Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 04-22-2013   #41
Clint Troy
-
 
Clint Troy is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 365
Ilford's 3-for-9.99$ seemed like a fire-sale to me. I personally understood that they had to clear the stocks before they'd go out of (stamped) date, which would have been catastrophic for them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2013   #42
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint Troy View Post
Seriously?
The reason is quite obvious and it's one of the main subject of this thread.
Yes seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
That's wrong. Only the 24exp rolls production has been stopped. Normal 36exp. rolls production is continued.

Cheers, Jan
If the recent past is any indication this means Fuji plans to cease production. They did the same thing Neopan SS, first it was discontinued in one length, then another - and then not really much of a surprise, no more SS.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2013   #43
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,093
If Ilford (or whoever) is dumping film cheap to Freestyle, and it ends up hurting them, then perhaps they need to make a smart business decision and not do that anymore.

I recently bought 100 rolls of Arista Premium. If that hurts Kodak in some way I am sorry, but I am not the nitwit at Kodak who made the decision to dump the film in the first place!

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2013   #44
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
Fotokemika and Foma regularly yes, but the Arista version of Tri-X had numerous coating problems a year and a bit ago. My college program uses the Arista Premium and we all saw it across the board, even on films from those students who have impeccable processing methods. Perhaps a fluke, and as stated elsewhere anyone can have something slip through no matter how good their QC.
Have never had this with Tri-X.
Maybe Kodak sold a batch which had not passed the strong Kodak QC to Freestyle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
I don't think anyone can argue that the range of films from Fuji and Kodak have been halved over the last few years. Not saying Freestyle has anything to do with that, just noting the coincidence. Perhaps Freestyle is a clearing house more than we think (I'm a regular Freestyle customer don't get me wrong here). I'm concerned this means that Ilford is finding it hard to move through their stock, they and ADOX have been seeming like our last great hopes.
Well, at least Fujifilm
- has recently said (by their CEO) that they remain committed to film, because it "is in their genes"
- is still producing lower sales volume / niche products like reversal film, instant pack film, Superia 1600, X-Tra 400 120
- has introduced two new 120 cameras in the last years
- has introduced new Instax film cameras and increasing their marketing for Instax worldwide
- has introduced new RA-4 materials.

Of course their PR and general film marketing is a catastrophe and a real shame for an international company with such excellent products and such history.
They indeed should do much much better in this respect.

Kodak on the other side has stopped almost all besides some high volume film products.

As for Adox:
Don't expect too much from them: Their owner had often explained in his own German forum that they can only be a kind of replacement for Fotokemika, nothing more.
Even if all will go perfectly there then they could be there in about 5 years. That would be the best case, with lot's of luck.
He has always said that Adox will never be a company that could replace Ilford, Kodak or Fuji.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-22-2013   #45
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Have never had this with Tri-X.
Maybe Kodak sold a batch which had not passed the strong Kodak QC to Freestyle.
Something happened to it along the way, again nobody can eliminate every possible problem every time. Anecdotal incident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
As for Adox:
Don't expect too much from them: Their owner had often explained in his own German forum that they can only be a kind of replacement for Fotokemika, nothing more.
Even if all will go perfectly there then they could be there in about 5 years. That would be the best case, with lot's of luck.
He has always said that Adox will never be a company that could replace Ilford, Kodak or Fuji.

Cheers, Jan
I've had quite a few exchanges with Mirko, and yes it is a gamble. But he is taking the chance and if it works, and it seems like his model has a good chance of working, we will benefit. His products are top notch, and I am buying them. It seems that there isn't a market for any Fuji or Kodak scale analog company anymore.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2013   #46
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
It seems that there isn't a market for any Fuji or Kodak scale analog company anymore.
Currently we still have three huge film manufacturers: Fujifilm, Kodak and Agfa-Gevaert.
Probably the market will not be big enough in the future for all three.
Let's hope it will be big enough for one or two (+ the smaller ones like Ilford, Adox, Foma).

But much better than hoping is
shooting film !
The more, the better for us all! It is in our hands!!
And best is shooting all types of film:
- color reversal
- color negative
- BW reversal
- BW negative
- instant film.

The variety of film types is one of film's big strengths. But we can only keep this alive by using it all.

