Analogue cost-cutting.

[Skiver101]

My first apug thread:


Some say 'Analogue' is expensive; I've recently moved into large-format 4x5 and I don't find the costs particularly prohibitive; although, due to a lack of darkroom access, I do not at present purchase paper.

Please add ideas and tips for newcomers to Analogue that may help to assuage the fears and enlighten those who regard Analogue photography as a potentially over-expensive enterprise.

Here's a contribution that I made to a similar thread elsewhere regarding one-shot developers...

'' I recently reached out to a certain forum user for a supply of raw chemicals, in order to make my own D76, and use exclusively with FP4+ and HP5+ in 4x5 format.

They were very accomodating, and I have now been supplied with enough chemicals to ensure 50 litres of stock D76.

At a total cost of around £20, and diluted to a 1+1 working solution, I now have 100 litres of fresh D76 1+1 at my disposal. Which works out at around 20p/litre; which I can actually use twice, thereby lowering the total cost to 10p/litre.

How's that for 'convenience' ?

''



JP

 

[TheToadMen]

Hi JP,
Welcome to APUG!!

If you're going to shoot 4x5" format, take a look at using paper negatives instead of expensive film. There are several threads here on APUG about using photographic paper as a negative or making your own paper negatives.
Enjoy!

Bert from Holland

 

[KidA]

First of all, digital's only argument in terms of cost is the fact that every shot fired doesn't cost anything, but the bodies (and lenses) are, in general, much more expensive and don't last long AT ALL. Meanwhile most of us analog shooters are using gear that's been manufactured even before digital was available. When was the last time you saw a 'serious' photographer using a digital camera that was older than 5 years? My bet is never. So financially speaking, take into consideration that a new body every 4-5 years will put you back quite a bit. Are you really spending that much on analog materials in the same time frame? Maybe... I know I don't. My main camera is about $100 and some lenses that each cost about the same ($500-600) worth of equipment in my camera bag which will last me a very long time.

Then there is the other argument, which is actually more important, in my opinion, which is the time and effort involved with digital vs analog. If you're like me, you do everything in your basement (develop, print, mount, etc) and these things take time and dedication (I'm not saying that digital doesn't take time and effort...). I haven't worked much with digital, but I know inserting a memory card into a computer isn't all that difficult or time consuming. I won't get into digital editing as I don't have much experience with it, but I hear it's not a particularly quick process. Also, if I'm to assume that the photo editing technology is growing as fast as most other digital commodities, photo editing, in theory, should become less time consuming and also easier. But I won't go there...

All this to say that the cost is the absolute last thing that should be taking into consideration when it comes to deciding whither to go analog or digital. I think some more appropriate questions should be something like:

-What picture quality would I like to achieve?
---> Do I want the analog look over the digital look. (We've all considered this...) Many photographers really do like the coldness of digital more.

-What style of work do I like to do?
---> Sitting in front of a computer clicking a mouse or getting your hands a little wet?

-What kind of photography do I want to create?
---> There are times where the final image quality is not of utmost importance, in which case I would say just stick with digital (think snapshots from a vacation [that is, if you're not really into making beautiful analog style prints while on a trip], documentary/journalism (especially where promptness is crucial), sports, etc. I don't mean to say this is the end all, be all, but just some food for thought. I know many out there (including myself) would still prefer analog over digital for all of these examples I just gave.

 

[RSalles]

Digital it's MAYBE cheaper then analog until you start to print your photos: digital paper could be cheaper then photographic analog paper, but go out and buy a quality printer which prints 11x16, and a superb set of inks (11) and you'll have your pockets emptied before I spell "NIKON COOLSCAN", or "Screen Césanne".
analog is many times more affordable then hybrid and digital photo. Not naming alternate photo, which can be even cheaper then both,

Cheers,

Renato

 

[Martin Rickards]

This kind of thread makes me think of neolithic cavemen faced with bronze tools. They had a skill which justifiably gave them kudos among their peers and were faced with being consigned to oblivion. I think there is a little of that in this analogue/digital divide. Digital is here to stay and analogue is confined to those that want to learn or have learnt a skill that they enjoy using. There needs to be no more justification.

