hybrid or traditional most cost effective?

[Sirius Glass]

The premise of the question is flawed. It occurs to me that

1. The two things are not the same things, so comparing them is apples and oranges
2. Something is only cheaper than another thing if both things do what you want


I suggest you first decide which thing you want to do. Do you want to create real photographs or computer-generated ink drawings? Only if you consider the two things equivalent--and many do--can you compare their costs directly.

I agree. I am in the "want to create real photographs" and I do not consider the two things equivalent camp.

<<anti-spam shield on>>​

Warning: This is not a request nor a command to get involved in whether or not this constitutes a film-versus-digital-pissing-contest discussion. I do my pissing in the bathroom. I aim to please; your aim will help.

<<anti-spam shield off>>​

 

[Roger Cole]

Please, not ANOTHER digital-vs-analog pissing contest.

My only point is that the status quo won't stand. A handful of new films, yes; but also a big cull of E6 emulsions, b&w papers, C-41 materials, lost pro labs(decimation of reasonably good cheap 35mm dev/print services, too), scarce E6 processing and higher prices/reduced availability for what's left.

Color, yes, I wonder how much longer it will be viable in a traditional home/hobby darkroom. C41 for a while no doubt, E6...well, dunno. We still have some great E6 films (with E100G and Provia 400 I could be set) but the selection is definitely limited and narrowing.

But with black and white...honestly I believe I have more and sometimes better choices now than I did when I was last printing in 1998-99. Some are gone, sure, but there's a really big selection of papers and a more than adequate selection of film. I miss Agfapan 100, but while I really liked the film it's not like there was anything I'd photograph with it that I can't do really just as well with FP4+, TMX, Delta 100, Acros...

I think black and white, my main love in the traditional darkroom, will have a long future.

I already mourn the loss of type R paper and the pricing of Ilfochrome into the stratosphere though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Color, yes, I wonder how much longer it will be viable in a traditional home/hobby darkroom. C41 for a while no doubt, E6...well, dunno. We still have some great E6 films (with E100G and Provia 400 I could be set) but the selection is definitely limited and narrowing.

But with black and white...honestly I believe I have more and sometimes better choices now than I did when I was last printing in 1998-99. Some are gone, sure, but there's a really big selection of papers and a more than adequate selection of film. I miss Agfapan 100, but while I really liked the film it's not like there was anything I'd photograph with it that I can't do really just as well with FP4+, TMX, Delta 100, Acros...

I think black and white, my main love in the traditional darkroom, will have a long future.

I already mourn the loss of type R paper and the pricing of Ilfochrome into the stratosphere though.

I agree: "C41 for a while no doubt, E6...well, dunno. "

I would like to see C41 and black & white home processing continue. And I think that black & white traditional darkroom will have a long life.

E6 seemed to start a downslide before digital came on the market. Was it because Kodak et al saw it as a cheap one shot processing with no continued commerical follow on for each roll, and therefore started raising the film and processing prices to high levels? I do not know.

I used to shoot a lot of slides when I travelled, but when the children came I reluctantly switched to color prints for ease of duplication. Somehow, showing slides fell out of favor and became a source of humor and ridicule. Was that it? I still appreciate the dynamics and impact of slides, but it does not meet my needs now.

And yes, I have processed slides at home with E4.

Steve

 

[mike donahue]

Seems like traditional is the way to go for you. Used equipment can probably be found very cheap/free if you look out as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+ 1, but then I am not starting a film versus digital pissing contest.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree: "C41 for a while no doubt, E6...well, dunno. "

I would like to see C41 and black & white home processing continue. And I think that black & white traditional darkroom will have a long life.

E6 seemed to start a downslide before digital came on the market. Was it because Kodak et al saw it as a cheap one shot processing with no continued commerical follow on for each roll, and therefore started raising the film and processing prices to high levels? I do not know.

I used to shoot a lot of slides when I travelled, but when the children came I reluctantly switched to color prints for ease of duplication. Somehow, showing slides fell out of favor and became a source of humor and ridicule. Was that it? I still appreciate the dynamics and impact of slides, but it does not meet my needs now.

And yes, I have processed slides at home with E4.

Steve

I used to shoot (and home process) a lot of E6 as my preferred color media, which I printed on type R, Kodak 2203 I believe. I found it easier at the time than negative printing, but RA4 greatly stabilized negative color pack changes and the cost spread became more and negative films became so much better than they had been, and had always been more forgiving...

But I've been shooting a lot of E100G in 35mm and still really love the results. I'm not doing it at home now (yet - got some expired E100VS in 4x5 on order and I'll do that at home) so I just order up scans with the processing and love the results. Still - love the results as long as the contrast isn't bad, and 100 is fast enough and... C41 is just so forgiving.

Fortunately I think we'll have it for a while yet.

 

[pbromaghin]

Let me elaborate a little on my analog cost figures. I bought an entire bathroom setup that will do 8x10 for 35mm and 6x6, color or B&W for $80. $500 for a Mamiya C33 with 4 lenses and padded, sledgehammer-proof case. Another $75 for filters for both the MF and 35mm. Darkroom lessons this fall will cost $285.

New PC and monitor, printer, photoshop, calibration software and hardware, full-frame digital camera plus new lenses - I figured $4000. My guy at the camera shop, who knows more about photography than just about anybody else I know, told me it would be more like $8000.

I will be buying my wife a new digital camera this weekend, so no, this isn't a digital/analog pissing contest. It is a realistic accounting of the facts I found in my search. For a low volume hobbyist like me and, it appears, like the OP the balance is clearly on the side of film.

 

[bblhed]

No one has mentioned this, but you might want to use a semi hybrid workflow if for no other reason so you can look at your images before you decide what to print. You don't need a good scanner for this, just une that will reverse the colors and give you an idea of the composition.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Let me elaborate a little on my analog cost figures. I bought an entire bathroom setup that will do 8x10 for 35mm and 6x6, color or B&W for $80. $500 for a Mamiya C33 with 4 lenses and padded, sledgehammer-proof case. Another $75 for filters for both the MF and 35mm. Darkroom lessons this fall will cost $285.

New PC and monitor, printer, photoshop, calibration software and hardware, full-frame digital camera plus new lenses - I figured $4000. My guy at the camera shop, who knows more about photography than just about anybody else I know, told me it would be more like $8000.

I will be buying my wife a new digital camera this weekend, so no, this isn't a digital/analog pissing contest. It is a realistic accounting of the facts I found in my search. For a low volume hobbyist like me and, it appears, like the OP the balance is clearly on the side of film.

The numbers are different for me, but the story is the same. Not a pissing contest, just the facts. Not a sermon, just a thought.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Let me elaborate a little on my analog cost figures. I bought an entire bathroom setup that will do 8x10 for 35mm and 6x6, color or B&W for $80. $500 for a Mamiya C33 with 4 lenses and padded, sledgehammer-proof case. Another $75 for filters for both the MF and 35mm. Darkroom lessons this fall will cost $285.

New PC and monitor, printer, photoshop, calibration software and hardware, full-frame digital camera plus new lenses - I figured $4000. My guy at the camera shop, who knows more about photography than just about anybody else I know, told me it would be more like $8000.

I will be buying my wife a new digital camera this weekend, so no, this isn't a digital/analog pissing contest. It is a realistic accounting of the facts I found in my search. For a low volume hobbyist like me and, it appears, like the OP the balance is clearly on the side of film.

Your numbers for the digital side could come down a bit if you buy used, like you did for the analog equipment. But the upfront costs certainly favor darkroom work.

Good fiber based inkjet paper costs at least as much as good fiber based silver paper. Ink is more expensive than developer and fixer. However with inkjet you can proof on a small sheet and then print on a larger one and expect the color and exposure to be the same. I find I have much less waste with inkjet. So the costs about even out for printing a good black and white image. Color is cheaper in the darkroom, but I now like some of the FB inkjet papers better than the RC color paper in most cases. But I still haven't given up color printing because I enjoy it, and it's pretty cheap.

Where I think digital is great is for snap shots. Digital is saving me lot's of money, and more importantly storage space over 35mm film. It's nice not to need to store all the drug store prints, or slides. And I can now find an image in no time, vs hunting through tons on envelopes.

 

[JBrunner]

You will never find a cheaper way to excellence than doing it yourself, no matter what it costs. Incidentally, my darkroom is exponetially cheaper to own and run than the digital side of my business, and that's the cold hard book keeping of photographing for money over the last 10 years, not just dabbling and guessing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And I can now find an image in no time, vs hunting through tons on envelopes.

I have a filing system which allows me to locate prints and negatives quickly and it does not require a computer to use it. I can still pull photographs and slides from the early 1960's on in a very short time.

Others have posted their filing systems on APUG, and many of those are even faster and better than mine. Now if you toss the envelopes in a drawer or box without have a decent filing systems, when then yes you will have to "[hunt] through tons on envelopes".

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

I have a filing system which allows me to locate prints and negatives quickly and it does not require a computer to use it. I can still pull photographs and slides from the early 1960's on in a very short time.

Others have posted their filing systems on APUG, and many of those are even faster and better than mine. Now if you toss the envelopes in a drawer or box without have a decent filing systems, when then yes you will have to "[hunt] through tons on envelopes".

Steve

My negatives are filed autobiographically.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I have a filing system which allows me to locate prints and negatives quickly and it does not require a computer to use it. I can still pull photographs and slides from the early 1960's on in a very short time.

Others have posted their filing systems on APUG, and many of those are even faster and better than mine. Now if you toss the envelopes in a drawer or box without have a decent filing systems, when then yes you will have to "[hunt] through tons on envelopes".

Steve

All my newer stuff is organized too since I started doing color development. And all my black and white film since I started. But the drug store developed snap shots have no contact sheets, and are simply filed away with one set of prints. Someday I'll make some contacts from the hundreds of rolls and then I'll be completely organized too. But it's more work than I want for quick snaps of the kids and cats.

 

[lxdude]

I shoot slides mostly, and have been unhappy to see films disappear, especially Kodachrome.
But to put things in perspective: when I started in 1974, leaving out specialized films like infrared, there were (hoping I haven't forgotten anything): two Kodachromes, 25 and 64, which were widely regarded, including by me, as the best. There were two Ektachromes, ASA 64 and 160, neither of which I liked; Fujichrome R100, which had rather unnatural color, sort of a pre-Velvia; Agfachrome, which had IMO very good color but was grainier than K64; and the Konica, GAF and Scotch films, which I don't think I ever tried. I know there were high-speed films other than High Speed Ektachrome, but I never heard they were better, so I didn't try them.

No manufacturer had multiples of same-speed film differentiated by color palette, as Kodak and especially Fuji still have.

So even if we end up with only a few choices we'll still be not worse off than we were back in a time when transparency film ruled for most professionals and the E-6 films now are far superior to the old ones.

That doesn't mean I don't care. I hate losing Astia in 35mm, as it's my (much) preferred night film. So I'm shooting night shots more in 645 format.

 

[Smudger]

JB - "exponentially cheaper to own and run" encapsulates it nicely.
Sometimes you have to spend a hunk of change to save a few cents.

 

[Steve Smith]

My negatives are filed autobiographically.

I know where all of my negatives are. They're all in my house somewhere.



Steve.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Digital is very expensive and best indulged by rich people or pros short on time who can pass costs on.

There are no decent 35mm scanners at cost you are willing to accept. 120 and up can be done with flat beds made for it.

The big advantage to digital is speed and the very fine control you can have and the ability to make numerous prints with the same dodge & burn exactly.

 

[Andrew K]

my 2 cents worth..as someone who has printed for 30 years, and owns a couple of scanners..

It depends on 2 things - how important 120 is to you, and who will print your work.

120 scanners are not cheap, and most of the flat bed ones produce less than ideal results. The best is the Epson V 750/700 scanner, but I would also get one of the aftermarket, custom neg trays you can adjust to correct focus on the negs - from what I've seen they are the difference between chalk and cheese. I have Canon pro scanner - it;'s OK for scanning color negs (I shoot color pinholes), but for critical work I send my negs to a lab to be scanned on a 120 Nikon scanner or a drum scanner (I only do a few a year, so the cost is negligable, and the scans can be printed to 30 inches wide adn look as good as if I'd done them in a darkroom).

35mm is easy - just buy a dedicated scanner - Nikon, Minolta, or even a old Canon 4000. I've also seen good results out of the top of the range prime scanners. The trick with all of them - if you are scanning black and white buy VIEWSCAN software - it makes all the difference. On my Minolta scanner the Minolta software produces great color scans, but the black and white scans are dreadful - grainy and not great tonal range. Viewscan scans them perfectly..

Printing is the other issue. Have a good look into what ink will cost you. I did, and I bought a small A4 Canon scanner years ago for "proofing", with the intention of sending out my printing to a lab for "folio" prints. The amazing thing is the results I get out of my Canon scanner are that good that I have used many of them in my folio (Color that is - black and white prints look a bit pink).

So I do my own proofs, and get any enlargements done by a lab. I've found it's far cheaper this way. If you look around at your local pro labs you could be surprised what they charge for digital printing - it may be lots cheaper than you think (like $1.70 for a 8x12 inch print on traditionally developed photo paper)

Cheers