# Justification to buy films



## Battou (Apr 15, 2009)

I've been shooting 35mm film almost exclusively for years and I have no forseeable causes to switch to digital. I have been shooting with consumer grade films straight off the RiteAid and Walmart shelves. I know it's impacting my photography. I am limited to Fuji film at speeds of 200, 400 and 800 of color film only at Rite Aid and have the same selection of Kodak plus BW400CN at Walmart. What's more these selections are often old stock and I am finding on a few occations irreparable colorcasting because of it. I've continued to do this largely for the simple reason Rite Aid is right there and I can not justify paying shipping and handling and wait time to order better/newer films from internet sources.

As I begin to really consider taking my photography to a paying status I need to figure out if telling Rite Aid to screw off and turning to the internet for my film and film processing is going to be worth the added overhead and inconvienience.


I know a lot of people here shoot with film that the drug store ain't packin and not everyone here lives next to a photo store so I assume someone here has made this conclution before.  

Is it worth the hassle? and I am not talking image quality, that I already assume will be of some value, It's paying the mailman and waiting for them to get here I want to know about.


----------



## Moon Baby (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm starting to get into medium format and the local store only sells and processes E6 film. The reason why I want to use film is the greater tonal range, but they don't sell C-41. Good things come to those who wait. I say order bulk online and treat yourself. If you can't find a store within a 1-2hr drive, waiting 2-3 days for an order isn't so bad...shoot, aim for next day shipping! But I see why you can't justify this, you're not doing paid work just yet. 

But consider this, what if you make a great shot but use low end film and if it weren't for that, you could have used it towards your portfolio? If it's weighing on your conscience, it must mean something, right?


----------



## randerson07 (Apr 15, 2009)

I just place larger orders. Typically around Tax return time, and sometime in the fall. This doesnt just apply to buying film, its all of my hobbies.

In between larger orders I will hit up the local hobby store, photolab, video game store, what have you. But most of my supplies for whatever hobby im into at that time come from the internet simply because of the wide variety of choices, and when you factor in how much im ordering, shipping really isnt too much of a hassle.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 15, 2009)

Battou, it would help to know which segment of the market you wanted to get into.  It does make a difference.

Also, how far is it to the nearest 'pro' lab?  The most cost effective way with film for me was to get the negs developed and scanned and then I was able to  do editing and post on the files so that I only had printed what I wanted to keep.


----------



## Battou (Apr 16, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> Battou, it would help to know which segment of the market you wanted to get into.  It does make a difference.
> 
> Also, how far is it to the nearest 'pro' lab?  The most cost effective way with film for me was to get the negs developed and scanned and then I was able to  do editing and post on the files so that I only had printed what I wanted to keep.



which segment of the market you want to get into? General, so I can fill a gap where ever needed, and it fits my existing shooting style. I began what will end up being a three day insurance shoot this after noon, I am still waiting on a time for some wildlife work and I still have the Laccross client, That's three completely different fields in the last month, that is not including several portriat sessions I declined.

how far is it to the nearest 'pro' lab? I havn't found one yet so it's likely Buffalo or Jamestown if at all, both cities are impracticle for me.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 16, 2009)

Well in that case, I don't think that you can find a justification to stay with film.  Unless you plan to do all of your own darkroom work as well.

There are niche markets for film but for general photography I don't think that you can beat the CODB with digital.  I can tell you don't really want to hear this but get a sharp pencil and do the math.  A high res scan of a roll of negatives costs about as much as just having them printed when the developing is counted.  So, take $1 per shot for an example using film, if you take 600 shots and 120 of them are keepers then you spend $600 for 120 photos.  We'll not get into having any enlarged.

If you are using a digital camera then your 120 shots cost you $120 @$1 per.

If you do 10 shots like this one then you save $4,800.

If you are making a living with photography then you are likely to be doing 30 or more of these a year.

Can your business afford to leave $14,400  (more or less) on the table?


----------



## bhop (Apr 16, 2009)

I live a few blocks from Freestyle Photo, so I use 'better' film all the time.

But having used the drug store stuff and comparing it to the good stuff, i'd say, yes, it's worth the hassle.


----------



## compur (Apr 16, 2009)

I live near Freestyle as well so I guess I'm spoiled.  I've been shopping there
for many years.  I've never really bought film from drugstores, etc.  I either
get it at Freestyle or I find deals on recently expired film.


----------



## Sjixxxy (Apr 16, 2009)

compur & bhop, you make me jealous. 

Does Freestyle have a sweet walk in storefront?


----------



## bhop (Apr 16, 2009)

Sjixxxy said:


> compur & bhop, you make me jealous.
> 
> Does Freestyle have a sweet walk in storefront?



It does, and they have most anything you want in their store too, it's nice.  They also have a small photo gallery and do some educational stuff.

Freestyle Photographic Supplies - Board Lecture Series


----------



## compur (Apr 16, 2009)

The store is not nearly as jammed packed with products as it was in the good
old pre-digital days but it's still got plenty of stuff in there.

They used to have these tall racks about 7 feet tall loaded with a dizzying
array of practically every kind of darkroom material imaginable.  Loads of
papers from Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, Oriental, etc., etc. and more chemistry
choices than any one person could ever need.  Plus loads of darkroom
hardware, camera gear, etc. If there was a film or darkroom material
made by anyone, chances are you'd find it there.  They had some
raw chemicals too for mixing up your own formulas (though a much
better place for that was nearby in Burbank called Tri-Ess Sciences,
now gone).

Every Spring Freestyle would have a parking lot sale too where 
they'd sell off their oddball stuff.  Once I bought this cute little 
Durst portable enlarger that folds up into a little case there.  They 
had a bunch of them and were selling them cheap.  Wish I still had it.

But, it's still a good place to visit.  They have a bargain table there with
specials on short-dated film and other clearance type stuff that I always
check first when I go there.


----------



## blash (Apr 16, 2009)

The nice stuff makes a HUGE difference for me. I wouldn't even think of staying with the crappy "consumer" film.



