First Film in Years - expensive though

3by2 · 03-12-2019, 02:39 AM - **6 Likes**

Something possessed me last year to but an FP4. I can't remember why and I forgot about it, so I've only just finished it now. Nothing unusual in that, looking back, films used to sometimes sit in my camera for over a year. I'd forgotten the anticipation of waiting for it and trying to remember what might be on it.

Having no processing gear any more I sent this away for processing and scanning, which is not a cheap way to do things. Photography has never been a cheap hobby but these days the costs are all up front. Cost of FP4, processing and scanning and return, £24 or 32 of your fine American dollars.

There is something pleasing about it though. No worries about IQ or no real concerns, it's about form and shape and light. I like the grain too. I know you can replicate it all in Photoshop but there's something false about that. Plus there's a different quality to the light and shadows. Well I think.

I wasn't really trying too hard with the camera, just a trip backwards to a different time I guess but a few shots demonstrated to me the virtues of film over digital.

Attachment 443890

This was taken with an MZ10 but for authenticity, I'd real like a camera with a manual wind lever. I used the da 35mm for this shot as I'd read it worked full frame in most circumstances.

Last edited by 3by2; 05-01-2019 at 02:26 PM.

Vendee · 03-12-2019, 02:52 AM

That's a nice shot and obviously film. Yes you can apply photoshop filters to get a film effect but its not as good as the real thing. £24 is quite steep. For not much more than that you can buy a changing bag, tank, thermometer and chemicals to do it yourself. Obviously a scanner will cost a bit more but those £24 rolls will add up quickly. You can do your developing quite easily in a small bathroom or kitchen and it really isn't difficult. If you want to make proper prints rather than scans then you will need a proper darkroom but the prints look much better than inkjet prints or looking at them on a monitor. Good choice of film with the FP4. Its my favourite film now.

3by2 · 03-12-2019, 03:01 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Vendee

That's a nice shot and obviously film. Yes you can apply photoshop filters to get a film effect but its not as good as the real thing. £24 is quite steep. For not much more than that you can buy a changing bag, tank, thermometer and chemicals to do it yourself. Obviously a scanner will cost a bit more but those £24 rolls will add up quickly. You can do your developing quite easily in a small bathroom or kitchen and it really isn't difficult. If you want to make proper prints rather than scans then you will need a proper darkroom but the prints look much better than inkjet prints or looking at them on a monitor. Good choice of film with the FP4. Its my favourite film now.

I was thinking about this. I wouldn't mind processing the film, as you say, the kit wouldn't cost much but I'm not sure I'd want to go back to a darkroom, I do like what you can do in Photoshop, particularly on the masking and burning side. There's a real art to doing that in a darkroom. There is no denying that a good darkroom print has an altogether different quality to it though. I should perhaps resist the thought, down that path lies madness....maybe.

**Kevin B123** · 03-12-2019, 03:23 AM

Nice image, and you are not alone, a few of us are also trying out film again.
You can get a roll processed and scanned for around £8.50 at Peak-Imaging or DS Colour labs, I would recommend both.
Recently I found my local Boots have three rolls of Lomo Lady Grey 400 for £2. I did not put it in the leads to deals as I doubt it is a national deal, but it's worth browsing your local shops for this stuff.
Your first cost was too steep, even so It's never going to cheap unless you do it yourself and while that has a appeal, our spouses might well object to it.

3by2 · 03-12-2019, 05:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kevin B123

Nice image, and you are not alone, a few of us are also trying out film again.
You can get a roll processed and scanned for around £8.50 at Peak-Imaging or DS Colour labs, I would recommend both.
Recently I found my local Boots have three rolls of Lomo Lady Grey 400 for £2. I did not put it in the leads to deals as I doubt it is a national deal, but it's worth browsing your local shops for this stuff.
Your first cost was too steep, even so It's never going to cheap unless you do it yourself and while that has a appeal, our spouses might well object to it.

Peak Imaging noted: If you go up in Scan detail to a higher res, their prices are similar though. The service I chose also does an online download because I don't actually have a computer with a CD any more!

