16$ a Roll?

[aravind raman]

Hi all

 

I presently have a F80 with 24, 50, 70-300 and 400/5.6 lenses. I am

new to photography ( 18 months) and shoot most of the stuff i like.

 

Recently I shot a slide roll and got it developed and scanned which

cost me 16 $ here in India. I have saved up some money to upgrade my

body to F100 thinking of using some wonderful MF lenses which the F100

meters :)

 

Now, after this payment, i'm in a dilema whether to stick with Film or

buy a digital camera, which will save lot of money on the long run.

 

Thanks for any help.

 

Aravind

[mawz]

Shooting slides is quite expensive. If you want cheap, shoot C-41 colour, get it developed with no prints and scan yourself. Or even cheaper is to shoot B&W film and develop yourself.

[ilkka_nissila]

Slide development in the US is about $7-8 while in Finland it's about 3-4 euros. Some local labs charge more - what you need to is find a professional lab which has higher volume of E6 and send your film in the mail to the lab. That way you get better quality and generally lower price if you send many rolls at once.

 

Commercial scanning generally is either 1) very expensive, or 2) of poor quality. Yours falls into the inexpensive category. If you need digital files from slides, buy a film scanner such as the Nikon LS-5000 and do the scans yourself for better results at a low cost. Scan only those slides which are really good.

 

Using color negative film is actually a lot more expensive than slide film as any reasonable sized prints cost a lot of money, and you can't see much from the negative. With slides you can do the selection based on the slides. If you don't need prints (but project your slides), slides are the least expensive way of doing color photography as you only pay very little per image yet get to see them in very high quality. On the other hand, most people like to get prints and there slide is a bit more difficult to use. Calling it expensive is unfair, IMO.

[chris_allen6]

Here in Virginia (US), it's generally cheaper to develop slides than C41 prints. B&W film is quite cheap to develop yourself IF you already have access to the equipment.

 

When considering digital, also keep in mind what you'll need to buy in order to get your prints (if that's your goal). You'll need a decent printer (or access to one), consumables for that printer, maybe a new PC, maybe photoshop or some other photo editing software. Sure, shots are cheap, but getting them into print format might not be.

 

Before you make the leap, take the cost of all things you'll need for each format (digital: Camera, software, printer, etc Film: film and processing since you already have the camera) and divide by the number of expected shots to get your cost per shot. That'll tell you the real cost you can expect to see. Maybe add 20% to the number of shots for the digital calculation.

 

Chris

[tri-x1]

My local Walgreen charges $2 a roll to develop color negative -- probably less than it costs me to do a roll of black and white (if my time is worth anything). Getting slides developed requires a week turnaround here so I tend to shoot mostly color neg, then scan at home. May not be quite as cheap as digital but I can be relatively certain the master neg will not be accidently erased.

[david_h._hartman]

If you add a digital camera the Nikon D200 will allow you to

use all your present lenses including any manual focus ones if

you have these. Much of the cost of your develop and scan is

probably in the scans.<br>

<br>

The true cost of digital is often over-looked. However if you

already have a pretty good computer its much easier. I didnt

buy anything new when I bought my D2H except two 1GB SanDisk Ex

III CF cards and two Lexar USB2 Multi Card readers. Im

limping along on Photoshop 7.0.x and the plug-in from Nikon View

5.2.x. I later bought a Nikon SB-800 and I guess I should include

that. Its a better speedlight for my F5 but I was doing OK

with my SB-24. <br>

<br>

Much depends on your needs. If you just want scans for the

internet you might buy the F100 and a $200.00 scanner. If you

want higher quality scans you could buy a Nikon LS-5000. About

the time scanners got good enough where I wanted one I decided

not to buy and instead buy Glass and then save for a DSLR.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ilkka_nissila]

David, what about your existing images? A film scanner + inkjet printer can add quite a bit to your prints from film originals.

 

A DSLR is not a replacement for film based photography IMO. I use them a lot but they don't produce what I would call my favorite images. If you shoot a lot, I'm sure a DSLR saves a lot on the cost.