Mike_E said:


> Well in that case, I don't think that you can find a justification to stay with film.  Unless you plan to do all of your own darkroom work as well.
> 
> There are niche markets for film but for general photography I don't think that you can beat the CODB with digital.  I can tell you don't really want to hear this but get a sharp pencil and do the math.  A high res scan of a roll of negatives costs about as much as just having them printed when the developing is counted.  So, take $1 per shot for an example using film, if you take 600 shots and 120 of them are keepers then you spend $600 for 120 photos.  We'll not get into having any enlarged.
> 
> ...



I do have to agree with Mike here, if you plan to go professional in any capacity then you need to invest in digital equipment. Film is for us sentimentalists who prefer the raw portrayal available with grain and can appreciate the amount of time that went into it - for a professional, just keep film on the backburner for the odd client that can appreciate a film result and use digital otherwise, or else you will lose an enormous amount of money.


----------



## terri (Apr 16, 2009)

I love Freestyle, and I've only shopped online and amused myself with the great catalogs. If I'm ever out there, I'm bringing an empty suitcase to accomodate a trip to the store!  But they've been great online, as well as over the phone. I think their prices are very reasonable.





compur said:


> The store is not nearly as jammed packed with products as it was in the good
> old pre-digital days but it's still got plenty of stuff in there.
> 
> They used to have these tall racks about 7 feet tall loaded with a dizzying
> ...


----------



## christopher walrath (Apr 16, 2009)

If you can afford about $350 up front and have a computer to order from www.freestylephoto.biz then you can get everything you'll need to do your own film in your own home and get a modest year's worth of film to process as well. And I did it for that amount with HC110 and TMax. It would cost much less going Arista films and chems.  And the box they'll ship it in is real, real big!


----------



## Battou (Apr 16, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> Well in that case, I don't think that you can find a justification to stay with film.  Unless you plan to do all of your own darkroom work as well.
> 
> There are niche markets for film but for general photography I don't think that you can beat the CODB with digital.  I can tell you don't really want to hear this but get a sharp pencil and do the math.  A high res scan of a roll of negatives costs about as much as just having them printed when the developing is counted.  So, take $1 per shot for an example using film, if you take 600 shots and 120 of them are keepers then you spend $600 for 120 photos.  We'll not get into having any enlarged.
> 
> ...



I can not afford to drop $6000+ for equipment equal to/or lesser than I already have in digital noncompatable film equipment. Furthermore moving to digital negates the justification of incorperating this beyond a hobby, I do not need 600 shots to get 120 keepers, if I take over 300 it's a lot and I have the cameras and lenses to do it. My own processing is in the future, however my $1.98 an hour job ain't paying for the necessary repairs to my intended darkroom, it has a hard enough time paying for anything, but it has bought this camera equipment and it has the potential to carry it's own weight now.

You are correct in the statement that really did not want to hear that. You assume by "taking my photography to a paying status" I mean to make a living from it, This is incorrect, I merely want to add to my living a little so I can improve on my own hobby wile maintaining the hobby element and my hobby is not digital. Put your pencil and your math away, I am not converting.  If I wanted to hear about the calculations and equations of converting to digital with the intent to make money I would have put it in "general shop talk" not "Film Discussion and Q & A". Yes, I took offence to the mere mention of converting to digital because you missed the original point. I was not asking about making money, just justifying what I spend in the name of getting better results. I gave you the benifit with the first post as I had mentioned it but I need to set it straight now. The mention of taking my photography to a paying status was simply stating one element of justification I do already have for this, nothing more.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 17, 2009)

LOL  Late nights and frustration can seem interminable.

I was actually responding to your second post with the digital suggestion.  If you were going to be a generalist  That would be the way to go from strictly a business POV.  Even with all the financing grief.

Since you want to stick with film, part time, I would suggest that you concentrate your advertising efforts into one or two areas so that your advertising resources aren't spread so thin that they become ineffective. 

As to the quality film?  Bite the bullet and order some.  If you are going to charge for quality work...

In the mean time, go shoot something fun!


----------



## flea77 (Apr 17, 2009)

I would have to say, absolutely. A while back I decided to get 'back' into film because I really did not like the results I was getting with B&W digital. I fired off some cheapy color film from walmart to test out the camera and the results made me want to throw out the camera! Then I bit the bullet and ordered a 5 pack of color and 10 pack of B&W online, sent my film to NCPS for processing and scanning, and never looked back. The quality was night and day.

Allan


----------



## blash (Apr 17, 2009)

christopher walrath said:


> If you can afford about $350 up front and have a computer to order from www.freestylephoto.biz then you can get everything you'll need to do your own film in your own home and get a modest year's worth of film to process as well. And I did it for that amount with HC110 and TMax. It would cost much less going Arista films and chems.  And the box they'll ship it in is real, real big!



I wouldn't buy Arista - they're cheap for a reason (absolute ****). For color, the vast amount of your work will be with Velvia 50, and for film either with Ilford FP4, Ilford HP5, or Agfa APX 400 (but you either already know this or already have favorite films, but I wouldn't guess from the title). In any case, buy a few rolls to experiment before investing.

Battou - if you want to make a little money on the side based off of what you already have, I'd invest in a scanner (be it a flat-bed like the Epson V500 or one of the top Nikon film scanners which are $1k+) to take the film digital and then try to sell it on microstock sites.

But what's the point of this thread - do you already have a plan for making money and just want to know the best film option for making the best quality pictures, or something else (like above)?


----------



## Battou (Apr 17, 2009)

blash said:


> if you want to make a little money on the side based off of what you already have, I'd invest in a scanner (be it a flat-bed like the Epson V500 or one of the top Nikon film scanners which are $1k+) to take the film digital and then try to sell it on microstock sites.
> 
> But what's the point of this thread - do you already have a plan for making money and just want to know the best film option for making the best quality pictures, or something else (like above)?



