You have to develop the films yourself. 1. It's cheaper. 2. You learn new things. 3. You are in full control of the process. I stopped using Velvia in the early 2000s because I did not want to do any of these. :) But I still do B+W and C41 myself....
I’ve developed before and really enjoy it but my two main hangs up are right now the place I live is a little too small and very well lit to make any kind of darkroom (and I don’t want to tent anything right now) I’m also not super flush with time between repairs and editing and the main hang up is I don’t have a reliable way to scan the film, my flatbed kind of sucks and takes forever so if I level that up I’ll figure out how to make things work here
When you run a lab, there are 3 ways to approach half frame: You scan it and charge as regular 36x24mm and you deliver files with 2 pictures side by side, you charge more because you "manually" divide every file into two files, or you charge more because you use a special half frame mask in your scanner. In the last two cases, there is added labor, but in my opinion the prices you mention are very high.
I don’t mind a lab charging a little more because I know a bit more labor is required I’m more just frustrated at Pentax’s decision to make a half frame camera haha but thank you for the insight!
@@RompingBronco I was disappointed too when i knew it was going to be half frame, but then i realized that i was never going to spend that kind of money in a (mostly) plastic camera even if it was full frame. For that i have my eos 300. So... we just have to wait for the 17 to be succesful, and then let's see what happens :)
Just have the lab scan your half frame as full frame. It's easy enough to split them yourself, it doesn't matter if your workflow is digital or analog. If you're digital, it is easy in software, and if you have a traditional darkroom then only print half the negative. People make a bigger deal out of things than they need to be.
@christinasmith9032, I'm glad that it helped, but to be honest, I just re-read it and I could have been a little bit more clear. Obviously, if you're going to make a traditional print, the lab wouldn't have to scan it at all. I'll try to do better the next time.
When I ordered the Pentax 17 here in Australia, the camera store included 10 rolls develop and high res scan C41. Normally it’s AU$18/roll which is approx = US$10 develop and high res scan. That’ll last my colour needs for a while as I’ll use that for my 120 and other needs. B&W I usually do myself
What's with the hate for the Pentax 17? I have no trouble getting my half-frame developed. It is literally 35mm and any lab that develops 35mm will develop half-frame (as a diptych) just fine. Also, what price did you expect for a new camera? They've always been expensive. My used budget mirrorless camera was $1,000.
I’ll elaborate in a future video but my main complaint is built quality, I am fine with a hefty price tag if the camera makes sense but it has nothing but auto settings (minus bulb) so not much to offer those looking to grow into a system and when Kodak offers a half frame with fewer features but a similarly fixed lens and the same lack of ability to grow with the system for 10x less I think it’s a better move. I’m excited to see new cameras produced but I struggle to see who this will broadly appeal to, I think they priced themselves out of the “consumer” market and most of the people wanting a new film camera were hoping for something different.
Normally I would agree but this is a little apples to oranges, the OM-1 is intended for a different audience that the 17 but it is something I’ll be addressing in my video because things indeed cost more 🫠
@@RompingBronco "the OM-1 is intended for a different audience that the 17" True, but all things are relative. A camera that came out in 1965 which might be similar, the Minoltina P, was about $580 in today's money. We have gotten used to electronics getting cheaper and cheaper, but that may not be true with all things, esp when they are mechanical in nature. A new OM-1 might cost closer to $2500 (see the reissued Nikon rangefinders from 25 years ago). Kinda puts Leica prices in perspective.
@@musa7606 I understand what you are saying but I still don't think it is as sound a comparison, in 1965 there was no way to take photos other than film, today most people use phones that they already have to take photos which is the audience that I think the 17 was aimed for. For people who want to buy a 17 and support Pentax they will but I think $500 for the average consumer is a little much especially when an H35 is $45 or $85 and there is still older film cameras on the market that are more affordable and known variables.
Having a phone is much more of a necessity than a film camera, I’m sure they spent a lot on the development of the camera but my argument has been that that money may have been better spent towards a different design or product, again I have a separate video I’m working on to go over all of this and more
Here in Baltimore I have a local place that will do color dev for 10$ a roll and 6$ for low-res scans. It cuts out shipping costs which is great but still...I gotta really make each shot count at these prices. This is the same for 24/36 35mm film. Never shot half frame so idk if its more.
I think it’s because they have to scan the two frames as separate so more time involved, I’m not too caught up on that component but the whole things seems less cheap at every stage hahah
Wait a second.. the half frame roll development shouldn’t be costing more. I mean the surface area to be developed is the same. It doesn’t take more chemistry or time than a full frame roll.. that doesn’t seem “fair” at all.
I was going to pretty much repeat the comment but yeah I don’t mind it too much, now if I was just getting them developed that extra 6 bucks would be goofy
i have a ricoh diacord. about a year ago the shutter froze on it. cocks the same clicks the same.. i wish i had just done a simple check. i bulk develop with the only commercial b&w only lab in sac. anyways. i took in a bunch of film. oh not all of it was bad. but that bad was just part bad. this bad was bad because it cost me 150--175$ . sigh i keep the film in a see through bag, and have placed it up on my shelf. not to shame myself but to remind myself. to check the shutter. all those punk shows😭🔮😿
