noob here. am I getting ripped off? Dropped off three rolls

>>2993739
$17

dafuq. slap his bitch ass, no developing+scan should cost that. i develop for $1.5 in a store nearby and scan myself, its indeed cheap, but you will fuck up at the start because you dont have references, youll eventually learn.

also never agree on a service with an unclear price, its akin to giving a blank check to the hospital. that shits shady and unethical.

>>2993739
Australia its about that.

>>2993741
Australia is a shitty place

>>2993742
this. its full of cucks and paedos.

I'm in the same situation, I've shot like 12 rolls of that exact Fujifilm and I'm scared to get it developed because of how damn expensive it could be. I have the same question.

My lab devs for $3.50 a roll of 36 or $2.50 a roll of 24.
You got fucked.

Scans are where you fucked up. Development will cost you between $1.50 and $6, but with scans, the sky is the limit.

>>2993748
>different pricing for 35mm rolls

youre the one getting cucked, pal.

The scanning situation is shit.
In many cases getting prints is cheaper than scans.
And boy are the scans shit/lowres.

>>2993739
This is why film is fucking hit the ground and DEAD.

You could literally buy a decent camera for the price of 30 rolls of film developed and scanned.

Film is only really relevant in the black and white context where the control is entirely in your hands.

>>2993751
I shoot almost entirely 120 E6 and this lab has some of the best bulk pricing on that I've seen anywhere. Exceptional service from those guys, can't complain about them giving a $1 discount to noobs using 24exp. rolls.

>>2993739
>its indeed cheap, but you will fuck up at the start because you dont have references, youll eventually learn.
Thats pretty much the going rate where I live in Canada.

>>2993760
This

>>2993748
>can't process his own shit
>getting scammed by paying more for the same work
You got fucked.
>>2993760
t. someone who never shot film properly.

>>2993739
Different dude but related question. Is there any reason to intentionally buy 24-exposure rolls instead of 36? I only ever buy it on accident.

>>2993858

when you need a cheap test roll to kill quickly.
when you shoot half frame and dont want to wait months to see the pics youve taken.

>>2993739
That's how it is in Walgreens or something. It's literally the last chain that supports film developing. But yeah, I paid that much because the photos meant something to me. I got some explanation of having them shipped out and whatever being done with them. You don't get negatives back you just get scans and prints and that's it. It just straight up sucks.

>>2993867
you should start buying ilford lab direct if that is your only option. Or take a film class at the local college to use their chemicals and lab.

>>2993858
I shoot 24exp rolls because I'm able to switch film types more often. I also enjoy finishing rolls and getting results back more frequently. Price per frame is the exact same for me so financially one isn't more beneficial than the other.

OP you're getting fucked in scan prices. this is why anyone who actually shoots a decent amount of film scans themselves. I bought my own film scanner at the same time I purchased my first film camera.

>>2993739

The cost of development is why I decided to use BW film only; I only have an old Nikon N70, and it's not like I'm capable of making fine art. A film scanner costs like $100 or so, and the tools to develop film are around the same. (Decent tank, reel, chemicals.)

>>2993844
Nigga, I've shot more rolls of film than you'd ever hope to. Film was fun, when digital was still shit, but it's DEAD. Take off the nostalgia goggles grandad.

B&W is only worthwhile.

>>2993748
where do you live m8? Those prices are absolutely dirt cheap

>>2994261
>Film was fun, when digital was still shit, but it's DEAD.
I've come to the same sad conclusion. I still shoot film here and there, but I've proven to myself that 35mm film is useless for everything except the joy of using old equipment and testing. My ten year old, 12MP A700 can outdo any of the common 35mm films currently available (inb4 muh CMS20, Velvia 50, tech pan). My a6000 with good glass can easily match 6x7 on almost every metric. I don't doubt that an a7rII with top notch glass will equal 4x5 output. Yes, I know and agree that there is a LOOK you get from medium and large format that can't be reproduced with a small sensor, and for this reason I do still shoot film. But I'm finding it harder and harder to load up a roll of 35mm for anything. There just isn't really a point to it anymore. I think everyone should at least try film before it goes away, but go away it will. First to go will be slide film (lol Ferrania), next will be color negative. B&W will probably exist for quite some time yet. Enjoy it while it lasts!

