enboe Posted March 23, 2013 Share #1 Posted March 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) All the chatter and praise of the Monochrom over on the digital size of the house inspired me to shoot a roll of Plus-X and a roll of Tri-X to see if I could catch the B&W bug. Our local lab is able to develop B&W in-house, and will print onto true B&W paper as well, but hold onto your seats, it runs over $0.80 per frame for develop and print. My living quarters are not conducive to a darkroom, so I have my films processed by a lab service. I could go for negatives-only, scan, and ink-jet print, but would lose the archival nature of true B&W prints. Poll: What does your local lab charge for B&W process and B&W print for a 36 exposure? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2013 Posted March 23, 2013 Hi enboe, Take a look here Cost of develop and print B&W could drive me to a Monochrom. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted March 23, 2013 Share #2 Posted March 23, 2013 Ilford will process your film and print it as per this price list http://www.ilfordlab.com/images/PDF/ORDER%20FORM%20FILM%20GBP.pdf £12 for >39 6x4 prints, plus international postage of £4 per film. £16 is around $24, which works back to 66c per frame, including print and postage. Processing yourself is very easy and very cheap and you don't need a darkroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted March 23, 2013 Share #3 Posted March 23, 2013 I could go for negatives-only, scan, and ink-jet print, but would lose the archival nature of true B&W prints. And why exactly would that drive you to a Monochrom? Because... ink-jet prints is what you get with a Monochrom too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 23, 2013 Share #4 Posted March 23, 2013 Is this what they call 'fuzzy logic' ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted March 24, 2013 Share #5 Posted March 24, 2013 The limited lifespan of digital cameras adds to their cost; if a Monochrom costs £6k and dies 5 years later, it has therefore cost you £1200 per annum, and then you have to replace it! Some film M's will last a lifetime, making them exceptional value for money! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 24, 2013 Share #6 Posted March 24, 2013 Because... ink-jet prints is what you get with a Monochrom too Not if you get the files printed onto photographic paper via the Lightjet or Lambda processes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 24, 2013 Share #7 Posted March 24, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I could go for negatives-only, scan, and ink-jet print, but would lose the archival nature of true B&W prints. Translation issue? B&W silver gelatine prints are no more archival today than good ink-jet materials. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted March 24, 2013 Share #8 Posted March 24, 2013 I come out to about $0.20 (US) per exposure. Yes, film as a hobby is expensive, but the consideration should be the cost per keeper. For me, I take better pictures when I'm using a mechanical and manual camera. Plus I just like the look of film better. Some of the digital captures I'm seeing, especially in B&W, is just gross (very contrasty), and the color images can be way over saturated. Of course there's a lot of great digital photography out there too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
enboe Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share #9 Posted March 24, 2013 I was incomplete in describing the workflows that I traded in my original post. Please humor me a few more bytes of bandwidth. Film work flow 1: Shoot film, process, print at lab. Cost around $1 per frame if processed locally, using true B&W print media. No contact sheet option available. Film work flow 2: Shoot film, process negatives only at lab, scan images, print at home. Cost around $4 per roll for development, scan negatives, and print at $0.30 per frame to print on inkjet. You get to select what frames you want, but you lose the archival nature of the print. Film work flow 2a: Send the scanned image file to an archival printing service, cost around $0.90 per shot. Quality is primarily limited by proper exposure of film, processing of film, and the quality of the scanner. Film work flow 3: Process and print in your own home darkroom. I have not priced this as I do not have space in my living quarters. Digital work flow 1: Shoot monochrome, review on computer, and send only desired images to an archival printing service, cost around $0.90 per shot. I haven't caught the B&W bug enough yet to justify spending another $8K on a Monochrom, but it was an interesting exercise. Have fun shooting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 24, 2013 Share #10 Posted March 24, 2013 you can do the math in regard to how many rolls before you are even with film vs mm on a cost basis, and there is a break-even point. but, eventually you will have to replace the mm, in five years maybe, 10 years most likely. if you shoot enough and are indifferent to the mm files vs film (or even prefer mm) it is easy to see how the mm over time even with replacement every 5 odds years can be the lesser expensive choice. if you are professional, the breakeven likely comes sooner, if not, you may never get there. in other words, do you prefer film or digital? you can make the numbers work out however you want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted March 24, 2013 Share #11 Posted March 24, 2013 If you can afford the Monochrom go for it. I'd go for the M myself for the colour option. Infact, there's a good chance I'll go for Fuji X100s,XPro-1/XE-1 if I go digital, and sell my Leica glass. For the moment I'm enjoying film and watching those trying out the latest digital options. My film results offer me something different to what my friends' provide, and allow me to use the cameras I love, particularly my M2s. My film costs are pretty low but I typically shoot only one or two per films month. If I shoot B+W I develop it myself and scan it on my new Plustek 8100 (£189). I use D76 (£1.79). This Litre will develop a few films as I use it 1+1. My costs for the year will be less than £100. Of course, you may shoot much more than 2 films a month. Whatever you do you can't lose. Just go with either option. