Do you develop and scan your own film or send it off to someone else? AT what point doe it become worth it to develop your own rolls rather than sending it to someone else?
>>4482299It's always going to be cheaper and more time consuming to self dev, the non-consumables required aren't a major investment to most, but the main factor to consider is control over the process.
>>4482299for BW I do all the dev and scanning, for color I sent to the lab for dev and I scan myself. Works for me since they charge me 3 dollars lmao
>>4482299I just went through this last week. Weighed up the pros and cons, and how badly I wanted to try shooting film (which wasn't an awful lot, but I like understanding how things work). >pic rel (AUD$)The frontal outlay was a bit of a cunt, but I bought an SLR/lens combo and sold the lens for more than I paid for the combo so the camera was free and I use EF lenses with my mirrorless that work brilliantly on the SLR ofc. It feels like cheating being able to put a a modern stabilised L lens on a 90s film camera. I also own a macro lens so scanning is mostly already paid for. Basically it wasn't that bad to get into this. My cheapest lens cost twice as much. Anyway. This is all B&W which after some research was far more economical than colour. For me to do colour not only is the dev more costly but appeared to be a larger pain in the ass. Local shop is a rip off for B&W, and is fine sounding for colour but then the film costs more.... eh. Fuck all that if I'm going to become a filmfag I don't want the JPEG experience. I did the math without writing it down but once I shoot and dev about 8 rolls of film I'm doing it for less than the shop doing it for me AND I now own a bunch of equipment and (will) have a fair chunk of experience doing something cool which only so many others have.
>>4482315get rodinal if you want to economize as much as possible, shit lasts forever. Or even better, make your own.Also If you already have a macro lens and a mirrorless camera you can use that for scanning, in most cases would be far superior to a flatbed (for 35mm and 120, there could be some debate for 4x5 but that is stepping into esoteric territory with shit like wet scanning)
>>4482299Let my local shop develop $2.50 for C-41 dev only, then I scan at homeDid darkroom in high school + college and worked on/off at a lab for a decadeDone enough that the dev process has lost it's charm and I'm way too lazy now to bother with home dev, especially for maybe like 6 rolls a year
>>4482319Making your own pyro based developer is cheaper than rodinal and is a better developer than rodinal.
>>4482325t. retard who takes boring photos of eggs
>>4482299I don't mean to hijack the thread with a stupid question that should have been asked in the stupid questions thread (not unlike OP's question) but I've been wanting to try the new Harman Phoenix film but I see in the description on a site I was going to get it from this "No colour mask – results vary by scanner and settings" now does that mean it's not suitable for prints? Like with an enlarger?
>>4482319Couldn't find rodinal here for less than like $100 imported for a jug of (i think 2l? no idea). I also looked a comparison ot developers and wasn't a massive fan of the exaggerated grain. I'll look into alternate developers eventually but for now going with relatively standard ilforsol isn't too bad.>Also If you already have a macro lens and a mirrorless camera you can use that for scanning, in most cases would be far superior to a flatbedI was under the impression I still want a light to place the film on to get an even look to the scan. I wasn't sure if that was still called a flatbed, but I really only plan on buying that lighting thing, whatever it's called.But good to know. I might shoot 120 film if this catches my autism in the right way.>>4482324>$2.50 for C-41 dev onlyMy shops charges me $25 AUD for c-41 dev no scan no prints. Sigh.
>>4482327>t. Seething newfag
>>4482314>>4482315The stuff for development seems surprisingly cheap, it seems like the scanner is the expensive part.
>>4482344Yeah I wouldn't bother if I didnt already have a macro lens. The lens itself was $700 AUD and I know there are cheaper lenses or dedicated scanning solutions, but at best you're still doubling the cost.
>>4482346When will you be making prints? 35mm enlarger + all supplies to get printing can be had for less than 700 dollars if you buy used.
>>4482329Jesus I thought ausfailia was a modern country, how do you not have rodinal/blazinal/adonal/one of the many clones there? Wild. What about d76 or its clones? Not quite as dirt cheap but still entirely reasonable and just as idiot proof as rodinal. Or you could get wacky and just do coffee development lol
>>4482299Scanning is the hard part. I got a cheap flatbed and thought I could save money on scanning by paying only for processing, but it isn't worth it. I would rather pay $10 for scans than fiddle for 4+ hours to get scans that I never could get to be sharp.If I had the money to spend on a foolproof scanning setup I wouldn't care about saving a few bucks on scanning anyway.I found a local lab that has a community scanner so I might try that instead. For $20 an hour and access to a Pakon scanner I could probably scan 6 or more rolls.
