Film photography expensive

Giles · May 18, 2006

I have a nice camera that i got from my dad. It's a pentax K1000. I love using it and it gives me so much freedom. But I hate manual for one reason:
It's soo damn expensive.
I have ony developed one film and the budget is prettty sad:
200 ASA 35mm Film - $3.85
Development(no prints, picture CD) - $10.92
This has been converted from $NZ to $US.

Is this pretty normal. I guess I could try supplying a CD for them, but I doubt it would make much difference. I know that I can get film for about $NZ4 each in packs of 10 from the net. but i don't want to buy film if it's going to cost that much to develop. I'm not really interested in developing myself.

stingray · May 18, 2006

find a place that will develop it cheaper.. here in Australia a can get a friend to get it done at his local consumer lab for AUS$2.50 a roll, that's for colour.. and if i want it done professional it's 7 dollars.. 11 dollars US is terrible... even if i get mine done at a chemist it's only 6 dollars for dev and prints of a 24 exp. Find yourself a place that does it cheaper and as for film, either buy it at the supermarket if you want cheap stuff or find a pro photo place that has nice stuff.

Giles · May 18, 2006

Maybe the conversions aren't quite right...I'm using the Dashboard Widget that translates the currency.

I guess I could check out some other establishments. The Kodak printshop cost me $NZ17 for no prints just a CD and the film oinly had 20 exp on it. I tried a chemist which sent them away and then gave them back to you and they saud I had to get prints and it would cost $20 for prints and a CD. There is a fuji lab but apart from that thats all.

Film isn't much of a problem, one of my friends dad is a pro photographer and I could probably make some sort of deal to get soime through him (he gets pro film for around $3).

Thanks for the tips and advice.

Torus34 · May 18, 2006

If every frame on a roll resulted in a 'keeper' -- that is, a print good enough to hang on the wall -- cost would not be a problem, right? It's all those poor, mediocre or 'almost keeper' frames that up the cost.

So, here are some ways to reduce the cost per keeper.

First, think carefully before you push that button on the top of the camera. Do you think the print will be good enough to hang on the wall? If so, go ahead and push. If not, consider how to improve the shot or look around for a different subject. This will ultimately result in more 'keepers' per roll. It will also improve your compositional abilities.

Second, consider B&W. You can rig for film development and contact printing for a reasonable cost. This will allow you to pick out those frames you want to have printed [the 'keepers.']

tasman · May 18, 2006

You could invest in a digital camera, no film, just download to your computer and print what you want. But what it costs for a good digital camera and the cost of ink for a printer you can shoot a lot of rolls of film.

Thats my view on the costs of film. One option might be just to develope the negatives and print the pictures that you want later.

I have a film scanner for 35MM negatives so I just get the negatives only when I take my film in. It generally costs me about $4 CDN.

mysteryscribe · May 18, 2006

All of the above are true and I add nothing to it but to say if it were free it would be digital (spit)

Don Simon · May 18, 2006

I agree with what's already been said. If you want to stick with 35mm, buying your own film scanner and scanning the film is a good idea. You're still paying for film, but processing is cheap if you ask for no prints, and then you can decide what you want printed. I think the image quality of my scanned 35mm film is better than the shots from my 7-megapixel point and shoot digital. I'd get better quality with a 6mp digital SLR, but then that would cost me a good £500, for which I can buy quite a lot of film. Buying your own scanner will also almost certainly get you higher resolution images than the ones you're getting from the shop.

yoursatellite · May 18, 2006

Another reason the exodus from film has been so rapid. Normally I'm one to make an argument for old technology but I have a difficult time making one for film anymore. This coming from a person with decades worth of professional darkroom experience who's trade is now about obsolete. I should be teed off but I find that for my own work I can get so much more done with digital then with film.

cheers
Helen

benhasajeep · May 19, 2006

From the way it looks you are spending most of your money on the CDs.

Here in the states I send my regular c-41 color film to a kodak lab through a wholesale club. Developing and 24 3 1/2 x 5 prints are only $2.74

If I have one I want to share I can scan them on my scanner. For the price your paying for about 15 cds you can pick up a decent scanner and scan the ones you want. I have also noticed alot of people complain about the cd's from the developers. They don't scan to that high of quality.

I would look into getting your own scanner and not give up on film!

Naturegirl · May 19, 2006

Torus34 said:
First, think carefully before you push that button on the top of the camera. Do you think the print will be good enough to hang on the wall? If so, go ahead and push. If not, consider how to improve the shot or look around for a different subject. This will ultimately result in more 'keepers' per roll. It will also improve your compositional abilities.

Ditto. I'm one of those refusing to go digital and really don't beat myself up about the expense. There's just such a difference in the print quality of each and I always notice it. On the computer screen digital can be really nice, but on print, I just haven't seen anything comparable to film.....yet; so the expense is worth it to me. I'll probably be the last person on earth clutching onto the last roll of film in existence when everyone else is standing around taking pictures of me with their digital's :lol:

.

That said, I really take my time when shooting anything......except my 22 month old twin boys. Most every roll I shoot is about 95% keepable; not necessarily to hang on the wall but good for something. I'd love to have my own stock photo company some day so I'm sure most everything I have could be added to that collection

terri · May 19, 2006

Photography is expensive - period. :lol:

You're either spending a boatload of money on the latest and greatest digital camera, memory cards, printer, ink cartridges, paper (or paying someone else to do it to your specifications) or you're spending a boatload of money buying film, scanner, and ongoing processing costs.

It's gonna get ya, either way. Don't forget either camera will be nagging you for quality lenses, too. :heart:

I just bought a medium format camera and will be one of those freaks arm-wrestling Naturegirl up there for that last roll of film. :lol:

It's just personal preference, plus it suits the alternative processes I do - not to mention I love the darkroom.

I don't even ask myself if digital would be cheaper, because I know I'd find a way to drop big bucks there, too. It's gonna get ya no matter what!

ThomThomsk · May 19, 2006

Naturegirl said:
I'll probably be the last person on earth clutching onto the last roll of film in existence when everyone else is standing around taking pictures of me with their digital's