Cheers, Jan

BTW, in addition to shooting film on a regular basis, spreading the word and getting other photographers interested in using film is something we can and should do, too.
The perfect photography world would be where we could use both film and digital. But to have the option to choose film it has to be there. And it only will be there if photographers (= we) demand it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2013   #47
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 7,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
BTW, in addition to shooting film on a regular basis, spreading the word and getting other photographers interested in using film is something we can and should do, too.
The perfect photography world would be where we could use both film and digital. But to have the option to choose film it has to be there. And it only will be there if photographers (= we) demand it.
Every day. I teach film only / darkroom only photo classes and have hooked many on B&W film. I shoot B&W film nearly every day, most often several rolls a day. Try as I might tho color film has lost to digital for most everyone I show it to, myself included.

I was the last person I know personally who was C-printing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2013   #48
Rangefinderfreak
Registered User
 
Rangefinderfreak's Avatar
 
Rangefinderfreak is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nowhere in sight
Posts: 641
The way I see the subject: maco/Rollei had their own specs for 400 Iso and 100iso traditional film with acetate base. They were fed up with Efke & Foma, so they turned to Harmann .( edited !) HARMANN produced for Maco several HUGE master rolls of each emulsion. maco cuts & packages ( cassettes/ backing paper + plastic cases) their own stuff, pull out of ice, so the date will be the date when it is cut and packaged. I guess Freestyle has gone the same route, have it stored, cut & packaged by someone - just check if the cassettes & packaging is the same as maco and also Adox... then it is in Europe.
Both the maco Rollei RPX 400 and RPX 100 are great stuff. If Freeesyle is supplying you yankeeboys with same stuff, you can say goodbye to TRI-X... Too expensive stuff and too many middlemen with that "Great yellow father stuff"
I edited this as I mixed by mistake harmann and kentmere being the same.
kentmere is just a brand, not a producer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2013   #49
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Try as I might tho color film has lost to digital for most everyone I show it to, myself included.
Agree.

Just got a gent to take all of my color film stuff. Whew!

For film it's only black & white now.
__________________
Happiness is having the time to do the things I want to do!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-23-2013   #50
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
TRI-X... Too expensive stuff and too many middlemen with that "Great yellow father stuff"
Check this out as I believe it's Tri-X.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/192364...xp.?cat_id=402

Or here:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/192244...xp.?cat_id=402
__________________
Happiness is having the time to do the things I want to do!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #51
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangefinderfreak View Post
The way I see the subject: maco/Rollei had their own specs for 400 Iso and 100iso traditional film with acetate base. They were fed up with Efke & Foma, so they turned to Kentmere. Kentmere produced for Maco several HUGE master rolls of each emulsion.
Hi Jukka,

that is not correct. Rollei RPX 100 and 400 are indeed produced by Harman technologies (IlfordPhoto) for Maco, but it is not the Kentmere 100 and 400, it is a different emulsion.
Harman does not deliver their Ilford and Kentmere products to other companies for their house brands.
The products Harman is producing for others are different.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #52
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Clark View Post
...
For film it's only black & white now.
Cared to explain why?
I am asking because I'd like to know more (ie. I am not trying to be sarcastic).
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #53
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Cared to explain why?
I am asking because I'd like to know more (ie. I am not trying to be sarcastic).
Dunno about Bill, but for colour, digital is basically like going straight to a scan -- which is where my colour always went for publication -- and digital colour printing is vastly easier than wet colour. Yes, I like Cibachromes, but they're hard work and expensive, and I've always leaned towards the view that content and composition are what make a good picture. A REALLY good picture can survive almost anything, and (as with cameras) print quality takes us back to the 'quality plateau': where any further increase in technical quality is irrelevant as compared with an increase in the skill of the photographer.

Even my wife, a film diehard and darkroom addict, says she can imagine no circumstances in which she would go back to wet printing for colour.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #54
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dunno about Bill, but for colour, digital is basically like going straight to a scan -- which is where my colour always went for publication -- and digital colour printing is vastly easier than wet colour. Yes, I like Cibachromes, but they're hard work and expensive, and I've always leaned towards the view that content and composition are what make a good picture. A REALLY good picture can survive almost anything, and (as with cameras) print quality takes us back to the 'quality plateau': where any further increase in technical quality is irrelevant as compared with an increase in the skill of the photographer.

Even my wife, a film diehard and darkroom addict, says she can imagine no circumstances in which she would go back to wet printing for colour.

Cheers,

R.
Thanks for the response Roger.
A lot of your reasoning of not shooting colour film is because of its challenges in printing. Other than your belief of composition/content being sufficient for a good picture, is there any intrinsic reason of why colour film is inferior to digital? What if one doesn't do any wet prints for either BW and colour anyway?
Or is there a quantitative measure on why BW film is superior say over digital BW?
One big distinction between BW and colour film to me is that you can often get colour film for cheap in a drugstore (0.8c euro per roll in Rossmann), and BW always appears professional and exotic hence costs considerably more. For the cost of a BW roll, one could get buy a colour roll and have it developed, so economically it appears a good deal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #55
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,017
hi,

just noticed on the freestyle website,
Arista EDU films, 100, 400, and 100 feet
are going with "instant rebates".

