Informal Self-Processing Cost Survery

[drg]

This was prompted by the Ilford and Kentmere thread and is an offshoot of that post.

I've come to believe that recently there is a wider range than ever in what it costs photographers in different geographic areas to process black and white 'film' to say nothing of tradtional printing, even if it is 'digital' printing on black and white halide archival stock as opposed to 'RA' type papers.

Considering that chemistry can vary tremendously in cost depending upon 're-use', manufacturer, quantity purchased, use of anti-spotting/streaking agents, and equipment I am interested to know:

If you develop your own b/w film in small batchs -

1. How much do you spend per roll/image to process film and is this for 35mm, 120, 220, sheet film?
2. How much time do you spend per week or month on average processing your film?
3. Do you feel you lose any significant percentage of exposures to processing errors (light leaks, bad timing or chemistry, chemical contamination, etc.)?

If you print your own b/w either contact or enlarger -

1. How much do you spend on the average print including paper and chemicals?
2. Do you spend more or less time printing than processing the film? If you scan your film and then process digitally directly from the negatives, note that or if that is a portion of your work flow.

For both of these, your initial setup of space/darkroom, tanks, trays, tongs, table, measuring/mixing devices, safelights, enlarger and spare enlarger lamps, gloves, timers, and all those other little goodies can be split up over 1000 prints, or for the total rolls or images for a year for calculation. If you've been doing this long enough that that is a low number and you are willing, just indicate how you calculate your 'budget'.

I'm curious to know how this currently (1Q 2008) compares to the 'business cost' for a dip and dunk lab (few are left that do much b/w it is sad to say) or for a custom lab that buys chemistry in bulk and uses fresh chemistry and tracks water usage as a portion of its cost analysis.

This if purely for personal curiosity and to maybe give a realistic gauge for the 'home brewing' crowd to get an idea of what they may be investing.

Other than chemistry in large batchs, I haven't bought anything for a few years as everything I use is stainless and my safelights are filtered fixtures that take regular incandescent lamps.

Thanks for any particpation you may undertake and I'll post later my 'calculations' for the latest batch of Ilford, plus an extrapolation of what that might cost on 'average'.

[Xia_Ke]

Wow, this is going to be tough to figure out since I reuse some chemicals, vary my dilutions, and shoot both 35mm and 120 film. It is CHEAP for me to process my own B&W film though, I can tell you that. So far, I have only screwed up one roll in developing beyond recovery. I was using a lot of a weaker dilution for a while and forgot I had mixed up a regular batch so I essentially ended up developing for twice as long as I should have. Twice I have forgotten to mix up fresh fixer and needed to refix film but, that's no biggie.

My chemicals:

HC-110 is $13.99 - Had about 15 rolls of 35mm and 35 rolls of 120 on my first bottle using dil. H 75% of the time and dil. B the other 25%. I still had a little left in the bottle but, I only mix a quart of working solution at a time and that is straight from concentrate. The little left in the original bottle had started to go bad. I would guess there was about a little under 10% of the bottle left when I switch to a fresh bottle.

Kodak Indicator Stop Bath is $5.99 - I reuse this. I have about 65 rolls on the bottle so far and have only gone through MAYBE 25% of the bottle at most.

Kodafix is $7.49 - Reusing this as well. Just finished my second bottle. 1 bottle of Kodafix makes 4 quarts of working solution IIRC ( I mix everything 1 quart at a time). The first bottle I used single use and that was good for about 12 rolls of 35mm. Now I reuse and just mixed up the last of my second bottle. So far I have about 50 rolls??? on this bottle, about 1/3 35mm and 2/3 120 film.

Hypo Clearing Agent is $3.49 for the 1.25 gallon packets. This make 1 quart of stock solution - Depending on the film, one packet is good for roughly 15 rolls of 35mm or 10 rolls of 120 film.

Kodak Photo Flo 200 is $7.99 - This stuff lasts FOREVER. Doing the math on it 1 bottle makes about roughly 94 quarts of working solution. 1 quart does 3 rolls of 35mm or 2 rolls of 120.

