Analogue cost-cutting.

This is how I save money on my darkroom operations. (btw I havent got much money so I'm quite on a tight budget).

1. Buy the cheapest film and paper you can find.
Look around at the different brands. With the films we have in 2017, you really can't go wrong with any of them. The same with paper.

2. You don't have to print big.

For me, 5x7 is perfectly fine and is always fun to do. Maybe I'll print some 8x10 later on.

3. Buy used.

All my darkroom equipment is used, with the exception of my safelights and tongs. People are selling darkroom equipment for nothing. Look in your local classifieds and I'm sure someone will be selling everything you need for a darkroom.

4. Buy chemicals that is most economical.

For me its rodinal. A bottle costs me $20 but it will develop so many rolls and it wont go bad. For paper, it used to be polymax t, but my local store jacked up the prices on it so once my bottle is all used up, I'll either homebrew my own developer or get the legacy pro paper developer which is the same as dektol. For fixer, I use Kodafix, but will be changing over to Maco ecofix soon

5. The dollar store/pound land is your friend.

Stuff like film clips and mixing sticks can be had for so cheap at the dollar store. Obviously you wont find an enlarger here but some of the more general purpose supplies you would need for a darkroom could be found at your local dollar store or pound land.

pdeeh said:

It doesn't and it should.
Nevertheless there are those members who just won't leave it alone will they?
Might be worth reporting negative and irrelevant posts and let the mods deal with them.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I would rather not have to weigh in but when I see complete BS being uttered, I feel compelled to do so since my direct experience with both over decades has some standing.

Back on topic, if funds are tight, I would punt the idea of LF and go with 120 film, still fantastic image quality that can easily print up to 40" x 40" with a film like Acros, Pan-F or Tmax 100.

I have not priced it recently and compared its price with other fixers, but Kodak C-41 Fixer used to be about the cheapest fixer you could buy, and works well for both color and b&w processes.

There's lots of ways of making pictures and the media used cost different amounts. Surely you would choose the medium because it has a particular rapport with you the picture-maker and the way the you respond to subject matter.

For example a gallery size oil painting may have $2000 worth of paint on it. Is that expensive? No, not if you want a big oil painting. And you can't get an oil painting by using cheaper media like photography or digital.

What if you want to make pictures out of light-sensitive materials, photography in other words? Then you have to pay what the materials cost. And I doubt the pursuit of excellence is served by using the cheapest and meanest film, paper, and chemistry.

If you just want pictures done any-old-way at no cost, no effort, no materials, no consequences for failure then try the new direct "picture-to-mind" beaming technology. It will be along in a just few years after digital is considered too expensive and thoroughly passe.

I save money by thinking before I take the photograph. Walk around look for a different point of view or perspective.

Maris said:

And I doubt the pursuit of excellence is served by using the cheapest and meanest film, paper, and chemistry.

Click to expand...

^^^
What he said!

Be nice to that older neighbor you have and walk about town with a very identifiable film camera. People just give me their old equipment.

I've been given over the past few years a K1000, ME Super, Pen EE-3, Nikkormat with a 50 1.4, EOS Rebel 500, Argus C3, Vito III, Canonette and countless rolls of old film. A lot of people want to see their old equipment put to use rather than sit on a shelf or get thrown out. Be nice and spend a few minutes chatting with someone who asks about your camera you never know what you'll score.

Huh... There I was, thinking I'm the only one in the entire world who thinks as I do about all this. Then this thread pops up. As my Australian-Italian neighbor often says about just about everything in his life, O quello miracolo!

So much good information here. Thomas Bertilsson (#14) put it in my words, entirely, thoroughly, and most thoughtfully, for which I thank him, having saved me all that typing.

As did so many others, who all deserve an equal appreciation, for the time and effort they have put into their posts.

This old dog has learned (and mostly relearned) many new tricks in reading this thread.

This year, after a decade of almost solidly shooting d*g*t*l, I made the decision to downsize my pixel shooting, and go back to more analogue. This meant a complete change in direction, and ditching a lot of my old thinking, about what and why I shoot. Whereas last month, I was actively planning to downsize my darkroom, I have now decided to put more time and effort into my wet processing and printing, shoot more thoughtfully, and research everything well before I buy any new items, including chemicals and of course, film.

I now shoot more B&W than color, and am finding that in one roll, whether 35mm or 120, of carefully approached shoots, I get more 'keeps' than I did before. y goal is to reduce as much as I can, the endless hours spent in front of my PC, editing RAW shots into TIFFs and then JPEGs, and of course much of the by now tedious, to me, computer processing that has previously gone into turning my often less than satisfactory shots into presentable images. Time is money, as someone has said before, and in my case time is starting to run out. In the next four or five years, I have so much to do - looking at 100,000+ film images, scanning the best of them, filing (foldering?), captioning and keywording. By the end of it all, I will be a walking encyclopaedia about places in Asia, if I am fortunate enough to still be around. Que sera sera, of course. But it's never too late to begin somewhere, and to me, film seems the best way, whether it is regarded by some as 'niche' or not.