 

[M Carter]

This kind of thread makes me think of neolithic cavemen faced with bronze tools. They had a skill which justifiably gave them kudos among their peers and were faced with being consigned to oblivion. I think there is a little of that in this analogue/digital divide. Digital is here to stay and analogue is confined to those that want to learn or have learnt a skill that they enjoy using. There needs to be no more justification.

It seems to me that analog is slowly beginning to find a new space with a new generation of shooters. It went from the only way to shoot to its deathbed over a stunningly short period; now, beyond the people who've always done it, I'm seeing a lot more young people pick it up as a craft to learn, and maybe moreso as a sort of personal or creative differentiator. Like the kids who've made turntables viable again ("I think vinyl sounds better"). But the modern economy (my kids are 20-somethings and even with professional jobs are avoiding debt and possessions that make it hard to move if an opportunity comes up) we're seeing less darkroom and more "shoot my own film" and either soup and scan it, or send it to a lab that scans. (And most of those kids *really* wish they had a darkroom or access to one).

As with anything one is drawn to, there certainly needs no more justification than the fact you're drawn to it. But it's interesting to see analog come back from its near death experience, but evolved into something that makes it viable today.

 

[bdial]

You can embrace contact prints rather than enlarging. If you use a contact speed paper, then the only equipment needed is a printing frame and a light bulb (plus some small trays for processing). X-ray film is popular for cost saving with the 8x10 and bigger club, but no reason you couldn't cut it down for 4x5, it's much cheaper than pictorial sheet film.

 

[iandvaag]

Welcome to APUG, Skiver101!

Cost cutting tips:
1. If shooting 35mm, buy bulk rolls from Ilford or a few other manufacturers and load your own. Be careful to do the math though since Kodak 100-ft bulk rolls often are more expensive than the ~18 casettes of 36 exposures they can fill.

2. Don't try and economize by using highly dilute developers or reusing it beyond what is recommended. This is false economy. Instead you can use a replenishment regime (if recommended by the manufacturer). Choose a developer that has a lifespan that won't go bad before you are able use it up. Store developer in PET plastic, glass or other suitable container to prevent waste. Developers don't need to be expensive.

3. Print in the darkroom, not on inkjet. Much cheaper.

4. Check locally (craigslist/kijiji) for people giving away, or selling at low cost, darkroom equipment, film, etc. You don't have to pay shipping you can see and feel before committing to buy.

5. I really like TF4 and TF5 fixers (available from the Photographer's Formulary) since they last a very long time and have a high capacity.

6. If you are really strapped for cash, try to be more discriminating and take fewer photos. I firmly believe that one's photography improves not by taking many photos, but rather by spending much time and thought. It also has the benefit of saving money.

 

[bernard_L]

we're seeing less darkroom and more "shoot my own film" and either soup and scan it, or send it to a lab that scans. (And most of those kids *really* wish they had a darkroom or access to one)

Watch your words! You are here on a forum devoted to maintaining the purity of analogue, in an exclusive, not inclusive, way. And too bad if it turns off the kids that you are mentioning. We old beards are better off aging together.

 

[piu58]

Shoot less, look more for really rewarding sujets.

 

[Ai Print]

First of all, digital's only argument in terms of cost is the fact that every shot fired doesn't cost anything, but the bodies (and lenses) are, in general, much more expensive and don't last long AT ALL. Meanwhile most of us analog shooters are using gear that's been manufactured even before digital was available. When was the last time you saw a 'serious' photographer using a digital camera that was older than 5 years? My bet is never. So financially speaking, take into consideration that a new body every 4-5 years will put you back quite a bit. Are you really spending that much on analog materials in the same time frame? Maybe... I know I don't. My main camera is about $100 and some lenses that each cost about the same ($500-600) worth of equipment in my camera bag which will last me a very long time.

