Cost Effective Processing?

D

dancook

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,800
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
I'd been sitting on a roll of B+W Medium Format for a couple of years, decided it was time to get it developed.

http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/

B&W Process Only 35mm/120 Optional Scan - Contact Sheet:No Contact Sheet, Film Scan to CD:Medium ~18mb
Push / Pull Process?: No, process as normal

Total cost £13.48 with delivery back.


Is this typical?

Hoping to it in the post today! Can't remember much of what I shot..

If I decided to get into it, I wanted to make sure I was not paying over the odds for developing.

thanks
 
Personally, I generally use FilmDev.co.uk as they have a faster turnaround (they use WeTransfer to share the digital scans, often next day) and are generally cheaper than AG/Peak.
 
However... you have to pay to post your film to Filmdev and as a 35mm roll is too big for 'large letter' it has to go as a small parcel, which for 1st class by Royal Mail is £3.45. A medium scan for a roll of 35mm is £10, so it's about the same price as AG. However, I don't know if the 'medium' scan is at the same resolution from both labs, so this might be something else to consider when choosing?

If you get into film and intend to use it regularly then getting your own film scanner like the Epson 550 or 600 might be a more cost-effective way? I have one and unless I've taken some shots I think might be special then I'll send 3 or 4 rolls off together in the post-paid envelope (or downloadable label) to AG and go for a develop only. With postage I seem to remember that costs me about £15 for 4 rolls of 35mm and/or 120 but I'm sure you'll be able to check the prices on their website. Hope this is useful.
 
Last edited:
I didn't have a printer handy so I actually paid as well for the film to go to AG as I didn't want to delay it any more....

The CD came just this morning

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr

First Medium Format Roll by dancook1982, on Flickr
 
Did that roll go through the washing machine at some point or are they just really underexposed? The amount of artifacts on the images suggests it's been battered at some point along the way (or just very out of date and kept in a hot location?)
 
stevelmx5 said:
Did that roll go through the washing machine at some point or are they just really underexposed? The amount of artifacts on the images suggests it's been battered at some point along the way (or just very out of date and kept in a hot location?)
Click to expand...

I was given the roll from someone's stash and then i didn't get it developed for 2 years and it sat in a drawer.

Wouldn't know about exposure now.
 
dancook said:
I was given the roll from someone's stash and then i didn't get it developed for 2 years and it sat in a drawer.

Wouldn't know about exposure now.
Click to expand...

Might explain the artifacts and low contrast. I wouldn't let them put you off trying MF film again with something newer and known history :)
 
stevelmx5 said:
Might explain the artifacts and low contrast. I wouldn't let them put you off trying MF film again with something newer and known history :)
Click to expand...

I didn't mind them really, the focusing and composing could have done with more work.

I would need to buy a mf camera as it was borrowed, though I do have two inherited 35mm film cameras - Nikonos V and Olympus OM-1
 
dancook said:
I didn't mind them really, the focusing and composing could have done with more work.

I would need to buy a camera, I do have two inherited 35mm film cameras - Nikonos V and Olympus OM-1
Click to expand...

Sorry Dan, didn't mean to come across as negative towards the images. The compositions are good, I was just commenting on the overall quality of the result so you didn't think that this is how all film results look :0)

As you've already got one of the best small SLR's there I'd recommend getting some 35mm film and get out with the Olympus.
 
For colour I'd (personally) recommend Velvia 100 slide for good light and Portra 400 negative for everything else. For black and white, I like Acros 100 (while you can still get it) and Ilford HP5.
 
stevelmx5 said:
For colour I'd (personally) recommend Velvia 100 slide for good light and Portra 400 negative for everything else. For black and white, I like Acros 100 (while you can still get it) and Ilford HP5.
Click to expand...

