Why do you home develop ?

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

12 months ago I started developing C41 at home.  I'm happy with the results although I'm sure like with any of us it's not always been smooth sailing, and many errors made along the way.  

Film has steadily risen in price even in this short time, and now Kodak Portra is at AUD $30/roll .   The cheapest dev & scan here at a reputable lab is $17.  So A$47 total cost of purchase of roll, to scans.

My home development costs me $4 per roll.  For the stock side of things, I recently discovered the potential of re-spooling Kodak Vison3 250D from 100ft rolls.  This brings my cost of colour film down to A$7.50/roll + $4 dev = $11.50 total cost (but a lot of time of course).      I see 250D as a viable alternative to Portra.     So $11.50 vers. $47 seemed amazing.    

Now, today I was checking my local lab website and noticed their own hand-rolled, repackaged 250D is 'only' A$18 and dev (dev-only, no scan) is just $10.      It got me considering, should I buy and dev with them ($28), or even continue to bulk load 250D but then develop with them ($10 versus my $4)).   But probably , my answer is to continue to both hand-roll and dev myself.     

So whilst the $11 vers. $47 argument was really compelling, now I'm left with a $11.50 (+ A LOT of time developing and scanning) vers. $17.50 (roll myself + lab develop ).  
The difference is now just the price of a coffee, yet still I'll probably choose to continue developing at home .  It got me thinking today why is that the case ?

Here's my responses and I'm curious to hear the views of others:

1. I enjoy it (maybe I should stop the list here ) 
2. Even though I spend hours developing & scanning, it also takes time to go to the lab to drop/collect, especially numerous separate drops over a week or month it becomes inconvenient
3. I always used to forget to collect Negs
4. I like to be in control of when I see the images - sometimes labs here take 1 week + .  So, even if I keep the exposed film in the fridge here for the same timeframe, I like the feeling that I could develop it right now, and control the timeline of when I will see the images
5. The considerable investment of time in the process end-to-end makes me consider more the images I take.   I like this as it feels like the whole process is more considered and it feels even more like 'creative work' than before I was home developing. 
6. In the months before I switched to home-dev, I had one lab (a very reputable one in London) lose important negatives, one lab here scratch negs and another here return scans with incredibly off white balance.  So control over quality or these types of errors is also a consideration.  But to be honest points 1-5 above are bigger drivers than this one.  Conversely, I'm pretty sure that the lab would deliver more consistent dev results than myself and for sure better scans on Noritsu or Frontier scanners. 

So I guess what I'm really saying is I realised today that cost (or even quality) isn't necessarily the main driver in home developing, in my case.

How about you ?

Edited May 27 by grahamc

[Xícara de Café]

In my case it's all black and white.

1. It's more convenient than having a shop do it. I can develop film on the weekend, which is when I usually do it.

2. It's cheap. Cost matters.

3. It's quick. Half an hour to process and an hour or less to dry. I scan my own with a camera.

4. I get to experiment with chemicals.

5. After several years I got good at it, the main problem having been my washing technique. A water filter was needed and I give the negatives a final swim in a tray of water after having removed them from the spools.

6. Sense of achievement - of having made something.

7. The people at the lab are unpleasant! 🙂

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jankap]

I have a Tessina camera. Cassettes are not the standard ones.

[TomB_tx]

I've done my own B&W for over 55 years, so for me it's comfortable therapy. However in recent years I seldom print, but do a quick scan (Epson 850) instead of contact sheets, etc. I still have enlargers that can go past 16x20, but no call for large wet prints anymore. I did color back in the 69s-70s when we needed fast results for publication, but the tenure of 1-hour photo labs got me spoiled. Now for color (slides or prints) it means sending off ($10 postage alone for 2-ways) and typically a 3-week wait just to download images. So I'm finally gearing up to do color at home (C41 & E6 - I really like E100 slides in 6x7 and camera scanning is easy). Going to try the new AGO film processor that compensates for temperature drift during processing - a lot smaller & cheaper than the Jobo system. Delivery likely in July, so I'm saving up film to give it a good try.

[Danner]

For me, home darkroom work is all about making B&W prints for display, and having all the controls that developing film and printing enables.  Having retired at the first of the year, now it's about fully exploring that craft and making prints as beautiful as possible, hopefully achieving some results as good as the great photographers we all know and love (not saying I am there yet).

Edited May 29 by Danner

[Einst_Stein]

For me the Kodak vision 3 film is a different story compared to standard C41 and B&W. I shoot mosty medium format in film.

Overall I think B&W offers me the most different look compared to digital, ( I don’t have monochrome Leica digital camera, so this may not apply to that). It is also relatively cheaper, particularly when factors in the developer chemical. A 80 rolls C41 costs about US$ 80. Not really expensive if I can run enough volume in few months. The B&W chemical I am using (HC110, Rodinal, Xtol) are not only cheaper, but also can be shelved much longer. Recently I use Kentmere (120 format), which cost about US$ 6.5 per roll.

I shoot Kodak Gold 200 (in 120 format ) only to bring back the life of Hasselblad SWC and Flexbody. It is much more convenient to develop 120 at home than to ship out. Even though my volume is not in economical scale.

