don't you?), and it was 3,5€ without frames and 4,5€ framed...
I think I'll do as in the past: unframmed diapos Wink
Best regards,
Jes.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes shooting on film never been cheap except if you developed own b&w photos as I did in the past.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh boy, I must be a lucky guy.
After some tries, I have found a local store that develops a colour (or b&w) film, scans the negs and burns them on CD for about € 6,- a roll.
(I once have bought a huge package of colour films (24 pictures) on the internet for little money and still have some rolls.)

The quality is not stellar but OK for me. I get about 3-4 MPix images on CD which is enough to judge most of my lenses at a film cam. There are more quality issues with this cheap film material than with the scanning...


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jesito wrote:
Today I've been at the shop where past week I found film and diapos. I've asked for the developing prices, and they scared me: 17€ to develop and print 36 photos... If I add 6,4€ for the film itself, that means that a single film cost is almost the same as the price of the camera itself...


Yes, same here. I paid ?11.50 for dev + mounting 36 slides, plus another ?6 to scan to CD (which turned out to be absolute rubbish). I'm going to use only slides for colour film now, too. I have a treasured roll of Kodachrome 64 I don't want to use up!

I always remember Kodachrome K-14 processing could only be done by Kodak themselves, and now every film from Europe gets sent by Kodak to "Dwayne's Photo Service" in Parsons, Kansas. Shocked
But how about the E-6 process, can that be DIY?


PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:


I always remember Kodachrome K-14 processing could only be done by Kodak themselves, and now every film from Europe gets sent by Kodak to "Dwayne's Photo Service" in Parsons, Kansas. Shocked


I was Agfachrome fan, and also the processing was done elsewhere in Germany. They warranted 15 day return, and the price included developing and even the self addressed bag where to send the film.

Best regards,
Jes.

Last edited by Jesito on Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:49 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Shooting with good slides can be expensive and annoying, but it is highly rewarding.
Let me introduce to you a Kodachrome slide that was shot by either my mother or my father.
Considering my apparent age in the picture (one or two years old, I am not that good in guessing children's age), and the fact that there is snow on the ground, I would guess that the photo was taken in either the winter between 1962 and 1963, or the one between 1963 and 1964. So this slide is 44-45 or 43-44 years old (I was born on October 11, 1961).
I found the slides in my father's house, kept in terrible conditions, inside a closet in a totally dark and terribly humid room. Like all the other slides in the box, it was attacked by fungus, which has eaten some of the chemicals layer.

I scanned the slide with my Epson 4490 flatbed and made some spot cleaning in Photoshop, but aside from that, I made no other postwork on the image, so what you see is exactly what was scanned:



Here's a detail of my sweater, you can still clearly see the soft wool structure against the concrete background. The detail is not sharpened:



The slide was processed in the USA, evidently the Swiss laboratory was not yet active at the time.

As you can see, shooting quality slides can be annoyingly long and expensive, but it renders images that are still lifelike even after half a century and even if kept in very poor conditions. Consider that I did not have to enhance the colours. The colours on the slides are still perfectly saturated after all these years. If it wasn't for the unlikely car on the left, this half-century Kodachrome looks like if it was taken a few days ago.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Shooting with good slides can be expensive and annoying, but it is highly rewarding.
Let me introduce to you a Kodachrome slide that was shot by either my mother or my father.
Considering my apparent age in the picture (one or two years old, I am not that good in guessing children's age), and the fact that there is snow on the ground, I would guess that the photo was taken in either the winter between 1962 and 1963, or the one between 1963 and 1964. So this slide is 44-45 or 43-44 years old (I was born on October 11, 1961).
I found the slides in my father's house, kept in terrible conditions, inside a closet in a totally dark and terribly humid room. Like all the other slides in the box, it was attacked by fungus, which has eaten some of the chemicals layer.

I scanned the slide with my Epson 4490 flatbed and made some spot cleaning in Photoshop, but aside from that, I made no other postwork on the image, so what you see is exactly what was scanned:


The slide was processed in the USA, evidently the Swiss laboratory was not yet active at the time.

As you can see, shooting quality slides can be annoyingly long and expensive, but it renders images that are still lifelike even after half a century and even if kept in very poor conditions. Consider that I did not have to enhance the colours. The colours on the slides are still perfectly saturated after all these years. If it wasn't for the unlikely car on the left, this half-century Kodachrome looks like if it was taken a few days ago.


And best of all, "diapos" (your "slides") don't get trashed by a malfunction on your PC's hard disk...

I keep some glass negatives (6x6 maybe?), inherited from my grandfather, from a century ago, and besides the quality of the picture itself (overexposed) have survived pretty well 100 years...

(There is a big queue of pending-to-scan work...)

Best regards,
Jes.

Best regards,
Jes.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Jesito wrote:

(There is a big queue of pending-to-scan work...)


Today's scanners, even home scanners, are very good with slides.
I paid for my Epson 4490 flatbed a very reasonable price and the quality of scanning is excellent as you can see from this sample.

I can see no point in paying for professional scanning nowadays, unless one has a very specific need. My Epson scans are perfectly good even for poster-sized prints.

Of course the quality of the original slide is decisive. High quality slide film and good quality lens really make the difference.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's amazing, Orio!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, seems need the right person for scanning...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2