Film processing at Jessop's and the M8

[peter_keating1]

After shooting digital for a while, I dusted off my old M4 this weekend and put

three rolls of film through it. Took the film down to the local Jessop's and

did what should have been a fairly economical exercise. I asked them to develop

the film (no prints) and scan them to a disk. The cost, they informed me, was

2.99 pounds per roll, plus the cost of CDs. I told them to put it all on one

CD. They handed me a bill for 22.44 pounds. I asked if there was some mistake.

They then informed me that it was standard to charge for 3 CDs even though I

was only having the film scanned to one CD. Suppressing an expletive, I told

them to go ahead and give me 3 CDs, and scan one roll each. That comes to 4.49

pounds per CD. They were kind enough to give me three "free" 36 shot rolls of

Kodak "Color Plus" 200 speed film they couldn't sell and now have to give away.

 

I bit the bullet and decided that after getting mugged this time, I was looking

for some other shop to do business.

 

Then I did some more arithmetic. At 22.44 for 3 rolls, that was 7.48 a roll. I

bought the film for about 3 pounds a roll, bringing the total cost per roll to

10 pounds 48. The M8 is available down the street for 3,000 pounds. I just

have to pump 286 rolls through it, or roughly 10,000 frames, and it will have

paid for itself in film savings.

[vivek iyer]

<i>They were kind enough to give me three "free" 36 shot rolls of Kodak "Color Plus" 200 speed film they couldn't sell and now have to give away.</i>

<p>

They weren't <i>kind</i> at all. 22 pounds for each roll! It is operators like these that push everyone to digital.

<p>

If you are going for an M8, you would need to learn to do post processing to make the best use of its output. Not difficult at all but requires some time and practice.

[kentish_townie]

I thought Jessop's were about to go bust, or is it Dixon's?

 

Anyway, try Snappy Snaps. They are a lot more reasonable about processing and scannin.

Alternatively, of course, there is the M8. Decsions, decisions :)

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

"Took the film down to the local Jessop's"

 

There was your BIG mistake. Why on earth is anyone still using these jokers?

 

cheers Steve.

[ronald_moravec1]

Of course you could just learn to process it and buy bulk rolls as I do. Now the cost is 1/4.

 

Now finish the math. Now long will it take to use 286 rolls? Say a roll a week, that`s 5 years. 3000 pound in the bank will generate 150 pound a year at 5%. That plus the 300 pound depreciation will pay for the film assuming the camera lasts 10 years which is generous. Five/seven more likely.

 

I have simplified the calculation as they all should be brought back to present value to be accurate and you have to assume the cost of film will also increase.

 

I can really make a case for most digital is not cheaper. I use my D200 plus a few consumer zooms, some old Nikkor primes, and eight Leitz visoflex lenses I adapted, for convenience and speed.

 

May I suggest you consider a cheaper digi cam?

 

I also think my home scanned pro neg films are as good if not better than the D200 files.

[simon orpen]

Well I'm afraid you were mugged! I get my films developed and scanned by return of post for 3.25 each by a company called photo express (www.photo-express.co.uk/) (including post) Quality is fine and the scans are big enough to make decent prints from and certainly big enough to evaluate quality - they send them back to you the day they receive them. Hope this helps make an M8 seem more expensive!

 

Simon<div></div>

[peter_keating1]

You're right, Ronald ... the arithmetic will vary for each person depending on his shooting style. I probably pound out 10,000 frames a year, or an average of 200 frames a week, so the M8 would pay for itself in a year if I used it exclusively.

 

Simon, great shot ... I love it! Guys, I am going to find an alternative film processor. If Jessop's isn't going under, they deserve to.

[jenny_jaques]

To equate 10,000 exposures a year with the cost of Jessops, or any other "high st" processing + scans is ... not very sensible.

 

To be using that much film and needing scans, you buy A SCANNER. Then you can make speedy proof-sheet scans, and select frames for higher quality digital files, for editing and printing. An Epson V700 will deliver quality that the local lab service (for that holiday-snapshot price) can not even approach.

 

... or set up a darkroom.

 

I don't think your "being mugged" complaint is very smart.

 

Jenny.

[steve_unsworth1]

Don't forget that even if you shoot digital it'll still cost if you want some prints made. I had about 40 6x4 prints made from a recent trip with my M8 and it cost around 10 GBP at the local Jessops for 1 hr printing.

 

As to why anyone is still using them, well my only local alternative is a Max Spiellman and they use dye sub printers for the quick stuff. Quality is appalling and b&w a total joke.

[hxt]

Yeah, it's Waaaaaaaay smarter to shoot digital!! I only shoot film because I am really, REALLY

stupid! I bow down and tremble before the mighty, mighty M8!!! Next time I blow up a delta

100 neg to 30"x50" I'm probably gonna shoot myself in the head, because it's waaaayy too

expensive, and it sucks compared to digital..... weep, weep. Yeah, none of us Leica owners

can afford to print film, I mean we bought leicas, because wer'e very poor, and it's all about

being thrifty, saving money, and the like! I mean if I was rich, I'd buy a really expensive, even

overpriced camera! Leicas are for poor people. POOR PEOPLE!!!

[hxt]

In fact, I have calculated that if I self process 10,000 rolls of my own film, I will have saved

over One Million (that's right.... a million) dollars!!!!! I better get started now!!! The real

question is: How am I going to invest all of that smart money I've saved taking photos??

anyone? anyone at all??

