Post by: zahc on August 04, 2008, 07:55:24 AM
Wal*mart develops 35mm for $1.70 but charges $2.50 for scanning which comes to $4.20 a roll. Add $1.50 or so for fuji 200 brings it to almost $6 a roll.
Poor as I am, I can't afford to shoot terribly much at this rate. I thought maybe I could scan my negatives with my flatbed scanner, thus saving $2,50 a roll, but either I can't or I'm not doing it right because it doesn't really give usable results. I've seen Wolf Camera stores around here but have yet to stop it to see what they charge to scan negatives.
I know you can develop black-and-white yourself and I might look into it, but I live in a tiny apartment with low WAF for things like converting bathrooms into darkrooms.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 07:56:47 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on August 04, 2008, 08:06:08 AM
Don't try to scan negatives on a flatbed. You won't like the results. Prints scan nicely though. Get the film developed to prints and scan those. The results, if done properly, will rival any consumer level digital camera.
I still shoot about 90% film (20-30 rolls a year), but I scan it all at about 400dpi. The negatives go offsite, the prints stored in filing cabinets, and the scans stored on the PC and server.
Chris
Post by: zahc on August 04, 2008, 08:08:43 AM
I already had walmart scratch one of my negatives.
Quote
Don't try to scan negatives on a flatbed. You won't like the results. Prints scan nicely though. Get the film developed to prints and scan those.
That works OK? I mean the cheap prints are pretty small, and have already been scanned and printed once, I kinda figured you would be ahead to scan the actual film. And prints are expensive. If I remember, I haven't looked at the 2-day prices at walmart.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 04, 2008, 08:08:53 AM
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 08:09:47 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 08:10:49 AM
BTW, the chemistry and equipment needed to develop B&W to negatives is pretty inexpensive and can be done in a bathroom (cover door and any windows with opaque sheets). Then, you can get what is worth printing done later.
Chris
Chris
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
...and everything smells like fixer for days...
Post by: mtnbkr on August 04, 2008, 08:11:36 AM
Quote
Don't try to scan negatives on a flatbed. You won't like the results. Prints scan nicely though. Get the film developed to prints and scan those.
That works OK? I mean the cheap prints are pretty small, and have already been scanned and printed once, I kinda figured you would be ahead to scan the actual film. And prints are expensive. If I remember, I haven't looked at the 2-day prices at walmart.
What do you mean they've been scanned and printed once?
Here's what I do:
I take exposed film to WM and select their 2day service with 4x6 prints. Costs me just under $7 per roll of 36 (24 exposure rolls are even cheaper). When I get the prints back, I scan them at 400dpi. That's only one scan.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on August 04, 2008, 08:13:52 AM
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
...and everything smells like fixer for days...
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
...and everything smells like fixer for days...
Not all developers need that much agitation. I'm using HC110 at dilution G IIRC and it doesn't need all that much agitation. Maybe one rotation every 30seconds or so. It's been a while, so I'd have to check my notes.
I love the smell of fixer.
Chris
Post by: zahc on August 04, 2008, 08:14:47 AM
I assumed that places like walmart stopped making actual optical prints long ago.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 04, 2008, 08:18:54 AM
Chris
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 04, 2008, 09:17:39 AM
Brad
Post by: RoadKingLarry on August 04, 2008, 09:31:10 AM
BTW, the chemistry and equipment needed to develop B&W to negatives is pretty inexpensive and can be done in a bathroom (cover door and any windows with opaque sheets). Then, you can get what is worth printing done later.
Chris
Chris
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
shake shake shake shake shake shake shake shake
...and everything smells like fixer for days...
I think D-76 and Dektol gets in your blood...
Post by: K Frame on August 04, 2008, 09:33:57 AM
I never agitated the tanks.
Post by: lupinus on August 04, 2008, 09:36:19 AM
Quote
fixer
I love that smell I was a photo tech for walgreens for awhile before switching to distribution. Most of your walgreens stores will do a pretty good job.
Post by: Brad Johnson on August 04, 2008, 09:56:14 AM
All the Walgreens around here use Fuji equipment and seem to do a decent job of keeping things calibrated. It that true nationwide?
Brad
Post by: lupinus on August 04, 2008, 10:05:41 AM
If you find one thats not so good shop around, odds are you will find one thats good.
Post by: seeker_two on August 04, 2008, 10:12:17 AM
The last roll I had done was a Walgreens. For generic processing they did an acceptable job.
Brad
Brad
Another vote for Walgreens.....haven't seen any bad photos from there yet.....
Post by: HankB on August 04, 2008, 10:13:15 AM
I think D-76 and Dektol gets in your blood...
With me, it was Microdol-X . . . and an old Omega enlarger my Dad had . . . he was thrilled when I replaced the Wollensak Enlarging Velostigmat he'd been using with a "new" Wollensak Enlarging Raptar . . . I think Walgreens had a coupon in the Aug 3 flyer offering FREE processing, including one set of 4x6 prints . . .
Post by: thebaldguy on August 04, 2008, 02:33:01 PM
Post by: Antibubba on August 04, 2008, 06:10:35 PM
I do not want to describe to you what happens to a Fuji machine with Kodak chemicals in it. Not pretty, and it made machine calibrations a PITA.
Post by: Hawkmoon on August 04, 2008, 08:45:13 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on August 05, 2008, 04:00:39 AM
Quote from: zahc
I know you can develop black-and-white yourself and I might look into it, but I live in a tiny apartment with low WAF for things like converting bathrooms into darkrooms.