I know people who are using d__ital bodies that are ten years old. Due to computer / Adobe / cloud crap I am skipping the next round of Nikon bodies and keeping what I have, that means well over 100,000 clicks on each and using them for at least 5 years. The Hasselblad CFV50c back I have for my V system was purchased with a 10-15 year shelf life in mind.

Just stating some facts...

 

[Agulliver]

As mentioned above, for 35mm B&W bulk loads of film can be great value. Buy a bulk loader (pretty much any model will do) and reusable cassettes from eBay or a local advert. Sometimes they go for very low prices and even have part used rolls in them. Buying from someone who is getting out of analogue photography or selling a deceased relative's gear might well mean you get the loader, a bunch of cassettes and possibly other equipment all bundled together.

All the Fomapan 35mm stocks are available in 50 and 100 foot rolls at really nice prices...Ilford do Pan F, FP4+, HP5+, Delta 100 and Delta 400 in 100' rolls and HP5+ in 50' rolls (possibly others too). Also the budget Kentmere film from Harman is avaialble in 100' rolls (Kentmere 100 and Kentmere 400).

Adox sometimes have Silvermax and CMS20 in 100' rolls. I've seen Rollei 25, 100 and 400, Retro 80 and Superpan in 100' loads too.

Kodak offer Tri-X but it seems horrifically expensive.

Shop around for the best deals on bulk film and remember you can get 18-20 36 exposure cassettes from a 100' bulk roll depending on your bulk loader and technique.

You can sometimes score bargains on "second hand" bulk film, or outdated stock from a camera shop. My local camera shop offers 200' rolls of Ilford HP5+ intended for motion picture use, 20 years outdated, for just £15 a tin. I might well get 35-40 cassettes out of that - 40p per film! It's not quite perfect, but it's very good. The old Tri-X that I got within my first bulk loader expired in 1999 but was giving great results in mid 2016 when I finished it.

Something like Adofix P is a really cheap fixer, it might take a little longer to fix a film than Ilford Rapid Fix but also costs less than 1/5 the price.

If you have access to raw chemicals, all the formulae for common developers, fixers, stop baths, wetting agents are available. "The Ilford Manual Of Photography" details many.

 

[darkroommike]

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The best way to achieve economy is to photograph and print thoughtfully. A roll of 36 exposures could last a long time. Especially if shots are planned like shooting medium-, or large-format. Then print small, 5x7 or 8x10, after carefully examining negatives. I can spend days with a single roll of film in the darkroom, first making a contact sheet to check exposures and processing. Then I'll scan individual negs to check focus and sharpness. Finally I will pick a few 'maybes' and run to the darkroom and print.

I use the same film for everything, Ilford HP5+ (except for stuff that's given to me). That yields economy, because I know what to expect every time. I process the film in the same developers (I use two different ones, one for smooth gradation and one for sharpness and grain). This means far less waste, which is really a great benefit.

I print using the same paper and chemicals every time. This is another step to knowing what to expect. When used this way, with fresh materials that react the same every time, there is far less waste in the darkroom, and that is a great source of economy (reducing waste).

I reuse chemicals. Both print-, and film-developers are replenished. You can't do this with every type of developer, obviously, but it allows me to bring cost per roll to extremely low levels, pennies per roll.

Finally, I am becoming extremely aware of trying to appreciate when I get a good print in the darkroom. In the past I would often get greedy and print up a bunch of negatives, just to get 'more' good prints. But avoiding the greed, and just be happy about a single good print, and try to cherish that feeling for a longer time, is helping me be more methodical about my darkroom work, which ultimately leads to fewer printed negatives, but the ones that do make it to the finish line are ones I really enjoy, so the quality per print has improved a lot by making just one or two prints per printing session. That also affords economy.

By taking these steps I can keep using quality materials from the likes of Ilford, in spite of their higher purchasing price, by simply being mindful about how I use them.

 

[Luckless]

Flip things around: Don't worry about "How much will this cost me!?" focus on "What can I do with this budget?"

