Shocking Film and film developing prices !

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,252
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

It's been a few years since I last used film and have had three used films ( 2x135 and 1 X120) knocking about for a while. Today I thought I'll send them off for developing nearly £40 for the three films with no prints and low res scans ! I have thought about buying some film stock but this has put me off totally. I have always preferred using film and mechanical cameras but I just cannot justify the costs , this has cemented my use of Digital only and I'll probably never touch film again. Rant over !
 
It has gone up an unreasonable amount.

There was a pronounced revival, and it seemed people decided to cash in on it, then just over a year ago AWW increased prices a lot, since then we have hardly bought any film, and mainly just processed and scanned B&W at home
I think it's called killing the goose that lays the golden eggs :)

Many of the younger people we know who had started using film, have stopped again because of the expense. Doubt if they will ever start again.
The rest of us just have to be more selective :)
 
True. As a hobby we just can't afford to indulge it the way we used too. I have a little stash of film that I am, very, slowly working my way through. But, beyond that I don't know. I think I'd still like to shoot the odd roll to keep my hand in. But that's about it, really
 
Probably explains why film camera prices have stagnated...my last film camera was cheaper than a roll of film
 
It certainly isn't cheap.

I put a roll of cheapish Ilford XP2 through that Voigtlander Bessa Folder that I bought for the sake of trying it - I think that cost me £36 so in with Tiff scans - and I shot with a 6x4.5 mask so I got 16 shots instead of 8 :)

35mm is about £21-22 for Dev and Tiff scans local to me. My current lot of film I 'won' so that makes things a bit cheaper right now. I don't shoot a lot of film though, sometimes a roll will be in there a couple of months. I don't have any plans to stop shooting because I do so little of it.
 
I find it interesting, when claims about price increases are made, to check using...

www.bankofengland.co.uk

Inflation calculator

Check how prices in the UK have changed since 1209
www.bankofengland.co.uk www.bankofengland.co.uk

In the Wallace Heaton catalogue 1966-67, process and mount Ektachrome was roughly £1 5s (£1.25) and that comes out at 3p short of £16 in today's money. Therefor, developing those three films should cost £48, (taking the view that mounting a slide is the old time equivalent of scanning a frame)

Brad is actually complaining about saving £8! :wideyed: :exit:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4wd
I thought surely not but a quick google confirmed. I suppose the processors have lost the economies of scale that they had pre-digital.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Brad is actually complaining about saving £8! :wideyed: :exit:
Click to expand...
I understand your logic , but back then we had no choice, today I can save the whole £48 plus much more in one go by using digital, the cameras I use most can be picked up for £40 or less. Of course if you love film as much as some people do then you will probably process yourself and scan your own negs which of course would save a lot and add to the whole experience. But as a casual user the saving with digital allows me to pursue my many other hobbies and interests. ( all of which have to be done on a small budget) The processors clearly have no choice but to keep sending prices up because their costs go up just the same as everyone else.
 
You just have to accept that not enough people use film. At my camera club last night a member of the public arrived and dumped a load of analogue kit. Normally we turn away such offers but he he just dumped the kit and ran. It included a Durst D305 enlarger in good condition plus timer. There were a couple of film cameras and associated lenses plus many filters. The only interest were members recollecting which enlarger they used to use etc. but no takers for the kit (even visiting university art students seemed uninterested even though it was free).

Dave
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
I understand your logic , but back then we had no choice, today I can save the whole £48 plus much more in one go by using digital,
Click to expand...
Indeed and generally speaking, my preferred option, also.
BADGER.BRAD said:
the cameras I use most can be picked up for £40 or less.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree: The last three film cameras I purchased, high end Canon models when new, cost an everage of £15 from various charity shops. Mind you, I also have various digital cameras, bought for much the same, due to their pixel count being considered too low by their previous owners.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Today I thought I'll send them off for developing nearly £40 for the three films with no prints and low res scans
Click to expand...
Where are you paying that?

Filmdev will do 3 rolls of colour for £17+postage and 3 rolls of B&W for £26+postage. £2 cheaper if you don't want the negs back and small scans (fine for the internet) are included.
 
I've just done some calculations using two companies that sell film, develop and if required scan and / or print. If I buy the film at the same time as having some developed to save costs a roll of C41 or B+W works out for purchase, develop and post at €21 to €26 depending on whether I have 1 or 3 processed. That is about 80 cents per photo if I scan them at home. Lab scanning would add to that, but a s/h scanner would soon pay for itself and that is the route I have taken.