I've had a dedicated 35mm film scanner for a wile now...I could prolly invest in a new one maybe, or even send this one out to see if it needs any maintancing. It ain't perfect but it gets the job done. I spent a full quarter of my paycheck on it and I never once regretted it. A portrait of my Girl friend I took for the fun of it that I scanned with it and had printed with the commersial print station at RightAid so I could give to her was confiscated by her mother because she loved it, so apperantly the imperfections are not that drastic.

All of a sudden after making this post I am beginning to fear improving output quality, I get too many requests for photos as it is.....




blash said:


> But what's the point of this thread - do you already have a plan for making money and just want to know the best film option for making the best quality pictures, or something else (like above)?



Alright, here is the full out of it, My primary buying location is Rite Aid. It's within walking distance and literally on the path to work, the convienience they have is overwhelming, but.... A year or so ago they up and decided that they where going to eliminate Kodak from their inventory completely with an agreement with Fujifilm USA. When this happened the press release stated clearly that customers will enjoy a significantly wider range of state-of-the-art photo products and services through more convenient, easier-to-use technology. However reagonal management is not living up to this in any respect, Our store has recieved an entire half a pre-owned printing station, no new film selection, Nothing behind or around that counter has changed with the exception of the dissapearance of anything and everything Kodak and Poleroid. In my eyes this is a breech of contract, so I complain to management and nothing has been done....It's time for me to take my business elsewhere, but there is no else where. Now their processing lab is taking a full seven days to process where it was two before. Not only my work but my mere pressence is getting more notice here locally and I can not have paying clients waiting seven days for me to get them before I can even start post processing them. So it's blatently obvious I need to find another processing lab. If I can just get past the element of being able run in and grab film as I need it and pay with cash I can tell Rite Aid to go **** them selves completely wile I am at it.


Don't get me wrong, Rite Aid and their commersial photo counter can still be of some use to beginners so I will continue to reccomend commercial films and processing to first time film shooters as opposed to shooting the expencive stuff right off the bat because film is not for everybody. Drugstore photo counters is like an entry level camera, it is good for getting started inexpencively but eventually one must move on or tolerate comprimise and it's time for me to move on. However my limited income makes this a much harder decision to make that it would be for someone who makes minimum wager or better.


----------



## bhop (Apr 17, 2009)

blash said:


> I wouldn't buy Arista - they're cheap for a reason (absolute ****).



Not 100% true.  I'm not a fan of their .edu line, it does seem kind of crappy.  But the main reason the Arista line is cheap is because Freestyle has deals with manufacturers to package it in their own boxes to sell more.  For example, Arista Premium b/w film is actually Kodak Tri-X repackaged.  (confirmed by employees)  Their Legacy Pro film is made by Fuji, believed to be repackaged Neopan Acros.  Aristacolor is Ferrania (italian company).  I've tried a roll of that and like the tones a lot, although i've read that a lot of people aren't a fan of it.

Aristacolor 200


----------



## randerson07 (Apr 17, 2009)

blash said:


> I wouldn't buy Arista - they're cheap for a reason (absolute ****).



I do not agree with that statement at all. Ive used Arista films, developers, stop bath, fixer, papers, even darkroom equipment like trays and what not. The only issue Ive had is that their films and papers curled slightly more than the name brand stuff. I absolutely loved the Arista II stuff that was rebadged agfa.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=arista&w=82308981%40N00


----------



## compur (Apr 17, 2009)

blash said:


> I wouldn't buy Arista - they're cheap for a reason (absolute ****).



I've found the Arista B&W products to be excellent.


----------



## blash (Apr 18, 2009)

Battou said:


> I've had a dedicated 35mm film scanner for a wile now...I could prolly invest in a new one maybe, or even send this one out to see if it needs any maintancing. It ain't perfect but it gets the job done. I spent a full quarter of my paycheck on it and I never once regretted it. A portrait of my Girl friend I took for the fun of it that I scanned with it and had printed with the commersial print station at RightAid so I could give to her was confiscated by her mother because she loved it, so apperantly the imperfections are not that drastic.
> 
> All of a sudden after making this post I am beginning to fear improving output quality, I get too many requests for photos as it is.....
> 
> ...



Alright then, it's really quite simple - go online, buy the premium stuff, order 1-day shipping if you have to, and start setting up a darkroom to process everything by hand. The per-roll time cost of processing goes down a lot when you develop multiple rolls in a single tank, so your only real problem is getting down the amount of time it takes to print each individual photo... but, at least you will have superior optically-printed photos. It's still faster than waiting 7 days as well, and with experience you will get faster.



bhop said:


> Not 100% true.  I'm not a fan of their .edu line, it does seem kind of crappy.  But the main reason the Arista line is cheap is because Freestyle has deals with manufacturers to package it in their own boxes to sell more.  For example, Arista Premium b/w film is actually Kodak Tri-X repackaged.  (confirmed by employees)  Their Legacy Pro film is made by Fuji, believed to be repackaged Neopan Acros.  Aristacolor is Ferrania (italian company).  I've tried a roll of that and like the tones a lot, although i've read that a lot of people aren't a fan of it.
> 
> Aristacolor 200



I haven't tried their color material, but I'm not talking about the .edu stuff (which is unspeakable to be honest) - Tri-X, from my hand-developing perspective, is one of the most overhyped films that I have ever tried to process - the grain, the clarity, the feel of the film itself, lack of (for lack of a better word) endurance of the film under the stress of my non-babying hands... Arista makes it worse. I've had some of their darkroom equipment fall to pieces on me as well. Maybe I've had incredibly bad luck, but I'm not touching anything Arista with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 19, 2009)

blash said:


> Alright then, it's really quite simple - go online, buy the premium stuff, order 1-day shipping if you have to, and start setting up a darkroom to process everything by hand. The per-roll time cost of processing goes down a lot when you develop multiple rolls in a single tank, so your only real problem is getting down the amount of time it takes to print each individual photo... but, at least you will have superior optically-printed photos. It's still faster than waiting 7 days as well, and with experience you will get faster.