Kodak Vision 3 has much more reason to develop at home. The first and most important reason is I am shooting 65mm with the modified Hasselblad A70 film magazine. The magazine is modified with a roller that can use unperforated film. I can take 12.5 feet per load which gives 60 shots. The develop reel and tank all fits 12.5feet per batch.  I have not found any foto lab to handle it yet, regardless C41 or ECN-2. Now I develop in C41 after removed ramjet. 

Kodak Gold 200 in 120 format costs US$ 32 per 5 rolls. It makes the price advantage of Kodak Vision 3 65mm basically insignificant. If I don’t have the A70 kit yet, it would not justify easily. The best price I can get for Kodak Vision 3 65mm is $1650 per 1000ft or $110 per 50ft. It is only about US$ 1 cheaper per 12 exposures. That is only about 10% after factor in the film and development. 

Edited May 29 by Einst_Stein

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shooting 90% on film, and about half of that colour and the other half B&W, I find home development a vital part of the process. 

1. B&W dev is not standardised like C41. I have my own dev times and habits/developers. I learned that my development is at least as good, if not better, than what a regular lab usually brings to the table.

2. I develop colour, too. If something goes wrong, it is my fault. That happens rarely because I know what's at stake. I have a rigorous temperature and timing routine, plus I don't save on chemicals, which commercial labs often do (insufficient replenishing, exhausting the developer, bleach, etc.), which leads to subpar results.

3. Budged plays a role, too. With colour, I defaulted to Kodak 5207. Most labs don't do ENC2 or C41 developments with proper rem jet removal, but it's easy to do at home by hand. 

[LocalHero1953]

Just reason (1). 

Ever since a child I have enjoyed chemistry. Of course I had a chemistry set then, full of things now forbidden, and I could buy lots of interesting chemicals from a local pharmacy. Although I studied geology at university, I was always on the geochemistry flank, and stayed that way when I slid into environmental science. 

Film development gives me the same pleasure of creating something new just from chemicals measured and prepared precisely. 

[grahamc]

Thanks for the replies everyone, good reads. 
 

@Einst_Stein do you develop Kodak 5207 at the usual C41 temperature and time ? I have been pleased with C41 development but so far have gotten the best results by slightly reducing the development time ( 2:55 including pour-out time ).  
 

The remjet removal is painless so overall I’m really happy with the cost and results. I have some questions re some problems I’ve encountered which I’ll post in another thread.  
 

Cheers 

 

[Einst_Stein]

16 minutes ago, grahamc said:

Thanks for the replies everyone, good reads. 
 

@Einst_Stein do you develop Kodak 5207 at the usual C41 temperature and time ? I have been pleased with C41 development but so far have gotten the best results by slightly reducing the development time ( 2:55 including pour-out time ).  
 

The remjet removal is painless so overall I’m really happy with the cost and results. I have some questions re some problems I’ve encountered which I’ll post in another thread.  
 

Cheers 

 

I use the standard C41 time and temp. However, I rated it with slightly higher ISO. 50D = ISO 80. 
If you use the face ISO, it might mean you are overexposed. If so, reduce develop time might make sense.

[grahamc]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I use the standard C41 time and temp. However, I rated it with slightly higher ISO. 50D = ISO 80. 
If you use the face ISO, it might mean you are overexposed. If so, reduce develop time might make sense.

OK perfect thankyou, yes I am rating at 250 so pulled the development time by 3/4 of a stop.

I read that C41 development pushes the development by approximately that vers. ECN-2.   Can be seen also with Cinestill marketing their repackaged 250D as a ISO400 film for standard lab C41 development 

Edited May 30 by grahamc

[Einst_Stein]

I am just guessing:

I guess ECN-2 is tuned for Kodak print film 2383. To shoot for movie and to take the advantages, following the face ISO and using ECN-2 should be a wise choice. If the goal has nothing to do with 2383, and it could make sense to take the convenience of C41. But I have no careful comparison on the IQ yet.  I am purely from the C41 convenience. You might want to conduct a careful evaluation.

Also, Kodak Vision and ECN-2 combination is aimed to print on transparent color print film. Any print on transparent material tends to have higher contrast (compared to print on reflective material). So C41 negatives tend to have higher contrast. This might be the other reason C41 looks faster than ECN-2 in terms of ISO. However, if your target printing is to transparent display，You might want to shoot with higher ISO and develop with somewhat pulling. 

I also feel the daylight Kodak Vision shooting in daylight tends to be cooler than my expectation. Printing in transparency with warm backlight makes it just right (to me). It shows more movie taste.

 

[Doug A]

I can take film pictures in the morning and have an inkjet "contact page" to look at after dinner the same day. I am too impatient to wait longer than that for results. And since I usually shoot 12-exposure bulk loaded rolls of 35mm B&W commercial processing would be prohibitively expensive on a per-frame basis. 

[105012]

I develop and print in my studio in the back garden because it is fun, I usually learn something and am quite happy to spend less time behind a screen as that is what my professional life has involved maybe 80% of the time. I do BW and C-41, but enjoying BW more at the moment as I have a focus and goal related to that.

Edited May 31 by 105012