A blow for 'film' is dead', even more to choice to come

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is getting bad, I just decided on Delta 400 as my fast film of choice, and now Bergger are back on the scene with their Pancro 400!

 

Here is the link to the announcement on APUG

 

NEW FILM : BERGGER Pancro 400

 

 

 

Steve

[sblitz]

available in 35mm?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Keith (M)]

available in 35mm?

 

According to the posts on APUG, 135 & 120 'are to follow'.

[NB23]

Isn't this a rebrand?

[A miller]

Steve - I look forward to seeing your first shots of this and your overall review of the film. It's perhaps the only way to figure out what this is and what it can do for me.

[250swb]

Isn't this a rebrand?

 

Apparently not.

 

 

Steve

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you look at the B&H website, they offer over 100 different choices in rollfilm.

 

I first heard that film was dead back in 1997. Apparently it is suffering an extremely long and lingering death.

[indergaard]

Film isn't dead. But development and scanning is dying. No wonder, when the total cost of developing and scanning one roll of TriX costs about $35-40 USD (incl. the film). And that's scanning on an Imacon Flextight to 2400dpi jpeg's! For 16-bit 5400dpi tiff files the cost is about $50 a roll in total.

 

The costs here are crazy. I wish they weren't. Maybe more people would use it.

[A miller]

Film isn't dead. But development and scanning is dying. No wonder, when the total cost of developing and scanning one roll of TriX costs about $35-40 USD (incl. the film). And that's scanning on an Imacon Flextight to 2400dpi jpeg's! For 16-bit 5400dpi tiff files the cost is about $50 a roll in total.

 

The costs here are crazy. I wish they weren't. Maybe more people would use it.

 

The costs actually aren't crazy if one commits to taking the scanning in-house, which really isn't a big deal. The cost of a Nikon coolscan (or cheaper) is well worth it and when all is said and done the gear and workflow is much cheaper than going digital with Leica (where you figure you'll be upgrading every 3-5 years)

[indergaard]

The costs actually aren't crazy if one commits to taking the scanning in-house, which really isn't a big deal. The cost of a Nikon coolscan (or cheaper) is well worth it and when all is said and done the gear and workflow is much cheaper than going digital with Leica (where you figure you'll be upgrading every 3-5 years)

 

I know. But for people in general that cant or dont want to develop and scan themselves.

Also, it depends on how many rolls of film you shoot per year. Film, development and scanner costs adds up, and can quickly become equal over a 3 year period as what a digital M body costs - if you burn through many rolls.

 

I'm probably buying a Reflecta RPS 10 M (Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA) scanner soon. I'm not taking a chance on buying an old Coolscan (theyre no longer being serviced here). Also, the 2nd hand market is insane. The 9000's costs twice as much as they did new, if not more... My fiance shoots a lot of 120 though. So maybe a PlusTek 120 makes more sense, even if the cost is higher... It really bugs me that it has fixed focus however.

[AlanG]

I used a Polaroid SprintScan 120 for 35mm and 120 film and was very pleased with it. The same one was sold under the Microtek brand. It can work with Vuescan on the latest OS's. They come up on Ebay occasionally.

 

I haven't used mine in years but am planning to keep it for a while in case I can find time to scan old photos.

[kdriceman]

Film isn't dead. But development and scanning is dying. No wonder, when the total cost of developing and scanning one roll of TriX costs about $35-40 USD (incl. the film). And that's scanning on an Imacon Flextight to 2400dpi jpeg's! For 16-bit 5400dpi tiff files the cost is about $50 a roll in total.

 

 

 

The costs here are crazy. I wish they weren't. Maybe more people would use it.

 

 

There are places in the US that will develop and scan for $11 with HI-res scans an additional $9. This includes a CD and web access for downloading the files as soon as they're processes. Still, $25 per roll (including the film) does add up.

 

https://thedarkroom.com/film-developing/

[A miller]

I am not at all switching teams on this, but if you really want to paint a dim view you should include the cost of the roll of film rather than just the dev + scan.

 

In NYC, I pay about $15 for the cost and development of a roll of portra. Scanning is free in my home with my coolscan 9000.