Or, keep your eyes open on Craigslist and Ebay for a smaller (Wing Lynch or Thermaphot) processor, my Wing Lynch Pro6 processes everything frm my 35mm to 8x10 C41 and b&w with a consistency that no hand line can ever match. Push/pulls are not problem as well. Total cost was $150. The Pro 6 doesn't even need running water.

I work with a local pro that has a Frontier 370, when I need prints or scans, I go to the studio, when he has a customer (or himself) that needs C41 film processed, he drops it off. Everybody's happy, the world is good, etc.


----------



## bhop (Apr 19, 2009)

blash said:


> I haven't tried their color material, but I'm not talking about the .edu stuff (which is unspeakable to be honest) - Tri-X, from my hand-developing perspective, is one of the most overhyped films that I have ever tried to process - the grain, the clarity, the feel of the film itself, lack of (for lack of a better word) endurance of the film under the stress of my non-babying hands... Arista makes it worse. I've had some of their darkroom equipment fall to pieces on me as well. Maybe I've had incredibly bad luck, but I'm not touching anything Arista with a 10 foot pole.



I see.. that's cool then, it seems you have your reasons for not liking Arista.

Personally, I like Tri-X/Arista Premium and feel it completely lives up to the hype.  Not sure how Arista makes it worse though since the only difference is the packaging.


----------



## blash (Apr 19, 2009)

bhop said:


> I see.. that's cool then, it seems you have your reasons for not liking Arista.
> 
> Personally, I like Tri-X/Arista Premium and feel it completely lives up to the hype.  Not sure how Arista makes it worse though since the only difference is the packaging.



Are you telling me that Kodak makes not just the film base, but also prints the Arista name on the film, puts the film in an Arista branded cassette, puts that in an Arista branded box, and then ships it off to Freestyle? I don't know too much about Arista's inner workings but considering the fact that film from other manufacturers is printed under the Arista name, I wouldn't think so. As soon as it leave's Kodak's hands it leaves their quality control and, as such, suffers.



epatsellis said:


> Or, keep your eyes open on Craigslist and Ebay for a smaller (Wing Lynch or Thermaphot) processor, my Wing Lynch Pro6 processes everything frm my 35mm to 8x10 C41 and b&w with a consistency that no hand line can ever match. Push/pulls are not problem as well. Total cost was $150. The Pro 6 doesn't even need running water.
> 
> I work with a local pro that has a Frontier 370, when I need prints or scans, I go to the studio, when he has a customer (or himself) that needs C41 film processed, he drops it off. Everybody's happy, the world is good, etc.



A processor? Pish posh! Call me a purist but in my opinion hand printing has more soul than your consistency


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 19, 2009)

blash said:


> ...A processor? Pish posh! Call me a purist but in my opinion hand printing has more soul than your consistency



Read carefully C41 and B&W negative processing, printing is easy if your negs are processed consistently. (as well as exposed consistently, true EI derived from .1 density over Fb+F for zone 1, etc...)


----------



## blash (Apr 20, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Read carefully C41 and B&W negative processing, printing is easy if your negs are processed consistently. (as well as exposed consistently, true EI derived from .1 density over Fb+F for zone 1, etc...)



To which I say again,



blash said:


> in my opinion hand printing has more soul



There's no 1 way to print a negative. I had a negative that I took of my roommate for a portraiture project of him in his white meditation robe - if I had simply done a perfect print, it wouldn't have been a remarkable shot. However, with the contrast turned all the way up and the print exposure adjusted for balance, his robe melted into the white wall which gave him this really cool ninja look. It sounds stupid but it's not something I could get or even see happening with your "consistency".

Besides... if you're talking about something like, me taking 3 rolls in the same spot at the same time and wanting similar results, just use a tank that can take 3 rolls


----------



## bhop (Apr 20, 2009)

blash said:


> Are you telling me that Kodak makes not just the film base, but also prints the Arista name on the film, puts the film in an Arista branded cassette, puts that in an Arista branded box, and then ships it off to Freestyle? I don't know too much about Arista's inner workings but considering the fact that film from other manufacturers is printed under the Arista name, I wouldn't think so. As soon as it leave's Kodak's hands it leaves their quality control and, as such, suffers.



Since I don't work for Kodak or Freestyle, I don't have an answer about the Arista name on the film, but I have shot a few rolls of tri-x and i've shot even more of arista premium.  Comparing the two final products they're exactly the same to my eyes, both in the look, tint, and feel of the film and in the final image. (and *it seems* most people around the web that have _actually used it_ feel the same)

Here is a comparison shot I found (not my pics) one with Tri-X, one with Arista Premium, I can't tell the difference..  (large pics)

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QT2x-63363584.jpg
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QT39-63365584.jpg
from this thread:
Arista Premium film: is this stuff Tri-X? - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum

It's obvious you hate Arista products, so don't buy it.  Everyone else seems happy with the stuff.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 20, 2009)

blash said:


> Are you telling me that Kodak makes not just the film base, but also prints the Arista name on the film, puts the film in an Arista branded cassette, puts that in an Arista branded box, and then ships it off to Freestyle?




Happens all the time, across all industries.  Most of what you pay for with 'Name' brands is the advertising.


----------



## Sjixxxy (Apr 20, 2009)

blash said:


> Are you telling me that Kodak makes not just the film base, but also prints the Arista name on the film, puts the film in an Arista branded cassette, puts that in an Arista branded box, and then ships it off to Freestyle?



Not if you buy in bulk.  I take care of the quality control of the spooling myself and put it into my own branded cassettes and forget about the branded box.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 20, 2009)

blash said:


> To which I say again,
> 
> 
> 
> There's no 1 way to print a negative. I had a negative that I took of my roommate for a portraiture project of him in his white meditation robe - if I had simply done a perfect print, it wouldn't have been a remarkable shot. However, with the contrast turned all the way up and the print exposure adjusted for balance, his robe melted into the white wall which gave him this really cool ninja look. It sounds stupid but it's not something I could get or even see happening with your "consistency".



