Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-17-2010, 05:13 PM   #3526
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,109
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Even more reasonable processing of slide film, plus the film itself is going to get you near the $20 mark. I make a good income, but it's tough to blow 50 cents on each exposure of 135, especially if you are doing street shooting where I often have several misses for each hit. For streets, I'm moving toward B&W. You get to the essence of the moment, and cost is not a big factor.
I would love to shoot transparencies on my 4x5, but the cost per exposure is close to $5. Not good. Even with 6x7 on 120, the cost is about $1 a shot. My last two rolls of Kodachrome are going to cost me about $0.60 per exposure once postage is factored in.


Steve

07-17-2010, 07:09 PM   #3527
Pentaxian
fearview's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jakarta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,067

small lotus


orchid




Pentax Super Program + smc Pentax-M 1:4/50mm Macro + Ring Flash AF 08C + Fuji Proplus 100
07-17-2010, 07:15 PM   #3528
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
A few more from that batch of Velvia 50










07-17-2010, 07:22 PM   #3529
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I would love to shoot transparencies on my 4x5, but the cost per exposure is close to $5. Not good. Even with 6x7 on 120, the cost is about $1 a shot. My last two rolls of Kodachrome are going to cost me about $0.60 per exposure once postage is factored in.


Steve
If we are going to use transparency, we really have to get rid of the last vestige of digital spray and pray.

If you think about it, almost any 135 transparency is pretty close to $.50 per shot. $6-7 for the film and $10 for the processing.

07-17-2010, 07:38 PM   #3530
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 33
QuoteOriginally posted by KJon Quote
@Nedski - I, too, looked at your Velvia shots on flickr...really nice stuff. I want point for recognizing Philadelphia . I wanted to ask you if you had shot Velvia both in ASA 50 and ASA100 flavors and if you had aesthetic reason for shooting the ASA100 flavor or whether it was simply a matter of it being faster film and getting faster shutter speeds? If you do see a visual difference, could you share what it is? Inquiring minds want to know <g>...

@Javier - The film thing is getting a little too expensive. I had a 36 exp roll of Plus X done the other day - developed, scanned, and printed - and it ran me $27 plus tax.
Kevin,

I mostly shoot B&W, so when I shoot color I want COLOR. In the old days I used to shoot Fujichrome (there was no Velvia back then).

When I got back into shooting film a few years ago and was deciding whether to buy Velvia 50 vs. 100, I found that 100 has finer grain that 50 (strange but true according to the Fuji data sheets). The consensus of many users is that 50 has higher contrast, and may have higher saturation. I opted for the extra stop of speed, lower contrast and finer grain.

In addition to 50 and 100, there's a third variety of Velvia: 100F. It's supposed to have nicer skin tones and less saturation. I haven't used it.

Oddly, when I tried Velvia in 120 I wasn't happy with the results; something about the look didn't click with me. For medium format I've switched to Provia 100.

As for processing costs, I save money by doing the scanning myself. E6 processing at Philadelphia Photographics, my local pro lab, is $9.50 for 35mm and $7 for 120, which is not bad. Scanning adds $19 to the 35mm and $9 to the 120.

And, wow, $27 to develop and scan a roll of Plus-X? I understand there's a lot of advantages to having the lab do the work, especially if you don't have the time or desire to do your own processing and scanning. But all I can think is that $27 will get you a bottle of Rodinal and enough Ilford Rapid fixer to process 50 rolls of film...
07-17-2010, 08:54 PM   #3531
Veteran Member
KJon's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 542
Neil (just saw your name at the bottom of your post <g>), thanks for your thoughts on Velvia 50 vs. 100 and mentioning Velvia 100F. I've got a roll of 50 in my fridge that I meant to shoot this past spring and time got away from me. I do have a scanner (old HP 4370 flatbed with a negative/transparency adapter), but it'll only scan two 35mm frames at a time. I scanned all my dad's family slides with it and ended up with mixed results; some of them stellar and some not so much...Upshot is the labs can do a waaay better job than I can with my current set up.

I'm with you on the "color" thing. I should mention that I got a set of 4X6s for my $27, too - it wasn't just the processing and the scans. I print my digital stuff, too. The screen is OK, but I've had files that looked like crap on the monitor and ended up being great prints (and vice-versa). I'm not quite willing to give up on a file 'til I've seen it in print.

