Jump to content

Now I know why people abandoned film


Recommended Posts

<p>After a lot of research, almost none of the options for mail order film developing appeals to me. At first I thought The Darkroom is it. Then I realized that for $10 all I am getting is a 1-2 meg scan. For enhanced scan it costs $15 plus $5 return shipping, that is $20 a roll. Walmart scan is similarly pathetic. North Coast gives you a decent scan but I really can't see paying $20 a roll, and that is before the cost of the film itself. Kodak would have done itself a lot of good if they had set up a developing service too to support their film business. Looks like they forgot what people have to do after they are done shooting. Now I know why people abandoned film. They can't afford to have the damn thing developed. Develop, scan and return for $10. That is my sweet spot.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Most people who abandoned film did so because digital became quickly and widely available, provided instant feedback, was affordable and more compact - the same folks who made cell phones, smart phones and tablets a part of many households. Once the exodus from film occurred, those who chose to stay in the film business had little choice but to raise their process to cover the lower volume and increased costs of material due to lower demand.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Walgreens prices used to be OK, like $2-$4 per roll developed and scanned. Last I used them (years ago), their scanners were outputting 2MP, usually very well corrected and color balanced). This may have changed but I know they still have the C41 color negative film service running (and may be worth checking into).<br>

But generally, yes - shooting film has become quite a hassle. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Kodak would have done itself a lot of good if they had set up a developing service too to support their film business. Looks like they forgot what people have to do after they are done shooting."

 

Kodak provided mailers in which you put your film and sent it off for processing. They also built the big processing and printing machines used in many photo labs and produced the chemicals for developing film and paper and chemicals for making prints. But, as usual, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A couple of months ago, a guy asked, 'Is film photography becoming a rich man's pursuit?' To some extent I think that's true, as the original poster found out. I'd suggest three solutions:<br>

(i) Only shoot film if you have a good reason to be shooting film. <br>

(ii) Consider using traditional black-and-white materials and souping your own. That will get the cost down to 0.10 per 35mm exposure. You still have to scan or print optically, but you can make very high quality images at a low price if you do your own processing.<br>

(iii) If you have to use commercial C41 processing, use it sparingly, and only when you have a reason that justifies the cost.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have found good old Dwaynes to be the most cost effective. It is almost at your $10 sweet spot. 35mm will cost $11.50 for process, a very decent scan, and return shipping. You can save a lot more if you do more than one roll at a time, because it is only an extra 50 cents per roll for shipping. Of course, you have to look at the entire picture (no pun intended). You have to pay to get it there, which for me is typically around $2 in a padded envelope, the cost of the film itself, and the cost of buying a pack of padded mailers. </p>

<p>http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/newsite2006/color-neg-processprint.html</p>

<p>So yes, using film is not cheap. It is becoming regarded as an "art" outlet and young people now a days will often look at you in some kind of awe and disbelief that YOU actually know how to use FILM. Even many young adults now have never touched a film camera.</p>

<p>Digital is not necessarily cheaper, at least if you are starting from scratch. You can get a LOT of film processed for the cost of a digital SLR and all the peripheral stuff that always follows. I have some very good digital equipment, but I still prefer using film, even for just casual snapshot stuff. I much prefer using my film cameras, I love the simple pleasure of looking forward to getting the negatives / prints back in the mail, and one of my main reasons for preferring film is archival purposes. A negative will never crash, or become obsolete, or become unreadable, or have to be "updated" to a new storage medium, etc etc.</p>

<p>Digital has many of it's own hassles and costs that can often offset and even surpass the cost of using film. I did, however, spend a bundle on a new Nikon 9000 film scanner a few years ago before production stopped and prices were not yet to the moon, ... so I have the scanning issue covered. I will still often get scans done at time of processing ($3 at Dwaynes), just to save the time and work of doing it myself. If I want an extremely high quality / large scan of some particularly good shots, I then use the Nikon to scan those specific negatives / transparencies. </p>