 

I wonder what the quality of that $2/roll negative development is. No scratches?

[vivek iyer]

Aravind, Try color negative. A good suggestion. Look for a scanner as well.

[walterh]

I had a similar experience. My solution is to use digital most of the time. I saved so much by not using film that my D70 is repaid by now. Well there is always a way to calculate that hobby expenses actually make you safe money ^^.

 

 

In some cases I prefer film and I use only c41 film, mainly because of the large dynamic range and I am more experienced with negatives than with slides. Some of the newer (mostly pro films) negative films are so much better than say 10 years ago it is really a pleasure to use these excellent products. If you buy say one year supplies you may get better prices. Keep supplies in the fridge. I found no lab in my area that gives me both consistent optimal quality and qick service within hours or at least overnight service. So after many years I got back to develop my C41 film. I use a little Jobo lab-machine. These were sold at ebay for almost nothing a while ago. I pay about 1.30 Euro per C41 film for the chemicals. I am very satisfied with the results. One nice thing is that I set the development to optimize density for the scanner. With rare exceptions I use one type of film to know this well. I also do BW (mostly medium format) and development cost is almost nothing if you mix your own developer and fixer. Cutting 30m rolls of BW film for 35mm rolls is also extremely cheap.

 

You will need a good scanner, do not go for a cheap one. The suggested Nikon Scanner (or for MF LS-9000) would be an excellent choice.

[lex_jenkins]

$16 for processing and scanning a 36-exposure roll of slide film doesn't seem unreasonable, as long as the scanning is top quality. I wouldn't be happy to pay that much for 1024x768 JPEGs on CD, which is what some minilabs offer for an extra buck or two. But good quality high resolution scanning is worth a few extra dollars.

 

Only you can decide whether digital is more cost effective. My color photography is about 50% digital, 50% film. (B&W is still 99.99% film.) I use digital for high volume photography - sports, school events, social events, etc. It's cost effective when taking hundreds of photos in a single session. For stuff where I want the easiest possible route to accurate color, such as for important photos of people, I prefer film. Some folks prefer the digital workflow for everything. I don't like to work that hard. I'd rather hand a roll of film to a pro lab and get back good prints.

[dan_fromm2]

You have 'em all scanned, the bad with the good? Bad idea.

[Ed_Ingold]

I think it's easier to scan 'em all and sort them later. SilverFast does a good job keeping the exposure and color in line. A roll scanner takes about 2 hours for 38 exposures while I do something else. It would take at least 4 hours to pick, preview and scan onesies.

 

I can do the same with digital images - batch corrections and conversion, en masse. With digital photography, I get to skip the scanning part, which takes up to 6 minutes per 35mm frame (with Digital ICE at 4000 ppi). More often, I do a triage in Adobe Bridge, edit/correct individual or groups of images, then do a batch conversion while I walk away. I can process up to 100 images per hour in this way. So much for the burden of a digital work flow.

[titospna]

This is really not a debate. You need to save your money and buy a digital body. Digital will allow you to take thousands and thousands of shots, allowing you to become more proficient, with less collateral cost to you in the long run. As someone new to photography, the rolls of film you develop today, undoubtedly contain many frames that are destined for the trash pile. Unfortunately, you had to pay to get them developed and printed, before you could judge them. Digital saves you from this.

 

The gods at Nikon are making it more affordable as every day passes. The lenses you already own will work admirably. Embrace it and don't look back. As it's said in America, "Just Do It."

[vivek iyer]

Tito, I thought the slogan in the US was, "Just Say No!".

 

You are confusing footwear with photography, I think.

[titospna]

Vivek: Sorry, I thought we were talking about footography here. Cheers.

[ilkka_nissila]

4 hours to sort 38 images and select good ones to scan + scan them?

 

Wow.