Velvia 100... £12 a roll yowser

Ordering Acros 100 :)
 
Last edited:
If the results are OK from the OM1 then perhaps try a roll of Kodak Ektar 100 colour negative film next time, it's cheaper than Velvia and you won't need a slide projector to see it! Joking aside, it's a nice colour film to use in the summer when the light is brighter, the colours are well saturated (without becoming garish) and the grain is very fine. For general everyday stuff/practising then perhaps try some Kodak ColorPlus 200, and for winter/duller weather there's Fuji Superia Xtra 400 (if they've not stopped making it by then).

For B&W you could try some Ilford XP2 400, it uses the same developing process as C41 colour print film so it's a bit cheaper to develop than 'standard' type B&W film. Plus, if it's a bright and sunny day you can shoot it at 200 ISO, then shoot at the standard 400 ISO on dull days.... on the same roll of film (developing/processing it as normal without any alterations)! Quite handy!

Probably the best thing to do is have a search on Flickr and type in the film type you're considering and have a look through lots of people's results. That way you should get an idea of the general characteristics and 'look' of each film you check out - do bear in mind that some people's shots might not have been scanned or developed very well, so look for general 'trends' in the look/characteristics rather than individual results. It's cheaper than trying lots of different films yourself, or trying to understand someone's description of any particular film. Hope this is useful. (y)
 
Last edited:
Forgot to say, Ektar 100 is better for things and places rather than people/portraits, for portraits there's Portra (obviously) but I'm not mad keen on the more muted tones of that for other stuff, but it's all down to personal taste. Hence the Flickr search tip!
 
Mr Badger said:
Forgot to say, Ektar 100 is better for things and places rather than people/portraits, for portraits there's Portra (obviously) but I'm not mad keen on the more muted tones of that for other stuff, but it's all down to personal taste. Hence the Flickr search tip!
Click to expand...

i think most likely i will use it for street photography of people... :) or I will try

probably strong shadows + people kind of shots perhaps..we'll see
 
Mr Badger said:
Forgot to say, Ektar 100 is better for things and places rather than people/portraits, for portraits there's Portra (obviously) but I'm not mad keen on the more muted tones of that for other stuff, but it's all down to personal taste. Hence the Flickr search tip!
Click to expand...

Also you say 'Portra (obviously)' :D I have no idea..
 
dancook said:
Total cost £13.48 with delivery back.

Is this typical?

Hoping to it in the post today! Can't remember much of what I shot..

If I decided to get into it, I wanted to make sure I was not paying over the odds for developing.

thanks
Click to expand...
It makes sense to shoot a lot more film. Then, at least, the postage goes way down.
 
To keep your film fresh until you are ready to get it developed you can store it in a sealed bag/ Tupperware container (to keep the moisture out) in the fridge.

Another way to save money would be to develop your own b&w film as well as the previous suggestion of scanning it yourself. B&W is quite simple to process and fun also.

If you're using the Olympus take into consideration that the light seals might have degraded (or they might be sticky but still effective). Also the OM1 takes a battery that is no longer available. Rather than spend the money having it modified to take modern batteries (a good idea if you did send the camera for a service) you can buy a voltage reducing MR-9 battery adapter for about £25 to £30 that will allow you to use modern button cells. I have one and it works great in my Olympus 35RC and Minolta SRT101. It's a lot more cost effective than buying the special Wein cells which only last a month or so before dying.
 
mdjchat said:
To keep your film fresh until you are ready to get it developed you can store it in a sealed bag/ Tupperware container (to keep the moisture out) in the fridge.

Another way to save money would be to develop your own b&w film as well as the previous suggestion of scanning it yourself. B&W is quite simple to process and fun also.