[asher]

<p>I'm not very clear about what Harvey is saying, but I agree with Ronald above. It's quite

economical to develop your own B&W. For color (negatives or chromes) just find a reputable

lab that can develop, cut and place in sleeves (no mounting of slides) and invest in a decent

Nikon Coolscan.<p>

 

But I've said it before, I'll say it again, the 2 media (film and digital) are not mutually

exclusive. Shoot both, either, or neither. Whichever one(s) best express a vision (assuming

the photographer has one).

[peter_keating1]

Harvey, it depends on your assumptions. Assuming the dollar doesn't depreciate any further against the pound (which is a weak assumption given current trends), 1 million dollars is roughly 500,000 pounds, and a 3,000 pound M8 is about 6,000 dollars (including tax). So let's say you can save 6,000 dollars a year and invest in US treasuries at maybe 5.5% (also a weak assumption as the falling dollar and inflation will likely ultimately cause the Fed to raise rates). A compound interest calculation indicates you will have your million dollars in about 44 years. If you are willing to take a bit more risk (maybe invest in some high yielding subprime stuff) you can probably make your million a bit sooner.

 

Jenny, thanks for your constructive observation ... I probably should look into picking up my own scanner. It's the thing to do.

[ron_breeze2]

Harvey-pay the rent with the money you saved.

[peter_keating1]

By the way, the cost of Leicas in the US is likely to go way up over the next while. Unless the Fed takes back its most recent 50 bp rate cut, or cuts even further this year, we could see the dollar slide to 2.33 against the pound, and an equivalent amount against the euro before the carnage stops. By the then either Bernanke won't be able to hike fast enough, or the treasury will put in exchange controls. You know what's interesting? Viewed as commodities, Leicas will hold their value better than the dollar! That M8 you bought for $6,000 or GBP 3,000 will still be worth GBP 3,000 but will cost maybe 7,000 in cheaper dollars. You might want to take your saved film processing annuity and convert it to some other currency on a forward basis. Happy snaps!

[peteradownunder]

A digi camera is a great hedge on the rising cost of film and a lousy hedge against the rising costs of photography. These are consumables not cash flows that can be banked. <p>To put it another way - a film shooter could care less about cost much as in the same way a digi shooter could care less about the rising costs of digi.<p> Simple put call parity does not apply - there is no arbitrage here to be exploited.

[hxt]

Holy COW!!! WAAAAYYY over your heads!! I was being a bit sarcastic, that's all guys! I think it

is ridiculous that wer'e on about pinching pennies here, at the Leica forum, that's all...

[hxt]

Peter A ... well put.

[peter_keating1]

Peter ... I assume you mean purchasing power parity as put-call parity applies to options? There should be a forward price for a Leica in either euro or dollars. If you ask me to guarantee you a price for a Leica in US dollars in one year's time and I operate in Germany, I will borrow Euro to buy the Leica today, carry it for one year, and work out the forward Euro price by adjusting the spot price in Euro up by the cost of interest on the Euro I borrowed. That's pure cash-and-carry arb. I will then convert that adjusted price to dollars at the 1 year Euro-USD forward rate and that is the forward Leica price in dollars. This is all determined by arbitrage if you wish to buy the Leica TODAY for delivery in one year's time. However, you are right in that there is no way of telling what the spot market for Leicas in dollars will be in a year ... that will be determined by the dollar/euro rate going wherever it is going to go. I simply observe that the dollar is currently going down.

 

Seriously, guys, Leica's regular price increases aside, buy your Leica gear now, whether it's an M8, an MP, or that lens you've been lusting for!

[peteradownunder]

Peter my response was more directed to issues surrounding the implicit longer term hold variously alluded to by forum members when making comparisons between digi and film economics in this and many threads.<p>I wouldn't ever apply PPP notions to a one year forward ( irrespective of how one attempts to structure the carry component of the buy and write) because as you quite rightly point out - there is no way of determining the future spot market for Leica in the US a year from now.<p> regarding your call on the US dollar - depends on duration - but tactically you are correct as the US is in print money mode ( again)...

[wai_leong_lee]

You shouldn't have scanned.

[lab_rat]

The other side of the story.....

 

i actually work for jessops as a lab manager, and if you had bought your films to me i would have processed the films for 2.99 each(not unreasonable), then i would have scanned the films at a 10x15 resolution , increasing the quality of the scans to the max the fuji scanner can achieve. I would've then squeezed all of your scans onto one disc for another 2.99, thus charging you a total of 11.96... job done!

 

whoever served you before, was obviously an inexperienced printer, otherwise they would've done the same. We don't all have the gift of common sense or manners, i can only apolagise for any bad attitude you recieved, i have many happy professional customers

 

also, depending on the depth of colour and contrast of the negs scanning at this resolution creates jpg's from around 5 to 10mb, so you wouldn't necessarily get all the films onto one 700mb CD

[colin_elliott]

"I actually work for jessops as a lab manager"

 

You have my deepest sympathies!!!

 

Given that Jessops is a large chain of camera stores in the UK, one would/should expect uniformity with regard to its pricing throughout its chain.

 

Therefore, regardless of what Lab Rat would have done/charged, any other Jessops store should do/charge exactly the same.

 

If one buys a can of beans at Tescos(a large supermarket chain), then another Tescos store would be selling that can of beans at the same price (other than during any "in-store" specials). The consumer doesn't pay more because the shop assistant/cashier is inexperienced.

 

A company as big as Jessops should have printed brochures, or at least signs, stating quite clearly what its processing charges are.

 

It's no wonder they continue to be in trouble.