Not sure what that works out to per roll but, it is cheap and worth every penny IMO. Also, thanks to Ebay, I only have $30 into my set-up including storage bottles, beakers, Patterson tank with 2 reels, and a changing bag.

Aaron

[Xia_Ke]

Okay, so for S@&%'s and giggles, I did some rough, VERY ROUGH, estimates on per roll costs...

Kodak HC-110 (16oz. bottle), using dil. B, which is 1oz. per quart, makes 16 quarts of working solution. I get 3 rolls of 35mm per quart. This gives 48 rolls per bottle at a cost of $0.29 per roll of 35mm. Using dil. H, which is 1/2oz. per quart, makes 32 quarts of working solution. This gives 96 rolls per bottle at a cost of $0.15 per roll of 35mm.

Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (16oz. bottle) as a guestimate on my current usage would make enough working solution for about 400 rolls of 35mm at a cost of roughly $0.02 per roll.

Kodak Kodafix (32oz. bottle) as a guestimate on my current usage would make enough working solution for about 50 rolls of 35mm at a cost of roughly $0.02 per roll.

Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent (1.25 gallon packets) makes enough working solution for roughly 15 rolls of 35mm at a cost of $0.23 per roll

Kodak Photo Flo 200 (16oz. bottle) requires roughly 5ml per quart which should create enough working solution for about 282 rolls of 35mm at a cost of $0.03 per roll.

Add it all up:

HC-110-----$0.29 ($0.15 using dil. H)
Stop---------$0.02
Fixer--------$0.02
Hypo--------$0.23
Photo Flo--$0.03
----------------$0.59 per roll of 35mm using dil. B or $0.45 using dil. H

***Please keep in mind, these are very rough estimates and do not take into consideration shipping charges and/or taxes on chemicals***

[Xia_Ke]

Let's take this even further. One of the things I hear a lot of digital shooters complain about is the cost of shooting film. So for fun, let's do a breakdown. This is for B&W film too. Costs would be VERY different if shooting color negative or slide film. This is debatable but, let's take a Nikon D3 which costs $5,000 new. A comparable Film body would be a Nikon F6 which costs $2,000 new.

Nikon D3--------$5,000
Nikon F6--------$2,000
Difference-------$3,000

Film costs:
Plus-X 36exp------$3.75
Developing----------$0.59
Total------------------$4.34

$3,000/$4.34= 691 rolls including development using my dil. B figures

691 rolls x 36 shots per roll = 24,876 shots of 35mm

This is kinda fun drg. I know, this is probably not quite what you were looking for but, it's quiet at work today...LOL

[Greg McCary]

Let's take this even further. One of the things I hear a lot of digital shooters complain about is the cost of shooting film. So for fun, let's do a breakdown. This is for B&W film too. Costs would be VERY different if shooting color negative or slide film. This is debatable but, let's take a Nikon D3 which costs $5,000 new. A comparable Film body would be a Nikon F6 which costs $2,000 new.

Nikon D3--------$5,000
Nikon F6--------$2,000
Difference-------$3,000

Film costs:
Plus-X 36exp------$3.75
Developing----------$0.59
Total------------------$4.34

$3,000/$4.34= 691 rolls including development using my dil. B figures

691 rolls x 36 shots per roll = 24,876 shots of 35mm

This is kinda fun drg. I know, this is probably not quite what you were looking for but, it's quiet at work today...LOL

You need to include RAW developing programs, Lightroom $200.00 and CS2 just guessing $500.00. Printers, ink, CF cards ect. ect. I think digital could actually be more expensive if you figure in a body upgardes every two to three years. Hummm, It adds up.

[Xia_Ke]

You need to include RAW developing programs, Lightroom $200.00 and CS2 just guessing $500.00. Printers, ink, CF cards ect. ect. I think digital could actually be more expensive if you figure in a body upgardes every two to three years. Hummm, It adds up.

Lightroom is $299 and CS3 is $649 right now from Adobe. Hmmm, never quite realized how close it was until this thread.

