Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-03-2019, 02:11 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Madaboutpix's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Rhine-Westphalia
Posts: 1,427
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote
"I THINK I WANT TO GO BACK TO FILM PHOTOGRAPHY." PHEW!! THERE, I'VE SAID IT.

Oh, if that's what your heart desires, go for it if you must. The only one you have to justify that to is yourself, your budget, and maybe your significant other. Just because, after shooting it for more than 25 years, I have possibly had enough of film for this life and little nostalgia for it doesn't mean I begrudge others enjoying it.

Photography is and should be diverse enough to include it all. I tend to deeply distrust people who act as if they were embodying the pure and only way photography should be pursued.

12-03-2019, 02:29 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,650
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I keep thinking I should shoot some medium format film....
I keep thinking that too. I have a Hasselblad 500EL/M with Zeiss 80mm that is gathering dust.
12-03-2019, 08:18 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
luftfluss's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,595
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I keep thinking I should shoot some medium format film....
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
I keep thinking that too. I have a Hasselblad 500EL/M with Zeiss 80mm that is gathering dust.
That would be my choice for film, too. Of course, I have no medium format gear at all...

But it seems to me that the experience in the process and results would be so much different than what I do now with digital that I would prefer the greater differentiation that film MF provides.
12-03-2019, 10:46 AM   #19
Pentaxian
ecostigny's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 560
QuoteOriginally posted by pentaxus Quote
Current Fujichrome and Ektachrome are sharper films than Kodachrome. I like the Fuji colors, but don't have experience with the new Ektachrome.
I had good results with Kodak Professional Ektachrome 100 in the previous decade, so I would love to see how today's emulsions fare. I might be joining you in revisiting film photography!

12-03-2019, 12:10 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonytee Quote

My thinking tends to gravitate back towards slide film.
As far as being "Cost Effective" I would have to do more research on that.
I do not know how expensive it is to convert to digital images so they can be uploaded here in PF, however the processing costs I have been advised can be prohibitive.

Tonytee
Slide film and slide processing will be much more expensive than negs, but will be easier and cheaper for you to scan.

I would recommend starting with either Kodak Ektar 100 (best IQ), Kodak Portra 800 (damn the torpedoes=need for speed), or Fujifilm Superia XTRA 400 (best price).
You can save $$ by not making prints and have the lab develop only and scan the negs (either to disk or cloud access).

Shooting film in terms of cost? Priceless. Just focus on less is more. Make every shot count.

I never made a damn dime until I started doing what I wanted. Carroll Shelby
12-03-2019, 02:24 PM   #21
Pentaxian
35mmfilmfan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Norfolk, UK
Posts: 4,256
As for scanning to digital, some processors offer a film to digital process as well, but of course the higher the quality, the higher the cost. Not looked into it myself, but I have a roll of Tri-x in my Nikkormat, so when I get that done i'll see what happens. Have fun anyway - that's what life is all about.
12-03-2019, 03:08 PM - 1 Like   #22
Veteran Member
Astro-Baby's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Reigate, Surrey
Posts: 764
Who cares about the output, I just LOVE handling film cameras. Theres something in me that finds film so much more romantic than digital. I have been out bashing through film in a variety of golden oldies recently including a apentax KX, K1000, Canon AE1 and FTb and even an ancient Nikon F....oh almost forgot the Minolta SRT101.... its costing a fortune in processing for and so far they are all test rolls so not even any decent pics. Do I care ? nope because I find working with a film camera rewarding, its calming and theres a tactile element about them ai am addicted to.

12-03-2019, 04:32 PM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,329
Original Poster
Thanks very much for all of the awesome responses here on this thread. I think at this point I will call around to the different processors and get estimates. It may very well be that many of them

are offering some excellent competitive pricing and promotions during this time of year. I will report back with my findings. Again, very many thanks.

Cheers,

Tonytee

---------- Post added 12-03-19 at 05:20 PM ----------

Well, here is what I have found. I contacted Blue Moon Camera in Portland, Oregon. This place only deals with film and analog equipment. No digital.

For one roll of Kodacolor ASA 200, 36exp., being converted to digital on a CD, the total cost would be $22.00. That of course does not include approximately $8.00 for the film. So being a stickler

for not kidding myself when it comes to cost, I can also add to that approximately $11.00 in general depreciation with my vehicle, each trip. One trip to deliver the film, return home and another trip to retrieve the film and return home. So there is another $22.00 on top of the other $22.00. Sounds excessive, $44.00 per roll, essentially.

The initial $22.00 includes scanning, color correction and whatever else they feel is necessary. So, there we have it. Something new to scratch your head over.
I failed to mention that if I wanted prints in addition to everything else, the charge will be $16.00. So, all in all, I would be looking at approximately $60.00 for the whole Magilla.