As a casual photographer I normally have four or five sessions to use up a roll of 36 films and probably take a couple of months to use up a roll of film (I have several outfits on the go at the same time). So if I cost it for the pleasure of use I'm looking at around €6 per session for the enjoyment of taking photos. Put that into perspective; a couple of friends pay £50 to £60 each for a round of golf and what have they got to show for it af the end except for bad backs? My fishing bait would cost anything from €10 to double that for a day's fishing, more if I lose tackle. In England I would have to add permit costs to that. My wife pays €12 for an hour at Pilates.

So, for the pleasure of using a film camera and crafting images I don't think that the real cost of the experience is that bad. However, it depends on your outlook. I'm quite happy to use a rod and reel, each over 100 years old. Not every time, but I get enjoyment from using older equipment and relying more on ability than technology.
 
Not many hobbies are free.

Walking I suppose, but then there are the 50 quid walking shoes that are no good so we need £200 Scarpa, the thin low quality rucksacks so you have to have a £150 Berghaus, and then lovely wool socks to keep your feet warm and dry, as others have noted -- buying stuff is the hobby.

IF it was a £100 to develop a roll of film there would be some takers, just not as many.

Why bother buying a digital camera or any photographic equipment at all? There is already a picture of every living bird and animal on the internet, just ask Ai to make a photo of "x" with a background of "Y"
 
72duMPE.jpg
This is what I have left in the freezer, all expired, and I won’t be buying anymore when I finish them…I don’t think.
 
As a few replies have said, there are cheaper options available. My lab (Canadian Film Lab) charge I think £12-£14 for C41 depending if I wantsmall or medium scans (their small scans are equivalent to some medium). Other, onshore labs are available and cheaper. Come Through Lab in Manchester is really good and they process a LOT of film.

The cost of film itself has of course gone up a lot and I have finally found a digital alternative that I am fairly happy with but I will still shoot film the majority of the time.
 
Downhill Specialist said:
As a few replies have said, there are cheaper options available. My lab (Canadian Film Lab) charge I think £12-£14 for C41 depending if I wantsmall or medium scans (their small scans are equivalent to some medium). Other, onshore labs are available and cheaper. Come Through Lab in Manchester is really good and they process a LOT of film.

The cost of film itself has of course gone up a lot and I have finally found a digital alternative that I am fairly happy with but I will still shoot film the majority of the time.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, may I ask what your digital alternative is? I consider it a quest to find a digital camera that can replicate film convincingly.
 
Plain Nev said:
Out of interest, may I ask what your digital alternative is? I consider it a quest to find a digital camera that can replicate film convincingly.
Click to expand...

I recently had (and sold) a GFX 50sii. That was probably the closest I have been to coming something close to what I can get with my Pentax 67ii. My friend has just got one with the Mitakon 65mm f/1.4 and it is about to replace his P67. I didn't enjoy the EVF. That was my only gripe. I now have a Leica M10 which I really enjoy using and the output from.

None are a complete substitute for film for me but they will do when digital is needed.

( I do consider picking up a GFX again sometimes)
 
Its all part of the enjoyment, Select a camera, Load it with a roll of film then off you go for a day out , Find a venue , Have a wonder round , find subjects worth photographing , Concentrate on composition , Light meter reading, shutter and aperture settings , Then click , you either have 24 or 36 times of enjoyment.
Cheap day out and lots of fun , It is more expensive if you pay others to process the film / contact prints / Prints etc.
 
I walked past my local place I use today & there were about 5 people in there waiting to be served. They obviously do a little bit more than just developing film though.

photographique.co.uk

Photographique Photo Lab

Photographique is a film processing and print lab based in Bristol, one of the UK’s foremost independent photographic labs. Around for over 15 years we specialise in 24 hour film processing, printing, scanning and also offer a bespoke framing service in our Bristol store. Order online, via mail orde
photographique.co.uk photographique.co.uk
 
Plain Nev said:
Out of interest, may I ask what your digital alternative is? I consider it a quest to find a digital camera that can replicate film convincingly.
Click to expand...

For me, it's the X100f

Part the camera - I typically shoot in OVF with image review off.
And partly the 'one click' film simulations - I tend to not dive into editing the images much at all, if I do it's just the very basics.
 
Plain Nev said:
Out of interest, may I ask what your digital alternative is? I consider it a quest to find a digital camera that can replicate film convincingly.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that.... I have 1 x 36MP and 2 x46MP DSLRs... and yesterday I was sorting through my negative files and slides - the slides taken in 2006 on the Galapagos Islands I took on ISO 100 slide film (Fuji Sensia and Kodak EliteChrome EC).