Sorry drg, I know not quite the direction you were heading

[Loupey]

$3,000/$4.34= 691 rolls including development using my dil. B figures

691 rolls x 36 shots per roll = 24,876 shots of 35mm

This is kinda fun drg. I know, this is probably not quite what you were looking for but, it's quiet at work today...LOL

I agree with most of your numbers up to this point...

But keep in mind that SOME of us like to shoot in bold, beautiful COLOR too

[Xia_Ke]

I agree with most of your numbers up to this point...

But keep in mind that SOME of us like to shoot in bold, beautiful COLOR too

Trust me Loupey, I didn't forget. I don't think you read my whole post

...This is for B&W film too. Costs would be VERY different if shooting color negative or slide film...

Color film easily doubles my figures. Including developing you're looking at what $9 or $10 a roll for color negative and $12+ for slide film??? Sorry don't shoot color so not exactly sure

[Loupey]

OK, I see your disclaimer now

I don't remember the numbers now, but I do recall that 120 roll E6 film with only 15 exposure yield per roll was a pricey hobby. With every "clunk" of the shutter release, I heard a handful of change falling somewhere

Digital (can I say that word here?) or film, I think I need to find another endeavour soon

[Greg McCary]

Last roll of color slide I shot last month. Wal-mart charged $3.88 to send off and develope and $2.97 to scan to CD.

[Xia_Ke]

You can say digital where ever you like. I am by no means anti digital. It's all the photographers preference as far as I'm concerned.

Taking a look at the prices of the closest lab to me...
35mm 36exp C-41 = $2.50 per roll
35mm 36exp E-6 = $8.50 per roll
120 C-41 = $5.00 per roll
120 E-6 = $9.50 per roll

GULP

and since this thread was supposed to be for comparing B&W self processing vs. the lab...
35mm = $4.50
120 = $6.00

[drg]

This is great!

I was going to go in a couple of these directions anyway, but was trying to keep it a little more basic to start.

Color/C41, as a quick footnote, gets more expensive partially due to controlling temp. It becomes very easy to cook the film and it will look that way. Brown isn't always an attractive color.

I felt several years ago that the comparison of 35mm to digital wasn't 'fair', it was more of how close you could get to a MF like 645. Digital is really about color, but that's another post!

Digital isn't cheaper, just different. I use the same software (for the most part) for both film and digital, just a different workflow. I can shoot a lot more images for the same money, but the initial investment is much greater.

Xia_Ke your last post is particularly interesting at the moment as it show a real difference from what I'd charge or is being charged for the most part in this area of the midwest. Your C-41 prices are 20-25% lower and the E-6 is 35-40% higher.

I look forward to more responses!

By the way, is there a sales tax and environmental tax on any of your supplies in the greater New England region? We get hammered on some things, and even some of it is 'regulated' for color chemistry in any significant quantity.

[Xia_Ke]

We do have a 5% sales tax in Maine. This particular lab is just across the border in New Hampshire where there is no sales tax. I just order all of my stuff online though. It's cheaper, there's a better selection, and less hassle.

[photophorous]

First, let me say that I'm not processing my own B&W film to save money. I'm doing it because I like it. I'm sure that's true with most of us, but I just wanted to say that for any lurkers who are considering trying it for financial reasons. It's not about the money. It's FUN!:thumbsup:

I've recently started experimenting with different films, developers, and dilutions, which makes calculations very difficult. So, for the purpose of this discussion, we'll just say I use D76, Kodak Fixer, Kodak Hypo-Clear, and TriX. I use a water stop bath.

It costs me $10 to mix up a liter batch of each of the above chemicals. I run out of D76 first, but due to my slow pace, I usually ditch the others and mix a fresh batch of everything at once. I end up developing 8 rolls of 35mm TriX with about $10 of chemicals.

A roll of TriX costs about $4, and I get 38 shots from that.

So that comes out to $1.25 per roll for chemicals.
Total per roll cost is $5.25.
Per shot cost is just under 14 cents.

