Keeping It Affordable

[McDiesel]

@koraks interesting... I haven't considered mixing up ECN2 chemicals from scratch! I'll google around, thank you.

 

[Down Under]

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.

Agree. In the days when I did my own C41 at home, Tetenal kits provided adjusted first developer times for subsequent rolls up to, as I recall, 4 rolls. I did up to 16 rolls with a 1 later kit without any perceptible shifts in colors, but I followed a fellow darkroom worker's good advice and did all my processing (with a Jobo) 4 rolls at a time with 250cc of chemistry.

I haven't bought a C41 kit in ages, so I don't even know if they are still made or sold in Australia now. I tried one Rollei C41 kit but I wasn't happy with the results, I found the colors of my Fuji films to be slightly 'off'.

I've never used the Kodak or Fuji kits, which I'm told are good, but they come in too large quantity sizes for my modest use. I would end up throwing out most of the unused kits, which isn't good economy. One later kits always suited me best, they were a little more expensive, but I always ended up making full use of them. Even the five later kits were too big for me. Even with my B&W I never mix up more than two litres of any one developer at any time, or one later of fixer. Small lots is my ideal way of processing.

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.

Agree entirely. Temperature control is probably the most important Must Do of C41 processing. The rest is entire open to experiment. This is the fun part of darkroom work - trying new things, seeing what results we get. Happy accidents occur. As do disasters. We learn from both. Frankenstein results often have their own unique charm which we find when we scan or print.

The one and only point in your comment I (politely) disagree with is about stand processing, which I would never do. I want far more control over my negatives than the "one size fits all" approach one gets with stand developing. Most of us now scan more than we print on paper so it's vitally crucial to have negatives a bit on the 'thin' side. Stand gives you mostly dense results. Some may like this, but not for me...

 

[pentaxuser]

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...

Thanks for the compliment. I try to be careful when printing and processing but that's my main talent in photography. As for knowledge then certainly in terms of detailed, extensive knowledge that may be more limited.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

It would certainly appear that the recent trend to promote cine colour film suggests that the entrepreneurs have spotted a place in the market which caters for those who now regard "normal" C41 as being just too much price-wise.

I am a little surprised few if any have offered 100 ft rolls. I'd have thought that this opens a considerable extra slice of the colour film buying public

Yes the more inventive and confident among us can find ways round the problem and may even find satisfaction in doing so but I feel that we who regularly discuss such matters and "find ways" are not really representative of the colour film buying public

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

I was looking into doing C41 at home, difficult as I am *very* short on space and will be for the next couple of years at least. Then I was fortunate enough to discover the lab almost on my doorstep (which I had foolishly overlooked) with it's bargain prices.

for most people, colour film processing and scanning is a considerable expense. So if one wishes to shoot colour, finding ways to save money on this is going to be important to those trying to keep everything affordable. the problem is that cost of lab services, or home chemicals varies so much depending on location.

 

[Donald Qualls]

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.

I buy Flexicolor LORR chemistry in the "makes 5L" size -- at 25-35 ml replenisher per roll, I think that's about what you're talking about. There's some buy-in cost, but if you process even a couple rolls a month, you can replenish and it'll cost less than a dollar a roll. Of course, this is USA -- I hear Fuji Hunt chemistry is easier to get in Europe and Asia, but the cost and replenishment levels are similar.

 

[Minolta93]

It would certainly appear that the recent trend to promote cine colour film suggests that the entrepreneurs have spotted a place in the market which caters for those who now regard "normal" C41 as being just too much price-wise.

I am a little surprised few if any have offered 100 ft rolls. I'd have thought that this opens a considerable extra slice of the colour film buying public

Yes the more inventive and confident among us can find ways round the problem and may even find satisfaction in doing so but I feel that we who regularly discuss such matters and "find ways" are not really representative of the colour film buying public

pentaxuser

I may be wrong, but from what I can tell, ECN-2 film doesn't actually work out to be cheaper than C-41, at least not for developing. I do B&W at home but send color off to a lab and from what I've seen, you can get C-41 done for $5 at many mail-in labs (without scans). In contrast, I don't think I've seen ECN-2 processing anywhere for cheaper than about $10. I think generally it's a little more than that, too. So unless you're getting cine film for more than $5 less than a similar roll of C-41, you aren't actually saving money.

Now I will admit that it depends exactly what film you are comparing, but for me, cheap consumer color film does a great job and I'm happy with it, for the most part. Even at the prices now, if I bought superia 400 from a scalper on the auction site, I'd pay maybe $13 a roll. The cheapest I have seen color cine film has been about $8/roll which just barely makes you come out even, and IIRC that was older film stock that was used. Eastman 5218 or something.

I suppose if you wanted to shoot Portra 400 where you might end up paying $16 per roll then it makes sense to use respooled Vision3. But as far as affordable goes, it seems that the cheapest C-41 still beats ECN-2 once processing is included.