 

It takes me a few minutes to select the images to scan from 36 slides on the light table (they all fit at once). Scanning them takes a couple of minutes per image. If I assume that I have five keepers, I end up with about 20-30 minutes of time spent (includes ICE) and 600 MB of storage spent. If I scan all of the 36 slides, I end up with about 4 GB of storage used, and just opening them up and seeing what the images look like takes more time than sorting them on the light table.

[oceanphysics]

<i>Tito, I thought the slogan in the US was, "Just Say No!".</i>

<p>

Since when? Other than Mexicans feeding their families, it's very difficult to think of anything my fellow Americans are interested in saying "no" to. Certainly not if it involves delaying gratification in any way, shape or form.

[arthuryeo]

It all depends on how many rolls of film you shoot per year. People who wants to buy a DSLR, more often than not, overestimate the number rolls they shoot per year.

 

Unless you are a professional, I think you should cut that number by half and you are probably closer to reality.

 

If that's the case, you'll probably take 3-4 years to achieve the savings from a new DSLR to kick in after the inital money you pour in.

 

On the other hand, a DSLR is a fun thing to have but then you get into the habit of upgrading every 2 years, or more likely less.

[arnabdas]

How many keepers do you get per 36 exposures? I'm lame, so I consider myself extremely lucky if I get more than 7 or 8. On an average shoot the yield is more like 3-4 out of 36. Get your slides processed processed and given to you uncut. cut them yourself and go over on a good light table with a high-quality loupe. mount and scan only the keepers, as Dan suggests. The cost should be much less.

 

As Vivek says, negatives are an option especially if you "shoot most of the stuff you like" -- I may be wrong but you do not sound to be one really needing to shoot slides. Besides, if the final outout is digital you will probably be just as happy with a negative film like Reala. Get a good film scanner, shoot negatives and enjoy!

[josphy]

Yeah I would suggest not having them scanned -- that was probably a big chunk of that $16. The benefit of slides, after all, is that you can just look at them and see the photo versus a negative is much harder to just look at it and see what you have. So if you want to stick with slides, I would recommend just getting them developed, and then only have the best ones scanned.

[ned1]

If you shoot b&w you can develop it yourself. I'm not sure where you would get it in India, but J&C here sells a pretty good 35mm b&w film for $1.56 a roll. Add in the chemicals for the development and it costs me less than $2 per roll. I have an Epson 4180 scanner, which is not bad and reasonably priced, so the scanning is free.

[andre_noble4]

With complete respect, remember, here in the US, money grows on trees - we have much more disposable income here. I always try to keep that in mind when giving equipment advice on an international basis. My two cents: Keep the F100, shoot B&W, develop your self, spend your money on a nice loupe, and negative storage system.

[bhneely]

Aravind,

 

Pay attention to the trends where you are before making the decision. You'll probably find that digital will turn out to be the more economical choice, but maybe not. I live in Almaty, Kazakhstan, and over the past year, the cost of just developing E-6 has gone from about $8 to $12/roll, and scanning is $2/frame for 35mm and $10/frame for 6x6. The quality of the scanning is terrible, so it's not worth my time or money. Additionally, the quality of the film processing is pretty bad, so most of my color film shot here is greenish, bluish or magenta-ish (the magenta isn't quite as bad as the green & blue, but you never know what the next roll will look like).

As a result I've seriously considering adding a DSLR to my arsenal, but I'm just not up for the $3000 expenditure to get one that won't be obsolete in a year.

 

Brian

[aravind raman]

Thanks all for the replies.

<p>

I definitely need to spend some time analysing my shooting priorities here. I have been shooting negatives, black and white rolls and have developed and printed a few (Institute dark room) and I also have a friend who is quite generous with his D70 Camera.

<p>

The hassle in shooting film is there, and also the satisfaction when i saw my slides rolls developed few days back.

<p> I have decided to upgrade my F80 to F100, and wait for a good deal on a good scanner.

 

Thanks for all the help.

Aravindhan

[vivek iyer]

<i>Institute dark room</i>

<p>

Which one and what do you do there? <p>

I was at IIT(B), eons ago. Didn't do much photography that time.