Don't know if I mentioned, but I haven't shot a lot of slide film. The few rolls I have shot were processed so badly that I've been reluctant to shoot any more. This was prior to my finding my current guys who've looked at my notsohotso slides and have assured me that they can do better. As far as cost here goes, E6 is $9.50 a roll too. I may have to shoot that roll of Velvia and dust off my HP scanner <g>. After seeing your gallery on flickr and reading your post I'm going to have to give the ASA 100 a shot, too.

Best,
Kevin
07-17-2010, 09:07 PM   #3532
Veteran Member
KJon's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 542
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
A few more from that batch of Velvia 50

Photos snipped...
Javier, I don't know if it's because I've gotten used to the saturation from looking at Neil's shots, but this last batch from you doesn't seem as "over-the-top" as the last set. Are these your scans or did you do some PP on the ones you got from the lab?

Best,
Kevin
07-17-2010, 09:42 PM   #3533
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by KJon Quote
Javier, I don't know if it's because I've gotten used to the saturation from looking at Neil's shots, but this last batch from you doesn't seem as "over-the-top" as the last set. Are these your scans or did you do some PP on the ones you got from the lab?

Best,
Kevin
Kev, I did nothing to them. I think it has more to do with context. I actually like those last ones, but not the first ones.

07-18-2010, 04:59 AM   #3534
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by nedski Quote
Kevin,

I mostly shoot B&W, so when I shoot color I want COLOR. In the old days I used to shoot Fujichrome (there was no Velvia back then).

When I got back into shooting film a few years ago and was deciding whether to buy Velvia 50 vs. 100, I found that 100 has finer grain that 50 (strange but true according to the Fuji data sheets). The consensus of many users is that 50 has higher contrast, and may have higher saturation. I opted for the extra stop of speed, lower contrast and finer grain.

In addition to 50 and 100, there's a third variety of Velvia: 100F. It's supposed to have nicer skin tones and less saturation. I haven't used it.

Oddly, when I tried Velvia in 120 I wasn't happy with the results; something about the look didn't click with me. For medium format I've switched to Provia 100.

As for processing costs, I save money by doing the scanning myself. E6 processing at Philadelphia Photographics, my local pro lab, is $9.50 for 35mm and $7 for 120, which is not bad. Scanning adds $19 to the 35mm and $9 to the 120.

And, wow, $27 to develop and scan a roll of Plus-X? I understand there's a lot of advantages to having the lab do the work, especially if you don't have the time or desire to do your own processing and scanning. But all I can think is that $27 will get you a bottle of Rodinal and enough Ilford Rapid fixer to process 50 rolls of film...
Having a good scanner and the time to use it seems essential these days, given the price of scans at a good shop. The advent of scanning has made the cost of transparencies less and less attractive. Thirty years ago, I probably shot 8 rolls of slides for every one roll of color print. The grain, color and the beauty of a projected slide made it worth it. I even printed a lot of Cibachrome, and came to like it better than traditional paper for landscapes and buildings.

However, now my "slide projector" is digital--either an actual projector or a big screen TV. My primary printing is digital. I like the look of scanned film though I'd like wet prints even better, but I have to accept that the vast majority of my film will be used as a scan. Once scanned, the difference between a transparency and modern fine-grained print films becomes less beneficial, and I have a very hard time justifying the cost and the effort. Color print films are a joy to scan (as close to set-and-forget as film gets) compared to any other materials. I'll generate controversy by saying this, but after scanning a thousand or so of my beloved old slides, I think I could shoot one of today's good ISO 100 print films, and by moving a few sliders, get a digital result that is close enough to positive aspects of the scan of an E-6 transparency that the double price would be very tough to justify for my preferences.

I do get why scanning costs for traditional black and white film would be high. I also enjoy black and white, from the shot to the film drying clip. However scanning it to a product I like is far more work than color print.

Last edited by GeneV; 07-18-2010 at 05:11 AM.
07-18-2010, 09:01 AM   #3535
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,109
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
Having a good scanner and the time to use it seems essential these days, given the price of scans at a good shop. The advent of scanning has made the cost of transparencies less and less attractive...