[sblitz]

I agree with Andrew. So $25/roll let's say and a new M is $6500. That works out to 260 rolls of film or 5 years at a roll a week. Or say 2.5 to 3 years as you might average more than that. Let's go forward 2.5 to 3 years -- you don't need a new capital outlay for the camera but you will probably for the digital? Way I figure it, it is continuous small costs versus large single outlays every few years. Aside from the cash flow aspect, it still gets back which one gives you more enjoyment -- assuming this is hobby vs profession where I believe all do and need to have a high end digital camera.

 

As an aide I was at a Leica Gallery NYC opening last night, saw a few of the new Digilux cameras (I still own my Digilux 4, which I do enjoy). Really nice -- maybe I swap my M9 for a new Digilux and an M7 to complement my M-A. Just a thought.

[A miller]

Steve - right, and if you can take the scanning in house your economic model is even more compelling

[250swb]

So what would people have done before scanning was invented when they sent their film to a lab? Perhaps order a large print of each negative? I don't think so, so why now this hand wringing about having an entire film processed and scanned at high resolution and which doesn't make much sense anyway?

 

There are two alternatives, get an Epson V700 that is able to do perfectly good 35mm digital contact sheets at low resolution, and then have the lab scan the good ones at high resolution. Or have the lab scan your negatives at low resolution and you buy a Plustek so you can cherry pick the good ones for a high resolution scan. It doesn't all have to be about time and money. Within a year with either alternative you've paid for the scanner if you shoot a reasonable amount of film, and you are in control far more than farming everything out.

 

(or of course you can do everything 'in house' and be in total control, and it's cheaper).

 

Steve

[A miller]

I don't think so, so why now this hand wringing about having an entire film processed and scanned at high resolution and which doesn't make much sense anyway?

 

Steve

 

I think this is a good point and actually is a bug in any economic analysis that includes farmed-out scanning. My sense is that people who pay for the good quality scanning of entire rolls of film do so out of sheer convenience. Whether the price of this convenience is comensurate with its value is quite subjective, and thus should be removed from the analysis. Not sure what to substitute in its place. But for these people I like the idea of either paying for low res scans, which are quite inexpensive or purchasing a capable Epson scanner for a few hundred bucks.

 

I don't have an epson scanner, but I was quite surprised to see John Maloof using one to scan Vivian Maier's MF negatives in his movie....

[sblitz]

I agree, it is much more a matter of convenience than anything else. And knowing myself, I will enjoy having the control, especially in developing the negatives. My goal for the year is to bring much of this in house (in my house!).

[philipus]

Film isn't dead. But development and scanning is dying. No wonder, when the total cost of developing and scanning one roll of TriX costs about $35-40 USD (incl. the film). And that's scanning on an Imacon Flextight to 2400dpi jpeg's! For 16-bit 5400dpi tiff files the cost is about $50 a roll in total.

 

The costs here are crazy. I wish they weren't. Maybe more people would use it.

 

It's amazing how much prices vary across the globe.

 

I consider myself lucky here in NL, I can have rolls of C41 and E6 developed for 3€. E6 takes a week, C41 is usually within the hour or the next day. B&W I do at home myself because I like it (though I have a bit of a backlog at the moment )

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[C-Lux 2]

 

And since I just added a Hasselblad to the mix, today I checked the prices for developing C41 and E6 rollfilm. There are labs in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague that develop these film types for between 4,95€ and 6,95. But the best I found so far is the Hema chain - C41 for 2,95€ and E6 for 3,50. That's pretty incredible.

 

Philip

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[adan]

Philip - but do those prices include scanning (or prints), or just the film development?

 

We charge $3.99 (~3€) for the development, but scans are extra. Basic 6 Mpixel scans for a whole roll (done in the Fuji print machine - automated, no fine corrections) run $6.99 extra, while "hi-res" scans at time of processing (4000 ppi) are $9.99 per roll extra.

 

Those prices only apply to uncut film at time of developing, though. It is more expensive per frame to have cut strips scanned later. More labor involved.

 

Personally, as an employee, I could get developing/scanning for free. But usually do my own, anyway (even C41) for time flexibility (try to find a lab open, with one-hour processing, at 9 pm!).