Despite what many people here will claim, photography is photography. It all has equipment, and it all has on going expenses if you plan to keep using it. The details on those expenses depend on what specific gear you're using, and your style of use. Some gear and styles are far more sensible and cost effective for some goals than others. - I don't reach for my medium format camera when my 35mm kit makes more sense for the task at hand and the goals I have.

Square away a budget of what you feel comfortable working with, and then start looking at your costs and what you can do with it.
The costs can only balloon out of control if you let them.

Think about what kind of shooting you want to do and what you want to achieve. Tailor your gear to your goals while keeping your budget in mind, and use your camera in a way that fits your means. If you are trying to minimize spending, then abusing something like a Canon EOS V1 with one of those bulk spool backs is probably "not the most ideal" tool or style of shooting.


Just because you take a photo of something doesn't mean you have to make a print of it.
Developed negatives don't need to be printed anytime soon. Be selective. Look carefully at your negatives and don't be in a rush to make decisions. There is nothing wrong with shelving a negative for awhile and coming back to it. Maybe you don't think it is that great at the time, but maybe you'll think differently later. Maybe you can visualize something great in it, but aren't confident that you can work a print the way you're envisioning it.
- Do budget for trial and experimentation, and don't be scared to toss out prints that simply don't work, but at the same time avoid chasing results that you're just not getting. Your budget will give you a set number of paper prints to work with, so carefully judge whether it is worth making more attempts at something, or if it is even worth trying at all.

 

[vdonovan]

If you are getting started with large format, x-ray film is a good way to go. It's inexpensive and can be loaded and processed under safelight. And because it is orthochromatic it has its own crazy look. It can be developed in D-76 or any other film developer.

Double-sided x-ray film is very inexpensive, but difficult to handle without scratching:
Dead Link Removed

Single-sided x-ray film is a little more expensive (and comes in larger quantities), but is easy to handle without scratching:
Dead Link Removed

If you are shooting 4x5 or 5x7, you'll need to cut the 8x10 sheets down to size. I use a paper cutter, but I've cut them by hand with scissors too.

I use x-ray film for my large format workshops, encouraging students to make lots of experiments with camera movements. Loading and developing under safelight gives them confidence before moving to more expensive panchromatic films and working in the dark.

 

[MattKing]

For large format film particularly, replenishment regimes make total sense.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

One way to save is to buy "past expiry date" film and paper. Also, since you're shooting analog, shoot mindfully. It's like buying that expensive bottle of wine, savor it and use it slowly. As for chemistry, you save a lot if you mix your own.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I'd like to point out that shooting digital is not cheap unless you never intend to produce prints. To do so you need a quality printer (not cheap), a supply of ink and paper that can be quite expensive. You could have your prints made commercially but that is even more expensive, at least for quality work.

 

[DAK]

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

+1

 

[vdonovan]

Does this discussion need to be analog vs. digital? If one shoots film OR digital, there are times when one want to splurge and times when one wants to economize. Students especially, in both media, often want to economize. Why can't this thread just be: if you shoot film and want to economize, here are some tips.

 

[Bill Burk]

I encourage everyone to get a Stouffer scale for film testing. Learning about film characteristics might encourage you to rate your film exposure index and choose development times more appropriately... leading to... you guessed it. Less wasted film in the long run.

A Stouffer scale is useful because it costs about the same as a roll of film... and other ways of exposing test films require more work and are more wasteful.

 

[rthollenbeck]

As mentioned above, for 35mm B&W bulk loads of film can be great value.

I enjoy my pursuit in LF but don't kid yourself........ 35mm is a great value. Countless important images have been taken in 35mm and I'm sure there are more to come. Priceless 35mm picture taking machines can be had for pennies of their original cost. 35mm is perfected convince in my opinion.

 

[pdeeh]

Does this discussion need to be analog vs. digital? Why can't this thread just be: if you shoot film and want to economize, here are some tips.

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

Shoot slower film. I find that when I shoot 400-speed film, I snap away with reckless abandon. But when I have slow film in the camera I work more methodically and this slows down the pace at which I shoot the film.