I remember buying a bulk of these films at approx £2.50-3 each (60 of each) and putting them through a Pentax Z-1, the lens used was a Sigma 70-300 APO macro. I also had an *istD and because I had dropped it it would only record JPEGS in Program mode (but Pentax had override).. As I was looking through the slides my realisation was that with the new cameras I have and the expensive lenses I have assembled the 2006 images aren't significantly inferior to those I have taken recently: I actually enjoyed looking through them and wondered how I managed BIF with an amateur f5.6 lens on ISO 100 film. IIRC the cost of development (at HAFO in The Hague) was quite reasonable (but without the mounts - which aided scanning - but which I was looking at them yesterday.

When I thought about it what it cost of the films I used - £150 to buy and about the same to develop would have bought maybe 2-3 2Gb cards in 2005-6. Now I can buy a 256Gb SD card for less than 1 Fuji Velvia. I do miss the old Fuji 100 slide film.
 
I have given up with film for good now and, in truth, will most likely give up with photography altogether.
There is little to no point in photography unless you are a professional.
Given an iPhone or the likes can produce acceptable images of your cat, mashed avocado on sourdough toast or your Greggs pastie, DSLR/mirrorless/large format/............ cameras are all a waste of time and money.
 
soupdragon said:
I have given up with film for good now and, in truth, will most likely give up with photography altogether.
There is little to no point in photography unless you are a professional.
Given an iPhone or the likes can produce acceptable images of your cat, mashed avocado on sourdough toast or your Greggs pastie, DSLR/mirrorless/large format/............ cameras are all a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning? :D Of course there is a point to photography for the majority of us who are stuck somewhere in between. We don't necessarily aspire to be professional, but we need something more than the brain dead utility of a phone. Humans are funny like that. We need to feel engaged.
 
soupdragon said:
There is little to no point in photography unless you are a professional.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty nihilistic point of view, most of us do it because we enjoy the process, with either film or digital.
 
sirch said:
That's a pretty nihilistic point of view, most of us do it because we enjoy the process, with either film or digital.
Click to expand...
Exactly this! To me photography isn't really about the end photograph but the enjoyment of yhe process; this is why I still love film.

Interestingly I try to edit my film shots to look like digital as I like the clean lines of digital but prefer the film process as I feel it extends my hobby?

Don't give up Tony; we all have 'down days' !

A phone struggles with strobes and being enlarged for print.
 
Last edited:
soupdragon said:
I have given up with film for good now and, in truth, will most likely give up with photography altogether.
There is little to no point in photography unless you are a professional.
Given an iPhone or the likes can produce acceptable images of your cat, mashed avocado on sourdough toast or your Greggs pastie, DSLR/mirrorless/large format/............ cameras are all a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...
I gave up on Greggs a long time ago...the price of a pasty now, and they are tiny!
 
sirch said:
That's a pretty nihilistic point of view, most of us do it because we enjoy the process, with either film or digital.
Click to expand...
To me, that seems like depression talking.

It's common for people to withdraw from previously enjoyed activities, when they don't feel right with themselves. One doctor advised me to put the things that you used to enjoy at the back of a cupboard. When you find them again later, you might well rediscover your enthusiasm.

It works for me, anyway.
 
Plain Nev said:
Did you get out of bed the wrong side this morning? :D Of course there is a point to photography for the majority of us who are stuck somewhere in between. We don't necessarily aspire to be professional, but we need something more than the brain dead utility of a phone. Humans are funny like that. We need to feel engaged.
Click to expand...
I did get out of the bed the wrong side but my point about iPhone I believe is valid.
My point being (I think) is that I can take thousands of digital pics (and I do) look at them once and bin them.
Nobody, and I mean "Nobody" goes back time after time to look at there snaps from Bognor Regis when they spent a week there at Butlins.

I have millions of slides dating back to the 80's of my friends and family and no one is interested. It's the way it is these days.
 
Jammy Dodger said:
Exactly this! To me photography isn't really about the end photograph but the enjoyment of yhe process; this is why I still love film.

Interestingly I try to edit my film shots to look like digital as I like the clean lines of digital but prefer the film process as I feel it extends my hobby?

Don't give up Tony; we all have 'down days' !

