worth it to develop my own film?

Is there any way I can save money by developing my own black and white film? In my childhood I developed probably

a hundred b&w rolls of film, so I know how to do it and I know that it is not hard.

 

But I have no printer (and no desire to get one). I don't have a scanner, and don't want to get one either. I

know I can take my negatives to a local lab and have them printed, but the cost of getting 36 negatives printed

is no cheaper than having a 36 frame roll developed and then printed. The only reason I would want to develop my

own film is to save cost. For the same reason, I am thinking of buying film in bulk, just as I did as a child.

The big cost savings I found when I was shooting b&w was only printing the photos I liked, instead of paying for a print of every frame. Without an enlarger (or the digital equivalent), there might not be much economic benefit to developing yourself.

 

If your local lab is willing to work with reloadable cartridges (and return them to you after processing), you might still be able to get the benefit of loading from bulk.

It depends, depending on the developer you use it can be quite inexpensive. A little looking around at B&H showever you can get 250 sheets of Ilford VC RC paper for $60 or $.24 a sheet. 36 frames = $8.64, plus the other chemistry and we'l say about $10 per 36 frame roll. That being said, as Geoff has stated printing your own means that you don't have to print the bad frames (I've never had one but you know.... ). Personally cost aside if I'm shooting B&W I don't want a lab doing my printing. To me printing is part of the process, interpreting the negative and getting the print you want is a very rewarding experience.

 

If you don't have an enlarger or any other darkroom gear with a little patience you can probably find one with everything you need on craigslist for $100-200 or sometimes less (at least where I am). I know that might not seem like saving money, but compared to the cost of a scanner and printer to get similar results....

 

Also depending on how your lab prints B&W prints the quality from a real darkroom print should be miles away better.

It is not hard t do a fair job at home, but difficult to do a perfect job. You need filtered air and water and a really clean environment.

You can definitely save money developing your own B&W. In fact, I don't think there is any other way of handling B&W economically any more. You can get passable color developing and printing done cheaply at any shopping mall. But few places even do regular B&W (as opposed to chromogenic C-41 B&W) anymore and most that do, do a very poor job. To get good quality B&W other than doing it yourself you have to send it to a high end professional lab and pay accordingly. A gallon of D-76 and a gallon of fixer can still be had for around $15 (maybe $20?) and will do 16 35mm rolls even if used one-shot and tossed. So that's about $1 a roll to develop your negatives. A gallon of Dektol and another gallon of fixer is about the same and will easily do 100 sheets of 8x10, maybe more, so you're looking at maybe 50 cents a sheet chemicals and paper included for each 8x10 you print. As others have noted, you dont' typically print every frame when developing B&W. You either look at the negs and decide which to print, or you make a contact sheet and pick the best frames, and then usually print them at 8x10 or larger rather than wasting time on 4x6s. As far as equipment, very good enlargers and all the tanks, reels and trays you could ever use are being virtually given away on ebay or in garage sales today. You could definitely get up and running for $100 and could set up a really sweet darkroom of your dreams for $500.

Paul, what am I missing? The answer is yes, of course you can save money. But with no apparent desire to print

the negatives, dare I ask, why shoot them?

Developing yourself is more about doing a better job in terms of control of grain, sharpness, contrast, and tonal range than saving money. Also, it's about access to fun films (IR, gigabit, the new Rollei films) that labs might not be able to develop correctly. If you can find a film that results in a good combination of grain, sharpness, contrast, and tonal range when developed by your lab, your time is probably worth more than any savings. For example, my local pro lab does a nice job with TMX100, but not Plus-X. I don't know what the problem is (I used Plus-X in Microdol for years and it was great), but TMX100 looks really good when they do it, so I'm home free.

 

I know you don't want to get a scanner, but the Epson flatbeds will scan quite a few frames at the same time and produce scans that are OK for at least up to 4x6 from 35mm. You could then upload the scans you want to print to a printing service and end up saving money on prints.

You're most likely to save money if the amount of film you shoot is at least moderate, otherwise you end up with expired concentrates and maybe gone-off dilute solutions. Plus, practice makes perfect. I found I tended to forget the drill if I processed a film very infrequently.

 

For me one of the biggest "payoffs" was the satisfaction of doing something moderately well, and just knowing I could process that film whenever I felt like it, cut it exactly as needed, and so on.

 

I really don't miss the process that much though, I prefer digital now.

The cost is the cost. The way I figured it up before I got my own stuff was, you get more of what you want if you do it

yourself. Everybody knows the price of tea in china; and, they charge accordingly. Unless you have a bunch of dud

shots on one roll that won't ever get off the contact sheet, the cost per frame is the cost per frame.

 

That said, I believe that the enlargements are cheaper. I commonly run 11X14s, which I figured up cost me, including

chemicals and negative, with processing overhead, only a couple of dollars per page. Local place would charge me five

times as much. I've got about nine long stories I could tell you about how I've had to send stuff back to have it redone.

If I'm not satisfied now, I get it redone in a few moments.

 

On one hand, you may have to absorb the cost of new equipment over time. On the other hand, I've got a stack of 200

prints, packaged and ready to go; those prints alone, in commercial lab fees, would have cost me as much as the bill for

the equipment I used to build them. Good luck. J.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I admire those who print their own prints. That is certainly an art. However, I simply won't be able to do this. So the question at this point (hinted at in some of the nice responses), is whether I should make my own contact sheet after developing my own film. I understand you don't need an enlarger for this. If I can print my own contact sheet, then I don't have to get all my negative printed.

 

But I would think that mixing up a whole batch of chemicals just for a contact sheet would waste time and money.

You don't *need* an enlarger for contact prints, though typically it is used, since it's a good uniform, low intensity

light source, and enlarging is the next step for a lot of people.

 

I've got an enlarger getting dusty in the crawl space, and really don't miss it, nor the trays, tongs, focus aid etc. It

was not a whole lot of fun, with all the chemicals and hassle. I do have a few old prints kicking around, that have

stood the test of time and less than archival abuse.

 

I wouldn't get into it now, digital is too convenient, still...

Paul,

 

If you're looking to go that way, developing yourself and then have the good ones print. There might be not much of economy on that road.

 

Most photo finishers charge considerably more for printing single negatives than for printing them directly when processing.

"... whether I should make my own contact sheet after developing my own film. I understand you don't need an enlarger for this."

 

I know you said you didn't want to get a scanner, but this really is the easiest way to get contact prints or proofs now. Any $100 flatbed with a film carrier will work. Just load it up and hit the scan button. Epson even has a couple of inexpensive models with an automatic strip feeder. Since you're posting to P.N, obviously you've already got the computer half of the necessary hardware.

Robert, I found that "any $100 flatbed with film carrier" will not work. I've tried many...the results was mostly craaap. It seems quality starts at $500 or more, and not with a flat bed, but with a dedicated film negative scanner, like the Nikon V, used.