film developing and printing costs

[jpb]

<p>Over the past few years I’ve noticed a lot of labs in NYC converting exclusively to digital printing and there are fewer shops than ever that process film.<br>

<br>

I haven’t shot film in quite a while.<br>

<br>

There is obviously less demand for traditional film processing, but there is also now less supply. For those of you shooting film, have your costs (for services and materials) changed significantly in the past decade?</p>

 

[stp]

<p>Costs have gone up, but so has everything else. I find it manageable; costs haven't gone out of sight. I spent more on my last digital camera than I ever will on film processing for the rest of my life. The biggest problem is finding local labs that develop film; many are closing. Sending film out will always be an option, but after losing 5 rolls in the USPS system, I prefer to hand-deliver something as precious as exposed film.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Sounds like a loaded question..... Gas is up Film is down I develop my own B&W film I only make gas on bean days.... :-)</p>

<p> That said. No I pay less for my C41 and E-6 processing also these days. takes a little longer but I get better service because I got to know the people at my local lab... BTW I live in a small town in Tennessee.</p>

[tin_ho]

<p>Very few people shoot films these days. I was in Yosemite National Park over the past weekend. Everyone was taking pictures everywhere. I looked for people who appeared to be shooting films. I believe I spotted only one. He was looking into the eye piece of the prizm of his camera for taking pictures and his camera looked old. I bet he was shooting films like I did. Everyone else shot pictures in a strange way. They had their cameras a foot or two in front of their eyes. That's how people look at the LCD to take pictures with digital cameras.</p>

<p>I guess this explains why film processing is disappearing from the streets. I will keep shooting films although I know I can't stop the trend in any way. To me shooting films is a whole different world too huge to miss. Maybe it is too huge to explore so it is simply ignored by the crowd today.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I think (like everything) the costs have jumped in the last 3 years. I just learn to live with it. Photography is one of my great passions and I will go to great lengths to get behind the camera.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Local processing costs haven't changed much in the last five years. But the quality and number of labs has gone down.</p>

[carl_klitzke]

<p>I have noticed more rise in the price of film than in the price of processing. The days of "99c bargain brand" are definitely over, now shooting film is more a deliberate action. Around here the labs have gone from bad to terrible, it's at the point where they don't even WATCH the film going through much less do anything to correct it. Still, I shoot film. I still haven't found a dslr with the kind of feel of my pentax sv or minolta srt101...</p>

[tim gray]

<p>There are a couple pro labs that do mail order and will develop for about $4-5. Seems reasonable to me. </p>

[gary_watson]

<p>Lately--meaning the last 5 years--film prices have gone up far faster than processing and printing costs in my area(Toronto). All Kodak product prices jumped when Kodak.ca folded, impacting labs and consumers alike. Fuji raised prices, too. For no more than I shoot, I'm happy with discounted short-dated Fuji and Kodak pro films. Ordering from the States is iffy with fluctuating exchange rates. The remaining pro labs are getting by but suffering from the recession-induced drop in commercial ad-linked work and vanishing wedding jobs. Not sure a bump-up in crazed amateur work will come close to making up for these bigger losses.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Why would I not be shooting film when I have a newly re-leathered XD-11 with excellent lenses, some Fujifilm I got cheap on the internet and a CVS down the street that will process it for $2?</p>

<p>But, yeah, it's getting harder to find good processing. If I had money riding on it I wouldn't be giving the film to CVS, but there are still a few good labs around here.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I just bought a mint Nikon F100 body on ebay for $152, incredible! I have 40 rolls of slide film in deep freeze, haven't shot a roll in a couple years now. I want to shoot film, but am feeling the inconveinance of the local lab here in Seattle that no longer operates on Saturday, and getting up there on a weekday is time consuming. I want to shoot medium format through my Rolleiflex but don't have a scanner for that size and prints aren't cheap. But I still feel that shooting film is somehow more permanent than shooting digital, which can be lost forever if the hard drive fails, or the CD-ROM disc is lost. At least if a stranger picks up some slides, they can look at them and know what they are.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Coincidentally, I was going over costs today. I process myself, and I find I pay out about the same as I paid out 25 years ago for C-41 and prints: $1 per frame, on average. That'd be the whole way through, in black and white. My processing and printing habits have changed significantly, but costs have been mostly stable. </p>

