Keeping It Affordable

bdial said:

I mostly use my local camera shop for C-41 processing and color printing, I have no idea what their price is compared to Wal-mart. But working with them has paid off in other ways, such as the 40 rolls of expired, refrigerated 120 they gave me last summer, big discounts on B&W paper, free prints for referring a buyer to them, etc. On top of that, their processing is absolutely reliable, they use Kodak materials, and I know the people running my film by name.

Click to expand...

And you got the negatives back.

pentaxuser said:

ozmoose, I am pretty sure that copake_ham may have been removed or left under mutual agreement many moons ago.

Click to expand...

That was my impression. We can PM if you want more information on that.

When I buy film at a good price I order more than I need at the time so that the remainder goes into the freezer for good use. Also larger film orders means free shipping and until recently no sales tax.

Sirius Glass said:

Buy a good bulk loader and you will be ahead in the long run, by not fogging the bulk roll and consistent length roll regardless of length.

Click to expand...

What's the risk of fogging the film if it's done in a dark bag?

Minolta93 said:

What's the risk of fogging the film if it's done in a dark bag?

Click to expand...

One slip with the dark bag can end up fogging a large portion of a 100 foot roll.
Generally speaking, if you slip-up with a bulk loader at any stage other than when you initially load it, you will only fog a single cassette load of film.

I use a dark bag and have *never* fogged any film in there.

I've fogged film by accidentally partially lifting the lid off my Jobo tank during development though.

I have also found that Fomapan 400 is a bit grainy for my tastes in 135 but I use it in 120. My preferred developers are ID-11 and Microphen.

I buy Finess 100 and 400 in 100 foot rolls from Ultrafine, bulk load depending what I think I will shoot in a day, as few as 8 exposures. I also use Kentmere 400 for my DX coded point and shoots. I make working prints from black and white paper from Ultrafine or B&Hs multitone, then print final prints on Foma FB. Stopped shooting color, I have a few rolls left and will not buy more. Between the cost of color film, development and printing it is now around $40 a roll. Long gone are the days of $1.00 C41 processing.

When I travel I will use Tmax 400.

This thread was started about the time I decided to jump into film as a serious hobby and it's pretty amazing how much the photo world has changed.

My 2 cost-cutting moves were to pretty much quit shooting color for 3-4 years and to curb my snobbery for medium format over 35mm. I also faced up to the realization that I am just not good enough to do large format and never will figure it out, so I sold the Cambo and tripod and am trying to decide what to do with all the accessories.

Now, with the availability of Kodak Vision3 film in 100 ft rolls and ECN2 home developing kits, bringing the costs down near to B&W, I've put a toe back in the colored water.

For those who bulk roll, it's also possible to get all the Vision3 stocks and Ektachrome 100, factory fresh, in four hundred foot "camera rolls" -- which need to be respooled to ~100 foot length to fit in a standard bulk loader, but save significantly over the respooled-for-you offerings from PhotoWarehouse and Film Photography Project. Vision3 is "the same" as corresponding Cinestill, except it still has the remjet on it, but in this size roll is less than half the price per 135-36. These films and some older stocks (Vision2, for instance, or expired Vision3) can be found on an "as available" basis as "short ends" and "recan" from cine film suppliers at even lower per-foot price. Ektachrome is "the same" E100 that Kodak recently reintroduced.

It's even possible to 3D print a bulk loader that will take a 400' roll -- looks like a service can do it for just over $100 shipped, though I don't know if they'll stand behind the opacity of the filament they use. I was planning to do one for myself, but it's that much too big for my Ender 3's build volume -- which might have to do with the cost of getting it service printed.

Minolta93 said:

What's the risk of fogging the film if it's done in a dark bag?

Click to expand...

One slip of your grip or not completely zipped zipper will fog the whole bulk roll making it useless. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Vision-3 non tungsten, does it exist?

NB23 said:

Vision-3 non tungsten, does it exist?

Click to expand...

Yes, in iso 50 and 250, balanced for daylight. 400ft rolls are available from B&H (and maybe freestyle) or Kodak itself, and 100ft rolls from Ultrafine.

Back in 2007 when this thread started, I knew about 50 photographers with darkrooms. Now there are three of us left. This is partly (but not entirely) due to old age, after all we are all 15 years older , many of us 70 of well beyond.

One of our 'trio' plan will drop out of analog photography entirely in June as he is moving to a retirement community. Probably I will inherit his darkroom. Nothing much I don't already have. A Meopta enlarger (I use an LPL 7700), some film, paper and chemistry. His cameras will go on Ebay, but at current selling prices he won't get much for them. The Meopta may end up in a local charity shop for some student to pick up cheaply and play with. Paper, film, chemistry I'll keep, of course.

Other factors for us in Australia are high costs, these have tripled (even quadrupled) since 2007. Is Mick Fagan still with us?? I've always valued his contributions and if he is still processing and printing, he will surely be more aware of current prices than I am.

Here in Down Under the 1 hour minicabs are now mostly history. I'm not sure if Costco still process. Big W did for a long time, but I gave them up after my films came back scratched. Vanbars in Melbourne do, but I can't afford their prices. I know, I know, they have to make a profit. Not at my expense, sorry. So no more C41 for me, or E6 as that's also ancient history here.

(Like so many others I miss Kodachrome, but let's not go there.)

Now my contribution will be entirely B&W as I no longer shoot color film.

I "minimalised" my darkroom in 12.2020 and sold half my gear. My beloved but little used Leitz Focomat 1c, a Jobo Duolab, almost all my RC paper, much more, the big bits and 12 cartons went out the door. This cleared a shipload of space in our guest bedroom. My kit now - an LPL 7700, a Duolab, the usual bits and pieces (easels, a grain focuser, trays, tongs, thermometers etcetera), also only basic chemistry as I now mix my own developers, also my entire stock of RC paper which I hope to use up before I shuffle off to that big photo studio in the clouds - serves my purpose. I no longer process and print as I did , at my age all-night sessions are an event of the past.

Like so many, I scan. My best negatives are then put aside and printed in a Sunday session when my partner is out on weekend work duty, so I have the house to myself. My RC papers, some dating to 1990 and one or two boxes probably a decade older, have held up well. I try to keep things simple, with home brewed Dektol, a fine grain Agfa developer from the 1950s, no more toning or selenium. Fixer I bought up big in 2012 when I retired and still have enough to make 20 gallons. It holds up well even in its old age.

If I had to buy developer, I would be using D76 or ID11 for my films and Ilford PQ Universal for my papers. To me they are still the best value around, if not exactly 'exotic'.

Vanbar Photographics in Melbourne supply what few retail items I need. Occasionally they discount things, it's good to go into the store now and then to see what they have at good prices but not listed in their online catalogue. Not films - the photo students and yuppy shooters nowadays grab it all.

I also bulk roll, using a big change bag and a small crank left over from one of my long lost bulk roll loaders. To minimise the danger of fogging my films, I do my loading in a blacked-out room. Who wudda thunk it?? But it works.

For my 35mm film, I buy Ilford, anything else I consider to be false economy. Focomat is available in Melbourne, not much cheaper than Ilford, so I avoid it. By winding carefully, I get 20 rolls of 36 shots from each 100 feet (30.5 meters), so it's good value.

I've not seen bulk rolls of color film available here for a long time, altho' it may still be. Buying from the USA is so expensive now for postage and GST if the shipment gets spotted on arrival here, in most cases not worth the bother for small orders.

Now and then our local charity shops have small darkroom items which they sell cheaply, as the old dears who volunteer in those places don't know what they are. Recently I got a Paterson grain focuser for $2 (also an original Mont Blanc pen from the 1980s for AUD$5, the elderly volunteer at the sales counter thought it was a China-made fake. That was a good day!!)

Economy is still possible with some doing but nothing on the scale of what it was in 2007. A lot of water has passed under the bridge of life since that time, not much of it Dektol.

My thoughts on all this. I hope Mick Fagan will join in again, he always has worthy comments to make about all things to do with the darkroom.

Pentaxuser (#48), many thanks for your post. I was only curious. So many have come and gone. Some of us came, went, and came back. Eventually we all drop out. It's good that you've stayed, as your many posts are always good reading. You know your photography...

Donald Qualls said:

For those who bulk roll, it's also possible to get all the Vision3 stocks and Ektachrome 100, factory fresh, in four hundred foot "camera rolls" -- which need to be respooled to ~100 foot length to fit in a standard bulk loader, but save significantly over the respooled-for-you offerings from PhotoWarehouse and Film Photography Project.

Click to expand...

But the issue with movie film cost isn't the film itself but ECN-2 chemistry. Proper chemicals are sold by Kodak in humongous quantities, so you're stuck with overpriced kits with overrated capacity from QWD or Cinestill. Another option is C41, but cross-processing ECN in C41 produces utter crap, excuse my French.

McDiesel said:

But the issue with movie film cost isn't the film itself but ECN-2 chemistry. Proper chemicals are sold by Kodak in humongous quantities, so you're stuck with overpriced kits with overrated capacity from QWD or Cinestill. Another option is C41, but cross-processing ECN in C41 produces utter crap, excuse my French.

Click to expand...

Overrated capacity? How many rolls do you get from one of them? I've not had the patience to wait for 16 rolls to fully test the QWD kit. Still, even with 10 rolls it's half the local C-41 processing price.

Why compare to "local C-41 processing" prices? If the plan is to develop at home, you should be comparing to that. With C41 you don't have to buy overpriced kits. Home-developed C41 using proper chemicals (not kits) is about $1 per roll. This is far cheaper than ECN-2 and bulk loading doesn't bridge the gap. Basically my point is that shooting ECN-2 makes no sense economically because ECN-2 chemistry is not available.

Sirius Glass said:

And you got the negatives back.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

One slip of your grip or not completely zipped zipper will fog the whole bulk roll making it useless. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Click to expand...

I consider not getting negatives back to be theft, pure and simple. But I know it's becoming more common in the USA. Thankfully in the UK, and I believe in Europe, it's still the done thing to return negatives.

I am curious as to how many people have had real life issues with dark bags. I've used two since I was a kid and never had any problems....but I am reminded that everyone has different skills. I could happily operate a fully manual medium format camera aged 5 but as I slide towards middle age I still cannot tie my shoelaces (or any knots in anything).

Agulliver said:

I am curious as to how many people have had real life issues with dark bags.

Click to expand...

Not in the sense of fogging, at least not consistently/systematically, although the double elastic bands at the sleeves aren't always a fail-safe protection IMO. The main issue I've had with changing bags are the fact that they're cramped and if you take too long doing your stuff (which happens because it's so cramped in there), it gets sweaty in there as well. Especially handling sheet film I've had scratches and basically just unpleasant experiences in there. The luxury of a room that can actually be darkened is indeed, a luxury. I didn't have the heart to actually throw out/donate my changing bag and I have used it once a few months ago when I was in the process of moving, but if I can help it, I', NEVER going back to that cramped, sweaty place.

McDiesel said:

Why compare to "local C-41 processing" prices? If the plan is to develop at home, you should be comparing to that. With C41 you don't have to buy overpriced kits. Home-developed C41 using proper chemicals (not kits) is about $1 per roll. This is far cheaper than ECN-2 and bulk loading doesn't bridge the gap. Basically my point is that shooting ECN-2 makes no sense economically because ECN-2 chemistry is not available.

Click to expand...

Why compare to local prices? Because that is the only other way I would be shooting color film.

So instead of comparing with local c-41 processing, you would have a home-processing amateur compare costs with a process using chemicals that, as far as I can tell, come only in quantities to process 250 rolls or more.

At Ultrafine and B&H, Vision3 50D in bulk costs $5-6 while cheapo Color Plus is $10 and the more comparable Ektar is $15. So yes, even comparing with C41 at $1/roll processing cost, the total cost of ECN-2 bulk rolling and processing does come out advantageously.

And I still want to know what you have found to be the real capacity of the QWD kit.

koraks said:

Not in the sense of fogging, at least not consistently/systematically, although the double elastic bands at the sleeves aren't always a fail-safe protection IMO. The main issue I've had with changing bags are the fact that they're cramped and if you take too long doing your stuff (which happens because it's so cramped in there), it gets sweaty in there as well. Especially handling sheet film I've had scratches and basically just unpleasant experiences in there. The luxury of a room that can actually be darkened is indeed, a luxury. I didn't have the heart to actually throw out/donate my changing bag and I have used it once a few months ago when I was in the process of moving, but if I can help it, I', NEVER going back to that cramped, sweaty place.

Click to expand...

I got a "Changing Room" bag which is large enough for 4"x5" but I would not want to load 35mm cassettes from a bulk roll in it.

pbromaghin said:

Why compare to local prices? Because that is the only other way I would be shooting color film.

So instead of comparing with local c-41 processing, you would have a home-processing amateur compare costs with a process using chemicals that, as far as I can tell, come only in quantities to process 250 rolls or more.

At Ultrafine and B&H, Vision3 50D in bulk costs $5-6 while cheapo Color Plus is $10 and the more comparable Ektar is $15. So yes, even comparing with C41 at $1/roll processing cost, the total cost of ECN-2 bulk rolling and processing does come out advantageously.

And I still want to know what you have found to be the real capacity of the QWD kit.

Click to expand...

I use the Unicolor 1 liter kit for up to 16 rolls, but I do not like making prints of every negative at home, so now I take rolls to be processed and printed.

pbromaghin said:

And I still want to know what you have found to be the real capacity of the QWD kit.

Click to expand...

Kodak does not recommend reusing C-41 and ECN-2 developers without replenishing. Which means that 1L can only be used one-shot for just 4 rolls. Anything beyond that and you're in "meh, it will be fine" territory. It's a big territory, it starts with reusing what's not meant to be reused, includes cross-processing ECN-2 in C-41, and ends with developing in coffee, beer or cat piss... a slippery slope!

But if you want to do it properly and by the book, my earlier statement stands. ECN-2 is not accessible for home users.

There's another reason why ECN-2 is useless. I searched archives here, and PE (photo engineer) repeatedly stated that ECN-2 chemicals have extremely short shelf life. They simply aren't optimized for small-batch processing. Give me a 400ft of Motion3 film for free and I will give it back to you - I am not aware of any economical way to develop it properly.

[EDIT] For the record, there's nothing wrong with doing things not properly. In fact, shooting expired film, using experimental developers, ignoring Kodak datasheets, stand-developing, etc is quite popular. Experimenting is fun. My comment above is just a reality check for those few of us, who have a strong preference for doing things properly.

McDiesel said:

Kodak does not recommend reusing C-41 and ECN-2 developers without replenishing. Which means that 1L can only be used one-shot for just 4 rolls. Anything beyond that and you're in "meh, it will be fine" territory. It's a big territory, it starts with reusing what's not meant to be reused, includes cross-processing ECN-2 in C-41, and ends with developing in coffee, beer or cat piss... a slippery slope!

But if you want to do it properly and by the book, my earlier statement stands. ECN-2 is not accessible for home users.

There's another reason why ECN-2 is useless. I searched archives here, and PE (photo engineer) repeatedly stated that ECN-2 chemicals have extremely short shelf life. They simply aren't optimized for small-batch processing. Give me a 400ft of Motion3 film for free and I will give it back to you - I am not aware of any economical way to develop it properly.

[EDIT] For the record, there's nothing wrong with doing things not properly. In fact, shooting expired film, using experimental developers, ignoring Kodak datasheets, stand-developing, etc is quite popular. Experimenting is fun. My comment above is just a reality check for those few of us, who have a strong preference for doing things properly.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the very clear and sensible answer.

McDiesel said:

There's another reason why ECN-2 is useless. I searched archives here, and PE (photo engineer) repeatedly stated that ECN-2 chemicals have extremely short shelf life. They simply aren't optimized for small-batch processing. Give me a 400ft of Motion3 film for free and I will give it back to you - I am not aware of any economical way to develop it properly.

Click to expand...

Meh. Not necessarily. One of the advantages (and there's only few of them, I think you and I would agree) of ECN-2 chemistry is that the formulas have been released to the public domain by Kodak. They also don't require very outlandish chemistry either, so they're straightforward to DIY. I did this for a while, compounding the developer from 2 concentrates and adding the CD3 as dry powder. This way, the components last a very, very long time indeed. It's also very easy to do this at a small scale (I never did otherwise!) The main drawback IMO was that in the end you're still left with ECN2 film stock which prints poorly onto RA4 paper unless you're looking for something way out there in the special effects domain.