I think the only real option if you become a regular film user is to process and scan yourself, otherwise it's quite costly.

mickey · 03-12-2019, 05:35 AM

Lovely shot, that.

You can't beat the joy of film.
I've got so many old family photos taken with film.
Just a joy to see, memories and nostalgia.

I'm very selective with what I shoot with film.
Plum blossom season is coming to an end and I put a roll of Fuji film in my Pentax ME. Looking forward to seeing how they turned out.

Might put another in for cherry blossom season and then the next might not be until autumn.

I would love to use more film but costs do mount up.

Vendee · 03-12-2019, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by 3by2

Peak Imaging noted: If you go up in Scan detail to a higher res, their prices are similar though. The service I chose also does an online download because I don't actually have a computer with a CD any more!

I think the only real option if you become a regular film user is to process and scan yourself, otherwise it's quite costly.

Obviously that's the choice you have to make but I don't think the shot you posted would have looked so nice if it was shot digitally. You paid top money for your processing but to be fair, they did a very good job with no dust/scratches on the scan.

I reckon £50 would buy the gear/chemicals you will need to develop and £160 will buy a reasonable scanner. It would pay for itself after nine rolls and I personally find it enjoyable. The only thing to watch out for when printing out your scanned prints is that most inkjets give a slight colour cast on b&w prints. That's why went down the darkroom route.

stevebrot · 03-12-2019, 09:01 AM - **1 Like**

Yes, shooting film can be expensive (it has always had that potential), but it is also possible to minimize those expenses. For example...

Easiest ways to cut cost:

Shoot B&W with the intent of doing your own processing
Do your own processing. The cost of a basic setup (daylight tank, thermometer, measuring cylinders) is fairly reasonable as is the cost of chemicals for B&W. Color chemicals are more money, but often still less than paying for processing.
If paying for processing, ask for negatives only (don't pay for prints or scans) with at most a proof sheet
When you seen a good price on film, buy a supply for future use
Buy a bulk loader and load your own 35mm cassettes from 100' rolls

Costs that are difficult to avoid

Color processing expense. Yes, one may do it at home, but temperature control can be a pain as might the cost of chemicals. Remember that chromogenic B&W requires C-41 processing.
Print cost...There is no escaping the cost of making or having prints made. While getting your own high-grade printer to work from scans is attractive from the standpoint of convenience and control, the cost per print is high. Ditto if wet printing using a traditional darkroom. There is also the additional cost for enlarger and lenses.
Scanning...Unless one is planning on a fully traditional silver-based path or shooting slides, there will be a scanner somewhere in the process to providing a display image. Drug store scans are usually disappointing from a quality perspective and doing your own requires time and a capable scanner (entry ticket is at least $275 USD, on deep discount). I have sufficient money invested in scanners to buy a Pentax K-1 or Sony A7 III.

Still though, I think the film shooting experience still justifies the ongoing expense.

Steve

3by2 · 03-12-2019, 09:58 AM

There's definitely an interesting debate going on in my head at the moment which I haven't resolved. On the one hand I look at shots I've taken and examine them from an IQ perspective to see if they satisfy my criteria and on the other, some of the shots which please me most don't need better IQ to work, they work for different reasons. Getting this film back has helped and indeed confused things all at the same time. I'm not actually sure I'll shoot more film, I've still to decide but I can quite see why people are going back to it and I can also see how a hybridised approach would fuse both worlds. Oh, I don't know if it was a good idea to shoot that film now........How much are old 120 Mamiyas these days...goes to look....

stevebrot · 03-12-2019, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by 3by2

How much are old 120 Mamiyas these days...goes to look....

Depends on the model of Mamiya.

They have been making them for a long time and everything from 6x6 rangefinder folders up through big hulking TLRs and SLRs.

My 1955 Mamiya-6 IVB...yes, it is a shooter...