<p>Arguably, I could spend the same on DSLR use; for about six month's worth of film sustainment costs, I could probably get a K200D with two good DA* lenses, shoot but never print on paper. Meanwhile, I woke up this morning and a bunch of presets were sucked into some digital void when one of my applications malfunctioned. Fortunately, key photos were covered by backup. </p>

<p>I'd say costs were comparable film to digital, and contemporary film to historic film. Yet, it's a matter of applying what you have to achieve what goals. I keep an eye on the projected end of resources, so that tempers what I do, regardless of how much I have to work with. If I've got $25 in resources, or $25,000 in resources, that'll temper how I use what I've got.</p>

[m-paul-o]

<p>Well here in Vienna (Austria) costs a E-6 including mounting 8 Eur, at lab that I use it is 16 Eur - E-6, scanning at 48MB and CD with the scans. C-41 is a bit cheaper.<br>

No idea if it is cheap or not... But I found the pictures from my F4 excellent (was very surprised how nice they are); bought hardly used F4 for 200Eur on eBay, and works like a charm.</p>

 

[andy_buck1]

<p>I have been shooting Tri-X 400 120 for over 35 years. I've always paid to have it processed by professionals. I have negs and prints from the early 70s that look as good as they day they were made, i.e. great. I'll probably stop shooting (and do sculpture or something) when they stop making it. Cost? Whatever it takes, it takes - for me! If cost is an issue, then do what you have to do and don't worry about it. Life's too short...</p>

[andy_buck1]

<p>This got missed in my posting:</p>

<p>I've never had a problem finding a good reliable lab and have never lost film using UPS or FedEx.</p>

[dried_squid]

<p>For E6 film purchased; mounted and scanned at the time of processing, in Honolulu HI, it's around $30-35.<br>

Similar for B&W. Similar for Kodachrome (which requires two crossings of the Pacific).<br>

Why do I pay these incremental costs?<br>

For me, I have always liked the workflow to a print with transparencies. I don't shoot slides for projection, but for a positive original. The print is for distribution, and variable, like JPGs for the web. So in today's world, I include the workflow to a JPG for the web with transparencies as simpler and more desirable.<br>

To me, currently, film deals with operational costs, compared to digital's 'capital expenditures' which include computer, calibration, and internet.<br>

As a hobbyist and occasional shooter with a reliable Nikon FE and AIS lenses, the shot-making and workflow is simpler and requires less practice. I always shoot manual because the prep before the click-of-the-shutter is the most enjoyable part of photography for me. A happy transparency, or a nice print or JPG, are like icing on the cake.<br>

Meanwhile, somewhere in the future, when I purchase digital, I expect to get more for today's $ than if I purchased today.</p>

[jesse_valentine_portz]

<p>I am curious Brian, where do you go for E-6 processing in Honolulu? I have grown unhappy with digital, and have gone back to my Contax G2 and zeiss lenses.<br>

Tanks brah.<br>

I am so sad about the demise of my favorite films, Technical Pan and Kodachrome. Moving on to fuji, agfa and rollei.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Um Agfa is gone too. The stuff sold as AGFA these days is made by others under the Name AGFA imaging. The Rollei films though are fun and I just ordered some of the 80s in 120 and 35mm to try out.</p>

[dried_squid]

<p>Hi Jesse Valentine Portz,<br>

I've used Photoplant and Rainbow Photo. No complaints.<br>

See 'Hawaii Film Photographers'<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/779907@N20/<br>

for links. On flickr, I'm 'dried_squid'.<br>

I'm still slowly moving through Kodachrome, and I've used Dwayne's for E6 as well.<br>

For me, transparency film is photography. Slides on the light table are a big pleasurable thing with me.<br>

Hope your film experiences are enjoyable.<br>

I think my old equipment is getting better. Can't really say the same for my computer.<br>

Laters brah.</p>