A good reel (I'm a snob for Kinderman or Hewes reels) costs about $25. A tank will be about $10. Thermometer is $8. Graduated cylinder is $6. Hmm...is that it? I think that's all you need to get started. Oh yeah, I have a bottle of Photo-flo that I paid $5 for, two years ago, and it still works fine and is over half full. So, I'll consider that "equipment." Total is $44.

I'm trying to think of how many rolls I shoot per year, and I really have no idea. My guess is about 44. Convenient, huh?

So that comes out to about another $1 per roll, for the equipment costs stretched out over a year. That equipment has lasted me longer than a year, but I've also bought more equipment to increase my productivity and also for convenience.

So, I'd say it costs me about $6.25 for every roll of B&W film I shoot
At that rate, I spend about $275 per year on B&W film and processing.

Time? It takes me a total of about 2 hours to set up the water bath, develop, wash, and dry a roll of film. Throw in scanning and it's another 2 hours. I probably do this 3-4 times per month, which makes a total of 12-16 hours. I often do more than one roll at a time, which has no effect on processing time, but obviously doubles scanning time.

At this point, I never loose a single frame due to processing errors. I do often look at the results and think, "that could have gone a little longer," or "I shouldn't have diluted the developer so much," but it's been a really long time since I ruined a roll of film. My errors are on the capture end.

Local pro lab prices for developed, unmounted, uncut, 35mm film with no prints:
(exposure count doesn't matter)
C-41 = $4
E6 = $6.50

Interesting thread.

Paul

[Xia_Ke]

First, let me say that I'm not processing my own B&W film to save money. I'm doing it because I like it. I'm sure that's true with most of us, but I just wanted to say that for any lurkers who are considering trying it for financial reasons. It's not about the money. It's FUN!:thumbsup:

VERY good point Paul! Another thing worth mentioning is that by processing you own film you have total control over your film. Light a little flat or really harsh? You can adjust your developing to compensate. When having a lab do it, they just develop for the standard times. If you need any push/pull processing, it'll cost you even more.

I forgot about the time part of this question A full batch of chemicals takes about 15 minutes to mix up. Depending on the film and dilution I use, developing takes about 15 - 20 minutes, then a couple hours for drying. Scanning time varies depending on number of frames worth doing a full scan on and resolution of scanning but, on average it's about 2 minutes per frame of 35mm at 2400dpi.

[Loupey]

Digital isn't cheaper, just different. I use the same software (for the most part) for both film and digital, just a different workflow. I can shoot a lot more images for the same money, but the initial investment is much greater.

On the one hand, I think this statement differs greatly for different people. Of course it depends on volume (number of images shot) and how much/often one upgrades digital equipment.

On the other hand, I think comparing the cost of per image of film vs. digital is rather odd as I feel both mediums are on diverging paths at this point. Different mediums for different purposes will incur different costs.

I agree with photophorous’s statement that many people probably process film for the experience or enjoyment. Not necessarily because they think they are actually saving money. I can say that I “dropped off” the film team years back because I wasn’t having fun anymore with it – mostly because I didn’t have the time needed to devote to it. Sure developing film is fun, easy, and relatively inexpensive, but I’ve always felt that the vast majority of the creativity (and fun) comes from the printing of the enlargements. But with color, it takes about 1 to 2 hours to make one good Cibachrome print (assuming 1 or 2 test prints).

I assume most of you are developing film but scanning the negatives to process and print digitally? If so, the pure fun/quality/enjoyment of analog photography is lost (to a large extent) and much of the costs incurred by the pure digital photographer are also incurred in the form of computer hardware, software, external storage, inks, etc.

Not trying to sound like a downer. Just hope that if you're going to go film, you should really go all the way and enjoy the printing aspect as well.