Clearing out stock perhaps ?

raytoei
__________________
------------------------------------
Film is Photography.
------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #56
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
Every day. I teach film only / darkroom only photo classes and have hooked many on B&W film. I shoot B&W film nearly every day, most often several rolls a day.
Excellent! Keep on going.
I am teaching, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
Try as I might tho color film has lost to digital for most everyone I show it to, myself included.
I was the last person I know personally who was C-printing.
The opposite here with me.
The more accurate and natural color rendition of film, especially the difficult mid-tones and so important tones like skin-tones, has been one reason for me returning back to film (from digital).
The difference is not huge, but for me (and lots of my friends) it is visible.
Another factor: With film I can get the colors right 'just in the camera' (film is doing this job for me), no need for post-processing ,which is necessary with RAW format (I've been never satiesfied with JPEGs).
Makes shooting color film easier.

Color film has an important physical advantage compared to a sensor with Bayer-Matrix: All three main colors (R-G-B) are captured at 100% with film, because film has layers (indeed several for each color; see the cross-sections at "Making Kodak Film by R. Shanebrook) for each color.
With a Bayer -Sensor the color-filters have to be divided, only 25% for blue and red, and 50% for green.

And so far I have not seen a sensor which really can match the dynamic range of color negative film.
And the smoothness of color tones in the highlight areas is better with film.

And with color reversal film you have an unsurpassed color brilliance. Slides are a league of its own, a completely unique medium in the photographic universe.
Slide projection is delivering by far the best image quality for big enlargements. Digital cannot compete at all here, because of the extremely low resolution of the beamers and their limited color rendition.
My young students are always hooked at once when they see their slides projected at first time. They grow up in the digital age and have only seen the crappy quality of their camera screens and computer monitors and beamers.
And then they see what is possible with film in projection, in color and BW (BW slide are also awesome in projection). They see a complete new world opening for them and their photography.
And.... for a photography teacher it is a real joy to look at all the happy and astonished faces of your students .

Reversal film, both color and BW, is by the way one of the best learning tools for photo students:
With reversal film in the camera you just have to do it right before pressing the shutter:
- composition has to be right
- exposure has to be right.
With a slide you create a finished image in the moment of the shutter click. No possibility of different framing or post-processing / "enhancing" afterwards (hybrid workflow excluded; looking only at the real slide on the lighttable and in projection).
With shooting slides you have think before pressing the shutter, you have to be precise and you have to know what to do.
That is one of the strenghts of this film type.
And that makes it one of the strongest and best learning tools in photography.

I've followed one of the best current photography teachers / photo professors in this regard, H. Mante.
And can confirm his concept. I have the best experiences with teaching photography by using color and BW reversal film (not exclusively using slide film, but using it quite a lot in addition to negative film and printing).
I can highly recommend using slide film as a powerful learning tool.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #57
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Well, I am not Roger, but perhaps I can help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
A lot of your reasoning of not shooting colour film is because of its challenges in printing.
Color printing from color negative in the wet darkroom is not as difficult as some people claim. You need some practice in filtering, that is the main factor. In all other respects it is even a lot easier than color printing with inkjet and BW film printing.
For filtering some very helpful tools are available.
You have just to do a little training.Then when you have learned it, it is easy.

Traditional printing with a color enlarger is also unsurpassed concerning resolution, if you use an APO enlarging lens. We've tested that several times, lot's of other experts in Europe have tested that, too.
We all got the same results:
Traditional enlarging with APO enlarging lenses (both in color and in BW printing) is surpassing the best drum scanners significantly concerning detail resolution!
The hybrid workflow creates a significant loss in detail. It's on the film, but not resolved by the drum scanner.
Classic optical printing is better in this respect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Other than your belief of composition/content being sufficient for a good picture, is there any intrinsic reason of why colour film is inferior to digital?
No.
See my posting above. Critical colors like skin tones are more precisely recorded by film.
Higher dynamic range is another advantage.
And you can get excellent results without intensive post-processing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
What if one doesn't do any wet prints for either BW and colour anyway?
Slide projection: Unsurpassed in image quality for big enlargements. Highest resolution and best color and tone reproduction, both in color and BW.
And that at extremely low costs. A 1,5m x 1m picture cost you less than a buck in slide projection.
More than 100 bucks as a print.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Or is there a quantitative measure on why BW film is superior say over digital BW?
Most people just like the look of film BW more than the look of digital BW.
And lots of photographers also like the (to my mind: more natural) look of color film more than the look of digital color.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #58
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Thanks for the answer Jan,
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Well, I am not Roger, but perhaps I can help you.