Unless anyone happens to know of even cheaper ECN-2 film or cheap processing.

And I just realized that bulk rolling should beat prices of buying cine film already in 135 canisters so maybe what I've typed above doesn't apply...

 

[Minolta93]

One thing I plan to do is, for color film, paying for developing services only. I bought a used flatbed scanner for $20. It's an Epson Perfection 4870 Photo and I believe Photo Engineer had mentioned that he used this same model of scanner. I've attached a scan. It's not the best, but I can beat the resolution of basic and midlevel lab scans and the colors, to my eye, are much better. Scanning costs from $5 to $10 extra. Usually $10 for the midrange scans, so the scanning can be a significant savings area.

There are of course disadvantages, but I find that I can scan 20 negatives while I'm doing something else, I just need to set the scanner up at the start. Later on I can relatively quickly color correct the scans. I use Darktable and it works well for this.

If I did want prints then I could have them printed a variety of ways from the scan I took.

 

[koraks]

I can beat the resolution of basic and midlevel lab scans

I'm sure you can get more pixels with your flatbed, but I doubt you get more resolution. A good flatbed tops out at ca. 2000dpi under optimal conditions, but more realistically will be stuck at something like 1700 or so.
If you're going to scan a lot and you're primarily going to do 35mm, I'd recommend investing in a true film scanner. Even though it'll set you back a couple of hundred bucks, you won't regret the purchase. That's a promise!

 

[Donald Qualls]

from what I can tell, ECN-2 film doesn't actually work out to be cheaper than C-41, at least not for developing.

If you're getting cine film directly with the remjet still on, that's surely correct; ordinary C-41 handlers won't knowingly touch remjet films and will be very unhappy with you if you sneak one in. If you process your own, OTOH, it's an easy couple of added steps (washing soda or sodium hydroxide pre-bath followed by water rinse until the water runs clear, and rubbing the wet film after the fixer or blix to remove any residue) and the results in C-41 are "close enough" if you're after that Cinestill look (their no-remjet version is marked for C-41 process). Alternatively, home-process ECN-2 only requires a different color developer; C-41 bleach and fixer will work fine, so if you process your own C-41, you can just source the developer (or mix it from Kodak's published formula). Either way will be LOADS cheaper than either local or mail-out labs.

 

[guangong]

All art is expensive, be it water colors, oil paints, etching, stone carving, music, etc., if serious results are to be expected.

 

[Donald Qualls]

All art is expensive, be it water colors, oil paints, etching, stone carving, music, etc., if serious results are to be expected.

I won't argue with that, but that's no excuse to just throw money away. Within your comfort level, DIY will often save considerable money (for instance, buying a miter box and squeeze tacker staple gun in order to stretch your own canvas instead of buying prestretched) -- each canvas will save more than ten dollars (maybe much more, been several years since I looked at prices on canvases).

Likewise, with some capital expended up front, bulk loading can cut the cost of 35 mm film roughly in half; processing your own negatives will save anywhere up to $20 per roll vs. sending them out, and so forth.

 

[McDiesel]

Following @Donald Qualls advice, I found this.

 

[Bob_Brooks]

I bought 40 rolls of this stuff, 500T, 250D and 50D, along with 2 kits to develop it from FFP. and they must have bulk rolled it inside of a wool sock. Every frame no matter how clean I make my drying area, has hairs on them. Not to mention the color was way off. Sorry folks, don't know why you use this as regular film, I did manage to sell it on ebay for a loss to someone in California. I was happy to be rid of it.

 

[Mick Fagan]

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.

Ozmoose, I'm still hanging in there, albeit at a much reduced pace. Thank you for the compliment. As far as developing film, yep still doing it, printing not so much as previously as health and travel issues eat into my unlimited retirement time; if you know what I mean.

I've pretty much switched to 4x5" format almost entirely for around the last 7-10 years; and loving it.

As for savings, I still purchase every now and again when prices are good for me and find that some quite large 4x5" film purchases have worked out very well over the years.

Currently sitting in a camper on the back of a truck waiting for the weather to improve in very rural South Australia.

This was a lunch stop with Mount Finke in the background a couple of weeks ago (Goog's Track), no people, perfect weather; squillions of flies. Paradise often has issues!!!

 

[Minolta93]

Has anyone here as of yet tried purchasing a reel of Ektachrome from Kodak and using it to bulk roll 135 cassettes? It seems that it should work out to about $8 for 36 exposures.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Has anyone here as of yet tried purchasing a reel of Ektachrome from Kodak and using it to bulk roll 135 cassettes? It seems that it should work out to about $8 for 36 exposures.

IIRC there's at least one member here who ordered a 400' can of ektachrome. It requires a simple tool (and spare cores) to split it into more easily bulk loaded 100' rolls. It's a bit too rich of an investment for me, but the 16mm single-perf performs fantastically well in subminiature cameras and is more affordable, if you can find any.

