Film developing - worth paying more?

[2Ms]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a few rollls of black and white to develop.

 

Having tried a 'pro' lab, which i wasn't very impressed with, I was wondering whether there is any difference between the output of different labs when doing 'routine' developing.

 

Should I just go for the cheapest lab?

 

I would develop it myself but at the moment it isn't practical for me to buy or store the chemicals required.

[kokoshawnuff]

I develop my b&w at home, but my experience with c-41 and e-6 is that there is definitely a difference between a good lab and "just any lab" (whether they call themselves "pro" or not)...if you weren't happy with your initial results, then by all means keep trying different places until you get something you are happy with.

[erl]

I have a few rollls of black and white to develop.

 

Having tried a 'pro' lab, which i wasn't very impressed with, I was wondering whether there is any difference between the output of different labs when doing 'routine' developing.

Labs vary greatly. What does 'Pro' mean in the context you have used it? It can be a greatly misused term. How did they not impress you? There are a lot of variables buried in your post.

 

 

Should I just go for the cheapest lab?

Generally, you get what you paid for, but not always.

How much did you spend on your camera?

Is it worth compromising it's output with the cheapest or worst processing option?

 

 

I would develop it myself but at the moment it isn't practical for me to buy or store the chemicals required.

Developing your self, these days, is definitely the better option, but if your circumstance preclude that then there is no point discussing that further.

[2Ms]

The lab i used is well known around these parts as being a lab that does a lot of work for pros. And looking at the services they offer they seem to do a lot more than the usual labs. Further, they charge twice the amount that other labs charge.

 

Whether that makes them 'pro' or not I don't know but I'm merely relaying what I was told and mentioned it so as to put some context to my enquiry. All of the above together with recommendations led me to choose them.

 

I wasn't impressed for a number of reasons mainly to do with the quality of the prints and scans I got back, but in terms if the negatives themselves, they came back all dusty and scratched. On the whole, given the length of time and cost I wasn't impressed.

 

Erl, I'm not sure what the price of my equipment has got to do with things, and nowhere have I mentioned that I'm trying to compromise on quality. Indeed, my desire to get the best results led me to the 'pro' lab.

 

The whole point of my post was to find out if the quality of developing black and white varies significantly enough to justify the extra cost. If not, then I'll just go with the cheapest option.

 

Please bear in mind that I am a beginner as far as developing black and white is concerned.

[andybarton]

 

Should I just go for the cheapest lab?

 

.

 

 

 

Erl, I'm not sure what the price of my equipment has got to do with things, and nowhere have I mentioned that I'm trying to compromise on quality. Indeed, my desire to get the best results led me to the 'pro' lab.

 

Cheapest doesn't usually get you the best quality.

 

Bear in mind that a black and white developing kit can be put together for about $100 and will easily store in a kitchen cupboard. You don't need a darkroom.

 

The chemicals are cheap and the quality is what you make of it.

 

I wouldn't dream of sending my B&W negatives away to a third party to develop.

[TomB_tx]

Price alone doesn't always relate to quality, but there can be a big difference in labs, especially in color. It's rare to find "cheap" labs doing B&W processing here, except for the C41 process films. I find the "1-hour" local labs here tend to have severe dust problems, as they process by machine in an open area. For me it's worth sending film to a lab where the scans and film come back clean, and results are consistent and reliable. It does tend to cost about twice as much.

I'll use a quick lab when testing camera repairs, but not for work that matters.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've had more problems with so called 'pro' labs than any other, well saying that Boots and Jessops were worst on individual occasions!

 

Basically you can only go by the results you get. If you find a lab that turns out good quality work then stick with them. Price isn't really a factor in this.

 

B&W processing (not C41) is as easy as making coffee. Definately best to DIY.

[2Ms]

I've had more problems with so called 'pro' labs than any other, well saying that Boots and Jessops were worst on individual occasions!

 

Basically you can only go by the results you get. If you find a lab that turns out good quality work then stick with them. Price isn't really a factor in this.

 

B&W processing (not C41) is as easy as making coffee. Definately best to DIY.

 

Thanks. This is what I was thinking hence the question.

 

I'll try a few more labs.

 

I'm moving around a lot at the moment so getting chemicals and storing them isn't possible. I'll definitely give it a go once I've settled down.

[tobey bilek]

Prolabs replenish chemicals properly and keep them up to date. They clean the tar out of the machine frequently so you do not get crud on the film. All filters are maintained.

 

All this is very expensive on a low volume like film is today.

 

My pro lab has only one film customer left. He brings in 10 rolls a few times a year.

They now take it to a mini lab in a nearby town.

 

May I say pros have all gone digital?

 

Black and white is an increasingly niche market inside a niche market. Been here 50 years and anybody who expects quality B&W has been doing it themselves. If you don`t want to, then go digital.

[plasticman]

go digital.

 

This is pretty much your universal contribution to the film forum. Why bother?