I used to do all my own including b&w reversal, e6, c41. Just getting back into film now. Ill probably do a lab c41 to see how it looks but Ill do some more unusual colour processes
>>4482365Scanners are absolute junk. I've been out of film for 10 years and just getting back in and it is literally the same, nothing has gotten better. You can use a digital camera and macro lens with backlight if you set it up properly.We had a flextight 949 in the lab. This is $20k+ now. This scanner is made out of junk left over spare parts basically. Its a 486 cpu with sdram, basic flatbed line sensor, and a mediocre enlarging lens to project the film onto the line sensor. Having mediocre optics is why its world's better than most any film scanner made. Scanners honestly make me mad.
>>4482365>>4482394Just get a nikon coolscan. Might be slow as shit but they work well for 35mm.
>>4482299>>4482315I know a place that does a 30 min develop for $10 AUD without scans which works great for me. I used to develop myself but with the amount I shoot it ends up being way more expensive to develop the chemicals myself. Of course this only works for me because I already have a scanning setup, otherwise it would be another $10 for them to scan.>picrel; results
>>4482299Went down this path but it’s fundamentally floored. The issue is you end up making creative decisions based on cost, and convenience, not on how the final image looks. You basically get pushed to black and white because it’s cheaper and easier but black and white photos suck.Ultimately you will spend your 200-300 getting setup to dev film but within 6 months be back to just using the lab.
>>4482438>black and white photos suck.
>>4482439This 100%. Imagine admitting to such an enormous skill issue.
>>4482440Because black and white photos are so popular on /p Like 1% or less photos posted here and black and white.
>>4482348Fuck that noise. I don't have a real darkroom and as I said I'm not super into film. I like the concept but I take most of my photos on my mirrorless and even the 20x30 print I've made looks great. I don't have a reason to go full filmfag.>>4482357D76 we have. I was just avoiding powder devs as my first go around. That or XTOL is what I'm probably going to buy next and both are cheaper than the Ilfosol I settled on first.From what I read, Rodinal is made in Germany and there's less demand for it here on the other side of the world so it's the classic logistics costs money theme. I just checked and 500ml sets me back $57+shipping (can't actually find a 1L bottle) and I'm unsure what the recommended dilution is. If it were significantly cheaper than these other developers I would consider it but I'm still not a fan of the look anyway.>>4482438I'm not even that big of a film proponent, but you sir are a massive nigger. I didn't even cheap out and I literally will be saving money by roll 9.>>4482462>Thinking /p/ is a valid litmus test for good photographykek
>>4482485500mL is a lot. You dont want a 1L bottle. Rodinal is 1+25, 1+50, and 1+100 for stand/semi stand development. D76 and Xtol are high sulfite, which is a silver halide solvent, so they dissolve and smooth the grain. Rodinal is very low sulfite at working strength, so itll show grain more.
>>4482525Hmmmmm. Will consider. Ilfosol is 5:1 at about $30 so that seems far more economical. I do however want to try XTOL maybe next as a single sachet is only $20.This kind of stuff is partly why I wanted to give film a go though, so I'm happy to experiment.
>>4482530If you want more obvious grain Rodinal helps. Im making some home made rodinal atm, easy to do as well.
b+w at home, colour at the lab
Someone rec me a good printer
I send my film to a local shop, they charge me only $1.5 (Colour)/$4 (B/W) and $6 for scanning (36 exp.) or $0.2 (colour)/$0.4 (B/W) for each print. I want to try to self develop my own film but the consumables are sometimes a bit difficult to get or quite expensiven in my country.
>$35 AUD to dev and scan one (1) roll of black and white film>Colour film cheaper to dev and scan (@ $29 per roll) but is counteracted by the fact colour film costs the difference so it's not any cheaper actually>a set of 6x4 prints is an extra $8 (wow le poverty size prints woo)>doesn't offer larger prints>they're just fucking digital prints of the scan>Okay it's like $8-12 a roll for black and white film if you buy in lots of 5/10. That's alright>Oh look there's these black and white films designed specifically to use C41 developement so you can use the cheaper colour printing we offer!>C41 black and white film is $25 a rollAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>>4482738>$35 AUDWhat city?Go somewhere else or learn how to do it yourself. $35 is a scam
>>4482740>What city?Sydney. Granted I've only spoken to two shops, so my data might be skewed.>Go somewhere else or learn how to do it yourself. $35 is a scamYes I am >>4482315 anon and am in the process of DIY.
>>4482743I am in Melbounre, irohas photo are quick and cheap, scans the same day ikigai film lab do better scans but you pay more for it (you also can't pick up the negs, post only) , and the bloke is a bit of nutcase on ig