Wow, did I really take this off-topic! I appreciate drg’s initial question to have us thinking about this question though

[reverberation]

Hopefully I will finish this post...I tried responding two other times but got busy with other things as I started looking up how much everything cost me. I never even considered exactly how much everything cost, but once I find out the exact amount I am certainly surprised.
Film is around a dollar to two dollars a roll (this fluctuates as I bulk load and tend to get good deals and regular deals) $25.00 to $45.00 per 800 exposures,which is 20 rolls of 40 exposures which accounts for wasted film at both ends. I also find film at thrift stores for under a dollar a roll. Sheet film is my biggest expense. Multigrade fiber runs a dollar a sheet and litho film is twice that (8x10 sheets @25 per pack). I can bring these costs down by buying larger sheets in larger quantities. Back in the day I used to get my litho film practically free in comparison. Now I will test in photoshop to determine where my litho film would be best used.
My chemicals are Ilford at the moment, ID-11 @ $6.00 for 1 liter stock. Fixer is about half that. I also have some Ilford 2000RT and Kodak D-19 which are special use developers. I use Kodak stop bath on some film so the cost there is pennies a roll. I don't use hypo, though I think I will start as the cost is certainly worth it, once I see how little it is per roll. The fiber paper costs me chemically because it absorbs so much more than RC paper. The fixing and stopping ends are where I see the increased cost regarding this paper. I won't push my chemicals as far with fiber as I will with RC paper. I cut one sheet out of ten into strips for testing. I get 16 strips per sheet.
I recently bought a bulk loader that came with several metal canisters and was filled with what turned out to be Plus-X film. The metal canisters all have varying degrees of light leaks which cost me some exposures on the first rolls I ran through them. I love them now, as I can compose shots knowing that I will get effects that I could not duplicate as well in photoshop. Exposure-wise these canisters are tricky and I will tend to lose some shots when I use them (muddy). I think I have posted one of them, which I will use with the litho film as this creates a nice look. I have used muddy negs to make screens with lith film, but prefer to make screens and shaders with lith film by using spent developer.
Monthly, the cost is still way less than cable TV and it is far less detrimental to my awareness of the world around me.
I can get film developed at walgreens for $1.36 a roll without prints. I have paid $46.00 to a wolf camera store to get tungsten slide film developed. I am looking now at a receipt for $32.52 for four rolls of development and ten rolls of Reala (24exp.) at 99 cents each. I have paid around seven dollars a roll to get Seattle FilmWorks developed but I love the way this film saturates the blues (like Kodak Gold saturated the reds). I just got a C-6 kit and will do C-41 as well. I have had several rolls developed that were unacceptable.

[Xia_Ke]

...I assume most of you are developing film but scanning the negatives to process and print digitally? If so, the pure fun/quality/enjoyment of analog photography is lost (to a large extent) and much of the costs incurred by the pure digital photographer are also incurred in the form of computer hardware, software, external storage, inks, etc.

Not trying to sound like a downer. Just hope that if you're going to go film, you should really go all the way and enjoy the printing aspect as well...

I know, I know :cryin: Soon though, very soon. I should have a basic darkroom going with in a month Already started ordering a couple small things and by next week should have the funds to start shopping for my enlarger. I'm eying either an Omega B-22XL or one of the Beseler 23C XL versions. The waiting is driving me nuts, I want to start printing already :mad2:

[photophorous]

I assume most of you are developing film but scanning the negatives to process and print digitally? If so, the pure fun/quality/enjoyment of analog photography is lost (to a large extent) and much of the costs incurred by the pure digital photographer are also incurred in the form of computer hardware, software, external storage, inks, etc.

I understand what you're saying, but I'll be the first to admit it's not a completely logical decision. I don't do it for financial reasons or for some objective measure of quality. I do it because I like the look of film, I like using my rangefinder and other old cameras, and I like the creative control I get from developing my own film. I don't make wet prints anymore because I don't have the means. However, I don't think the look of film comes from a print. It comes from the film, and you can't get that look from a digital camera. It also has some advantages that wet printing doesn't. At any point, I can hit save and go do something else with out spending half an hour cleaning up. Hopefully one day I'll move into a house where I can build a darkroom, and when I do, I'll have a collection of negatives to keep me busy. :thumbsup:

[Loupey]

FWIW, I still haven't been able to get a decent looking B&W print out of my computer/printer.

