Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,783   Posts: 1,671,280   Online: 967
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    "At the volume I shoot, that will buy film and chemicals for the rest of my life."

    That assumes today's range of film, chemistry and paper will be available in the not-so-distant future--much less 5-10 years down the line. Look at what's been lost in just the last 5 years.

  2. #12
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,108
    Images
    1
    Hi LarryP,
    Welcome to the Analog Photo Users Group (APUG).
    Last edited by BradS; 07-28-2011 at 04:26 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Analog...as in NOT digital.

  3. #13
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18,105
    Blog Entries
    14
    Images
    71
    hi larry

    in the end it depends what you want and are most efficient at doing ...
    if you are a good darkroom person and can make halfway decent prints
    then darkroom work is the way to go (unless you NEED a lab to make them)
    if you are more comfortable doing the other way, and have a decent lab
    that can crank out light jet prints, than that way is the way to go ...
    i wouldn't waste your time with the ink, way too expensive and wasteful.

    in the end it really depends on what you want, what YOU are most comfortable making or having made, and what you can afford ...

    plenty of people ... some, even here on apug, use a lab make prints for them.
    owners of two of the best labs around are active members here on apug.

    good luck ( and welcome ! )

    john
    Last edited by jnanian; 07-28-2011 at 08:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #14
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I will go with "At the volume I shoot, that will buy film and chemicals for the rest of my life." simply because a 60 MegaPixel Hasselblad back which does not even cover the focal plane costs $50,000US. Do you have any idea how much film I could buy, send out for custom processing and printing before I get anywhere near $50,000US? If I did buy that digital back, I would have to buy a much bigger and faster computer, a system of raid drives, expensive software including Photo$hop, a high end printer to make appropriate quality prints, and megadollars in ink cartridges.

    As far as , how about looking at what has been gained in the last five years in new and better emulsions.
    Please, not ANOTHER digital-vs-analog pissing contest.

    My only point is that the status quo won't stand. A handful of new films, yes; but also a big cull of E6 emulsions, b&w papers, C-41 materials, lost pro labs(decimation of reasonably good cheap 35mm dev/print services, too), scarce E6 processing and higher prices/reduced availability for what's left.

  5. #15
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    "At the volume I shoot, that will buy film and chemicals for the rest of my life."

    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    That assumes today's range of film, chemistry and paper will be available in the not-so-distant future--much less 5-10 years down the line. Look at what's been lost in just the last 5 years.
    Considering that with digital one has to spend all the money first, it can be said that, with that money, one can buy 40 years of film and chemistry supply, a dedicated freezer, and be tranquil for the rest of his life
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    Aside from cost, there are also intangibles. Do you like working in a darkroom or working on a computer? Personally, I despise the latter, but the former is at least tolerable most of the time, and often quite fun!

    Either way, you have to process film, which is that part that I find to be the biggest pain in the neck.

    The way I view it, it works better for me to just shoot digital most of the time that I want a digital output.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #17
    segedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    354
    Images
    2
    I do hybrid (dev at home for B&W) and scan and then send files away to print. My feeling is that it is more expensive than traditional, but I never got very good at traditional printing and my desire for doing it isn't very great. So I pay more for working the way that I feel most comfortable. I do wish I had more time and energy to devote to traditional printing though as I find the results very appealing!
    -----------------------

    Segedi.com

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,726
    Images
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    "At the volume I shoot, that will buy film and chemicals for the rest of my life."

    That assumes today's range of film, chemistry and paper will be available in the not-so-distant future--much less 5-10 years down the line. Look at what's been lost in just the last 5 years.
    No, it assumes that *a* range of film, chemistry and paper will be available. At my age, 5-10 years really is a not-so-distant future.

  9. #19
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    For 35mm colour the most cost-effective for me is both processing and scanning at a mail-in lab. The I dry print the copies I want as part of the order. I bracket a fair #of shots on 135.

    B&W 135 is done at a friend's for processing and the occasional wet print. Seems proper and very cost effective.

    120 is all colour for me and I scan on my V500 with excellent results, but have all my prints done by a local lab. The scanner was $125 and the spider $135. Software and Mac amortized elsewhere and through my digital shooting.

    Cost and ROI depends a lot on volume, format, quality, and time/effort. The V500 cannot do 135 efficiently, but is awesome at 120. Nothing beats the wet print B&W and I am grateful to have a local assisting there for that experience. There is a lot to be said for the lab and print route alongside the wet darkroom and the hybrid option. The one cost that will chew up $$$ is a high-end Epson printer and ink. You need to print a lot to get an effective ROI there.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    charleston sc
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    105
    Thanks for all the quick replies. Looks like I'll go the traditional route. To clarify a couple things I didn't mention , I'd be doing it for personal use ,friends and family. For net posts lab scans seem to make sense to me.And to be honest since I had planned on developing the negs myself and contact printing them ala Weston style if that makes sense traditional enlarging appeals to the neanderthal. in me.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin