First, a note: I shoot mostly 35mm and prior to doing my own developing, I shot nothing but 35mm (and 110 years ago as a child). Thus, my comments are geared towards that format. MF is almost certainly harder to get processed inexpensively.
I don't recall ever seeing a local store offer 1-hour processing of a 24-exposure roll of 35mm film
with prints for as little as $3.80, except perhaps as a sale. More often around here it's on the order of $7 or so for a 24-exposure roll. Perhaps it's cheaper in Rochester than in the Boston-Providence area, or maybe Bromo33333 has just found the very cheapest local place and I haven't.
One way to cut costs can be to bypass the prints. Most of that ~$7 price is in prints. If you can get the clerk to hand you back nothing but the negative strip, you can then peruse (and perhaps scan, if you've got the equipment and are so inclined) the negatives and order prints only of the frames that interest you. You might be able to order negatives and a CD-R for less than negatives with prints.
Another way to cut costs is to go with non-1-hour photofinishing. Most drug stores and the like will send film out if you so request, and some don't have 1-hour machines and so
must send film out. You'll get it back in a day or two, typically, and the cost may be a buck or two cheaper than having it done in a 1-hour lab. You may be able to order smaller (3.5x5-inch vs. 4x6-inch) prints this way, which can also save a bit of money if you want to get prints.
Another step along that path is to use a mail-order photofinisher. Some of these are quite expensive, but some are cheap. An outfit like
Clark is in the latter category, at $3.18 per roll, including return shipping, for a 24-exposure roll with 3.5x5-inch prints or $3.29 per roll for 4x6-inch prints.
Yet another option is to do your own processing. You can get C-41 chemistry and do it in the same tank you use for B&W. It's really not much harder than B&W; the main problem is with temperature control, which requires the use of a water bath or some other means of keeping everything at 100 degrees F. Of course, once you've got the negatives you'll then want prints, which requires enlarging the negatives yourself, scanning them, or taking the negatives somewhere to have prints made.
With any of these, there's some truth to the saying "you get what you pay for." I haven't used Clark in years because their quality was iffy when I used them. Still, most of that is a question of the prints; negatives from such places are usually fine and will scan well or produce good prints if you do it yourself or have it done at a better outfit. Other cost-cutting measures give you less (no or smaller prints) and/or take more time.