But there is nothing more magical than watching a B&W image appear on a "blank" piece of paper in a tray of developer under red lights. Those times I do miss. Dodging and burning portions of the print by hand (literally) was fun too.

[drg]

FWIW, I still haven't been able to get a decent looking B&W print out of my computer/printer.

But there is nothing more magical than watching a B&W image appear on a "blank" piece of paper in a tray of developer under red lights. Those times I do miss. Dodging and burning portions of the print by hand (literally) was fun too.

I've written several pieces on this topic and watching the photograph swim into view. That was one part of what hooked me a looonngg time ago about photography.

Printing either 'wet' or 'dry' w/inkjet or other technology is complex to master.

One prime key to both is the paper I believe. But this is another great topic. gahspidy-Gary Heller and I in discussing Adobe Lightroom in another forum(here at PR) have mentioned we need to start some posts regarding this topic.

One more note on printing, not all b/w inks are created equal. The Ultra-Chrome b/w's seemingly are the current stand outs!

NOW, Back to the INFORMAL SURVEY. . .

One comment, I am glad to see info about time spent. This is one of the keys to the commitment or what one will invest to work in the film medium to offset that portion of the investment.

[drg]

This is part one of my response and only really covers a small segment of the topic.

The following costs are based on two ranges of data. Both assume buying new equipment for small tank processing and film and chemical costs are all built around Fuji Neopan 400 in 135 (35mm) size as this is the conventional halide b/w film I've most often used for several years. 120 film it works out has a very similar cost per roll, but of course is much higher per frame as the film is larger. I've costed this on doing 3 roll/week or 150 per year. I don't know when I last shot just one roll other than one's left in a camera or in a 'carry' camera that might take a week or more to finish.

Calculations are based on the ability to process 3 rolls at a time, either sequentially or all at once in a larger 3-4 roll tank. The more expensive number is based on stainless tanks, optimum chemical consumptions (i.e. one use at medium times and fill rates for the ~ 1 liter (actually 875ml @ 1:1 dilution) 3-in-1 Paterson style 440 tanks using Microdol or Super Prodol. The lower cost is based on a smaller Kodak plastic/resin single roll tank and D-76.

The 1 year and 3 year numbers obviously amortize the equipment over two different periods of time. By necessity some of the numbers are wholesale (i.e. chemicals in spigot equipped containers with floating lids) and both higher and lower numbers assume the chemicals are replaced if they expire and are stored in air evacuable containers. These containers (the ones that look like accordions on end) are worth it for the more expensive developers and definitely if you mix your own as that is slightly less stable.

The timer I choose is a Gralab that has the external plugs for an enlarger and other accessories, is digital with a blankable red display so that it can also be used for color and has an audible interval timer. The cost is less than half of MSRP as I can't find anything other than a wholesale or 'bulk' order of 5 pricing. So realistically it probably is a $150 timer. I use a similar one that has been around for 10+years and works fine, phenol stains and all!

Thermometer I chose a Paterson analog for calculation as they are fine and durable, though there are much less expensive ones out there. The funnels listed are really optional, but I like them for the tanks I use and the Paterson's as the drain opening to the tank is a little small to pour into quickly otherwise. They are specified in stainless and at a quantity price but not wholesale. This is included in the higher price, the lower cost D-76 uses a Kodak 'kit' thermometer.

The remaining 'supplies' including tongs, squeegees, clips, etc. are based on what I use when doing it the right way, and not just using my fingers to wipe the film and chip clips off the bag of Doritos to hang the film.

As I mentioned before, taxs, shipping and the hazardous materials costs I'm not really including as they are not a huge cost and you may pay them or not depending on where you get your supplies.

Neopan film is based on a bulk purchase of 50-100 roll pricing. Delivery included.

Neopan film $2.30 a roll.