Depends, did you pre-visualise it that way and expose accordingly? Consistency is the first step to being able to visualise and expose accordingly, I'd suggest some reading, Adam's "The Negative", Phil Davis' "Beyond the Zone System" or Chris Johnson's "Practical Zone System" to get an basic understanding of what I'm referring to. 



blash said:


> Besides... if you're talking about something like, me taking 3 rolls in the same spot at the same time and wanting similar results, just use a tank that can take 3 rolls



3 rolls isn't worth the effort, I process anywhere from 10 to 40 rolls a week, mostly 120 film, rarely 35mm. Many weeks I'm also processing 4x5 negative films as well. A lot of the commercial and product work I do requires absolute color accuracy, i.e. color profiled scanner, and completely profiled workflow. I use film for a certain look for my professional work, several films have specific responses that work well for some of my clients. 

A far different animal than the snapshots you keep referring to. For personal B&W work, I shoot 8x10 primarily, at $5 to $10 a sheet, you get your ducks in a row before you start throwing away money like it grows on trees.


----------



## Battou (Apr 20, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Or, keep your eyes open on Craigslist and Ebay for a smaller (Wing Lynch or Thermaphot) processor, my Wing Lynch Pro6 processes everything frm my 35mm to 8x10 C41 and b&w with a consistency that no hand line can ever match. Push/pulls are not problem as well. Total cost was $150. The Pro 6 doesn't even need running water.
> 
> I work with a local pro that has a Frontier 370, when I need prints or scans, I go to the studio, when he has a customer (or himself) that needs C41 film processed, he drops it off. Everybody's happy, the world is good, etc.



I like the sound of that actually, I'll have to spend some time looking into that.


----------



## blash (Apr 20, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> 3 rolls isn't worth the effort, I process anywhere from 10 to 40 rolls a week... A lot of the commercial and product work I do requires absolute color accuracy, i.e. color profiled scanner, and completely profiled workflow. I use film for a certain look for my professional work, several films have specific responses that work well for some of my clients.
> 
> A far different animal than the snapshots you keep referring to. For personal B&W work, I shoot 8x10 primarily, at $5 to $10 a sheet, you get your ducks in a row before you start throwing away money like it grows on trees.



1) Yeah, but are those 10-40 rolls all from the same event at the same time of day? If not, then slight color differences between scenes wouldn't be noticeable (but if you're aiming for complete color accuracy, that's a whole different ballgame I agree... for commercial work though most people shoot digital now for a reason, so I'm not quite sure what you're doing here)
2) B&W film has color accuracy? I thought we were talking about B&W film here lol 



bhop said:


> Here is a comparison shot I found (not my pics) one with Tri-X, one with Arista Premium, I can't tell the difference..  (large pics)
> 
> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QT2x-63363584.jpg
> http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QT39-63365584.jpg
> ...



Are you serious?!
1) Look at the top right corner of the Arista print and don't tell me you don't see anything. For class, I would have either had to completely ditch the print or crop it and neither is acceptable.
2) The Kodak print has a smoother tonal change (looking at top center to top right here) from the darker shadows to the wall, also the wall actually looks gray, the same color on both top and bottom on the right side, instead of the Arista print where the shade of the wall changes.
3) Highlights are brighter on the Arista print (uncomfortably to my taste).
4) Lower left corner, Arista print makes the border between wall and floor look like its bleeding a bit closer to the edge of the print, to the point where the border blends into the floor right at the edge. 
5) Also do not tell me that the shades for the floors between the two prints is the same, because the Arista is noticeably darker.

I'm not using any software here, just my bare naked eyes on a scanned print. Thanks for proving my point.



Mike_E said:


> Happens all the time, across all industries.  Most of what you pay for with 'Name' brands is the advertising.



Yeah, but I don't think Kodak owns Fuji or any of the other brands like the Italian brand mentioned before.


----------



## bhop (Apr 21, 2009)

blash said:


> Are you serious?!... etc...



You win.. Arista sucks.. you're the man.


----------



## blash (Apr 21, 2009)

bhop said:


> You win.. Arista sucks.. you're the man.



Did you give up here or am I just blabbing nonsense to you and you're tired of this discussion?


----------



## bhop (Apr 21, 2009)

blash said:


> Did you give up here or am I just blabbing nonsense to you and you're tired of this discussion?



A little of both.. your standards are obviously way higher than mine, so there's nothing that can be done.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 21, 2009)

blash said:


> I wouldn't buy Arista - they're cheap for a reason (absolute ****). For color, the vast amount of your work will be with Velvia 50, and for film either with Ilford FP4, Ilford HP5, or Agfa APX 400 (but you either already know this or already have favorite films, but I wouldn't guess from the title). In any case, buy a few rolls to experiment before investing....




Out of curiosity, why would somebody's vast amount of their work be done with Velvia 50? Have you tried some of the newer C41 films, the Ektar 100 has a finer grain structure than velvia and is capable of tremendous color saturation, as is the Portra VC line, and to some extent the Fuji 160C product.

As an aside, I use Arista.edu from time to time, and properly calibrating the EI and development yields fantastic negs. It's just a matter of how much time you want to put in, assuming nothing and testing to establish EI and desired CI.


----------



## blash (Apr 21, 2009)

epatsellis said:


> Out of curiosity, why would somebody's vast amount of their work be done with Velvia 50? Have you tried some of the newer C41 films, the Ektar 100 has a finer grain structure than velvia and is capable of tremendous color saturation, as is the Portra VC line, and to some extent the Fuji 160C product.
> 
> As an aside, I use Arista.edu from time to time, and properly calibrating the EI and development yields fantastic negs. It's just a matter of how much time you want to put in, assuming nothing and testing to establish EI and desired CI.



