The cost of medium format film and processing.

It seems to be getting more costly to shoot medium format film cameras these days.

Transparency film at 5 or 6 dollars a roll for 120. Processing at 10.95 for

those same 120 rolls. If you would like to scan that film it is $2. per scan. Or

you can spend $2000. for a Coolscan 9000. So for 2 120 rolls shot in a 645

camera, $94.00 for film, processing, and scanning. That is a little over $3.00

per shot. Hmmmm.

Make each shot count

I think a fair amount of amateur medium format shooting is done in b&w. If you preview the slides on a light table and then scan/print the ones you like you can spend less than $94.00. The problem with below average scans of medium format film is that results you get in the form of a print will not look any better then what you get from 35mm film. This is most true of the 6X45 format. With 6X7 you don't need a terribly high resolution scan to make an 8X10 or even n 11X14. If 120 film is processed and scanned well and then printed you can get very good results but the cost will be high. The good thing is that contrast and color corrections are done far more easily with a scan from a slide or negative than with traditional projection printing.

 

A better strategy might be to scan the 6X45 slides with an inexpensive flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter. This will let you preview them on your monitor without paying $2 for each frame. If you want to make large prints from some of them you can have just those frames scanned. If you were to shoot a 36 exp. roll of 35mm slide film instead of two 15 or 16 exposure rolls of 120 film and then pay for processing and high resolution scans of each frame yor total cost would probably be less than $94 but not very much less. When more professional photographers used film, the advanced amateurs who shot with medium format equipment could take advantage of the economy of scale which existed. Now we can buy the equipment for a fraction of what it cost even a few years ago but the cost of using it, at least for color work, has gone way up.

Sorry: to say this ,But thats the price of have-ing fun in photography, these day's it is sad but with digital knocking off about 60% of film users , the foto processers still have to live:

If it's just hobby shooting, consider the Walmart option. Search the forum, I saw a post about Walmart processing medium format (even Kodachrome slides) at the usual $4.88 price. You have to write something in the special instructions field on the envelope about the processing type. Apparently, they forward the negatives to places like Dwayne's that still do it. They must have bulk rate agreements to get it done for $4.88 if it's true.

 

Don't flame me, I'm just the messenger. I haven't tried it yet myself, but since the only two places in my town (Houston) that develop/print MF print film are each 30 minutes away, I'm considering it... especially if Walmart sends them to quality labs. (I heard Dwayne's is used for Kodachrome slides, because that's supposedly the only place in the world that still processes it.)

 

-Kelly

"Processing at 10.95 for those same 120 rolls"

 

Wow that's pretty expensive do you order prints with your rolls ?

what kelly says. i get C41 done at sams club for 50 cents send out and 1.50$ in store. 4.88 for send out slides as above. i have processed 100s of rolls with zero problems.

 

as for scanning?!?!?!? i woulod say have sams make prints for you. why do you need scans? if you are using it for computer related stuff i find my 100$ scanner good enough for low res. web stuff. scanning is expensive. when i need a scan for a customer i pay for the scan. cheaper that way.....BUT i travel to SE Asia alot! i spend 4-6 months here (i am here now) and i have several labs that i work with here in thailand. i routinely send my 120 films for processing, scanning and have CD/DVDs burned and sent back! i have been very very successfull doing this. it is very affordable (possibly risky) i get large file scans done for 75 cents, processing for 75 cents for C41 and $2 for E6! i have made prints up to 30x40 inches from their scans. shipping back by EMS air mail is about $50. takes about 1 week and includes the CD/DVDs and negs for about 15 rolls of film! contact me by e mail if you require further info.

 

eddie

Check out Calypso Imaging in Santa Cruz, California for great E-6 processing at $4.50 per

roll for 120. They've run all my film for several years now, and they have always done a

great job.

 

http://calypsoinc.com/

Well, for me, I often buy my medium format transparency film slightly outdated, so I save a lot of money.

 

Right now, I'm working out of a perfectly fine 20 roll box of Provia with an 8/2005 expiration for which I paid $30 from a reputable dealer. It's been good enough that I'll be ordering another one or two before too long.

 

I pay $7.35 a roll at my lab for E6 processing.

 

That runs me about $.75 since a frame for E-6. That's still a bit more expensive than 35mm, but not a whole lot.

 

If I owned a camera that could take 220 film, I would definitely use 220 whenever I could. My lab only charges $3 more for 220 processing than 120, so the cost savings would be huge.

In south Florida:

 

film cost:$3.00

development:$4.95

scanning 120 /hight resolution:$12.00

 

Having The best quality... Priceless :)

In Woodland Hills California, Digital image Inc $2.99 for C41; $6.00 for E6 done in less than 48 hrs.

"In Woodland Hills California, ..."

In Northridge CA, The Darkroom on Reseda Blvd, will turn the 120 E-6 around in 3 hours for the same price or less. Same with C-41 negs... but prints from those negs take 2 days.

The $10.95 a roll for E-6 seems high, but the labs that I had previously used have closed. The area is Chicagoland. Maybe it is time to try the Walmart E-6 processing, and bite the bullet and buy a Coolscan. The scans are needed because I would like to print up to 13 x 19 on a Canon 9000 printer.