Steve

**Eagle94VT** · 03-12-2019, 12:49 PM

I agree with stevebrot - I approach film selectively - if I don't develop at home (I do both B&W and color) I usually get develop and proof only. Just like the dozens of junk photos on digital for every keeper, film is the same. I don't hold on to try to make every film shot "perfect". Then I spend the money to get some good quality prints from the keepers. I posted somewhere else on the albums I keep - I don't waste time on 4x6 and 5x7s anymore. If its good its an 8x10 minimum. I think I am in the minority and don't bother spending time or money scanning in film to load onto a computer.

And then there is the old argument about cost - when compared to the cost of digital camera upgrades every few years...

**ChrisPlatt** · 03-12-2019, 03:36 PM

Be careful: film is habit-forming!

To lower the expense many of us develop and scan - and/or print - our own.
Once the investment is made in the required hardware film cost becomes the single largest expense.
Fortunately there are excellent less-expensive films, and cost per roll can be reduced even further by bulk-loading.

Chris

MaineNative · 03-12-2019, 06:37 PM

When I shot 35 mm film, I used to have my lab do just small single prints and a cheap CD scan. I would then do larger prints if I had any really good shots. Double prints were a waste and the scan to CD was just a few bucks more if done with the developing.

3by2 · 03-13-2019, 03:37 AM - **1 Like**

I think the low res scan or contact sheet is a good idea, in fact lots of good ideas. The other reason I went for their higher res scan, is a comparison to scans I've done in the past and a scan I'll do when I get the negs back, so a baseline if you like. I won't want to pay so much again.

**fs999** · 03-14-2019, 02:13 AM

To lower the b&w dev costs, look at Reinhold's Caffenol, Dirk's Caffenol and the the cookbook bible...

03-12-2019, 02:39 AM - 6 Likes	#1
3by2 Closed Account Join Date: Feb 2019 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 819	First Film in Years - expensive though Something possessed me last year to but an FP4. I can't remember why and I forgot about it, so I've only just finished it now. Nothing unusual in that, looking back, films used to sometimes sit in my camera for over a year. I'd forgotten the anticipation of waiting for it and trying to remember what might be on it. Having no processing gear any more I sent this away for processing and scanning, which is not a cheap way to do things. Photography has never been a cheap hobby but these days the costs are all up front. Cost of FP4, processing and scanning and return, £24 or 32 of your fine American dollars. There is something pleasing about it though. No worries about IQ or no real concerns, it's about form and shape and light. I like the grain too. I know you can replicate it all in Photoshop but there's something false about that. Plus there's a different quality to the light and shadows. Well I think. I wasn't really trying too hard with the camera, just a trip backwards to a different time I guess but a few shots demonstrated to me the virtues of film over digital. Attachment 443890 This was taken with an MZ10 but for authenticity, I'd real like a camera with a manual wind lever. I used the da 35mm for this shot as I'd read it worked full frame in most circumstances. Last edited by 3by2; 05-01-2019 at 02:26 PM.

03-12-2019, 09:01 AM - 1 Like	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Yes, shooting film can be expensive (it has always had that potential), but it is also possible to minimize those expenses. For example... Easiest ways to cut cost: Shoot B&W with the intent of doing your own processing Do your own processing. The cost of a basic setup (daylight tank, thermometer, measuring cylinders) is fairly reasonable as is the cost of chemicals for B&W. Color chemicals are more money, but often still less than paying for processing. If paying for processing, ask for negatives only (don't pay for prints or scans) with at most a proof sheet When you seen a good price on film, buy a supply for future use Buy a bulk loader and load your own 35mm cassettes from 100' rolls Costs that are difficult to avoid Color processing expense. Yes, one may do it at home, but temperature control can be a pain as might the cost of chemicals. Remember that chromogenic B&W requires C-41 processing. Print cost...There is no escaping the cost of making or having prints made. While getting your own high-grade printer to work from scans is attractive from the standpoint of convenience and control, the cost per print is high. Ditto if wet printing using a traditional darkroom. There is also the additional cost for enlarger and lenses. Scanning...Unless one is planning on a fully traditional silver-based path or shooting slides, there will be a scanner somewhere in the process to providing a display image. Drug store scans are usually disappointing from a quality perspective and doing your own requires time and a capable scanner (entry ticket is at least $275 USD, on deep discount). I have sufficient money invested in scanners to buy a Pentax K-1 or Sony A7 III. Still though, I think the film shooting experience still justifies the ongoing expense. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 03-12-2019 at 09:08 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
KEH Sale Though May 10th on EX and EX+ Gear	T Evergreen	Pentax Price Watch	5	05-09-2018 12:57 PM
Question My avatar is being rejected even though it meets the size requirements	pentaprickle	Site Suggestions and Help	2	06-04-2017 04:19 PM
New digital archive of 2.2 million film images from first 100 years of photography	disconnekt	General Photography	5	05-27-2017 11:36 PM
shooting box match ( first time though ) - opinions on technique	panonski	Photographic Technique	20	05-10-2017 03:05 AM
First post! Been here a while though	purvism	Welcomes and Introductions	4	11-03-2014 12:10 AM