It's not about "grain structure" or "color saturation", it's about the feel. Tell me why most people will describe Macs as being more 'higher-up' than PCs. Is it the sex appeal? No. Is it OS X? No. Linux is more secure than OS X, general populace knows how to use Windows better than OS X, and God knows there are some sexy Windows machines out there. Yet when you see a Mac commercial, you turn around and look instead of just tuning it out. Why is that? "Sex appeal"? "Security"? No - it's the soul of the product (note: I'm not a Mac fanboy in fact I've never owned a Mac in my life, Thinkpads and custom-built machines tend to be better IMO and I'm not trying to start a flame war here). It's the same thing with photography in general - it's what you get overall from Velvia that you don't get from Portra and others.

What I meant by vast majority of work should be done with Velvia, is that Velvia isn't good for everything - portraiture being prime example. But for landscapes etc. there is really no substitute in the final prints that are laid out before you.


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 21, 2009)

well, I won't even get into the mac/pc issue, I use both, and both have their flaws (and both have serious ones at that), though the single biggest isssue between the two is simply marketing. 

If the intent is to scan, Velvia is the wrong film for 99% of most peoples work, period. The single biggest issues are exaggerated color reproduction, inaccurate color response and poor scannability. (unless, of course,  you have pockets full of money or a money tree in the back yard, drum scans are expensive as hell and why bother with 35mm at that point, might as well shoot 6x7 or larger to get a better gradation and tonal response) The newer C41 dyes are specifically designed for scanning, one of the advantages of C41 films are that the negative contrast and density is moderately low, and the print contrast is high, effectively compressing the data at capture and expanding it at printing, if you will.

I'm guessing, you're in your mid to late 20's top, art student or taking photography classes and/or learned alot of what you know online, right? It may be hard to fathom, but before you were born, I was shooting product for Fortune 500 companies, 70 hours a week, 52 weeks a year,with transparency film, in large and medium format. I probably shot more film in a month than you shoot in several years. (a restaurant style walk in freezer was our film storage area). 
Spend some time shooting some of the newer C41 films, you may very well change your mind. (or if you prefer, stop drinking the Kool Aid and test for yourself, being blunt and to the point)

I rarely shoot trannies any more, and only a few clients insist on a film/digital shoot, as some of their fashion type work looks better on film. With the advantages that the new C41 films bring to the table, it's a natural, E6 films don't have nearly the exposure latitude, or dynamic range that the new C41 films do, something to think about when you have to get the shot, no ifs, ands or buts. (I don't ever relish having to pay the cost of a reshoot)

There are advantages to shooting digital, and I do use it more than I may let on, to me it's more of my red headed stepchild. Though I don't use a Dslr, as there are just too many compromises to work effectively for me in my workflow. Take a good scan back on a 4x5 camera,the lack of an anti aliasing filter is a huge advantage here (and the reduction or elimination in sharpening needed, as well as the obvious adjacency effects that come with it) and there is little to no post processing needed. Suddenly that 3 minute capture saves 10-15 mins of post time, seems like a net win to me, especially if you factor in the fact that either way, it typically takes anywhere from 1-2 hours to dress a set prior to shooting, a few mins additional isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## blash (May 10, 2009)

Well I generally print optically - I like the final results better and I don't see much of a reason to put stuff online when this is all for personal use only. C41 may be better from a high-volume business perspective, I wouldn't know.



epatsellis said:


> I'm guessing, you're in your mid to late 20's top, art student or taking photography classes and/or learned alot of what you know online, right?



Actually I'm 18, a computer science major, and I've taken 1 photography class so far (although I did learn most of my props online) :er:


----------



## coreduo (May 10, 2009)

I love film photography. I have my own digital SLR but decide to use film instead. I use Pentax SLR. Experts all agree that if you want to master black and white photography, one has to listen to the advice that it would be better to use color film, scan them, and convert them to monochrome through Photoshop. I use Elements. I used to have Lightroom but after deleting it and installing it, something went wrong. So I use Elements instead. If you're a fan of the enlarger, then use black and white film and print them via enlarger. I find enlarger tedious and consumes to much developer, bath and fixer. I'd rather develop them inside the washroom late at night, scan them and edit them in Photoshop. As for me any kind of color film is acceptable whether you buy it anywhere. There is always the editing software to make them look good. Trust me on that except if you shoot with black and white film, scan them and edit. It would be best to convert color to black and white through edit software. As I said, all experts agree on that.

By the way, read the editorial of this month's Black and White Photography magazine. You'll be amazed that even the experts are all mesmerized by film photography.

Suggested readings: THE NEGATIVE Ansel Adams. Always available in any public libraray.


----------



## flea77 (May 11, 2009)

coreduo said:


> Experts all agree that if you want to master black and white photography, one has to listen to the advice that it would be better to use color film, scan them, and convert them to monochrome through Photoshop.



That sounds like a bunch of caca to me. Simple "convert to monochrome" on a color shot has never come remotely close to what FP4 can do for me. I have seen some dedicated software made just to convert color to B&W that does a fairly good to good job, but a good B&W film is still almost impossible to beat.

Despite your "experts", I will stick with B&W film for my B&W work, thank you.

Allan


----------



## coreduo (May 11, 2009)

flea77 said:


> That sounds like a bunch of caca to me. Simple "convert to monochrome" on a color shot has never come remotely close to what FP4 can do for me. I have seen some dedicated software made just to convert color to B&W that does a fairly good to good job, but a good B&W film is still almost impossible to beat.
> 
> Despite your "experts", I will stick with B&W film for my B&W work, thank you.
> 
> Allan


 

Guess some people like you reads more credible given that the  author of the book SCANNING NEGATIVES AND SLIDES, Sascha  Steinhoff's software did not do well for me, with due respect also to an expert like him. I got it from his book. QuoteUnquote, Steinhoff.


----------



## blash (May 11, 2009)

flea77 said:


> That sounds like a bunch of caca to me. Simple "convert to monochrome" on a color shot has never come remotely close to what FP4 can do for me. I have seen some dedicated software made just to convert color to B&W that does a fairly good to good job, but a good B&W film is still almost impossible to beat.
> 
> Despite your "experts", I will stick with B&W film for my B&W work, thank you.
> 
> Allan



+1 :thumbsup: although, what he's talking about isn't a "convert to monochrome" button but rather playing with the sliders in order to approximate the results on putting different colored filters in front of the lens when doing B&W film (i.e. how a red filter vastly increases contrast) - to be clear though, I still think nothing beats good old B&W film, especially either FP4/HP5 or my favorite, Agfapan APX-400.

