I hand process in any developer you like for 9 dollars a roll.
or 5 dollars a sheet (up to 8x10)
the Lighthouse Lab
B&W processing expenses
Last week Walgreens pharmacy sent off a roll (24 exp) of Tmax 100 for me. In less than five days the negatives and 4x6 prints were back and the charge was a reasonable $8.46. Can't beat that.
Developing a roll of real B&W film costs over $22 plus taxes over here in Alberta, and it takes over a week to get the negs back. That's why I shoot XP2 Super or BW400CN when I want to do B&W. Much cheaper and faster.
Paid 2,60 € yesterday for developing HP5 at FNAC lab in Lisbon. It takes 4 days.
If one want's it, for additional 4€ they scanned onto CD at Base 16 (20x30) size.
The BW400 (C-41) is 2,00€ developed, and it takes 1 hour.
I just can't imagine turning my B&W film over to a lab, let alone a lab using machine processing.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The control, flexibility, and cost effectiveness make processing your own B&W a no brainer.
You get to choose your developer, and exactly how the film is processed.
Even if it cost the same, I would still do it myself.
My time involved processing my own pays a much higher dividend than the time "saved"
As a matter of fact, last I checked, it was about $12 a roll here. It takes me about 40 minutes to get to the lab, drop off the film, and get home, and then another 40 to go get the film when it is ready and come home. Probably $4 in gas as well. (Combining the trip with some others can help, of course)
When you do the math, it breaks down like this:
I can easily process 4 rolls of 135 in an hour. My cost is maybe $1.
Therefore I make about $50 an hour processing my own film, vs. paying somebody else. Inital equipment outlay was payed for in less than two sessions, at that rate.
The big benefit is that I can shoot more. $50 bucks buys allot of 135.
On top of that, I do a better job, and am now more comfortable processing my own film, than having somebody else do it (hehehe I said "do it" hhehehe)
Except, of course, Mr Frizza. If you are where he is, you should just have him do it.
I think some people are forgetting to include the 36 4x6 prints? How long would that take in the darkroom?
Its a good point, if prints are included. It should be noted that I have no desire to have a print of every negative, rather, I might print one or two of a roll. It should also be noted that a straight print from a scanned b&W neg on color paper has very little in common with a print I might make in my darkroom. It could be useful though, as a sort of expanded "contact sheet".
Originally Posted by Jon Shiu
I think it ultimately depends on what you want to wind up with. If all you want is straight from the negative 4x6 machine printed B&W hybrid prints on color paper, you might as well shoot XP2 and be save the money, unless your hell bent on a particular emulsion. (maybe you want speed, or grain, for example)
If I'm just snapping for B&W album prints, XP2 is what I do.
Last edited by JBrunner; 02-16-2008 at 02:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Having done the 36 prints per 35mm film, hand printed, it's a no brainer. You learn to read negatives instantly, quick tweak of the contrast occasionally a bit of dodging & burning.
I had one "client" for over 25 years, the worst thing that happened was when he lost his Agfa 6x6 folder, and his wife bought him a 35mm SLR, what a hassle, all the other clients had contact sheets then chose a few for enlargement. By chance his Agfa camera had been found, and he got it back on his next holiday.
Hand printing from 35mm was about 30 minutes per film, faster when using the early Ilfospeed as it went through my Ilfoprint processor.
It's expensive here, has been for a long time.
Originally Posted by John Kasaian
If you can stand messing with long strips of roll film (ugh), just develop it yourself in daylight-safe cannisters. You can do it in your kitchen and with a cheap liquid developer like HC-110 or Ilfosol S it's very inexpensive.
The universe is a haunted house. -Coil