Making analogue photography viable
July 21, 2015 1:44 AM Subscribe
I like shooting 120 film, but due to the cost of processing and printing, I have about a dozen rolls that have been hanging around waiting for development. Is there a way for me to easily cut down the cost?
I mostly use a Diana or Holga, so whether the prints will come out is hit or miss. At £12 per film, it gets expensive to experiment. Even process and scan to CD will cost me about £8.50 a go - not a bad price for a single film, but I'm going to a couple of cool places on holiday over the next year and want to get me some good neon/cityscape shots. Even 35mm is about £6 for develop only these days! I'm mostly looking for a way to cut down my costs so I can use more film, but I might also want to get some prints done if things turn out well. So:
- get the film processed only (about £4, with a discount for multiple rolls by mail order) and buy a film scanner. The Canoscan scanners seem to handle 120 and 35mm but I don't know if any run on Win8.
- find a camera club/facilities hire in London. There are a few darkrooms that can be used for about £25 for four hours, but you can only hire either colour or B+W for that price, and some of them don't have facilities for processing. Those that do only do either colour or black and white.
- get film processed and see if I can use one of said darkrooms to scan in my negatives there, or at least look at them properly to see if there's anything I want to print/scan?
I like the idea of learning how to use a darkroom but I'd have to take a course on how. There is a reasonable one in Hackney which does tuition for £30 then hire for about £5 an hour, plus the cost of paper etc. There's also one closer to me in Brixton, and one in Old St I can get to easily from work, but they cost more to use and I'll have to pay £50 or so to become a member.
Doing it at home isn't an option - we don't have the space to work or store the chemicals. I'm not initially interested in printing myself - just in making film cost effective to use - but it probably would interest me in the future. For the time being I'd just like to pick out the photos that 'work' and pop them up online.
What do you toy camera users tend to do? Do you try to cut the costs or just get everything scanned to disk and pay for the convenience?
I mostly use a Diana or Holga, so whether the prints will come out is hit or miss. At £12 per film, it gets expensive to experiment. Even process and scan to CD will cost me about £8.50 a go - not a bad price for a single film, but I'm going to a couple of cool places on holiday over the next year and want to get me some good neon/cityscape shots. Even 35mm is about £6 for develop only these days! I'm mostly looking for a way to cut down my costs so I can use more film, but I might also want to get some prints done if things turn out well. So:
- get the film processed only (about £4, with a discount for multiple rolls by mail order) and buy a film scanner. The Canoscan scanners seem to handle 120 and 35mm but I don't know if any run on Win8.
- find a camera club/facilities hire in London. There are a few darkrooms that can be used for about £25 for four hours, but you can only hire either colour or B+W for that price, and some of them don't have facilities for processing. Those that do only do either colour or black and white.
- get film processed and see if I can use one of said darkrooms to scan in my negatives there, or at least look at them properly to see if there's anything I want to print/scan?
I like the idea of learning how to use a darkroom but I'd have to take a course on how. There is a reasonable one in Hackney which does tuition for £30 then hire for about £5 an hour, plus the cost of paper etc. There's also one closer to me in Brixton, and one in Old St I can get to easily from work, but they cost more to use and I'll have to pay £50 or so to become a member.
Doing it at home isn't an option - we don't have the space to work or store the chemicals. I'm not initially interested in printing myself - just in making film cost effective to use - but it probably would interest me in the future. For the time being I'd just like to pick out the photos that 'work' and pop them up online.
What do you toy camera users tend to do? Do you try to cut the costs or just get everything scanned to disk and pay for the convenience?
You don't need a darkroom to develop film! It's not nearly as involved as making prints. You could totally do this at home if you want. These are the film processing kits we used at art school!
posted by jrobin276 at 3:21 AM on July 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jrobin276 at 3:21 AM on July 21, 2015 [3 favorites]
Just to clarify, I'd process and scan at home. You can have prints made and/or learn to use a darkroom later.
posted by jrobin276 at 3:23 AM on July 21, 2015
posted by jrobin276 at 3:23 AM on July 21, 2015
Response by poster: I don't have space to do this at home. We'd need a space suitable for it, and somewhere to store it all, and we just don't have that.
posted by mippy at 3:35 AM on July 21, 2015
posted by mippy at 3:35 AM on July 21, 2015
Before I saw your most recent response, I wrote a long paragraph about how easy it is to process film at home. If you legitimately don't have the space for it, thought, I still recommend learning how to process it nonetheless, but then do it at a rental facility. In the long run, you'll be much happier with the cost-per-roll, as well as the results once you get skilled at tuning your development process to your film/camera/exposure combination.
posted by strangecargo at 3:40 AM on July 21, 2015
posted by strangecargo at 3:40 AM on July 21, 2015
Last comment - film processing canisters are slightly larger than a roll of toilet paper. You can get a black velvet bag to take the film out of the can and onto the film reel. Then you pour small amounts of chemicals into the canister and shake it. I could do it in my kitchen or bathroom, and it'd all fit in a shoebox.
