>it now cost $20 to develop film only with no prints or scansAHHHHHHHHH
>>4411869>tfw make my on rodinal with painkillers and drain cleaner>use pool cleaner as a fixer>shoot fomapan Life is comfy bros
>>4411869Just paid $7.67 for a c41 dev only at my local lab. Sorry you live in the boonies and have to mail it I guess
>>4411870>this anon is ready to die for his hobbyBased
>>4411869the lab near me does C-41 35mm for $7 and C-41 120 for $3.75. Black and white and E-6 are more expensive though. I can shoot 645 and scan it myself with okish results, certainty not like super high mp or whatever, but good enough for IG and computer screens
I just mailed off some e6 for $13/roll which is the same as it was 3 years ago. Is OP australian or something?>>4411909dang that's cheap, I'd shoot lots of 120 goldI gave up onmy local lab after they lost or fucked up several rolls
>>4411926yeah idk how she makes money. I assume is on scanning and prints
>>4411869My local places charged the equiv of five bucks USD for a 36 roll developed but not scanned. $12 all up if you want it scanned too. Same prices for multiple establishments.
>>4411870Years ago I made my own colour dev chemicals including a diafine style colour dev. Until I wound up using Kodak e6 lab chems and c41 flexicolor and replenishing them at home, was real cheap to replenish
>>4411869I shoot b&w and pretend I do it because of elevated taste
>>4411869film isnt for poor hipsters anymore
>>4411935those stickers cost a lot of money.
>>4411869This is awful
high quality scans are 4 euros on top. If you shoot that much film where these prices become an issue get your own lab and enlarge your photos yourself.
>>4411869Used to do my own c41 and e6 for super cheap
>>4419641is anything like that? yes.
>>4411876Memphis film lab does $5 developing only and that's mail-in>>4412066that's pretty good, my local ones are $14 for the place that has a week turnaround time and $18+ for the others, it's too much. I'd pay $14 if I could get it back the next day
>spend a few hundred dollars on a scanning rig because getting my film scanned at the dev lab doubles the total price>they double dev pricesAnd this is why I no longer shoot film.
>>4424730>not switching to black and white and self devcoward
>>4411869It’s worse now
>>4411869Why is black and white more expensive to develop, when anybody can do it at home?
>>4424730I sold $1000 of film camera and lenses over this shit. The labs aren't even consistently high quality anymore. Most of them are pushing enough volume for mistakes to slip through.Self dev isn't a real alternative. I don't like B&W, and doing it in color is a huge fucking PITA for anything less than carefully planned sheet film shoots.
>>4431359>literally the same process as black and white except temp controlled.WOW what a gigantic insurmountable and impossibly difficult thing to have to do, truly.
In the whole film history today's price is not that high. it's rather average price.Last decade had extraordinarily cheap price of films. Of cause all of this is because Cuckdak has been diminished their camera film production since start of 2019 or 2020 if im correct. Don't ask about fujifilm. they are cosmetic chemical company not film company.
>>4431559>they are cosmetic chemical company*Pharmaceutical
>>4431353For big labs usually it’s cause the automated machines are set up for colour, so they end up doing b/w in a less automated way or just manually.
>>4411869tri-x + diy
>>4411869I pay like $6 USD equiv here in NZ for dev only at my local placeThat's cooked lmao. Our film costs offset it though I guess?
>>4411869We are living in times of hyperinflation man. Money is worth way less. Sucks.
>picked up 5 rolls of wolfencolor nc500 for 25 bucksDamn alright alright
>>4411869just do it yourself
>>4411869Yeah. Developed a 120 B&W and 135 color the other week. Just short or $30 for develop & "small" scans.Motivation for me to learn how to develop Or at least B&W since I understand it's easier to do. Plus I can make use of the bulk loader I bought a while back.
Should I get a scanner? Is it a quality = price thing or can I get by with mid-low range gear?
scanner is good
>>4411869>he shoots in colour>he doesn't shoot exclusively in B&Wlol.>he doesn't have his own darkroom in his house>with his own fix/stop/developer baths, enlarger, drying racks, sink, and trimming stationlmao even. if you shoot film in 2025 and send it off to someone to process you get what you deserve.
>>4411869Jesus Christ
Cinestill has a $30 kit to develop 24 color rolls. That's barely more than $1 each.
the money isnt the issue for me its being duped into using millenial run "local enthusiast" labs rather than megacorp photo processing as the former have had a single roll of kodak gold for two fucking weeks and the Arasaka of photo developing turned it around in a week, including actually sending the roll off. Fuck small businesses.
>>4411869develop your film at home. it's so fucking easy it's embarrassing that more people dont do iti guess it's the consoomercattle mindset
>>4424756c41 is like black and white you only have to watch temps more carefullythere's no reason to use labs. labs are scams targeting the mentally challenged and vulnerable (film hipsters)
>>4411869welcome to film in 2025
>>4468260I don't do it because it doesn't make sense to me, I barely shoot a roll of c41 a color and the chemicals will just go bad and waste unlike my bottle of rodinal that I had since 2015.
>>4468260B&W is piss easy, just takes time.C-41 is easy, but takes more time and requires a dedicated space.I'm not processing E-6 at home fuck that.
>>4468303are there even films that require e6 nowadays?
>>4468311Yes? E100 is still being produced.