What does WAF mean?
As for developing at home, developing film takes a minimum of equipment and doesn't require any permanent mods to the bathroom. Other than the very mild fixer smell (smells kind of like vinegar), you can't tell I develop in my bathroom. The only chemicals you need are developer, fixer, and a rinse agent. I use water for the stop bath Rather than worry about temps, I check the temp of my chemicals and adjust my developing time to that. They're usually in the 70-72 range anyway, so little if no adjustment is necessary. I may have some extra gear. If you pay shipping, I'll give it to you.
Another option is to see if your local parks and rec dept still has darkrooms. Fairfax County in Virginia does. Also, if you're a student, your school may have a darkroom as well.
Chris
Post by: Vodka7 on August 05, 2008, 05:05:07 AM
What does WAF mean?
Woman Acceptance Factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_acceptance_factor
Post by: zahc on August 05, 2008, 05:46:03 AM
Quote
You have to realize that noBODY develops film these days. They stick your roll of film in a machine, the machine analyzes the negatives and sets itself to make more-or-less acceptable prints, and out come your pics.
Yeah but they have to actually develop the film first. That's the only step I'm worried about. I don't really care if the prints suck if my negatives turned out competently.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 05, 2008, 05:48:21 AM
Yeah but they have to actually develop the film first. That's the only step I'm worried about. I don't really care if the prints suck if my negatives turned out competently.
Developing film is the easy part. Printing is where it gets tricky.
Chris
Post by: Harold Tuttle on August 05, 2008, 06:00:56 AM
the mass market of 400 ISO, 36 print rolls was what made it affordable
Now that everyone has a 6-10 Mpxl digital camera,
There is no mass market and the bricks of Velvia are a finite resource
There used to be several developers in any urban area to handle the load.
My wife the luddite sends her film to www.snapfish.com
35mm Film Developing
(35mm film & single-use cameras)
First roll: Developing & prints (3.5 x 5" or 4 x 6" prints only) Free
After First roll: Developing & prints (3.5 x 5" or 4 x 6") $2.99
Post by: zahc on August 05, 2008, 06:07:58 AM
Walmart and Wolf here in dallas have Fuji color 200 for $6/4 rolls.
Quote
Film is dead
So I keep hearing. We went to Wolf Camera yesterday to see if they had developing supplies (they don't). The old guy in charge was quick to declare that 'film is dead, I haven't shot film in close to 4 years'. When my partner went over to the DSLR case to find out if his film-era lenses would work with a Nikon D80, the same guy kept fondling his 35mm, quietly declaring its features, and repeating 'these were some sweet cameras'. We practically had to yank it out of his hands.
Post by: mtnbkr on August 05, 2008, 06:11:24 AM
bricks of Velvia are a finite resource
Probably not a bad thing. I hate Velvia and its oversaturated colors.
Quote
35mm Film Developing
(35mm film & single-use cameras)
First roll: Developing & prints (3.5 x 5" or 4 x 6" prints only) Free
After First roll: Developing & prints (3.5 x 5" or 4 x 6") $2.99
(35mm film & single-use cameras)
First roll: Developing & prints (3.5 x 5" or 4 x 6" prints only) Free
After First roll: Developing & prints (3.5 x 5" or 4 x 6") $2.99
I didn't know Snapfish did developing. The prepaid packages are a pretty good deal. I may have to give them a try.
BTW, when the baby arrives, I'll be taking the delivery room pix with Kodak T-Max 3200 so I can avoid using any flash. It'll be grainy as heck, but mom will look less fatigued than with color and flash and the new baby's eyes won't get flashed.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on August 05, 2008, 06:17:37 AM
Quote
Film is dead
So I keep hearing. We went to Wolf Camera yesterday to see if they had developing supplies (they don't). The old guy in charge was quick to declare that 'film is dead, I haven't shot film in close to 4 years'. When my partner went over to the DSLR case to find out if his film-era lenses would work with a Nikon D80, the same guy kept fondling his 35mm, quietly declaring its features, and repeating 'these were some sweet cameras'. We practically had to yank it out of his hands.
Film is dead for mass market and dying for people who make a living with their cameras ('cept maybe the large format and traditional process folks), but it's still chugging long on the hobby side of things. I personally like the workflow and feel of my film cameras (especially the OM-1). There are several companies overseas that have dedicated themselves to filling the gaps left by Kodak and Fuji. Film won't be going away completely, but it'll probably shrink to the point that old processes such as collodian are today. You can still buy and shoot tintypes, BTW.
Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on August 05, 2008, 06:21:18 AM
Chris
Post by: Harold Tuttle on August 05, 2008, 06:46:06 AM
http://www.robbkendrick.com/
I gotta build him some multimedia for his site
Post by: mtnbkr on August 05, 2008, 06:55:25 AM
There are inexpensive kits to do tintypes at home using whatever you can use to expose the plates (pinhole, old large format cameras, etc). I've been tempted to get a kit for myself, but I've never gotten around to it. The results aren't as good as his obviously, but it looks like an easy way to try it out.
Chris
Post by: seeker_two on August 05, 2008, 08:00:48 AM
I love Wikipedia......they have EVERYTHING!!!!!.....even the stuff that's true but never had a name for....
Post by: mtnbkr on August 06, 2008, 01:00:20 AM
Over at www.slickdeals.net is a walgreens coupon for one free roll of film developing.
Chris