Ok, you don't have room for a spare shoebox. I agree with strange cargo -ask around at the local darkrooms for prices for developing only. I'd still probably bring my own canister, but use their chemicals and sinks.
Otherwise, I think you're stuck with mail order.
posted by jrobin276 at 3:45 AM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ok, you don't have room for a spare shoebox. I agree with strange cargo -ask around at the local darkrooms for prices for developing only. I'd still probably bring my own canister, but use their chemicals and sinks.
Otherwise, I think you're stuck with mail order.
posted by jrobin276 at 3:45 AM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Everything to do with medium format is expensive — except the cameras these days. When people talk of cheap medium-format film/slide scanners, they mean under $2000. The Epson V-series flatbeds are pretty good, but they're large, so if you're short of space it's not going to be an option.
posted by scruss at 5:16 AM on July 21, 2015
posted by scruss at 5:16 AM on July 21, 2015
Purchasing a good scanner is step 1. I bought an Epson V700 in 2007 for about $450. Current models run a bit more, and I'd have zero hesitation about buying another if mine ever dies. It will pay for itself real fast. I scan 8x10 negatives on it all the time to print at 24x30. Paying a lab to scan these for me would be $75 a negative. So much value.
More importantly though than cutting costs, is that it will give you full control over your images. Occasionally I'll get the cheap scans when I get my film developed. They always look terrible compared to what I know I can do myself. I can't imagine how often people might experiment with film only to go "Eh? This is suppose to look good?" after getting back some automated lab scans/prints. If you are concerned about the quality of your art, owning your own scanner and knowing how to post process is a must. You'll be crippling your presentation otherwise.
IMHO: Film -> Digital output is a great modern work flow. I quite doing wet darkroom printing after I bought the scanner and haven't looked back. Prints I'm making through the hybrid process look better than anything I've done traditionally, and without all the set-up and clean up.
posted by kpraslowicz at 6:15 AM on July 21, 2015
More importantly though than cutting costs, is that it will give you full control over your images. Occasionally I'll get the cheap scans when I get my film developed. They always look terrible compared to what I know I can do myself. I can't imagine how often people might experiment with film only to go "Eh? This is suppose to look good?" after getting back some automated lab scans/prints. If you are concerned about the quality of your art, owning your own scanner and knowing how to post process is a must. You'll be crippling your presentation otherwise.
IMHO: Film -> Digital output is a great modern work flow. I quite doing wet darkroom printing after I bought the scanner and haven't looked back. Prints I'm making through the hybrid process look better than anything I've done traditionally, and without all the set-up and clean up.
posted by kpraslowicz at 6:15 AM on July 21, 2015
My wife does mail order to get the film processed and scans it in using VueScan and an old, refurbished Epson Perfection 4490 that only cost $100 like 7 or 8 years ago. I don't know if something similar might still be an option for you, but she says she got it from a section of Epson's website devoted to refurbished stuff.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 7:05 AM on July 21, 2015
posted by Monsieur Caution at 7:05 AM on July 21, 2015
Shoot B&W develop in the kitchen sink in Paterson tank. You can change the film in daylight using a bag. A scanner capable of creating decent scans is about $160
posted by Mac-Expert at 7:37 AM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mac-Expert at 7:37 AM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I don't have space to develop at home. Our house is small. All the rooms bar the bathroom (which is not big) have windows in. We don't have anywhere to keep excess chemicals and tank in between runs. Also, we rent, and anything that could potentially melt the sink, or contaminate plates when we wasg the dishes, seems a bad idea.
What's recommended as 'a decent scanner' then? The Canon 9000F mk II is compatible with my laptop, but the software it comes with is poorly reviewed as it seems it's hard to bypass. The Epson model sounds what I'm looking for, but is about 700usd over here. However, if I pay £120 a year. I can use a scanning suite for £5 per hour. Hard to know what's most cost-effective or sensible!
posted by mippy at 9:38 AM on July 21, 2015
What's recommended as 'a decent scanner' then? The Canon 9000F mk II is compatible with my laptop, but the software it comes with is poorly reviewed as it seems it's hard to bypass. The Epson model sounds what I'm looking for, but is about 700usd over here. However, if I pay £120 a year. I can use a scanning suite for £5 per hour. Hard to know what's most cost-effective or sensible!
posted by mippy at 9:38 AM on July 21, 2015
I highly recommend learning darkroom. It's fun, it's a dying skill, and you'll have a LOT more control over how your prints turn out should you choose to print from negatives in the darkroom. Burning and dodging can make a meh photo awesome.