Ditto on the Walmart processing. $1.80 for processing and prints of C41. Takes two weeks on average. From Tampa the film goes to Fuji in Tifton, GA. Caveat Emptor: Back when the film got sent to Fuji in Orlando Florida the results were fantastic. Tifton's quality and general attention to detail is sketchy. I keep that in mind and anything I take seriously goes to my local pro lab for about ten bucks for processing and prints.

 

I like Medium Format because I can scan the negs on my cheapo Epson 3170 flatbed for the web. I don't make prints from the scans. I use them for the web where they look as good as they need to. For me it's an easy way to archive and display my stuff. If I want a big enlargement I send the negative out to my pro lab. Easy.

 

I spend much less on MF than I ever did on 35mm. As a hobbyist I shoot a lot at times and very little for a while. On average I shoot 5-10 rolls a month. Most of it goes to Walmart. Medium Format has really allowed me to improve because I make each shot count. If I shoot two rolls in a day I feel like I wasted film. That's 30 frames of 645 which is not even one roll of 35mm. The difference is with 35mm my technique has the same discipline as shooting a machine gun on full auto figuring I'm bound to get a few good shots. With MF I really only shoot keepers to begin with. Some are just better than others. :)

 

I figure I can shoot a LOT of film for a thousand bucks, which is what it would cost me to get a decent dslr and a kit lens or two.

 

The last two times my hard drive crashed I cringed at all the scans I lost because I hadn't burned DVDs of them yet. Then I remembered my binders still had all the negatives...

If I shoot two rolls in a day I feel like I wasted film. That's 30 frames of 645 which is not even one roll of 35mm.

 

Wow, I seem to average about 5 rolls on days I head out to shoot with my RZ67 which is just about every Saturday lately. Today I shot 9 rolls but it was an event I was at. This is one of the reasons why I moved up to medium format. Since I learned to develop B&W before, I could save a bundle with the more rolls/less frames issue by being a do-it-yourself person. In fact I almost changed my mind when my father informed me that I'd only get 10 exposures per roll at 6x7.

Check out the prices of medium format backs and you soon realise that shooting film is still a lot cheaper. Small light box and a good loupe do not cost much and make it easy to evaluate what you got so it is no need to scan every image. And a good scanner is still only a small fraction of the cost of even the cheapest MF digital back.

Just for the international perspective on MF processing...Ireland & UK:

 

One Hour Photo, Galway, Ireland: C41 ?2.50 develop only, or ?8.60 develop + 6x4/6x6 inch prints. This is my local; I normally get dev only, and scan them myself on an Epson 4990.

 

dLab7, Channel Islands, mail order: E6 ~?4.80 inc. postage both ways (depends on ?-? rate)

 

dLab7 enlargements from uploaded scans: ?1.00 each for 12x8 inch/10x8 inch/8x8 inch, or cheaper with bulk orders. I love getting a 645 or 6x9 frame printed "all in" on 12x8 inch, keeping every square mm of the image. Price really jumps for larger sizes though, e.g. ?10 for 16x12 inch - even though that's only twice as big as a 12x8 inch for ?1.

 

Film costs: I recently bought 100 rolls of my favourite colour-neg film, Konica Centuria 400 (now sadly discontinued), for ?150. So that's ?1.50/roll film cost + ?2.50/roll processing cost = ?4.00/roll total. Who says MF is expensive?

Mother of god, can't this site display Euro currency symbols?! I tried both plain text and html, no luck...

Just got 2 rolls of 6x45 C41 back from E-6 here in Atlanta, $43.00 for process, proofs and low res scans and thumbnail scans. $5.50 per roll process, $.65 per proof and I think it was $5.00 for scan 1st roll, $2.00 for additionals rolls scanned. Several pro/wedding/school labs not longer process 120/220 but will still scan and print.

I just picked up my first test roll from them (120 film, 16 shots). These were the first roll with my Fuji 645zi I bought just before vacation, so they were redundant with the DSLR in case it fogged or something. But they came out fine. I just got single prints on the small 4x5ish matte through the send-off service from the kiosk. Now here's the best part -- my cost was only $2.55!! I think I'll be using them again!

Buying top quality slide film and processing at a London Pro Lab costs me a fraction over $1 per frame. In general these things are supposed to be a little cheaper in the USA.

 

Scanning. As ever the key is what you are scanning for. If its just to get them on screen or on the web then buying a decent flatbed will save you a lot of money pretty fast. Fact is that you won't get a top quality large print out of a scan you buy for $2 in bulk anyway, so there's no reason why you shouldn't save in that area and accept that your scans won't support a top notch large print, but are perfectly adequate for other purposes. Then you can get a film/Imacon/drum scan of those few images per year that you want to print really well at large size out of your saving. If you don't need scans for screen/web use then don't bother with a flatbed and just get a great scan done for the few images you're most proud of. It does sound like you're trying to get all of your shots in shape to make 19 x 13 prints. This isn't what most people do.