<p>That brings up one last point. I still say nothing beats a shot well taken with positive film and a high quality scan. Yes, that is a hybrid medium, but to me it is the best of all worlds when it comes to quality and "the look".</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>By all means sort out a cheaper/better price for processing. Then you'll complain about the price of film as that increases whilst the choice reduces and then of course your processing prices will rise as volume there falls further. If you want best pricing in the long term, follow the volume. </p>

<p>If you prefer film well thats great, but I'd try not to detract from your enjoyment by letting inevitable (for it is) supply issues and price increases get to you. They are a fact of life for many film users now, and fixing a problem today doesn't mean it'll stay fixed. Switching films and searching for new suppliers for processing, printing, paper, chemicals etc is part of the game for film users now and I'm afraid it won't go away.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Steve, indeed Dwayne comes very close to my tipping point although those pesky shipping charges always ruin the deal. I don't mind paying for film, yet. I can still get a box of 4(3?) 24-exp for under $7 at Walmart which lasts me a long time. I have three rolls sitting around for a while</p>

<p>-Develop- $12<br>

-Scan- $9<br>

-Shipping to(est)- $5<br>

-Shipping from -$5.50<br>

Total - $31.50</p>

<p>That is $10.50 a roll. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sure, the situation is not ideal but it's not all doom and gloom. <br>

<br /> I have a similar approach to Steve's. To put things into different perspective, I use Peak Imaging here in the UK which provides me with professional quality C41 and E6 processing (4.90 GBP), scanning (at 7.96 GBP for 6.2 MB scans) and printing (9.64 GBP) - all for 35mm film.I don's shoot enough colour materials to develop them at home as I prefer B&W for analogue which I develop and scan myself, keeping the costs very low. If I only process my C41 and E6, I batch scan them on my Epson V700 flatbed scanner and use my Imacon for the best frames, so most of the time it's a hybrid between best of both worlds. However, similarly to Steve, I enjoy getting a set of well-corrected prints from a good lab instead of endless computer editing.<br>

<br /> I am currently on a US trip and all I am using are slides from my film stash (Kodak EB chromes purchased in bulk quantity about 2 years ago). I've got my digital Nikon d700 with me as well but I've only shot about 40 frames in total while I am on my 8th roll in my analogue F5. My chrome stash is getting smaller and it's scary to look at current Fuji prices, (especially slides!) but I am simply looking at alternatives; see Agfa Precisa 100 or Rollei Cr200, which are perfectly fine materials and are priced somewhere between 3.50 and 4 GBP. Let's not forget that it is even scarier to look at the initial cost of buying digital equipment that matches film quality.<br>

<br /> All I am saying is that the costs can be kept at a reasonable level but you just have to shop around. I soften order film in large quantities from other EU countries to keep the costs as low as possible or look for sales / special offers and then stock up.<br>

<br /> It's still a viable medium and I constantly meet people (not only Lomography hipsters) who after shooting digital all their life invest into analogue gear because of its look or, surprisingly, the convenience (shoot>send film to a lab>receive a set of prints) it offers.<br>

<br /> Not sure what the future holds for us but for now: happy, moderately priced, analogue shooting! ;)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just looked at a photo magazine from 1982. Typical cost for mail-order color processing of 35mm/36 with prints was $10. (plus postage to and from)<br>

<br />I can go to Costco today, 20 years later and get processing, prints and a cd for $8.</p>

<p>I think film is cheap. Factor the cost of cameras and it's DARN cheap!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you say today, right now, then I agree that film becomes unaffordable to some people. But it's the chicken or the egg and I am sure people abandonned film long ago and not for the reason of prices. Prices goes up because there are few people use film and it becomes a niche market. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'll agree with Brian. I'm still shooting (just received 12 rolls of E6 back, shot during a July trip). Processing prices are similar to what I've been paying for the past decade ($6-8/roll, uncut). I do my own scanning, so am not paying for that (except in time). The only thing that's changed is that I no longer have a fast turnaround option for E6 processing. It's 1 week plus or nothing.</p>

<p>What has increased is film prices, since I primarily shoot E6 & BW. I've addressed that by starting to stockpile a few emulsions that I'm particularly attached to. My freezer now has ~120 rolls of various things (EB, 400X, APX100, 400TMY). If I see a good deal (and they still do exist occasionally) I'll buy in much larger quantity than I would have in the past. No more orders of a few rolls at a time; it's multiple bricks or nothing.</p>