Color printing from color negative in the wet darkroom is not as difficult as some people claim. You need some practice in filtering, that is the main factor. In all other respects it is even a lot easier than color printing with inkjet and BW film printing.
For filtering some very helpful tools are available.
You have just to do a little training.Then when you have learned it, it is easy.

Traditional printing with a color enlarger is also unsurpassed concerning resolution, if you use an APO enlarging lens. We've tested that several times, lot's of other experts in Europe have tested that, too.
We all got the same results:
Traditional enlarging with APO enlarging lenses (both in color and in BW printing) is surpassing the best drum scanners significantly concerning detail resolution!
The hybrid workflow creates a significant loss in detail. It's on the film, but not resolved by the drum scanner.
Classic optical printing is better in this respect.



No.
See my posting above. Critical colors like skin tones are more precisely recorded by film.
Higher dynamic range is another advantage.
And you can get excellent results without intensive post-processing.
It is reassuring to hear that there is nothing intrinsic about colour film being inferior (as it could have been hinted by Bill's post).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post

Slide projection: Unsurpassed in image quality for big enlargements. Highest resolution and best color and tone reproduction, both in color and BW.
And that at extremely low costs. A 1,5m x 1m picture cost you less than a buck in slide projection.
More than 100 bucks as a print.
Slide projection is inconvenient (imagine wanting to look at the picture every time you dine), and it is expensive compared to 8cent euro a roll of colour film with 2-3euro of processing. I wouldn't consider mounting my slides anymore. Plus, it is now nearly impossible to get medium format slides mounted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Most people just like the look of film BW more than the look of digital BW.
And lots of photographers also like the (to my mind: more natural) look of color film more than the look of digital color.
I agree that film offers more natural look to most of us, however that could be because we grew up with film and have gotten accustomed to pictures coming from film throughout our aging process. For the new generation, their opinion may differ.
Nonetheless, this look preference isn't quantitative.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #59
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
You are welcome.

But I have to completely disagree with your statements about slides:

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Slide projection is inconvenient (imagine wanting to look at the picture every time you dine),
Then you should be consequent and stop eating .
Or don't you prepare the table for lunch?
Installing my screen and my projector takes less time than preparing the table for lunch.
And booting my computer for viewing digital files is only 1 or 2 minutes less compared to the projection option. These two minutes doesn't matter.

And if I just want a quick look slides are the most convenient of all photographic mediums:
Just hold them up to the light! or put them on a light box, with or without a slide loupe. You have a finished picture with a slide, no further transition steps are needed.
Impossible with digital files, or color negatives. They need more work to be viewed in the end.

One of the many reasons slide film has been the preferred choice by professional photographers for decades has been this easy and quick viewing with slides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
and it is expensive compared to 8cent euro a roll of colour film with 2-3euro of processing.
Sorry, apples and oranges. With 9 Cent prints from Rossmann you have a relative low quality end result.
With the developed slide film you have highest quality.
And the developing costs for slide film at Rossman are 2,55€ both for negative and slide film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
I wouldn't consider mounting my slides anymore.
I always recommend to do it by yourself: You then mount only your keepers, have much lower costs and you can choose the best mounts available on the market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Plus, it is now nearly impossible to get medium format slides mounted.
All professional labs do offer it in Germany.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #60
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Thanks for the response Roger.
A lot of your reasoning of not shooting colour film is because of its challenges in printing. Other than your belief of composition/content being sufficient for a good picture, is there any intrinsic reason of why colour film is inferior to digital? What if one doesn't do any wet prints for either BW and colour anyway?
Or is there a quantitative measure on why BW film is superior say over digital BW?
One big distinction between BW and colour film to me is that you can often get colour film for cheap in a drugstore (0.8c euro per roll in Rossmann), and BW always appears professional and exotic hence costs considerably more. For the cost of a BW roll, one could get buy a colour roll and have it developed, so economically it appears a good deal.
Highlight: absolutely none. But nor, I believe, is it inferior.

Digital B+W is another matter. The best digital B+W is very good: as good as good silver halide B+W. But it looks different and I prefer the look of a wet B+W print.