...And that is my justification for having <gasp> two scanners. It is also why I shoot primarily Ektar 100 when doing color film work. Given the cost for even decent proof-quality scans, my machines will pay for themselves pretty quickly. As for the time aspect...It is a wash compared to a wet printing setup.


Steve
07-18-2010, 09:30 AM   #3536
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
I got to thinking last night after our conversation. First, I have decided that I am going to put away my color films. I am curious to see how much I have went through the past 2 years. I am guessing about 250 rolls easy. I have decided to use Ilford XP-2 as I love this films look and ease of process + I have about 20 rolls left from a case of 40 I bought a while back. I have learned how to cheat it with exposer to get grain (underexpose 1/3-2/3 of a stop) or get a fine grain black and white by over exposing (1/3 to 2/3 of a stop) and Ilfords Delta 100 or 400 since I have learned to develop it and scan it myself.

At the end of the day though, it comes down to justification. I just can't keep spending money on this when I am getting more frustrated with the results than joy.
07-18-2010, 11:40 AM   #3537
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
...And that is my justification for having <gasp> two scanners. It is also why I shoot primarily Ektar 100 when doing color film work. Given the cost for even decent proof-quality scans, my machines will pay for themselves pretty quickly. As for the time aspect...It is a wash compared to a wet printing setup.


Steve
My scanner has half paid for itself with the scans of my old slides, and there are many, many more to go.
07-18-2010, 07:31 PM   #3538
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 33
QuoteOriginally posted by KJon Quote
Neil (just saw your name at the bottom of your post <g>), thanks for your thoughts on Velvia 50 vs. 100 and mentioning Velvia 100F. I've got a roll of 50 in my fridge that I meant to shoot this past spring and time got away from me. I do have a scanner (old HP 4370 flatbed with a negative/transparency adapter), but it'll only scan two 35mm frames at a time. I scanned all my dad's family slides with it and ended up with mixed results; some of them stellar and some not so much...Upshot is the labs can do a waaay better job than I can with my current set up.

I'm with you on the "color" thing. I should mention that I got a set of 4X6s for my $27, too - it wasn't just the processing and the scans. I print my digital stuff, too. The screen is OK, but I've had files that looked like crap on the monitor and ended up being great prints (and vice-versa). I'm not quite willing to give up on a file 'til I've seen it in print.

Don't know if I mentioned, but I haven't shot a lot of slide film. The few rolls I have shot were processed so badly that I've been reluctant to shoot any more. This was prior to my finding my current guys who've looked at my notsohotso slides and have assured me that they can do better. As far as cost here goes, E6 is $9.50 a roll too. I may have to shoot that roll of Velvia and dust off my HP scanner <g>. After seeing your gallery on flickr and reading your post I'm going to have to give the ASA 100 a shot, too.

Best,
Kevin
Hey, Kevin. I've got a Canon 8800f which was around $200, and I've printed scans from it on a wide-carriage inkjet with really good results. I do tweak settings for each frame, which is time-consuming, and it's not a speed demon. I guess the point is you don't have to spend a fortune for a great scanner.

By all means get out and shoot that Velvia then post - can't wait to see some more eye-hurting color!
07-18-2010, 08:42 PM   #3539
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
The last of my Velvia 50 images.






07-18-2010, 09:40 PM   #3540
Veteran Member
goddo31's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,295
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
The last of my Velvia 50 images.
<beached yacht picture>
(!) Do you know the story behind this yacht?
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!
architecture, details, ektar, exposure, film, goats, grandma, hood, kodachrome, kodak, lab, legs, lens, lunch, lx, mx, pentax, phil, photos, post, q7, roll, sarajevo, scans, shot, shots, steve, thanks, tokina, velvia
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K20D test shots at Lets Go Digital schufosi777 Pentax News and Rumors 6 04-20-2013 11:31 AM
Macro Cool Macro shots derajjjg Post Your Photos! 2 12-27-2009 09:36 PM
Lets see your Moon and Mars shots Igilligan Post Your Photos! 9 12-05-2009 08:55 AM
Way cool bat shots and General Talk 7 10-01-2009 02:54 AM
Cool Shots & Info Fl_Gulfer Post Your Photos! 0 12-10-2007 11:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 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