<p>The cost of switching my gear to digital (of which I own nothing) would be huge. Many years worth of film & processing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are unhappy with the scans given to you, get a scanner. Even the new "flat-bed" ones like the Canoscan 9000F (now up to mark ii) will almost certainly do better than anything you will get scanned from Walgreens, or most anybody else these days.</p>

<p>Lately the price of the Walgreens' c-41 process- only went up a bit here, but the quality of the processing has also improved. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fuji Canada is quietly processing 35mm C-41 film for peanuts. Processing+cd=5 bucks. Though they make great processing/scanning/printing lab equipment, their over-priced prints are strangely gawdawful--the result of "set-n-forget" printer operation. My local Costco still cranks out remarkably nice prints from digital files(only).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The scanners are made especially for film scanning, but will also do normal flatbed scanning<br /> Canon examples of these are at http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/scanners/film_negative_scanners<br /> But there are lots of others.</p>

<p>They are much cheaper ($100-200) than the older film-only scanners, but are not quite as good, honestly.<br /> However, they are much easier to hook up to modern computers than the older ones which often have difficult, obsolescent, interfaces such as SCSI.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My final roll of Kodak C-41 film was shot in 2003 and scanned by Dwayne's to 6 MP (3000 X 2000). When I compared the results with my then 6 MP Nikon DSLR I called a stop to it all. 1968-2003: 35 good years of loving film. I'm not sorry. Since then, sensor and processor technologies have come so much farther. Would shooting a roll of film sometime be a kick again? Probably. But to spend current prices on film, go through mailing and waiting, only to have now-inferior 6 MP scans on a CD isn't an answer anymore. I applaud those who are sticking it out with film. You have more tenacity than I.</p><div>00bw5p-542081184.thumb.jpg.9563664bc6f760dee6cd7a3f8e3806ad.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=756069">Howard Vrankin</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 23, 2013; 04:32 p.m.</p>

 

<p>My final roll of Kodak C-41 film was shot in 2003 and scanned by Dwayne's to 6 MP (3000 X 2000). When I compared the results with my then 6 MP Nikon DSLR I called a stop to it all</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's interesting. I recently acquired a 6mp Minolta Maxxum 7D, also a 6mp camera, and I can say for sure that my own scans of film are better. A lot of factors affect the quality of film scans, including, obviously, the film itself. 400 speed film is generally worse than 100 speed. In general though, a DSLR, being a digital beast, is going to outperform a scanned negative in the digital realm. But print them, and it's much less clear.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I use film because I find it fun and like the process, it's a hobby. I don't shoot much frames. But IMO of the others in my club, my country is expensive for film, $32US for a roll of slides, $18US for development or $10US for C41 and $5US for develop only. So import from USA ane export for development. </p>

<p>The latter is what most people use which isn't bad but IMO people like digital because they can take and take and it's free and it's good to share with others instantly, they have a LCD to compose etc. For those in my photo club, incl those who have now switched to being a professional ie children / weddings, even these and normal amateurs many have never used a film camera seriously, just point and shoots, because they thought flim was too hard they didn't know what they got and when they got the results were unsatisfactory, now they like it for the instant feedback, more aids to help to get the shot, able to shoot off 2,000 per week, easy to download and post process it than develop then request a scan or scan themselves with a flatbed scanner (and having to buy the scanner). They can just up the ISO or drop it, convert b/w at desire output at the cheaper print shops or off their own printer even for b/w and not need to mess with a darkroom or the tank. For some out there are critical so they compare and compare all the time and pixel peep.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> they thought flim was too hard they didn't know what they got and when they got the results were unsatisfactory, now they like it for the instant feedback, more aids to help to get the shot, able to shoot off 2,000 per week, easy to download and post process it than develop then request a scan or scan themselves with a flatbed scanner</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Very similar to transitions from having to do your own chemistry to labs and from one shot processes to roll film. That's the history of photography.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...