A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old November 30th 06, 01:02 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
babelfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?



What do you charge for 4x5 E-6?


$2.10


  #72  
Old November 30th 06, 01:06 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
babelfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?



C-41 is very much more forgiving. With E-6 has the need for colors to be
right on the film and not have to be corrected.

Right. C-41 is more forgiving only because it gets a second chance on life.
If you were willing to accept that all E6 gets scanned anyway and so
corrections are likely, then it also has great latitude in processing.


  #73  
Old November 30th 06, 01:37 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

"Greg \"_\"" wrote:
In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

"Greg \"_\"" wrote:

There are small batch chemical kits from Tetenal, and room temperature.

You can use a single tank for a single roll, and fill the bottles of
stick with marbles to slow air exposure. Its all in what one wants....
where there's a will there's a way.


And an expense. You can't tell me that form of development is going to be
anywhere near cheap.


Lets say the average for 120 film is 6.75 per roll at a lab without
driving there, if your kit only processed 10 rolls at 40.00 per kit you
are 2.75 ahead per roll that's 27.50 per ten rolls.

More than likely you can process more than 10 rolls especially if
batched.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...tails&Q=&sku=1
09282&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

How much does it cost to drive there or ship the film, not to mention
potential for loss. Once one has the technique down few will handle the
film with as much care as one's self.


It was costing me about $4.10 per 36 exposure to drop of film for E6
development at Costco (who ships to Qualex). They recently discontinued it.
After that, I use Fuji mailers at $4 and change per envelope. Comes with the
carboard on each slide and a nice little box ;-)

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


  #74  
Old November 30th 06, 02:57 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message news8Bbh.3074

It was costing me about $4.10 per 36 exposure to drop of film for E6
development at Costco (who ships to Qualex). They recently discontinued
it.



BJ's Wholesale Club still uses Qualex.

Kodak Gallery (formerly OFOTO) also accepts film by mail for processing, if
you want "genuine" Kodak processing (but they are in California, and mail
turnaround time is often very slow--my last print order took almost 3 weeks
to get back to me in Philadelphia).


  #75  
Old November 30th 06, 11:31 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Greg \_\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

It was costing me about $4.10 per 36 exposure to drop of film for E6
development at Costco (who ships to Qualex). They recently discontinued it.
After that, I use Fuji mailers at $4 and change per envelope. Comes with the
carboard on each slide and a nice little box ;-)


For a multitude of reasons I avoid these type places, nothing against
your decision to support them.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
  #76  
Old December 1st 06, 06:51 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

"Greg \"_\"" wrote:
In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

It was costing me about $4.10 per 36 exposure to drop of film for E6
development at Costco (who ships to Qualex). They recently discontinued it.
After that, I use Fuji mailers at $4 and change per envelope. Comes with the
carboard on each slide and a nice little box ;-)


For a multitude of reasons I avoid these type places, nothing against
your decision to support them.


I actually used A&I for most of my important processing. The more casual
images were developed with Qualex. I pretty much only shot E6 slide film.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


  #77  
Old December 1st 06, 08:19 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Greg \_\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

"Greg \"_\"" wrote:
In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

It was costing me about $4.10 per 36 exposure to drop of film for E6
development at Costco (who ships to Qualex). They recently discontinued
it.
After that, I use Fuji mailers at $4 and change per envelope. Comes with
the
carboard on each slide and a nice little box ;-)


For a multitude of reasons I avoid these type places, nothing against
your decision to support them.


I actually used A&I for most of my important processing. The more casual
images were developed with Qualex. I pretty much only shot E6 slide film.


Qualex is fine, its turning my film over to a middleman (read as large
supermarket like chain store) that makes me nervous.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com
  #78  
Old December 4th 06, 02:41 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

"Greg \"_\"" wrote:
I actually used A&I for most of my important processing. The more casual
images were developed with Qualex. I pretty much only shot E6 slide film.


Qualex is fine, its turning my film over to a middleman (read as large
supermarket like chain store) that makes me nervous.


Indeed, however, if you can be assured they are using fresh chemicals, then
developing C41 at one of these large chains isn't likely a problem. Getting
prints from them is another story altogether.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


  #79  
Old December 4th 06, 07:08 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Rod Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" writes:

"Greg \"_\"" wrote:

Qualex is fine, its turning my film over to a middleman (read as large
supermarket like chain store) that makes me nervous.


Indeed, however, if you can be assured they are using fresh chemicals, then
developing C41 at one of these large chains isn't likely a problem. Getting
prints from them is another story altogether.


The trouble is that they sometimes lose rolls or even just parts of rolls.
(I've had both happen.) Sometimes they return scratched or otherwise
damaged negatives, although that's more of a problem with 1-hour labs, in
my experience. It's for these reasons that I've been doing my own C-41
processing for over a year, although that's not without it's problems,
either.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking
  #80  
Old December 4th 06, 08:25 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

Rod Smith wrote:
The trouble is that they sometimes lose rolls or even just parts of rolls.
(I've had both happen.) Sometimes they return scratched or otherwise
damaged negatives, although that's more of a problem with 1-hour labs, in
my experience. It's for these reasons that I've been doing my own C-41
processing for over a year, although that's not without it's problems,
either.


Fair enough. But, on the converse, I have had Qualex punch holes in slides,
leave hair or fiber in the emulsion and blotches in the emulsion which ruin
the image. I also had 2/3 of a the slides lost from one order (my first
order!). Still, I don't learn from bad service the first time when it is so
convenient compared to the alternatives and I continued to use Qualex (via
Costco) with pretty good results after that.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


 




Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS, why does no one have this anymore? SMS Digital SLR Cameras 7 September 29th 05 09:01 PM
I can't take it anymore :o( Steve Kramer 35mm Photo Equipment 14 April 5th 05 04:54 AM
I can't take it anymore :o( Steve Kramer 35mm Photo Equipment 0 April 3rd 05 10:13 PM
Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital Geshu Iam Medium Format Photography Equipment 109 October 31st 04 03:57 PM
Speaking of sheet films (Tri-X /Bush thread) --Hows the J&C House brand in 4x5 thru 11x14? Efke sheet films? jjs Large Format Photography Equipment 0 October 25th 04 05:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.