$2.50 per frame is probably some kind of Nikon Coolscan setup.
Drum scans are more like $50-100/frame.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 5 March 2012 23:11 (twelve years ago) link
if it's drum scan it's too cheap. if it's anything else it's too expensive. $2.50/frame makes exactly no sense.you can probably take it to just about any other place instead and get something normal (normal = probably between $12-$17 for a roll to be developed and scanned. scanning resolution and format will vary).
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 01:00 (twelve years ago) link
honestly that is really crazy. I feel like most people get scans and never see prints these days. it's pretty automated for just about any photo lab to do developing and scanning all from one machine.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 01:02 (twelve years ago) link
$2.50 is about right for 'pro' scanning w/ TIFF files. Noritsu/Fuji Frontier scans should be $12-15 for a roll of 36. That's ballpark for all the pro labs I've used (BWC, Precision Camera, North Coast Photo)Saw a Imacon Precision on EBay for the price of a 5D Mark III - that would be pretty awesome, if you can keep it running.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 02:16 (twelve years ago) link
MJ's stash at the top of the thread is looking better and better each day!
Ha! I need to do a stock check sometime. I received quite a bit of Velvia as stocking filler the Xmas before last but I've barely used that. In danger of even newly-bought film being past expiry by the time I use it, never mind the 2008 Freecycle haul upthread.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 12:59 (twelve years ago) link
there is a maybe similar bind with getting reprints, sometimes, which is that individual prints are expensive but getting a roll done from negatives is just however much they charge for developing & printing a roll, hopefully minus processing.
1 horrible broken roll that i pulled from the camera in my darkened bathroom and threw into a stuff sack
wanna see how this came out!
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 13:09 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i'm curious too
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 14:46 (twelve years ago) link
...developing...
also somehow only recently learned about this place: mplsphotocenter.com
soooo u think it's worth 150 bucks for a six month memberships? darkroom! Free scanning!
might be a good way to learn stuff I dunno
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 15:02 (twelve years ago) link
Worth it to develop film and make contact sheets if nothing else, IMO.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 15:43 (twelve years ago) link
would definitely be good if you had time to make use of it! do you have to supply your own paper or not?
otoh, basic equipment to develop B&W film at home: $50-100. epson v500 - $110 from amazon. ~shrug~
― flagp∞st (dayo), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i am intrigued by contact sheets-as-editorial-process tbh, something about the tactility
xp wait the epson is that cheap? thought it was $500 or something
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:12 (twelve years ago) link
huh, looks like a plustek 7600 is only 360 on ebay, which is temptingly affordable
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago) link
er, amazon
If I get a place of my own when this lease is up, I think I'm going to start developing my own film at home. Too hard to time it right for drying over the tub with a roommate.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 19:17 (twelve years ago) link
so my local cvs only had Kodak bw400cn, what is this stuff I bought
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
B&W film that you can drop off at the CVS (cheapest place is wal-mart actually)
― flagp∞st (dayo), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:53 (twelve years ago) link
gr8080 posted a p alluring set shot on 400cn in the other thread a couple of days ago:, what do you see like: 2012
i had kinda mixed results on the roll i shot, some shot in really-low-light coming out nicely & daylight stuff looking really boring
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Thursday, 15 March 2012 12:42 (twelve years ago) link
huh well whaddya know, thx dude
― catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 15 March 2012 15:26 (twelve years ago) link
This was Fuji Neopan 400CN, which is their equivalent of that Kodak C-41 B&W stuff (sorry if I've posted this before):
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6150/5944030099_e958159755.jpg
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:47 (twelve years ago) link
so with this c41 stuff is the idea that Walmart developing/scanning will be adequate?
― catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:10 (twelve years ago) link
Well, more that it's C-41 chemistry so it can be run through the usual Fuji Minilab (or similar) machine that high-street processing stores tend to own. Exactly like colour negative film. If it wasn't C-41, you'd have to go to a "proper" lab. So, it's cheap.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:23 (twelve years ago) link
yeah I guess I mean that, for the pretentious amateur (this guy), is the appeal of using c41 that you can get decent results without going to a pricier lab or DIY? or: you're going to get the same output from CVS or Walmart or the fancy pro lab, maybe? because that is definitely appealing
― catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:32 (twelve years ago) link
C-41 process is competely automated so yeah going to CVS/WAl-mart over a pro-lab would make no difference in the developing*
*well, you would probably get more fingerprints on CVS. wal-mart outsources to fuji and I've been happy with the stuff I've gotten back from wal-mart. CVS/drug stores et al probably have an in-house C-41 machine so a 16 yr old pimply faced dude is probably gonna be handling your negs afterwards.
as for scanning, not sure which would be better
― flagp∞st (dayo), Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:57 (twelve years ago) link
Scanning varies from minilab to minilab, so I'd ask. I've heard of people getting very large files (20+ MBs) from some Walmart and CVS locations, but my Costco (using the standard Noritsu machine) supplies tiny files (800 pixels on the long end) with their scans.Pro labs that do bulk roll scans are using similar minilab equipment, but the operators are more likely to know what they're doing (less dust, fewer scratches, less likely to have the scan be badly exposed) and you'll be guaranteed a larger file size.