And who the hell is Steinhoff?


----------



## coreduo (May 11, 2009)

blash said:


> +1 :thumbsup: although, what he's talking about isn't a "convert to monochrome" button but rather playing with the sliders in order to approximate the results on putting different colored filters in front of the lens when doing B&W film (i.e. how a red filter vastly increases contrast) - to be clear though, I still think nothing beats good old B&W film, especially either FP4/HP5 or my favorite, Agfapan APX-400.
> 
> And who the hell is Steinhoff?


 

Sascha Steinhoff is the author of the book entitled SCANNING NEGATIVES AND SLIDES. He is an accomplished photography journalist in Germany. A scanning software is offered free together with his book. He programmed his own scanning software.


----------



## flea77 (May 11, 2009)

blash said:


> And who the hell is Steinhoff?



No kidding! You start talking about photography "experts" and I think Ansel Adams and Minor White :hail:, and I don't believe they would ever say something as absurd as shoot color film for B&W prints. 



blash said:


> I still think nothing beats good old B&W film, especially either FP4/HP5 or my favorite, Agfapan APX-400.



+1 except my fav is FP4 by a hair, HP5 next, then maybe Delta 100. 

Allan


----------



## blash (May 12, 2009)

Have you tried APX-400?

Agfa | APX-400 135-36 Agfapan Professional Black & | B9FLY

At $3.50 for a roll of 36 that's pretty damn good compared to FP4's $5.09/36 exposure roll unless maybe if you buy FP4 in bulk, and not on pre-packaged rolls either.


----------



## blash (May 12, 2009)

coreduo said:


> Sascha Steinhoff is the author of the book entitled SCANNING NEGATIVES AND SLIDES.



Yeah OK, he's the guy on the cover. Doesn't mean anything.



> He is an accomplished photography journalist in Germany.



I got an A- in Introduction to Photography at the University - does that make me an accomplished photographer? I've gotten good impressions from people who have seen my work in real life - does that make me an accomplished photographer? If I were to be published (as the book that I have just penned makes me) - does that make me accomplished? "Accomplished" is a debatable term and thus meaningless.



> A scanning software is offered free together with his book. He programmed his own scanning software.



Wait wait wait - so he's a writer, AND a journalist, AND a photographer, AND a programmer? Sounds a bit like a jack of all trades, master of none to me. Also, why would I use the scanning software included with the book? Wouldn't I just use the software that comes with my scanner? If it's just image manipulation software then why would I use it over Photoshop, the industry standard? If it's image manipulation software and I can't afford Photoshop and my morals prevent me from using pirated software, then why would I choose some homegrown crap over mature, open, free software like GIMP?

Why is this even under discussion?


----------



## coreduo (May 12, 2009)

Ok. I either rest my case or I give in to your  arguments.

+1 and -! means lowering the shutter speed or f-stop one step higher or lower.

example, f-2 will be raised to f-3, etc. Or if you know it, sorry. Just clarifying.


----------



## coreduo (May 12, 2009)

Ya, I used Canon scanner software instead of his. 

What I mean is it is better developing it in color film, then scan, then edit and convert to black and white than develop black and white film and scan to edit. Those were his words. But anyway, I do it and looks better than developing black and white film, and scan to edit. Or it is better to scan color film, convert to black and white rather than using or shooting black and white film before scanning. Got to do with his wording which says, "Most experts agree....(something to that effect)

To end the matter, I either rest my case or be swayed by your arguments. Better still email Sascha Steinhoff.

I think it has got to do with the engineering features either of the scanner or the emulsion created picture.


----------



## epatsellis (May 13, 2009)

Per Adams' methodologiy, as espoused in "the Negative", were you to accurately establish an EI (based on a density of .1 above Fb+fog), and establish a development time based on the desired contrast index your process needs, as well as N- and N+ times; followed by accurate exposure; previsualisation and the use of spot meter. You'd be damn surprised at how good (and accurate to your pre visualised concept) a b&w negative can be. 

Adams' methods are not complex, and the testing required takes very little time, it's a worthwhile investment to maximize the benefits of using b&w film. Color film really has no ability to do N- or N+, the 3:15 development time is fixed. Longer development also brings funky color crossover issues, and under developement just looks bad. If your subject can fit within the dynamic range of color film, I guess it's ok, but I'd love to swap prints with you and see just how they really look in person and compare them to "real" b&w prints printed optically or contact printed. 

The response of color films is frequently (almost always) tweaked significantly to tailor the colors to the deisred end result. It's about the farthest from linear as you can get, as far as accurate tonality is concerned. Maybe not as much of an issue shooting 35mm or MF, but when I'm shooting 8x10 (or larger...), I'm doing so for better tonal reproduction, not just to reduce grain. 

Not to mention the relative costs involved, 160NC is around $9 a sheet, compared to around 3 or 4 for b&w film. Not an insignificant difference, especially when one looks at the processing costs involved. My internal billing rate for C41 8x10 is $8.50 a sheet, for b&w it's $3.50, reflecting actual costs + markup (my processing business bills the processing to the studio which I am a partner in). All chemistry other than C41 bleach is used 1 shot and consistent sheet to sheet, day to day. For a typical day out shooting for personal enjoyment, I may use 8 to 10 rolls of 120 filim, and at least 10 sheets of 8x10 film. The cost difference alone would be in the neighborhood of $50-100. 

The downsides are no control over negative contrast, no ability to tailor CI to either optical printing or scanning, far less tonality in the image, as well as not having the abillity to archivally process the negatives for long term storage (C41 films are dye coupler based, and fade). 

The positives? well I guess I dont' have to think about the image beforehand, and can filter to my hearts content after the fact. 

So, realistically, and based on the above facts, which choice would you make in my postion coreduo ?