Admittedly all these remarks are fairly general, but so much has already been posted that echoes my way(s) of thinking about photography, film and the darkroom, that I did not want to repeat what has already been so well written.

I (and I'm sure many others) greatly look forward to many more posts in this, to me, invaluable article. Ladies and gentlemen, please carry on!

(Added later) I have just finished rereading this entire thread, so impressed am I with what most have written. Almost every post has useful and well thought out information,but I would hand additional kudos to Luckless (#15) and Bill Burk (#22, #25) for their exceptionally good ideas. Spot on!

darkroommike said:

Every time you think photography is expensive price woodworking equipment or fishing boats.

Click to expand...

Add to those, ready-made ham radio equipment, and just about any other "hobby" equipment out there and that certainly includes d-----l equipment that you can use to scan and print with. The equipment that I bought to do those two tasks with were certainly not "given" to me. I just bought a really nice 4x5 Crown Graphic and it plus the CLA that I had done on the lens and shutter did not cost nearly as much as the above mentioned equipment. Analog equipment too expensive? As a saying used last month says: BAH-HUMBUG!......Regards!

hey, i say go for it. write articles about your experiences. id be very curious to see how it works out for ya.

sounds like a great project!
please follow up?

Thanks to all contributers to this thread...

Such a great response so far, from some clearly experienced shooters.
Brilliant ideas and insights, just what I was hoping for when I posted.

I particularly connected with the advice on shoot less but be more considered in the process. This is what drew me to the 4x5 format.

Having said that; here's two links that I utilised which saved me upwards of £400/500.
Most here will likely be aware of these links, and some will, as I did, probably have followed through and made them.
The tripod is on the heavy side, but it is rock-solid and very secure. The loupe works a treat - the one I made is 6 inches long, ideal for my Crown Graphic's 'back doors'.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/surveyor-tripod-conversion/

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/loupe/

JP

Large format analogue may be as cheap or expensive as you wish. For example those who must have the extremes in lenses must pay the premium. But the gear is a small part of the cost and it matters little. The most significant cost is the time you put into the work of making pictures. This is priceless (no one has found a way to purchase time wholesale that I know of) and the rewards are similarly high when the job is done well.

Regarding chemistry and paper I purchase good quality materials and do not attempt to economize because there is significant risk that quality suffers. Old film and old paper and out of date chemistry are not for me. Having invested my time in making the exposure only the best printing materials are suitable for bringing the negative to life.

tedr1 said:

Large format analogue may be as cheap or expensive as you wish.....But the gear is a small part of the cost and it matters little. The most significant cost is the time you put into the work......

Click to expand...

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may!

I guess it's a little hard for me to understand the "cost" thing from somebody else's perspective. The reason I say that is because I have all the cameras, lenses and darkroom equipment already in place. My only real cost outlay is film, chemicals and paper+finishing. If I had to start from scratch I would be shooting "you-know-what" and getting prints made at Costco. How do I cut cost? Well, first thing I won't do is buy the cheapest or outdated film I can find. You're asking for trouble if you do. Cheap or outdated film for testing a camera or playing around, maybe? Good photography is like cooking. Yes, you can get lucky making some food dishes by just throwing stuff in a pot. In fact you might just have a real hit dish that everybody loves. The trouble is in making that same dish again and having it come out a "hit" or maybe more a "miss". You start with good ingredients and you "can" obtain good results. Here's an example of me being too Dutch(yes I am Dutch) and paying the price. I bought some paper from a large retailer recently to do some 35mm work, which I don't usually do since I shoot mainly 120. The paper had the retailers name on it and as much as I tried, even contacting the retailer, I could not get an answer as to who manufactured the paper. I bought 5x7, 8x10 and 11x14 sizes all in VC FB with the same finish thinking these all came from the same stock base. What a mess I ran into when I tried to use the paper size interchangeably. I'd make a print on 5X7 and find out that contrast grade from my VC head wouldn't transfer to 8x10 or 11x14. Plus, the paper speeds were not the same between sizes. So much for saving a few pennies. The whole experiment (that's what I call it to save face) cost me more than it was worth. Now I save money by:
1. Using only two films. one ISO 100 and one ISO 400. Same type - same manufacture.
2. Buy raw chemicals and mix most of my developers and fixers.
3. I use only two developers with one as my "mainstay" for 95% of everything. Also, use replenishment for that one.
4. Buy good paper and learn all it's ins and outs.
5. Buy and use a good paper developer and fixer.

For me, the biggest cost to all of my analog work is good paper, but there is absolutely no substitute for it. Maybe someday I'll coat my own, but I'm not sure it will be cheaper or as good as even medium quality paper marketed at the present.

It is different things for for different people. If you're striving for excellence, the hobby can be very expensive. If you're happpy to use expired film, paper and chemistry and get adequate results, then it works out a bit cheaper.