(note: my Costco is just shitty in general - prints with visible dust all over them and negatives scratched to hell)
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 15 March 2012 18:02 (twelve years ago) link
http://www.precision-camera.com/webmaster/forms/view.php?id=5
pretty good deal via Rangefinderforum for scanning from a pro place - free development, big scans for $12/roll
CVS developing + scans without prints is usually ~$3, IIRC
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 15 March 2012 18:04 (twelve years ago) link
oh god, flashbacks to when I decided to try the local walgreens for some rolls. they had to call for a manager to determine what 'processing only' meant and whether they'd accommodate me, and when I picked em up the guy (yes pimply faced teenager) actually spilled out the cut negs on the floor and crawled around picking them up and stuffing them into the bag. bag wouldn't close over one of the strips so he folded it. none of it mattered because the chemistry was so off that the negs were unusable anyway. LESSONS.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Thursday, 15 March 2012 18:27 (twelve years ago) link
so guys: filters??
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:08 (twelve years ago) link
I've never used 'em but say more
― dayo, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:18 (twelve years ago) link
i dunno i thought that yellow/orange filters were kinda std ish for BW photography?
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:46 (twelve years ago) link
i've got a UV filter on my rollei sl35 that i just threw on my M6. apparently this is useful only for protecting the lens, but that's what i was after so
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:47 (twelve years ago) link
yeah uv filters are for lens protecting only
color filters change the tonality/contrast on B&W film. I think a lot of people prefer a yellow filter for B&W. maybe somebody else here would be more knowledgeable. caveat: I think using a filter results in a 1 stop decrease in light..
― dayo, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:53 (twelve years ago) link
color filter, that is
not for leicas with ttl metering
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:58 (twelve years ago) link
or so I read
yellow makes the sky more contrasty iirc
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:59 (twelve years ago) link
IIRC, color filters block their color - so a green filter makes greens lighter, etc.
In B&W this increases contrast depending on the scene - yellow makes skies more dramatic and increases overall contrast, red is good for (white and Asian) skin tones, blue/green/etc. are more specialized.I think there are levels of each color filter - light, standard, heavy - that will block different amounts of light, but I haven't used filters in years.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:00 (twelve years ago) link
ansel adams was a pretty heavy user of filters. there are probably lots of websites that will show you the effects of filters. or you could probably do the same in lightroom/aperture in using the (digital) filters - run one of your color photos through it to see how different 'color' filters affect the result
― dayo, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:30 (twelve years ago) link
hey soooo:what happens to kodachrome, now that it can't be processed as kodachrome? is it cross-processed to any interesting/unusual effect, or is it just a write off, bleached and dulled by regular chemicals?
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:25 (twelve years ago) link
well this was interesting: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=0027zU
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:47 (twelve years ago) link
you can process kodachrome with B&W chemicals to get B&W images, but there's this nasty chemical called 'rem jet' that can't be removed without hassle from the negs
― dayo, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:12 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, b&w seemed to be what everyone was recommending, with a smaller fringe of photo-moonshine makers preparing to frankenstein some colour prints. interesting. from elsewhere in the expired film community, i hadn't realised agfa scala 200 was (long) expired, i like that a lot, & used to be able to get it cheaply.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:17 (twelve years ago) link
I saw a Facebook link recently to someone in Australia who managed to develop Kodachrome at home. Looked like a one-off, though.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:47 (twelve years ago) link
that person is probably dying of cancer right now
― dayo, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:58 (twelve years ago) link
i think there is an ilx thread in which a few filmmakers discuss the dangers of home developing, in enclosed spaces, i found it pretty alarming
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:08 (twelve years ago) link
no joke I wear one of these
http://i.imgur.com/MZN2F.jpg
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:29 (twelve years ago) link
it's like one of those foam dome hats, but instead of having beer near your head you can easily access your vaseline and your concealer as they are stuck to your face
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:38 (twelve years ago) link
Got back that c41 bw film from cvs yesterday
results were...interesting. horrifically over-processed, so contrasty, highlights blown everywhere, but I might be able to salvage some stuff
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 16:25 (twelve years ago) link
hmm I dunno if c41 can be overprocessed if it was ran through a machine. might be your light meter?
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:26 (twelve years ago) link
do the negs just look really ... thick? in comparison to the clear sprocket hole parts
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:28 (twelve years ago) link
I meant digitlly processed really
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:41 (twelve years ago) link
o so the scanning you mean
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:42 (twelve years ago) link