That's like $2.5 for a roll of 36. Is it possible to load film, say for 10 shots, or does the loader exposes film at the head/tail and loading a short roll is a waste of film? The one thing I don't like about 35mm is that I have to shoot 36 photos before developing.
Cheapest developer? Make your own D-76, or perhaps even better (for certain usage scenarios) D-23, which is just two chemicals: Metol and Sodium sulfite. Couldn't be easier or cheaper.
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-adofix-p-ii-zum-ansatz-von-5000-ml.html
Enough for 50 films (and you can really do 100) for 9 euros. 18 cents per film or extended 9 cents per film.
Rodinal:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/adox-rodinal-500-ml-konzentrat.html?cache=1618488142
100 films for 13 euros, that is 13 cents per film.
So total 13+9 = 22 cents per film. Does it need to be cheaper, really?
Do you have any estimates how much self made D-76 costs? What kind of investments do you need to do (buying chemical)?
I would like to hear facts about prices for self-made developers, are they really cheaper than this? Considering the bulk investment in chemicals and the fuzz of mixing own - is it really worth it?
I prefer to mix Agfa-44
I looked into D23 a while ago as I kept seeing people say it's cheap. From what I could find, D23 wasn't cheap for me.
I've just had a quick look again:
500g Metol ->£135
25Kg of Sulfite -> £80
That makes it, per litre, ~£2 of metol (7.5g) and ~£0.30 of sulfite (100g) for a total of ~£2.30.
If i choose a less ridiculous amount of bulk sulfite (1KG) the cost of 1L of D23 ends up being ~£3.40.
Is this a case of the price depends on where you live?
edit: i've just realised I totally missed the fact D23 isn't one shot
I am getting great results with EDU Ultra 200 and Xtol stock
I made a spreadsheet of most developers that was available to me to find the cheapest
What was so bad about FD10? I have never used it, but also have never heard anything negative about it. For me, I have three developers I use. X-tol R, Pyrocat HDC and Rodinal. Pretty much in the order listed. Xtol-R with almost any type scene, Pyrocat HDC with higher contrast, sunny bright scenes and Rodinal when I want that sharp/grainy look. Once mixed they are all cheap to me. Most importantly, for me anyway, is that they all have excellent shelf life and once mixed they are all liquid. I don't shoot 35mm very much at all so my findings are based on 120 and 4x5 film sizes. In 4x5 Xtol-R shines since I can use a Yankee 12 sheet bulk tank and not have to throw out the used developer. Now that's mighty cheap to me. JohnWA while ago I made a spreadsheet of most developers that was available to me to find the cheapest
1. Rodinal (1+50)
2. HC-110 (1+79)
3. Ilfotec HC (1+49) / ID-11 (1+3)
I ignored FD10 because it's not something I ever want to use again.
What was so bad about FD10?
That's the way she goes with Kodak over this side of the pond.You paid 50% more (if not a bit higher) than I do for Xtol
I don't shoot pictures mtf charts or brick walls but I know which of my lenses are subjectivity sharp (Nikkor 50mm f1.8d/zenzanon 75mm E2) and which aren't (Helios 44m, Zenzanon 50mm MC).Never seen sharp lens photos?
If we talk about MF and LF, and about giving film the light it needs (box speed or twice that light), most low cost films can be well used.
But if we talk about 35mm film, cheap films can't do what Ilford and Kodak films do.
If you don't see the difference, you have work to do, to find your own evidence... Or use cheap film. I've tested and used Kentmere and Foma in 35mm: inferior films if you compare them (same scene) with HP5+, TMY and Tri-X.Do you have any evidence for this? Are you able to prove that your impression stated above is due to the film, and not -say- to sloppy technique?
For instance - when you use 'cheap' film as you call it, do you expose and develop with the same care you would observe for expensive film? Or do you do everything more liberally, because the lower costs might involuntarily lead you to think you can make more errors?
I've only shot one roll of Kentmere 100, but I think it looks pretty good (scanned negatives <here>). That roll was processed in Kodak D-76 developer at 1+1. If you are shooting medium format, they should look even better than my results from 135.
Meanwhile, I've decided I'll be happier shooting ISO 400 film, so I just put a few rolls of Kentmere 400 in my shopping cart. Fingers crossed that the grain will not be too prominent.
Thank you for those kind words. Yes, those were all from the same roll, but notice I started that roll in January and did not finish it until August. So to say I am a slow shooter is no exaggeration.You got all those keepers with 1 roll? Holy crap!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?