Materials-wise, it's not a cheap hobby. But it's cheaper than, I dunno, collecting vintage motorcycles or something.
posted by Brittanie at 9:44 AM on July 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Materials-wise, it's not a cheap hobby. But it's cheaper than, I dunno, collecting vintage motorcycles or something.
posted by Brittanie at 9:44 AM on July 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Easy to load in a darkbag on the couch, and develop in the kitchen sink in a Paterson tank. I did that for years. The chemicals amounts to a bottle of dev and a bottle of fix. If you use something like Rodinal (was made by Agfa, now made by Adox) you can just mix one tank's worth of developer each time from concentrate and not have a big bottle of dev on the shelf.
If you're going to use film then acquire the actual skills - it's more fun that way.
posted by w0mbat at 12:21 PM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you're going to use film then acquire the actual skills - it's more fun that way.
posted by w0mbat at 12:21 PM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
...but the software it comes with is poorly reviewed as it seems it's hard to bypass.
Vuescan is the answer to any poor bundled scanning software. Also, more money.
Look into Art Councils in your area as well. Many times you can secure funding for equipment purchases through them. A quick search around London gave me the Grants for the arts fund which states in the guidelines that it can be used for purchasing equipment. Lot of these require that you put on some sort of public event as requirement. Which may be as simple as a small exhibition in a coffee shop. Though, at least where I live, I've seen funding available just for making tech purchases with no real other strings attached. If any of those are available near you, they are generally even easier to get some funding.
posted by kpraslowicz at 1:11 PM on July 21, 2015
Vuescan is the answer to any poor bundled scanning software. Also, more money.
Look into Art Councils in your area as well. Many times you can secure funding for equipment purchases through them. A quick search around London gave me the Grants for the arts fund which states in the guidelines that it can be used for purchasing equipment. Lot of these require that you put on some sort of public event as requirement. Which may be as simple as a small exhibition in a coffee shop. Though, at least where I live, I've seen funding available just for making tech purchases with no real other strings attached. If any of those are available near you, they are generally even easier to get some funding.
posted by kpraslowicz at 1:11 PM on July 21, 2015
I don't have space to develop at home. Our house is small. All the rooms bar the bathroom (which is not big) have windows in. We don't have anywhere to keep excess chemicals and tank in between runs. Also, we rent, and anything that could potentially melt the sink, or contaminate plates when we wasg the dishes, seems a bad idea.
As others in this thread have been saying, you develop film in the light. You don't need a dedicated room. A room with windows is fine. You just need running water. Your tiny bathroom would work fine. Film developing chemicals for black and white aren't exactly anything you'd want to soak your eyeballs in, but, no, they're not super toxic. They won't melt your sink. Your plates won't be contaminated. If you get some photo chemicals on a plate, you rinse it off. Maybe this just isn't something that appeals to you, in which case, fair enough, but the specific reasons you've cited aren't reasons.
Also I'll note that the expense of film is a big reason that substantially everyone switched to digital as soon as it was possible to do so. Developing your own and scanning is cheaper, but it still ain't cheap.
I have an Epson V600 which I like just fine. Amazon has it for $206. No complaints.
posted by chrchr at 3:06 PM on July 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just to chime in wth chrchr here, this is why taking a class might be cost effective for you in the long run, because you will familiarize yourself with the process and become much more comfortable with the chemicals (which are no more harmful than household cleaners, honestly), and be able to ask a professional plenty of questions about how you might best set things up in your very cramped space, after you've finished the course. The only time you would need a light-controlled room is if you are printing on photosensitive paper. If it's just film developing, there's over a hundred years of different ways photographers have worked out to get from sensitive undeveloped film to nicely static negatives or slides in annoying conditions. But practicing it all in a dark room at first is very helpful, so you can begin to learn the motions in a bigger space where you don't have to worry about accidental exposure.
posted by Mizu at 7:26 PM on July 21, 2015
posted by Mizu at 7:26 PM on July 21, 2015
I developed and printed 120 film in high school. You basically load a canister in a light proof bag you stick your arms into, and then pour the chemical in the can. It doesn't take up much space, really. It's more about time and patience required to thread the film into the canister without seeing what you're doing. When the film is dried, simply scan the keepers. Not really any way to do it cheaper.
posted by tremspeed at 6:03 PM on July 22, 2015
posted by tremspeed at 6:03 PM on July 22, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
But since you say you don't actually have intentions to make prints right now and it'll be a year of gathering shots you want to see right away, buying a film scanner and doing mail order processing might fit you best. I have windows 8 and my ancient Canoscan still works with it. It's not the best quality scanner but it's also something like 9 years old at this point. The key is to always have updated drivers, which you can download from their website for nearly all of their models. Having a film scanner is probably a good idea for you anyway; it's just a matter of when you have the funds to get one, or if you can pick up a used one at a good price somewhere. There are still people switching completely from film to digital and ridding themselves of the cruft of their film years, selling scanners for peanuts if you can catch them. Particularly print publications and campuses who might be updating their hardware.
posted by Mizu at 2:28 AM on July 21, 2015