In 35mm color negative, bulk loading Vision3 stocks and processing in scratch-mixed ECN-2 means I don't even consider color film & processing prices anymore (or B&W for that matter). I still try to be judicious in my use of each frame, but cost isn't a pressing factor.

I bought 40 rolls of this stuff, 500T, 250D and 50D, along with 2 kits to develop it from FFP. and they must have bulk rolled it inside of a wool sock. Every frame no matter how clean I make my drying area, has hairs on them. Not to mention the color was way off. Sorry folks, don't know why you use this as regular film, I did manage to sell it on ebay for a loss to someone in California. I was happy to be rid of it.

That's unfortunate. I find ECN-2 produces more color accuracy in my workflow (official ecn-2 chems, unofficial c-41 chems) and is easier to correct in scanning than C-41. It is possible you got some filthily loaded bulk, but I've not encountered any overt dust/hair problems when bulk loading cassettes myself. Using a proper scanner with infrared dust removal can also ameliorate that issue, but isn't a silver bullet.

The most annoying aspect of the stock is the remjet, but with practice and better chemistry I've gotten much better at completely removing it from the base side without contaminating the emulsion.

35mm 500T w/ 85b, ECN-2 scanned on V800


16mm 250D, ECN-2 scanned on V800 (severe remjet contamination)

 

[Minolta93]

I bought 40 rolls of this stuff, 500T, 250D and 50D, along with 2 kits to develop it from FFP. and they must have bulk rolled it inside of a wool sock. Every frame no matter how clean I make my drying area, has hairs on them. Not to mention the color was way off. Sorry folks, don't know why you use this as regular film, I did manage to sell it on ebay for a loss to someone in California. I was happy to be rid of it.

Well it must have been done by FPP on accident. Obviously Kodak isn't sending out dusty movie film to all their clients.

 

[Down Under]

Yes

I'm sure you can get more pixels with your flatbed, but I doubt you get more resolution. A good flatbed tops out at ca. 2000dpi under optimal conditions, but more realistically will be stuck at something like 1700 or so.
If you're going to scan a lot and you're primarily going to do 35mm, I'd recommend investing in a true film scanner. Even though it'll set you back a couple of hundred bucks, you won't regret the purchase. That's a promise!

Yes!! Buy a used Plusek 7600i if you can find one - they often turn up on Ebay, some were very little used and in remarkably good condition.

The one and only 'minus' I can think of is they scan only 35mm. Roll film users like me usually turn to one of the better Epsons (mine is a V600, bought new) as they do a fine job on 120.

I scan all my 35mm on 2400 dpi with sharpening turned off. Ditto minimal adjustments to color shifts, brightness, contrast, saturation et al. All that can be done later in post processing anyway.

Used carefully and stored with care, they seem to go on forever. I've owned two Plustek 7600i scanners in my time. The first one, bought new in 2009, passed away in 2019 from old age, and was deemed not repairable. I went to Ebay and found its replacement for AUD$150. It goes on working well and I have the added 'plus' of an extra lamp for it, as the one in my first 'ten is still usable (the scan motor broke down).

 

[Down Under]

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

An interesting point. My answer is, almost none IF you do it in a dark room. Or your darkroom.

I mean, you are blind-rolling the film into cassettes anyway. I often do mine with my eyes shut. So why not turn off the lights, and do it in total darkness??

When there is the will...

 

[Down Under]

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.

This got me curious. Aguliver, how did you "accidentally" partially lift the lid off your Jobo tank?? The things have a sort of grip lock seal anyway, don't they?? At least my 1500 series Jobo tanks do.

Or did you follow my example and (maybe) ingest a little bit too much good red while processing?? I've been guilty of this before, but not to the extent of fogging any film. I once did try to process two rolls of 35mm Plus-X by using the stop bath as my developer and then the developer as the stop. On realising my error, I immediately flushed the films (still in the tank, of course) with several changes of water and then did the processing in the correct order. Films came out okay, at least I thought so.

Haven't as yet fixed as a first bath, but there is always the future. With much less red wine now.

 

[Down Under]

This got me curious. Aguliver, how did you "accidentally" partially lift the lid off your Jobo tank?? The things have a sort of grip lock seal anyway, don't they?? At least my 1500 series Jobo tanks do.

Or did you follow my example and (maybe) ingest a little bit too much good red while processing?? I've been guilty of this before, but not to the extent of fogging any film. I once did try to process two rolls of 35mm Plus-X by using the stop bath as my developer and then the developer as the stop. On realising my error, I immediately flushed the films (still in the tank, of course) with several changes of water and then did the processing in the correct order. Films came out okay, at least I thought so.

Haven't as yet fixed as a first bath, but there is always the future. With much less red wine now (disclaimer: This is due to old age and not common sense).