>>2994261
>Nigga, I've shot more rolls of film than you'd ever hope to.
>Take off the nostalgia goggles grandad.
These two phrases don't go together. You've given up on the medium so clearly you haven't shot more rolls.

>>2994431
No sorry, I just have accepted that chemicals slathered on a thin sheet of plastic that is outrageously expensive to process is dead. It's going down the drain, very sad, world's smallest violin, etc... but it's true.

>>2994379
That being said, black and white should still be a thing as it's relatively easy to handle.

just buy the chemicals and develop yourself. its not hard. i used to do it in my friends bathroom with a rag stuffed under the door to block out the light.
i personally developed like 14 rolls, and god knows how many she developed with the same bottle of chemicals.

>>2993739
Film dev and CD scan is quite expensive here in San Diego as well senpai. About that price to get .tiff scans

>>2994379
Sadly I have to agree with this as well. Film still has an aesthetic which is damn hard to match but muh Fuji takes absolutely beautiful and sharp images and it doesnt cost me an arm and leg to take pictures.

But sometimes you just really want film colors and thats ok

>>2995296
I also think that the fact that we can create pictures without using any electricity is damn cool. In a world where you always rely on batteries and chargers, I think it will be sad when no film is longer produced. It's chemistry on its most beautiful side.

>>2993771
Torontofag here, Downtown Camera which is the only half decent lab in the city charges $5 to dev a 35mm roll and like an extra 6 for scans...

>>2994379

Bruh, large format negatives can't even be fully scanned 1:1 with today's scanners. If you were to take a 4x5 for instance and get a full grain to pixel scan you would easily have a 400mp+ file.

>>2995497
Wtf Ausfag here, we're getting fucked in the ass. $12/roll. Extra $6 for scans.

>>2994450
Do you even have any facts to back that statement up?

File: 18013031372_632b5b36b6_b.jpg (322KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1000x1000px

Any vancouverfags should head to Kerrisdale Camera for c41 dev. Cheapest in town for dev only 35mm, 120, 220. Same day turn around if you get in before 3 too

>>2994379
>my a6000 with good glass can easily match 6x7
what? you're off by a factor of 10, dude. and digital won't ever be able to compete with that at the 35mm size due to the diffraction limit. what fucking "metrics" told you otherwise?

>>2995304
Yeah that is a cool thought, cos the idea of being bound to the confines of a battery or whatever is limiting. At the end of the day it's a box that directs focused light onto photosensitive film. But that simplicity is really part of the magic.

I guess 50 years ago needing actual skill to produce amazing work was essential, as opposed to stuff where you can mass produce good quality images. One thing that will always remain constant is composition and creativity. No piece of technology will replace that.

>>2995304
let's be realistic though, it's next to impossible to produce good film photography without modern industrial support.

>>2995631
iirc it was $12 for a mail in lab in america that includes scans though.

i shoot slides because i want to have PHYSICAL pictures
nothing like big MF or 4x5 slides
i don't pixel peep so i don't care about digital, big slides just have more impact on me than print or seen on a screen

it's also easier to archive by date and assignment
i'm not a professional photographer so beyond sorting it like that is not necessary

that's about it
i snapshit with my pentax Q7, that's all i need

>>2993740
>also never agree on a service with an unclear price, its akin to giving a blank check to the hospital. that shits shady and unethical.


this. i learned my lesson when I locked my keys in the car. called the locksmith he said "price depends on the car" . the guy got there and said $150.

>>2995661
black and white film, caffenol development

>>2996108
you wouldn't have black and white film of decent resolution or high quality lenses OR cheap high-quality camera movements without industrial support. photography as we know it is purely a product of industrial society, it's ridiculous to pretend that shooting film is some sort of commune with our agrarian anscestors

>>2993748
>$3.50
>$2.50

Here in Germany you pay ~$1.05 (€0,95) for a roll, may it be 24 or 36 exposures. Slide film will cost you ~$2.10 per roll.