03-12-2019, 02:52 AM	#2
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134	That's a nice shot and obviously film. Yes you can apply photoshop filters to get a film effect but its not as good as the real thing. £24 is quite steep. For not much more than that you can buy a changing bag, tank, thermometer and chemicals to do it yourself. Obviously a scanner will cost a bit more but those £24 rolls will add up quickly. You can do your developing quite easily in a small bathroom or kitchen and it really isn't difficult. If you want to make proper prints rather than scans then you will need a proper darkroom but the prints look much better than inkjet prints or looking at them on a monitor. Good choice of film with the FP4. Its my favourite film now.

03-12-2019, 03:01 AM - 1 Like	#3
3by2 Closed Account Join Date: Feb 2019 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 819 Original Poster	Originally posted by Vendee That's a nice shot and obviously film. Yes you can apply photoshop filters to get a film effect but its not as good as the real thing. £24 is quite steep. For not much more than that you can buy a changing bag, tank, thermometer and chemicals to do it yourself. Obviously a scanner will cost a bit more but those £24 rolls will add up quickly. You can do your developing quite easily in a small bathroom or kitchen and it really isn't difficult. If you want to make proper prints rather than scans then you will need a proper darkroom but the prints look much better than inkjet prints or looking at them on a monitor. Good choice of film with the FP4. Its my favourite film now. I was thinking about this. I wouldn't mind processing the film, as you say, the kit wouldn't cost much but I'm not sure I'd want to go back to a darkroom, I do like what you can do in Photoshop, particularly on the masking and burning side. There's a real art to doing that in a darkroom. There is no denying that a good darkroom print has an altogether different quality to it though. I should perhaps resist the thought, down that path lies madness....maybe.

03-12-2019, 03:23 AM	#4
Kevin B123 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,176	Nice image, and you are not alone, a few of us are also trying out film again. You can get a roll processed and scanned for around £8.50 at Peak-Imaging or DS Colour labs, I would recommend both. Recently I found my local Boots have three rolls of Lomo Lady Grey 400 for £2. I did not put it in the leads to deals as I doubt it is a national deal, but it's worth browsing your local shops for this stuff. Your first cost was too steep, even so It's never going to cheap unless you do it yourself and while that has a appeal, our spouses might well object to it.

03-12-2019, 05:12 AM - 1 Like	#5
3by2 Closed Account Join Date: Feb 2019 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 819 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kevin B123 Nice image, and you are not alone, a few of us are also trying out film again. You can get a roll processed and scanned for around £8.50 at Peak-Imaging or DS Colour labs, I would recommend both. Recently I found my local Boots have three rolls of Lomo Lady Grey 400 for £2. I did not put it in the leads to deals as I doubt it is a national deal, but it's worth browsing your local shops for this stuff. Your first cost was too steep, even so It's never going to cheap unless you do it yourself and while that has a appeal, our spouses might well object to it. Peak Imaging noted: If you go up in Scan detail to a higher res, their prices are similar though. The service I chose also does an online download because I don't actually have a computer with a CD any more! I think the only real option if you become a regular film user is to process and scan yourself, otherwise it's quite costly.