Martin,
That's very true, but your word "adequate" pretty well covers it all. The word "happy" covers what "adequate" doesn't. It all boils down to what's "adequate" and is "happy" for each individual. Me, I want darn good results from the equipment and supplies I use. I have some of the best lenses and cameras you can buy. Same with darkroom equipment. Why would I want to degrade my equipment by buying junk film and paper. Just doesn't make sense for me, but that's just me of course. If I buy good stock and use good equipment and things don't turn out "adequate" or make me "happy" then I am the weak link in the chain. Also, I find outdated film prices usually too high. At least on eBay anyway. Same for paper. You can buy good quality, fresh dated for not much more and it will save a lot of headaches. That said, everybody should be able to float their own boat.

You may well find that after trying several films, you choose two or three to use regularly. I've settled on Fomapan 100 and Ilford HP5+ for 35mm with occasional forays into Ilford Delta 3200 for very low light photography. Your mileage may vary, and you might prefer different films...but it's a good idea to choose the ones you really like and then look for deals.

Do consider outdated film, especially low speed B&W. And look at second hand darkroom equipment....in the UK there is even an online "second hand darkroom" shop. Most of my darkroom equipment was second hand, except my changing bag and Jobo 1520 tank which was being sold off as "new old stock" in the early 2000's by my local shop. My spare spiral reel, film clips, enlarger, stirrer/thermometer, Lomo tank for 16mm and 8mm movie film...all second hand.

I love the advice of ensuring you're on good terms with older neighbours...you never know when you might be offered gear for free or very cheap. Last year I missed out on an entire dark room setup by just a couple of days when a work colleague mentioned his neighbour was distributing her late grandfather's photographic equipment. I got in touch just two days too late to get the whole lot gratis (though I would have offered something for it).

I'll very happily admit to not being a perfectionist - I couldn't afford to be - and price is something that I have to consider closely. For that reason, I'm more than happy using a cheap 35mm SLR, a 35mm only enlarger with a budget lens. It's what I can afford and I enjpy it.

Martin Rickards said:

I'll very happily admit to not being a perfectionist - I couldn't afford to be - and price is something that I have to consider closely. For that reason, I'm more than happy using a cheap 35mm SLR, a 35mm only enlarger with a budget lens. It's what I can afford and I enjpy it.

Click to expand...

If I couldn't afford, which I almost can't now, to use what I use I would certainly be doing what you are doing. I certainly wouldn't give up photography just because I couldn't afford a Leica or Rollei. Just use the best ya got!

I like film for bw. I can't say it is expensive at all if prints are up to 8x10. Bulk of film is 50$, it might be enough for year. Chemicals are next to free. Darkroom is also cheap, often free as well.
The only expensive part is paper. But print on FB paper feels a lot more solid and closer to fine art, IMO.
35 film camera is also next to free.

First, I appreciate your spelling it "Analogue".
Second, I must admit I smiled when I saw you were from Scotland.
Third, I prefer to think of it as Analogue photography on a budget.

John Wiegerink said:

I certainly wouldn't give up photography just because I couldn't afford a Leica or Rollei. Just use the best ya got!

Click to expand...

You don't need Leica or Rolleiflex for excellent photos. I would say you really don't even need a good lens by today's standards.
But even with all that said, I've herd most all of standard 50mm designs are so good optically they make even other more revered lens makers other focal lengths look bad.

MattKing said:

First, I appreciate your spelling it "Analogue".
Second, I must admit I smiled when I saw you were from Scotland.
Third, I prefer to think of it as Analogue photography on a budget.

Click to expand...

Thanks Matt, I think

Here is an example of what can be achieved with minimal expense...and a bit of genius of course.
And some attachments of the contact frame I built after watching this.

Go to - 20 mins 15 seconds into this clip...


JP

One needs kilodollars, kiloeuros, kilopounds, ... to get into digital and stink-jet prints look like $#!+. Analog is much less expensive. The best film cameras are affordable, lenses as long as they cannot be used for digiboxes are cheaper, film is cheap, and processing is not that expensive, even cheaper if you process the film yourself. Enjoy the digital revolution and shoot film. If it was not for the digital revolution I would not own both Nikon slr 35mm camera for color and one for black & white, a Hasselblad with all the lenses I could want and more plus a SWC Hasselblad, a 4"x5" Pacemaker Speed Graphic and a 4"x5" Graflex Model D, and a darkroom for color and black &white developing and printing, enlarger and large drum print dryer.

rthollenbeck said:

You don't need Leica or Rolleiflex for excellent photos. I would say you really don't even need a good lens by today's standards.
But even with all that said, I've herd most all of standard 50mm designs are so good optically they make even other more revered lens makers other focal lengths look bad.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have some favorite (old) 35mm cameras and (old) lenses that are far from Rollei or Leica/Leitz as you can get. It's very hard to find a bad 50mm lens, but I have had some that had problems with flare. In fact you don't even need a lens at all. I've seen some very nice pinhole landscapes. Equipment surely isn't everything, but if you have good equipment you have eliminated at least one weak link in the chain. I have more fun making really nice prints with old, but good equipment. One of my favorite pieces of camera gear is a 1895 4x5 Cyclone falling plate box camera with a simple meniscus lens. I adapted it for 12 exp. 4x5 film instead of glass plates. Just super fun to use and the results are really very good. Single element lens, one shutter speed and three apertures. Doesn't get much easier and simpler than that.