1 year costs
Base equipment new(some wholesale some quantity or retail price)
totals for calculation $264 spread over 150 rolls - 1.76 roll
Microdol/Super Prodol Chemistry including acid hardener as Neopan needs this to be durable for storage and scanning - $0.60 roll
Post work and storage (see below for more) - $0.35+ roll
With film total 2.71+2.30 Grand total is a $5.01 per roll

3 year costs Microdol/SPD drop significantly to a processing and equipment cost of $1.35 per roll + $2.30film Grand total $3.65

1 and 3 year costs for the lower cost single tank (Kodak plastic) tank and minimal other gear doing one roll at a time with D-76 and the base Kodak chemistry and no post process acid hardener are
equipment for year one drops to $2.23 cents a roll
equipment for 3 years drops to $0.96 cents a roll.

One year of 150 rolls in Kodak D-76 (lower cost chem) $4.58 roll
Three years of 150 rolls/yr D-76 $3.26 roll


I used a figure of $33 per roll for a 'beginner's' kit as listed in several catalogs when that are the same as the last plastic tank I bought as gift about three years. I calculated this for 3 sets for doing three rolls at once for the lower cost D-76 based process. This is from brand new catalog pricing as of January 7, 2008 and the 'kit' mentioned includes several items for sheet or print processing such as trays and drying racks. All in inexpensive nylon or polyester material.

The Post Processing includes a cost for a light box and loupe of moderate quality to inspect negatives. There's a inclusion of a flat cutter (~$20) to uniformly and cleanly cut negative strips for storage. I also have included costs for bulk purchases of storage boxes (non-acid cardboard moisture resistant coatedd) and negative storage sheets.

I'll do a sheet film cost and a b/w printing cost(enlargement and contact) in the near future.

Thanks to all who have participated so far and hope others will add on to this as time progresses for various chemistries and film types!

[danic]

Well, I can't contribute much to this thread in terms of prices and experiences, but I am finding it very interesting. I am just starting to shoot in film and am looking to develop my own film.

What is stopping me is my 9 week old little girl, who demands the most from me, so I don't have too much time to spare unfortunately.

I am looking forward to developing my own film and view this thread whenever I get the chance. Keep the comments flowing!

[Xia_Ke]

Hi danic, developing film can be done fairly quickly. If I'm starting from scratch and need to mix up a full batch of chemicals, I can do a run in about 30 minutes or so. If you can sneak away for a few after she goes to bed, you could easily run some film and leave it to dry over night. Come on, give it a shot... you know you want to :thumbsup:

Aaron

[MyLittleLeica]

I develop my own film for the fun of it, too. Also I grew tired of going to the store and having to wait 2~3 business days to get my negatives back. If had known how easy it was I would've started a long, long time ago.

Fuji developer is $1.80 for a packet that makes 1l of solution (Super-Prodol)
Acetic Acid is $6.50 for a 500ml bottle of 90% (stop bath)
Fujifix is $6.75
Fuij Quickwash is $0.47 for a packet that makes 2l of solution

That makes $15.52. Here in Japan it costs $5 just to get negatives done for B&W, C-41 and E-6. 1l of Super-Prodol does about 4 or 5 roll of 35mm or 3+ rolls of 120. The acetic acid lasts for 20 rolls or so. 1 bottle of fix is good for 10+ rolls, and Quickwash lasts for a 15 rolls or more.

I tend to shoot about 5 ~ 10 rolls of film a month. On weekends I do 2 or 3 rolls of 120, which I guess is a lot. I can't do bulk 120 but I buy rolls of Tri-X and TMAX 400 and roll my own film. A pack of 5 canisters was about $8. From a 100+ foot roll of Tri-X 400 I've gotten quite a few rolls of 24 exposure film. Cutting my own film means I don't have to go the store, and I can cut the films to any length I want.

I see myself saving money, plus I get creative control. I've started using HC-110 (expensive but long shelf life), D-76, Microfine, Xtol (not yet) and even Dektol (paper developer - try it for great grain.) I have yet to find Rodinal ...

I'm trying to get my wife to let me make a darkroom. In the meantime I'm scanning everything.