If you're using the Olympus take into consideration that the light seals might have degraded (or they might be sticky but still effective). Also the OM1 takes a battery that is no longer available. Rather than spend the money having it modified to take modern batteries (a good idea if you did send the camera for a service) you can buy a voltage reducing MR-9 battery adapter for about £25 to £30 that will allow you to use modern button cells. I have one and it works great in my Olympus 35RC and Minolta SRT101. It's a lot more cost effective than buying the special Wein cells which only last a month or so before dying.
Click to expand...

thanks

Fortunate the battery in it is still working it seems, got some film turn up today and i'm just heading out to see photography mates - so good timing! :)
 
If the light seals need doing then it might be worth sending the camera to a specialist repairer, who can change the seals, give it a bit of a service and convert the camera to take a modern silver oxide type battery (by fitting a diode to lower the voltage). See how you go with it today and if you enjoy the experience then you could always think about getting it done. Quite a few of us on here use Miles Whitehead as a camera technician http://www.mwcamerarepairs.co.uk so you could always get a quote from him for the work.
 
mdjchat said:
you can buy a voltage reducing MR-9 battery adapter for about £25 to £30 that will allow you to use modern button cells.
Click to expand...

HUH! What's wrong with a 1.5v cell and adjust the ASA, if the 1.5v is smaller then just use a ring of packing or kitchen foil for depth...if you set a bit in your favour i.e. slightly over expose (after checking the accuracy with a digi or whatever) then the film's latitude will cover....of course if you use slide film it's best to underexpose slightly
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
HUH! What's wrong with a 1.5v cell and adjust the ASA, if the 1.5v is smaller then just use a ring of packing or kitchen foil for depth...if you set a bit in your favour i.e. slightly over expose (after checking the accuracy with a digi or whatever) then the film's latitude will cover....of course if you use slide film it's best to underexpose slightly
Click to expand...
That's another option, I just like to keep things simple for myself. I'm forgetful enough at the best of times so it's one less step to get wrong for me.
 
mdjchat said:
That's another option, I just like to keep things simple for myself. I'm forgetful enough at the best of times so it's one less step to get wrong for me.
Click to expand...

It's me as I always think of the cheapest way to solve a problem o_O ;)
 
On tv the other night a woman used a cine camera and developed the film on the beach just using seaweed, vitamin c and I think it was washing soda...she uses a large changing bag and puts the film into a dev tank, then boils up the seaweed to extract Iodine (I think), and mixes it with the other chemicals. Well I didn't see the point really as when showing the cine film on a projector it was in the negative :rolleyes:
 
excalibur2 said:
On tv the other night a woman used a cine camera and developed the film on the beach just using seaweed, vitamin c and I think it was washing soda...she uses a large changing bag and puts the film into a dev tank, then boils up the seaweed to extract Iodine (I think), and mixes it with the other chemicals. Well I didn't see the point really as when showing the cine film on a projector it was in the negative :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I saw that as well and they did say that it would take more time than they had to create a positive, it was just to show that the process actually works.
 
Andysnap said:
I saw that as well and they did say that it would take more time than they had to create a positive, it was just to show that the process actually works.
Click to expand...

It was interesting and reminded me of WW2 prisoners making photos for identity cards using various chemicals... from a guard who was persuaded to give them a camera and film. (y)
 
I saw that too, it was on BBC TV's Countryfile, which should still be available on BBC I Player or whatever it's called, if someone wants to watch it. It was followed by Antiques Roadshow, which came from the Black Country Living Museum, a setting for a F&C section meet last autumn, and it brought back some happy memories of a very nice day out. (y)
 
This page is worth a read...

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/developers.html

The Vitamin C, Ascorbic Acid, looks to be the main developing agent. In the film, he says washing powder, but if he meant washing soda - Sodium Carbonate - that would act as an accelerator by providing an alkaline environment to help the developing agent to work. The seaweed, Bladderwrack, is a bit harder to pin down, but this page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucus_vesiculosus

...lists Iodine and Bromine amongst its constituents - both Halogens used in photography. Maybe they act as a restrainer to prevent chemical fog - they'll combine with the metallic silver as the developer creates it, converting it into Silver Iodide and Silver Bromide (ie, bleaches it back to 'unexposed' Silver Halide). The strength of the effect would depend on the relative activity of the ingredients.(The negs look like they have a decent tonal range...)

No mention of fixer, but I assume it was fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top