A phone struggles with strobes and being enlarged for print.
Click to expand...
I'll concede that there is an engaging process regarding film photography but, at the end of the day, you still digitise your pictures.
The DSLR cuts out the middle man and the mobile phone takes it one step further.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
To me, that seems like depression talking.

It's common for people to withdraw from previously enjoyed activities, when they don't feel right with themselves. One doctor advised me to put the things that you used to enjoy at the back of a cupboard. When you find them again later, you might well rediscover your enthusiasm.

It works for me, anyway.
Click to expand...
Well I do have other hobbies which I consider far more productive.
Part of what I was saying is that I feel a lot of the skill has gone from the old school methodology. Modern cameras are so clever that you only need to be facing in roughly the right direction and you'll get a well exposed, focused and colour balance image.
It's about as challenging as pressing the space bar on a pc keyboard.
 
soupdragon said:
It's about as challenging as pressing the space bar on a pc keyboard.
Click to expand...
I seem to be lucky in that respect, being as enamoured of capturing an image now, as I was in the 1960s.

I think that part of this is that the technical side, to me, was always the "drudgery" of getting from seeing the image through the virefinder, to seeing it on a print (or these days, on a screen). It was the two ends of the process that I liked then and still like today, so making the process in between a lot easier. has been a good thing, in my case.
 
soupdragon said:
I'll concede that there is an engaging process regarding film photography but, at the end of the day, you still digitise your pictures.
The DSLR cuts out the middle man and the mobile phone takes it one step further.
Click to expand...

I quite enjoy the process of 'the middle man' though and have no desire to cut it out! Yes the images are digitized but this is instead of an enlarger.
 
soupdragon said:
Well I do have other hobbies which I consider far more productive.
Part of what I was saying is that I feel a lot of the skill has gone from the old school methodology. Modern cameras are so clever that you only need to be facing in roughly the right direction and you'll get a well exposed, focused and colour balance image.
It's about as challenging as pressing the space bar on a pc keyboard.
Click to expand...

That is true if you only want to take average shots or lower. It is the skill, technique, knowledge, luck, whatever that is required to take a photograph that is above average that occupies my thoughts. And one day I hope to achieve that!
 
soupdragon said:
Well I do have other hobbies which I consider far more productive.
Part of what I was saying is that I feel a lot of the skill has gone from the old school methodology. Modern cameras are so clever that you only need to be facing in roughly the right direction and you'll get a well exposed, focused and colour balance image.
It's about as challenging as pressing the space bar on a pc keyboard.
Click to expand...
I think this depends on how you view the photographic challenge.

I have always found the big challenge for my personal photography has been trying to capture my emotional connection to a subject (using lighting, composition, timing and printing skills) in a photographic print. For me, exposure, focus and colour balance are a tiny part of the photography challenge.

In terms of technical challenges, compared to film I find some things easier in digital and some things more difficult. Although digital has made it much easier for people with "no skills" to produce acceptable images in terms of exposure, focus and colour, the really difficult skills needed to produce "good" photographs are unchanged for me, whether I am using digital or film.

Although digital is more convenient than film (and darkroom) I don't find digital any easier, just different. In fact, in many ways, I find digital more difficult, because of its complexity and because my expectations are higher.

As an aside, I get the same sense of excitement and sense of anticipation waiting for a print to come out an inkjet printer as I used to get from waiting for an image to appear in the developing tray (or come out of the processor if it was a colour print). I regularly revisit images on the computer, and inevitably re-process them a bit, but I don't find images on a screen very satisfying to look at.

Having said all that when I started in photography, the majority of people with "proper" cameras were enthusiasts, or people with specialists interests (or professionals) , It seems a logical progression that as camera phones have become better, and part of everyday life, that fewer and fewer people will see taking photographs as something that needs you to become a "photographer".
 
myotis said:
I have always found the big challenge for my personal photography has been trying to capture my emotional connection to a subject (using lighting, composition, timing and printing skills) in a photographic print.
Click to expand...
Yes.
myotis said:
Although digital has made it much easier for people with "no skills" to produce acceptable images in terms of exposure, focus and colour, the really difficult skills needed to produce "good" photographs are unchanged
Click to expand...
Yes.
myotis said:
Although digital is more convenient than film (and darkroom) I don't find digital any easier, just different. In fact, in many ways, I find digital more difficult, because of its complexity and because my expectations are higher.
Click to expand...
Yes.
myotis said:
It seems a logical progression that as camera phones have become better, and part of everyday life, that fewer and fewer people will see taking photographs as something that needs you to become a "photographer".
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top