----------



## coreduo (May 13, 2009)

All the prints concerned have no signed photo model release forms. To be specific, the prints concerned picture two Chinese male teenagers and one Russian lady. Scanned them in Canon scanner and edited them.

With regards to your question as to what option will you take, I don't know. Your explanation is too complicated but I came across some of your topics in the Negative by Ansel Adams especially the '+1' or 'N+, N-1'.

Your point of view has argumentative content. Maybe color film is not too much of a better option. I don't know. Maybe you can direct your questions to the two persons concerned in this thread too.


----------



## blash (May 13, 2009)

coreduo said:


> What I mean is it is better developing it in color film, then scan, then edit and convert to black and white than develop black and white film and scan to edit.



Again, what he's trying to say is that you have more flexibility in terms of the final image with color film converted because you can play around with it in Photoshop. Here's the point: B&W film isn't as sensitive to green light as other colors (which is why grass often turns out not so well in B&W unless a green filter is used). However, with Photoshop you can tell Photoshop to make the B&W image super-sensitive to green, which can lead to interesting results (i.e. your green car will now turn very bright white instead of the darker gray or black it was before).

I do still think though that nothing beats optical printing, and with optical printing you can do a lot of stuff with burning/dodging and with contrast control, so you don't miss out on much and the final, physical result is nicer.


----------



## coreduo (May 13, 2009)

blash said:


> Again, what he's trying to say is that you have more flexibility in terms of the final image with color film converted because you can play around with it in Photoshop. Here's the point: B&W film isn't as sensitive to green light as other colors (which is why grass often turns out not so well in B&W unless a green filter is used). However, with Photoshop you can tell Photoshop to make the B&W image super-sensitive to green, which can lead to interesting results (i.e. your green car will now turn very bright white instead of the darker gray or black it was before).
> 
> I do still think though that nothing beats optical printing, and with optical printing you can do a lot of stuff with burning/dodging and with contrast control, so you don't miss out on much and the final, physical result is nicer.


 

The premises are we are using a scanner and we are comparing color film with B&W film to be scanned. Optical printing is another issue.


----------



## flea77 (May 13, 2009)

coreduo said:


> The premises are we are using a scanner and we are comparing color film with B&W film to be scanned. Optical printing is another issue.



A scanned B&W has different characteristics than a scanned color, you would have to do a LOT of playing in photoshop to get something that accurately depicted real B&W film. Of course, if you are trying to get an image ready for a web page that will have the snot compressed out of it anyway into a tiny JPG file, who cares. If on the other hand you are going for a 16x20 print for the wall (or to sell, or display in a gallery, etc) then I would say film gives you a better place to start from (or if you do it right to start with, no photoshopping required, click and print).

Allan


----------



## coreduo (May 14, 2009)

flea77 said:


> A scanned B&W has different characteristics than a scanned color, you would have to do a LOT of playing in photoshop to get something that accurately depicted real B&W film. Of course, if you are trying to get an image ready for a web page that will have the snot compressed out of it anyway into a tiny JPG file, who cares. If on the other hand you are going for a 16x20 print for the wall (or to sell, or display in a gallery, etc) then I would say film gives you a better place to start from (or if you do it right to start with, no photoshopping required, click and print).
> 
> Allan


 
That is one correct point of view. But the other one is that if it is color film, the colors are authentic. Hence, if you scan and convert them to black and white, you get the correct hues of blacks, whites. and greys than a scanned and edited black and white film.


----------



## blash (May 14, 2009)

coreduo said:


> That is one correct point of view. But the other one is that if it is color film, the colors are authentic. Hence, if you scan and convert them to black and white, you get the correct hues of blacks, whites. and greys than a scanned and edited black and white film.



Again, our point is that athough you may have better control over what parts of the image are gray, black, and white - which may matter slightly if you're getting a JPG ready for the Internet where it's going to have the "snot compressed out of it" where accurate colors aren't that big of a deal. However, if your intent is to print it out, then it is much, much better to optically print B&W film than it is to inkjet print a B&W image. This is more of a debate over the merits of the final product - i.e., the merit of the use of this method only depends on the method's result - than it is over the merits of film vs. digital (since if, in theory, you could take a color image and then contact-print it to a large piece of sheet film with a colored filter in between to simulate the effects of playing with the sliders in photoshop, then... sure, why not).


----------



## flea77 (May 14, 2009)

coreduo said:


> That is one correct point of view. But the other one is that if it is color film, the colors are authentic. Hence, if you scan and convert them to black and white, you get the correct hues of blacks, whites. and greys than a scanned and edited black and white film.



Actually one could argue that color film never really accurately depicts the exact original colors, so in conversion to B&W, you are converting something that is already off. While capturing B&W directly to film, the actual exact colors are giving off their true and unmanipulated reflective values to present more of a "true" B&W image. Less conversion = more accuracy.

All of that aside, my eye prefers the look of actual B&W film to 90% of conversions from color to B&W. So no "experts", logic, arguments, or discussions are going to change what my eyes like and what they do not.

Remember that color conversion to B&W has been around a LOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time, you put the color neg in the enlarger, shoot it on to B&W paper, presto! So if converting color to B&W really was a better idea there would be no B&W film. Ansel Adams, Minor White, etc would have all used color film and printed it on to B&W paper. Yet for some inexplicable reason I can still buy new B&W film in 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, etc etc. Strange eh? 

Tell you what, you keep reading Sascha Steinhoff, shooting color film, converting it to B&W and be happy. I will keep reading Ansel Adams and Minor White, shooting B&W film with no conversions, and I will be happy. Deal? :mrgreen:

Allan


----------



## flea77 (May 14, 2009)

blash said:


> "snot compressed out of it"



I should charge you a licensing fee for that! :lmao:

Allan


----------



## blash (May 15, 2009)

flea77 said:


> I should charge you a licensing fee for that! :lmao:
> 
> Allan



Hey I did quote it! 

But OK - here's 1 internet for your trouble


----------