>>2996113
I'm not saying that either, I am just pointing out that shooting film is mostly a matter of chemistry, whereas digital is purely physics. It's obvious that without any technology there wouldnt be any film or cameras, but the fact remains that you can develop and print film without any electricity

>>2993739
as others have said, don't pay for scans, its like double the price just for that one service, learn to scan it yourself. you will get the hang of it and their are tons of tutorials on the internet. its £2.50 per 24 35mm roll in the uk near me (standard print nothing special) NEVER AGREE TO PAY A U WRITTEN PRICE

>>2993743

>cuck and paedos

Especially in Brisbane.

>>2995645

>Those buses

Did you find the mummy of Alexander Supertramp in one of those?

>>2994379
>My a6000 with good glass can easily match 6x7 on almost every metric. I don't doubt that an a7rII with top notch glass will equal 4x5 output.
Film is indeed dead but you're fucking wrong as hell

13 bucks for dev and scan in sydney ozzie. Fuckn crazy prices.

>>2997393
Holy shit, that are fucking hipster prices, mate.

bros, my local shop is charging 1.75/exposure for prints. is this right?

total cost would be

$6 for developing + 1.75x24

$48 a roll? doesnt include scans either

is /film/ really this much of a meme?

>>2996628
chemistry is applied physics friendo
99% of chemistry is governed by electromagnetic forces
:^)

>>2997393
Michaels in Melbourne isnt much better.

>>2997686
and physics are not real, they are just a way humans have of understanding universe blah blah blah... This is so idiotic, but whatever mate, you just want to win this pointless discussion.

>>2993844
>Tell anon the local price
>YOUR CAN'T KNOW HOW DEV?

I could dev, but I have plenty of money and not much time.

>>2996115
which shop? I just got started on analog photography and have like one and a half rolls of film done, but I'm not sure were to develop it. I'm living in Hamburg btw.

>>2999608
DM drug store

>>2997678
bump

>>2999669
good to know, thank you!

>>2999514
>this is so idiotic
:^) is an acknowledgement of that buy you may be more used to /s, friendo

>>2993739
Anon did you pass him Dia film or Negative ?
if it was DIA ...maybe..
but no way a roll costs that much...not even black and white costs this much..
bring someone with you who knows how it works and confront him

QUESTION

so how do i actually use an expired film ?
let's say a iso 200 film....should i pull the iso to 100 or even less and let it develop at iso 200 or tell the store to develop it at 100 ?

>>3002172
Depends. I tried 2007 expired film before and it worked fine but sometimes it didn't work. expose it like iso 50 for 200 and 100 for 400 film just in case, you can't overexpose color film, anyways.

20+ yo B&W films will work if you develop them carefully.

Labs won't push color film for you, It's a pain in the ass to turn off the machine while anon's precious snowflake film is waiting in the developer bath.

>>2997678
only in third world countries like the us and australia

File: ektachrome96.jpg (425KB, 1086x888px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1086x888px

>>3002172
I've shot mostly expired slide film (oldest from -96), and for most of the part I've shot them at roughly box speed, maybe 1/4-1/3 stop slower tops, and gotten decent results. If it's been freezer stored, it appears fairly resiliant.

OTOH I got one pack that was "only" 8 years out of date, but gave me nothing except super dark images with very faint outlines/contours for the shapes that ought to be in them. Film type descriptor above the frame was the same as well. Would be interesting to know how it was stored(hot garage?), because a similar aged pack of the same film I got earlier delivered great results.

File: thistlesummer.jpg (181KB, 768x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 768x626px

>>3002248
And this is Agfa Ultra 50 (negative), expired in 98. I think I shot it at iso 25?

Never a fine-grain film, and the age seemingly accentuates it to an almost terrible level, but otherwise quite nice.

>>3002248
My uncle shoot sports for a living, back in the 00's he developed 4 rolls of ektarchrome and one of the rolls came out with slight different colours, he tought it's was a developing problem but later he discovered the roll was from a different batch but still not expired. He still has those slides.

