I Dare You!

by peter_budo

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

To answer your question directly, there are 3 spots where you're spending money for 'using film' and luckily for you there are cheaper options on all 3 fronts: Film Cost $16 is way too much, even for the Pro stuff, you can get 36 exposure rolls of Fuji Pro from BHPhoto for $10.29 each. And sure, you could really cut costs by going to non-'Pro' film and get ...


2

Devil's advocate: shoot digital. The ever-rising costs of film and developing as well as the cost (in time and/or money) to scan and clean an image is significant and from a non-artistic and monetary point of view digital is the clear winner over a fairly short time period. That is, of course, over simplification -- but it bears looking at. When I used to ...


2

$14 a roll! My goodness that's a lot of money! $16 prints? Where are you going!? That's more than my local drug store as well as my local photography shop. It should be close to $12 for 24 prints. All that aside, you could self develop color (it really isn't that hard if you know how to take a hot bath!) and can get over 20 rolls for about a $100 set up ...


2

Do you shoot B&W or colour? If you shoot in black and white, have you considered developing the film yourself? Developing colour film is more tricky, but black and white film development is a relatively easy process. I realise my answer will be much less relevant if you're shooting in colour, but thought I'd put my suggestion in to help anyone else who ...


3

For me, time is more limited than money, so I've usually had the shop scan the film and skipped prints altogether. Film scanning ought to result better quality by skipping an intermediate transformation and by detecting and "removing" dust automatically (except with black-and-white film). You can save money by scanning from film yourself, especially if ...



Top 50 recent answers are included