Tina Kino wrote:
..could even bring that down to €7.99 per roll when buying the 3-pack from dm 🙂
True. Out of stock most of the time though, but good reminder to check later!
---------------------------------------------
Tina Kino wrote:
Have you considered doing black and white yourself?
You don't save a lot of money developing color yourself, but with black and white I'm between 0,50 and €1,- per roll..
Can't really be bothered and I don't have the space for the chemicals and stuff.
Also didn't mean to suggest that the price for film is prohibitive for me in any way. I spent approx. 2,70€ / day on film last year and I can easily afford that. I wish it was cheaper, also to grow the user base, but I can live with the current pricing.
Actually the thing that bugs me the most is how much the price for HP5 has gone up in 35mm. I like supporting Ilford and usually pick them for BW, as my color-money goes to Kodak anyway, but if the price is the same I will pick Tri-X over HP5 any day of the week, sorry..
fjablo wrote:
Out of stock most of the time though
My experience was that it has been out of stock online constantly the last years (I actually had a "visualping" set up, which alerted me when t was actually back in stock - which lasted less than an hour usually).
In physical stores it was hard to get as well, although I heard in other parts of Germany it was easier to find than here (in Berlin)..
But lately (the last weeks / months) I saw it online sometimes, and in the physical stores often times 👍
---------------------------------------------
Actually the thing that bugs me the most is how much the price for HP5 has gone up in 35mm. I like supporting Ilford and usually pick them for BW, as my color-money goes to Kodak anyway, but if the price is the same I will pick Tri-X over HP5 any day of the week, sorry..
I pick Tri-X over HP5 as well, but because I want the Tri-X look, not because one's cheaper than the other.
Actually I'd love to use HP5 - as that's available in bulk rolls for a fair price at least (as elaborated earlier in this thread) - but I do just prefer the way Tri-X renders the world, so it's very much worth paying a bit extra, for me.
Film pricing really varies. Here in Québec, a roll of Eastman-branded Tri-X and a roll of HP5 in 35mm (36 exposures) are exactly the same price: $15 CAD (about 9.30 Euros) plus tax which is about 15 percent here. The old Kodak-branded Tri-X was a dollar more expensive than HP5 but now that they've switched to the Eastman branding they're the same.
fjablo wrote:
True. Out of stock most of the time though, but good reminder to check later!
---------------------------------------------
Can't really be bothered and I don't have the space for the chemicals and stuff.
Also didn't mean to suggest that the price for film is prohibitive for me in any way. I spent approx. 2,70€ / day on film last year and I can easily afford that. I wish it was cheaper, also to grow the user base, but I can live with the current pricing.
Actually the thing that bugs me the most is how much the price for HP5 has gone up in 35mm. I like supporting Ilford and usually pick them for BW, as my color-money goes to Kodak anyway, but if the price is the same I will pick Tri-X over HP5 any day of the week, sorry.. ...Show more →
I use Cinestill DF96 Monobath for B&W. One chemical for everything - reusable 16 times. Just one small bottle under your sink
RoamingScott wrote:
Your math doesn't account for the most important cost, which is your time. You have traded saved money for development and scanning time.
Using my A7CII for digital capture, my average active time for developing a roll of B&W film, scanning it and posting to Flickr is about an hour. Hanging the film to dry takes about an hour but I can do other things in that time.
When U used the Plustek, it was about three hours just to scan.
RoamingScott wrote:
Your math doesn't account for the most important cost, which is your time. You have traded saved money for development and scanning time.
It depends on how you value time. What if you get enjoyment and satisfaction from the process of doing it all yourself?
Why buy a camera and spend hours going wherever you go to take pics? The money buying that gear, and the time going places to take pics could all have been saved if you just went online and downloaded images from those places etc.
This is a hobby, and may also be a profession. But one that we do willingly.
I didn't ascribe using your time to do it all yourself positively or negatively, just that time is usually, to most people, the most important currency, and a very important part of any ROI analysis.
RoamingScott wrote:
I didn't ascribe using your time to do it all yourself positively or negatively, just that time is usually, to most people, the most important currency, and a very important part of any ROI analysis.
You've just perfectly articulated why I never do ROI analyses on anything I do for pure enjoyment.
bjhurley wrote:
You've just perfectly articulated why I never do ROI analyses on anything I do for pure enjoyment.
It depends. I like being in the field, I even like being behind the monitor doing post. I don't enjoy dev or scans, so I outsource the bulk of that part of my film workflow and that's money well spent for me. Someone that enjoys that process should do it.
I don't think it's silly to do a basic ROI evaluation of our habits/hobbies to maximize our enjoyment of them. Kinda why I buy briskets that need the least amount of trimming
RoamingScott wrote:
It depends. I like being in the field, I even like being behind the monitor doing post. I don't enjoy dev or scans, so I outsource the bulk of that part of my film workflow and that's money well spent for me. Someone that enjoys that process should do it.
I don't think it's silly to do a basic ROI evaluation of our habits/hobbies to maximize our enjoyment of them. Kinda why I buy briskets that need the least amount of trimming
I enjoy everything about the process, I actually love scanning because I get the same thrill seeing the images come up on screen that I used to get when I did darkroom printing.
I don't think about opportunity costs for my time and money when doing things I enjoy. Could I spend that time and money doing things I enjoy even more? Sure, but I have no interest in optimization; I like keeping my personal life inefficient and economically irrational, at least to the extent that I and the others around me can tolerate.
RoamingScott wrote:
I didn't ascribe using your time to do it all yourself positively or negatively, just that time is usually, to most people, the most important currency, and a very important part of any ROI analysis.
Ok, let's do an ROI for my use case.
If I use The Darkroom - they suck but are popular so I am using them as the example - worst case financial scenario I send them a roll of fillm that I have shot in pano mode (which I often use) for them to dev and scan at the highest scan level. Because that is what I do at home.
The cost will be $33 before tax and shipping. And for that $33 I get poor quality lower rez scans than what I can do at home w a camera I already own. So my ROI using someone like them is very poor because I don't even get the quality I want, ignoring pricing, shipping delays and the rest.
So for me, my ROI is much better doing it myself - from a quality, financial and satisfaction standpoint. And I'm happy with my time as I'll have Chumbawumba's Tubthumping playing on a continuous loop in the background. Makes for a very meditative process.