File: 1389582718346.jpg (18KB, 127x123px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 127x123px

Is it ok to keep rolls at slightly above 20c for weeks in rooms or should i not worry about it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	127
Image Height	123

>>3002263
Well... I live in a shitty tropical country I wouldn't recomend you keep them above 25c, 20c is fine if it's not expired or exposed. I store my film in the fridge anyways.

>>2995645
this is a swell photograph my friend

>>2993739
i develop and scan these @ 6MP for 3 euros a roll

>>2993751
>>2993762
it's also fair. 24 film takes lab less chemicals to develop

>>2994450
its not plastic you asswipe

>>2995304
How would you warm your solution without electricity? In a kettle?
Kek

>>2995499
you can stitch multiple
also scanning with halfdecent resolution is as good as transfering that optically to a photopaper
i adore those fucks who pay me extra for scanning 12800dpi only to print them 4x6 300 dpi later

>>2995975
price does depend on a car, but he should quote you by phone

>>3002172
I've shot and developed 2009 cheap 800 iso expireds. They werent fridge stored, I developed with same settings as I do for other films. It came out almost the same as normal films. A tiny bit more noisy and color SLIGHTLY off.

>>3003346
It is plastic, you asswipe.

File: frageloli.png (307KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 500x500px

>>2996115
>>2999608
>>2999669
>>2999928

Wait a second, isn't DM supposed to be absolute utter shit quality?

pls respond

>>3003693
They develop your pictures, you get your pictures. "Utter shit quality"? It's more than likely your pictures are just shit than them giving you bad prints.

>>3003722
I just read alot of stuff about not letting DM develop because they apparently have no quality control or something like that.
I'd rather pay such a small amount instead of bothering to do it myself or let some "professional" do it.

walmart develops my shit for 9 cents per shot, scan them myself, buy picture paper for ones i want to print out, has suited my needs.

>>2995295
What is the cheapest place around here you've found? I've been shopping around and they all seem to be over $10 for developing.

Is there any way I can just mail film somewhere?

I inherited an old camera and wanted to try it out.
Got a roll of 120 film at my local store, and sent it to thedarkroom.com.
Cost:
1 roll of 120 Kodak Tri-X 400: $6.95 + $0.61 tax
Developing and scanning: $11.00 + $0.88 tax
Shipping scan CD + negs: $5.95
Total: $25.39

Another time I sent thedarkroom.com a roll from my half frame camera.
After they developed it, they told me they needed an extra $10.80 fee "due to manual scanning required."

ack.

>>3004529
you should have paid attention when you sent it in
>Panoramic, Sprocket or Half Frame +$10

the cost anywhere is ridiculous to me, i just dev all my own stuff.

>>3003724
Huh? In all honesty - I've been letting DM (cewe) develop my films for years now and I never ever had any problems with the negatives I received from them. Portra, Ektar, slide Film.. DM works fine for me.

Btw - They usually do the prints for you, so be sure to write "develop only" on the envelope. This way, they aren't going to include any prints, which would make everything cost more than €0.95..

>>2993740
>i develop for $1.5 in a store nearby

I would shoot so much film I could get it done for that much without doing it myself.

>>3004529
Getting a lab to develop your B&W film is like paying for bottled water. It's just throwing money away.

It is absurdly easy to do at home

>>3004695
i guess im lucky. i have also a friend nearby that develops b&w for $4.5. he has like all developers in the world, and you can choose. doesnt charge for pushing. swell guy.

>>2995497
Same here, luckily my school has a darkroom so if I`m developing B&W I can do it there myself for free. ;)

>>2993739
>paying someone else to develop your film
what the fuck is wrong with you

>>3005349
i bet he pays someone to change the headlight fluid in his car too

>>3003349
uh, ever heard of something called butane?

File: 080.jpg (4MB, 3088x2048px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3088x2048px

>>3005349

It was my first time using a camera that wasn't also a phone, buddies :)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 001
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3088
Image Height	2048

>>3006486
that picture is nice man

>>3004701

BW dev is easy but also a pain with keeping logs of how often you use the chems and having to refresh them. If you're not careful (like me), you can easily ruin a roll.