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doolittle Posted March 24, 2013 Share #12 Posted March 24, 2013 With the right paper and pigment ink you can have inkjet prints with the same archival qualities as traditional black and white prints. If you shoot film and scan, you have the negative for archiving too. If you are going completely digital, you don't need a Monochrom to match the output of film (you wont match the look and feel of film with any digital, they just are different), any good digital camera will do. You can send those files off to be printed too. Now if you absolutely need high resolution low noise black and white files at higher iso, then sure the MM suits the bill. If you need an excuse to buy a MM, believe whatever story you like to tell yourself and get the camera, I'm sure you will enjoy it, it is a great piece of kit by all accounts! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted March 24, 2013 Share #13 Posted March 24, 2013 I was incomplete in describing the workflows that I traded in my original post. Please humor me a few more bytes of bandwidth. Film work flow 1: Shoot film, process, print at lab. Cost around $1 per frame if processed locally, using true B&W print media. No contact sheet option available. Film work flow 2: Shoot film, process negatives only at lab, scan images, print at home. Cost around $4 per roll for development, scan negatives, and print at $0.30 per frame to print on inkjet. You get to select what frames you want, but you lose the archival nature of the print. Film work flow 2a: Send the scanned image file to an archival printing service, cost around $0.90 per shot. Quality is primarily limited by proper exposure of film, processing of film, and the quality of the scanner. Film work flow 3: Process and print in your own home darkroom. I have not priced this as I do not have space in my living quarters. Digital work flow 1: Shoot monochrome, review on computer, and send only desired images to an archival printing service, cost around $0.90 per shot. I haven't caught the B&W bug enough yet to justify spending another $8K on a Monochrom, but it was an interesting exercise. Have fun shooting. The highlighted part should apply to all workflows, imo. To me the negs are the archive, "backed up" by my high-res scans (which are also backed up, of course). I print for pleasure, like hanging on walls. Here in Holland I typically pay 5€ per developed b/w roll (varies a bit between shops), push processing adds 2-3€. I also don't have space for a darkroom proper but will do the dark arts in a sealed closet or such and then develop in the sink. That will definitely turn out much cheaper than lab development, which I will restrict to colour film (add bulk loading b/w and you push costs even further down). For the price of the Monochrom one can get a pretty competent scanner, full kit for developing film at home (without darkroom necessary), pretty competent printer and paper with money to spare on quite a bit of film. Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vorlich Posted March 27, 2013 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2013 Why not process at home with a changing bag and Paterson tank? No darkroom required. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 27, 2013 Share #15 Posted March 27, 2013 good point, presuming you have the time.....the high cost, at least here in nyc, is not getting the negative developed but the scanning. a roll at a hi-end lab costs me $30 for 36 exp for negatives, cd and 10mb tiff scans. usually a 2 day process. one can capitalize the cost of a mm pretty quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted March 27, 2013 Share #16 Posted March 27, 2013 Steve, out of curiosity, what's the dimensions on those 10MB tiffs? cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 27, 2013 Share #17 Posted March 27, 2013 I will plead ignorance here. What dimensions are you asking for? Will happily respond once I understand how to answer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted March 27, 2013 Share #18 Posted March 27, 2013 With the right paper and pigment ink you can have inkjet prints with the same archival qualities as traditional black and white prints Can you be more specific, I would be interested in dedicated ink sets and paper that give a fine approximation to continuous tone black&white photographic paper. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPJMP Posted March 27, 2013 Share #19 Posted March 27, 2013 You can process at home very inexpensively. No darkroom needed. A changing bag will do. For me, the frustrating part about developing B&W at home comes when it's time to scan. Dust and scratches are very prominent and can only be removed in post-processing. You can take steps to minimize this, but I have never been able to eliminate it completely. The last roll of Tri-X I shot contained an absolutely beautiful portrait that was completely ruined by a long scratch running through the subject's face. My current preferred workflow for B&W film is to opt for a C-41 variant such as Ilford XP2+ or Kodak BW400CN and have the lab process only. Runs around $5 per 36 exposure roll. I scan at home and use the scanner's built-in infrared dust removal feature to create very clean, dust and scratch free files that may only require a little adjustment for exposure or contrast once imported. Having the lab develop C-41 costs more than developing B&W film at home, but the time and frustration saved in post-processing makes up for it, IMO. Not to mention, I really like the look of scanned XP2+. A very classic look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 27, 2013 Share #20 Posted March 27, 2013 Sorry, but dust and scratches on home processed film are entirely in your own hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.