Tony

Last edited by Tonytee; 12-04-2019 at 02:35 PM. Reason: Additional Information
12-04-2019, 10:31 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Wasp's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Pretoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,650
About one dollar per frame? Now that puts things in a different, sobering light.
12-04-2019, 10:50 AM   #25
Pentaxian
ecostigny's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 560
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
About one dollar per frame? Now that puts things in a different, sobering light.
Wow, that is sobering. The economics have certainly changed from when I'd take 20 36-exposure rolls of Kodachrome on a vacation and expose all of them.
12-04-2019, 09:30 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 554
I surely get better results with my Nikon digital, but there's certainly something enjoyable about trying to get great images from these old film camera.

I'm too cheap to do much film and get it professionally developed and scanned. I bought a $40 CL Epson V500 and am trying to do my own developing and scanning. Got older versions of Photoshop elements and LR on CL for 20 some bucks each.

I buy cheap film including bulk B&W. Probably $3.00 of so for a roll of cheap color or $2.00 a roll for bulk B&W. I bought a Unicolor 1 liter kit and have done nearing 20 rolls at a cost of just over a dollar a roll. So vaguely $4 a roll for color or $2.50ish for a roll of B&W developed (Rodinal stand developed) and scanned (after the initial cost of scanner and bare bones developing equipment). I figure my cost per frame is $.12-.16 per frame color, less for B&W.
To be honest I've been very happy with my developing; scanning and PS/LR adjustments are still a work in progress. Using old cameras and old lenses, I'm also still figuring out what works and what doesn't. I'd feel bad if I were paying a dollar a frame for the results I've gotten but at the price I'm paying, it's a lot of fun and dirt cheap.
12-04-2019, 10:29 PM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,329
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lhorn Quote
I surely get better results with my Nikon digital, but there's certainly something enjoyable about trying to get great images from these old film camera.

I'm too cheap to do much film and get it professionally developed and scanned. I bought a $40 CL Epson V500 and am trying to do my own developing and scanning. Got older versions of Photoshop elements and LR on CL for 20 some bucks each.

I buy cheap film including bulk B&W. Probably $3.00 of so for a roll of cheap color or $2.00 a roll for bulk B&W. I bought a Unicolor 1 liter kit and have done nearing 20 rolls at a cost of just over a dollar a roll. So vaguely $4 a roll for color or $2.50ish for a roll of B&W developed (Rodinal stand developed) and scanned (after the initial cost of scanner and bare bones developing equipment). I figure my cost per frame is $.12-.16 per frame color, less for B&W.
To be honest I've been very happy with my developing; scanning and PS/LR adjustments are still a work in progress. Using old cameras and old lenses, I'm also still figuring out what works and what doesn't. I'd feel bad if I were paying a dollar a frame for the results I've gotten but at the price I'm paying, it's a lot of fun and dirt cheap.


I totally agree with everything you mentioned. There is a certain emotion attached to the Old World Charm of doing things. I myself would really like to get back into 2 and 1/4 square format with a Rolleiflex or Yashica 124 Mat G gear. The image quality in that format (just my own opinion) is unsurpassed. However, times being as they are, the economics are unjustifiable, at least for me. Well, thanks a million for your input. Cheers,

tonytee
12-05-2019, 02:16 AM   #28
Veteran Member
Liney's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,237
When I saw the thread title I thought we were discussing pencils...

I would not go back to film. When I shot film I had to wait until I got it developed and then try to remember what I had set to make it turn out that way. With digital I can snap, check, adjust, snap, check, adjust as much as I want and it doesn't cost me anything.

Film seems to be dying out, but as I mentioned on another thread the young folk revived vinyl records so there is still hope
12-05-2019, 03:56 AM - 1 Like   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Old South Wales
Posts: 6,029
QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
About one dollar per frame? Now that puts things in a different, sobering light.
That's what transparency film plus processing used to cost me (well £1 per shot actually) about 12 years ago with the 67 - which is why the layer of dust on it deepens with each passing year - but I still keep it because, someday....
12-05-2019, 10:47 AM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian
ecostigny's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Branford, CT
Posts: 560
QuoteOriginally posted by Liney Quote
When I saw the thread title I thought we were discussing pencils...

I would not go back to film. When I shot film I had to wait until I got it developed and then try to remember what I had set to make it turn out that way. With digital I can snap, check, adjust, snap, check, adjust as much as I want and it doesn't cost me anything.

Film seems to be dying out, but as I mentioned on another thread the young folk revived vinyl records so there is still hope
Sounds like what you need is film with metadata. The Pentax MZ-S did provide some on-film data recording (which I don't remember trying with my unit): http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/filmcamera/35mm/mz-s/index.html
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
box, chase, contribution, cost, days, film, fridge, friends, gear, home, not, photography, post, return, roll, silver, thanks, time, trip
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not one, not two, not three, not four, but a wedding where half attendees are bob. LeDave Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 05-16-2016 03:40 AM
Optical differences between Pentax "K", "M", and "A" lenses 6BQ5 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 01-10-2014 01:02 PM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
Which Zoom Lens? "Tamron AF 18-250mm", "Pentax-DA 18-250mm" or "Sigma 18-250mm" hoomanshb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-30-2010 09:50 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:30 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top