35mm

[Sammy]

Anybody ever develop their own 35mm film cartridges? Not make the prints just develop the film strips themselves for later use. Thinking about undusting my ol Nikon and taking some pictures with it. But the cost of sending it out to a decent place to get anything developed is just too much and reading things it seems pretty straight forward. I would scan the negatives for prints.

[little_old_man]

I used to develop my own B&W many years ago, but the cost of doing color was just too much.

 

I don't think you'll be happy with the outcome of scanning your own color slides if that's what you're thinking, and of course you can't just scan color negatives. It takes some expensive equipment to do it right, which is why digital has put the film industry out of business.

 

I do miss 35mm though. Some of the things I could make an old camera do is just too fucking complicated on today's cameras. My dad taught me a lot about photography when I was a kid. There was nothing automatic about cameras back then.

[Sammy]

I have an Epson scanner that can do both negatives and positives (slides). Bought it a couple years ago to scan some old negatives and slides I had stored. Certainly not professional quality but pretty good for general use.

[Sammy]

Anyways, after thinking a lot more about it in the long run going all digital is just the best way to do it.That will mean saving some funds. Especially these days since unless prints are going to be entirely outside the realm of digital processing there really isnt much of a benefit. I suppose you really have to love film photography, or do the large format stuff, to go that far where you need a dedicated and expensive setup to do it all.

 

thx.

 

There was a story not too long ago about Kodak getting out of the film business for movie making. It was just too expensive and there wasnt enough of a demand for it. Some big names in Hollywood that still shoot on film however went to the studios and insisted that they do what it takes to keep Kodak in.

[little_old_man]

Color negatives have an orange mask over them that helped with the process of printing them onto photo paper, but that mask makes them almost impossible to do right on a scanner because you have to manually adjust all of the colors with editing software. Old color developing equipment did it automatically.

 

Digital photography really isn't that expensive. In fact it's quite a bit cheaper than 35 mm in the long run.  Photo editing software for your PC is fairly cheap and all you need is a decent printer and you can make really good prints. I've been using the same HP printer for almost 8 years and it works great. The most expensive part is the paper and color cartridges, and you can find sales at retailers or get good prices online if you look around.

[eidolonFIRE]

I prefer to just develop my own negatives on custom sized film...  it's too complicated a process to discuss here.

 

tehehehehehe

[mouselad]

I used to do it back in college. black and white only.

[ChknFngr]

developing B&W film is relatively easy, but u need some experience, and the right chemicals.

i wont even bother with color film.

but back in the days, and i think these still exist now u could develop those in specials shops and ask them to print a rolling print of your negatives, and those were cheap.

if u know how to take your pictures, u can have decent results with this method and scan them with a good scanner like an canon 8000 or 9000  kind of and with the right software to scan those.

same goes if u want to scan negatives, u need the right software to do it and u get really good results.

something like Silverfast is the way to go coz it will really push the scanner to its limits and work with all info available on the negatives.

and even with a that software and a really good scanner, u wont get pro results, but decent.

 

But i think scanning negatives works better than scanning non pro prints

but it takes lot of times to correct the colors and all. but results can be way better than simply scan a print.

because, its logic, u have more infos on the negative than on a print.

so if u have a good scanner and want good results, thats the way to go.

but say goodbye to your freetime

 

of course its way cheaper and easier to go digital

Edited September 2, 2014 by ChknFngr