A lot depends on why/how you're shooting. For exhibition, colour digi & B+W film are easy winners for me. For publication, the case for B+W printing is less strong: depending on the subject/medium, digi may be OK.

Cheers,

r.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #61
bwcolor
Registered User
 
bwcolor is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: S.F. Bay Area
Posts: 2,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
hi,

just noticed on the freestyle website,
Arista EDU films, 100, 400, and 100 feet
are going with "instant rebates".

Clearing out stock perhaps ?

raytoei
Thanks for the tip. Just ordered 50 .. ISO: 200 in 120.
250 left
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-03-2013   #62
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
And the developing costs for slide film at Rossman are 2,55€ both for negative and slide film.
How about silver BW?
How about 120?
I am trying to decide what film to bring for my coming up Europe trip.
135/120?
C41/E6/silver?

Can I assume that the development costs and print costs are all the same for 135/120 and C41/E6/Silver?

Thanks,
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2013   #63
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
How about silver BW?
How about 120?
I am trying to decide what film to bring for my coming up Europe trip.
135/120?
C41/E6/silver?

Can I assume that the development costs and print costs are all the same for 135/120 and C41/E6/Silver?

Thanks,
Development costs of 135 and 120 films are the same at Rossmann (afaik dm and Müller also have the same film development costs for both formats).
Rossmann is charging only 2,55€ for both E-6 and C-41, 135 and 120.
Prices at dm are ridiculous low 0,95 € for C-41, and ridiculous low 1,85 € for E-6 film development.

I don't know the prices for BW, as I am doing BW development by myself.

Costs for prints do vary more, depending on quality and format.
Cheapest option is Rossmann with their economy line:
1 Cent (!!!) for prints in 9x13 cm format, when the order includes C-41 film processing and prints. That are cheap quality prints (lowest resolution scanning, no corrections in the print process).
The quality prints (higher resolution scannning, corrections in PP) cost 9 Cent with 9x13cm format, and 15 Cents for 10x15 cm prints.
Prints from slides do cost a little bit more in general.

AFAIK dm does not offer prints for 1 Cent, their lowest quality option is in the 8-9 range, if I remember right.

Film supply and lab infrastructure in Germany is excellent (much better than in the US).
Additional to the drugstore chain options, lots of bigger photo shops in the bigger cities are running minilabs, and there are more than 40 professional labs working nationwide, you can send your films to them via mail order.
And there are about 10 specialized online film distributors, where you can order all types of film at very attractive prices.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2013   #64
axiom
Non-Registered User
 
axiom's Avatar
 
axiom is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 648
Thanks for the info. Jan.
This is very helpful. I think I will bring some slides for my trip then.

Would you happen to know the printing cost for slides?



Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Development costs of 135 and 120 films are the same at Rossmann (afaik dm and Müller also have the same film development costs for both formats).
Rossmann is charging only 2,55€ for both E-6 and C-41, 135 and 120.
Prices at dm are ridiculous low 0,95 € for C-41, and ridiculous low 1,85 € for E-6 film development.

I don't know the prices for BW, as I am doing BW development by myself.

Costs for prints do vary more, depending on quality and format.
Cheapest option is Rossmann with their economy line:
1 Cent (!!!) for prints in 9x13 cm format, when the order includes C-41 film processing and prints. That are cheap quality prints (lowest resolution scanning, no corrections in the print process).
The quality prints (higher resolution scannning, corrections in PP) cost 9 Cent with 9x13cm format, and 15 Cents for 10x15 cm prints.
Prints from slides do cost a little bit more in general.

AFAIK dm does not offer prints for 1 Cent, their lowest quality option is in the 8-9 range, if I remember right.

Film supply and lab infrastructure in Germany is excellent (much better than in the US).
Additional to the drugstore chain options, lots of bigger photo shops in the bigger cities are running minilabs, and there are more than 40 professional labs working nationwide, you can send your films to them via mail order.
And there are about 10 specialized online film distributors, where you can order all types of film at very attractive prices.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2013   #65
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Thanks for the info. Jan.
This is very helpful. I think I will bring some slides for my trip then.
Excellent idea!

Quote:
Originally Posted by axiom View Post
Would you happen to know the printing cost for slides?
Well, the prices for "Nachbestellung" (second order) on the best paper are
- 25 Cent for 9x13 cm
- 30 Cent for 10x15 cm
- 40 Cent for 13x18 cm.

Maybe the prices are lower if you order prints simultanouesly with the film development (I am not sure).

I wish you a nice trip to Germany,
Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:49.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.