03-12-2019, 05:35 AM	#6
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Lovely shot, that. You can't beat the joy of film. I've got so many old family photos taken with film. Just a joy to see, memories and nostalgia. I'm very selective with what I shoot with film. Plum blossom season is coming to an end and I put a roll of Fuji film in my Pentax ME. Looking forward to seeing how they turned out. Might put another in for cherry blossom season and then the next might not be until autumn. I would love to use more film but costs do mount up.

03-12-2019, 08:31 AM	#7
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134	Originally posted by 3by2 Peak Imaging noted: If you go up in Scan detail to a higher res, their prices are similar though. The service I chose also does an online download because I don't actually have a computer with a CD any more! I think the only real option if you become a regular film user is to process and scan yourself, otherwise it's quite costly. Obviously that's the choice you have to make but I don't think the shot you posted would have looked so nice if it was shot digitally. You paid top money for your processing but to be fair, they did a very good job with no dust/scratches on the scan. I reckon £50 would buy the gear/chemicals you will need to develop and £160 will buy a reasonable scanner. It would pay for itself after nine rolls and I personally find it enjoyable. The only thing to watch out for when printing out your scanned prints is that most inkjets give a slight colour cast on b&w prints. That's why went down the darkroom route.

03-12-2019, 09:58 AM	#9
3by2 Closed Account Join Date: Feb 2019 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 819 Original Poster	There's definitely an interesting debate going on in my head at the moment which I haven't resolved. On the one hand I look at shots I've taken and examine them from an IQ perspective to see if they satisfy my criteria and on the other, some of the shots which please me most don't need better IQ to work, they work for different reasons. Getting this film back has helped and indeed confused things all at the same time. I'm not actually sure I'll shoot more film, I've still to decide but I can quite see why people are going back to it and I can also see how a hybridised approach would fuse both worlds. Oh, I don't know if it was a good idea to shoot that film now........How much are old 120 Mamiyas these days...goes to look....

03-12-2019, 11:14 AM	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by 3by2 How much are old 120 Mamiyas these days...goes to look.... Depends on the model of Mamiya. They have been making them for a long time and everything from 6x6 rangefinder folders up through big hulking TLRs and SLRs. My 1955 Mamiya-6 IVB...yes, it is a shooter... Steve

03-12-2019, 12:49 PM	#11
Eagle94VT Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 291	I agree with stevebrot - I approach film selectively - if I don't develop at home (I do both B&W and color) I usually get develop and proof only. Just like the dozens of junk photos on digital for every keeper, film is the same. I don't hold on to try to make every film shot "perfect". Then I spend the money to get some good quality prints from the keepers. I posted somewhere else on the albums I keep - I don't waste time on 4x6 and 5x7s anymore. If its good its an 8x10 minimum. I think I am in the minority and don't bother spending time or money scanning in film to load onto a computer. And then there is the old argument about cost - when compared to the cost of digital camera upgrades every few years...

03-12-2019, 03:36 PM	#12
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	Be careful: film is habit-forming! To lower the expense many of us develop and scan - and/or print - our own. Once the investment is made in the required hardware film cost becomes the single largest expense. Fortunately there are excellent less-expensive films, and cost per roll can be reduced even further by bulk-loading. Chris

03-12-2019, 06:37 PM	#13
MaineNative Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2017 Photos: Gallery Posts: 280	When I shot 35 mm film, I used to have my lab do just small single prints and a cheap CD scan. I would then do larger prints if I had any really good shots. Double prints were a waste and the scan to CD was just a few bucks more if done with the developing.

03-13-2019, 03:37 AM - 1 Like	#14
3by2 Closed Account Join Date: Feb 2019 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 819 Original Poster	I think the low res scan or contact sheet is a good idea, in fact lots of good ideas. The other reason I went for their higher res scan, is a comparison to scans I've done in the past and a scan I'll do when I get the negs back, so a baseline if you like. I won't want to pay so much again.

03-14-2019, 02:13 AM	#15
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,638	To lower the b&w dev costs, look at Reinhold's Caffenol, Dirk's Caffenol and the the cookbook bible...