Film Developing in the UK

[stoo31]

Thanks Andy, will have to use my legs and just go and see!

 

[RaglanSurf]

Does anyone know if ASDA still offer their c41 35mm service? And is there a list of stores that offer the service?

I'm based in London and remember Canary Wharf having it but that was about 5 years ago!

Sorry if this is discussed somewhere else

Some do, some don't. Because they list all their digital and film photography services as "Photographic" services the only way to find out for sure is to go into each brach yourself and check. If you ring their customer service they will only look on their list for photographic service on the website, which could be both types or just digital or branches that only offer a drop off service, so the only way is a physical check that they develop on site.

 

[excalibur2]

...also if you can get the extension of the film dept the staff would know......for my Adsa the girls know my voice when I check with them to see if the film m\c is working.....well I travelled 8 miles once without phoning and it wasn't working

 

[Andysnap]

...also if you can get the extension of the film dept the staff would know......for my Adsa the girls know my voice when I check with them to see if the film m\c is working.....well I travelling 8 miles once without phoning and it wasn't working

And I bet they smile happily when they hear your dulcet tones Brian.....

 

[stoo31]

Some do, some don't. Because they list all their digital and film photography services as "Photographic" services the only way to find out for sure is to go into each brach yourself and check. If you ring their customer service they will only look on their list for photographic service on the website, which could be both types or just digital or branches that only offer a drop off service, so the only way is a physical check that they develop on site.

Yeah that's what I thought, thanks for the info!

 

[LonerMatt]

Warning: great bargain alert!!

Photo Express has recently added a number of excellent and well priced options and I think these make it one of the best developing joints in the country.

1. Develop and Hi Res scanning is 7 quid
2. Add TP discount and that's 6.5 for a LARGE scan
3. 2 pounds extra total gets you a drop box link
4. Turnaround time is often <24 hours from posting - I sent film off yesterday at 4pm, got a link in my email today at 1pm

This is just excellent value for 35mm C41, really good stuff.

 

[excalibur2]

The big chief is meeting the Asda girls this week to explain whether they still have a job or whatever...I still have a film to use up so wont be going there but I'll phone tomorrow for my usual "is the film m\c working".

 

[TheBigYin]

nothing to see here...

 

[ChrisR]

I have just updated the nifty price estimator.

Changes: included Photo Express discount for TP members in calculation, rather than just a note.

Filmdev now does black and white, in both 120 and 135.

I have replaced UK Film Lab with Carmencita, since the former is not accepting orders from the end of this month, and some have expressed interest in the latter. I chose the outwards postage at the small parcel rate that gets there in a few days, rather than the slightly cheaper rate that takes 15 days. No account of return postage costs. Prices in Euros including Spanish VAT at 21%. The smallest scan they do is the medium scan: 2400 ppi for 135; a 6*6 scan ends up 2400*2400 pixels (as per their email to me).

Just a note for full disclosure: I've asked Filmdev if they can do a discount for TP members as Photo Express does, and they are considering this. Meanwhile they offered me a small discount, which I have accepted for my current order of 6 films, but may not use again unless they make something available for everyone. I have not been mentioning Filmdev to get any sort of advantage, or because I am connected with them, but just because I use and like their service. One nice thing is you can discuss concerns when they ring up to take payment. For example recently I had trouble with the return envelope not fitting through the letter box, and they will now use a different envelope for me. Also, I asked about sharpening; they sharpen appropriately for the target size, according to their judgement, but if the user wants to do significant editing or print at larger sizes they can request reduced or no sharpening. They also provide me with 6-neg sleeves and TIFFs (8-bit) at no extra charge.

 

[ABTog]

I have just updated the nifty price estimator.

Thanks for that.

I used AG Photolabs for the first time last week with a roll of XP2. Very pleased with the service and opting for the high-res scans was worth it. Much better than I've had from other places. Will try them out with a roll of colour next I think.

 

[Carl Hall]

Thanks for that.

I used AG Photolabs for the first time last week with a roll of XP2. Very pleased with the service and opting for the high-res scans was worth it. Much better than I've had from other places. Will try them out with a roll of colour next I think.

What size were your medium scans out of interest? I'm going to try a few more labs in the next month or two and their prices seem very good.

 

[Carl Hall]

I have just updated the nifty price estimator.

Changes: included Photo Express discount for TP members in calculation, rather than just a note.

Filmdev now does black and white, in both 120 and 135.

I have replaced UK Film Lab with Carmencita, since the former is not accepting orders from the end of this month, and some have expressed interest in the latter. I chose the outwards postage at the small parcel rate that gets there in a few days, rather than the slightly cheaper rate that takes 15 days. No account of return postage costs. Prices in Euros including Spanish VAT at 21%. The smallest scan they do is the medium scan: 2400 ppi for 135; a 6*6 scan ends up 2400*2400 pixels (as per their email to me).

Just a note for full disclosure: I've asked Filmdev if they can do a discount for TP members as Photo Express does, and they are considering this. Meanwhile they offered me a small discount, which I have accepted for my current order of 6 films, but may not use again unless they make something available for everyone. I have not been mentioning Filmdev to get any sort of advantage, or because I am connected with them, but just because I use and like their service. One nice thing is you can discuss concerns when they ring up to take payment. For example recently I had trouble with the return envelope not fitting through the letter box, and they will now use a different envelope for me. Also, I asked about sharpening; they sharpen appropriately for the target size, according to their judgement, but if the user wants to do significant editing or print at larger sizes they can request reduced or no sharpening. They also provide me with 6-neg sleeves and TIFFs (8-bit) at no extra charge.

Interesting information Chris, I'll have to give them a try. Am I reading their website right, that developing AND medium sized scan for 120 C41 is only £5, with free return delivery? That seems very good. Though IIRC this is the lab that has a residential address isn't it?

 

[ABTog]

What size were your medium scans out of interest? I'm going to try a few more labs in the next month or two and their prices seem very good.

My high res scans from AG were 6774 x 4492 pixels and jpg.
Some detail on their site: http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/our-scans-3-w.asp

 

[Carl Hall]

My high res scans from AG were 6774 x 4492 pixels and jpg.
Some detail on their site: http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/our-scans-3-w.asp

Don't quite know how "high" turned into "medium" on the route between my eyes and brain... my bad

That's a pretty big scan!

 

[excalibur2]

My high res scans from AG were 6774 x 4492 pixels and jpg.
Some detail on their site: http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/our-scans-3-w.asp

H'mm the link is confusing as they say the file size is the most important and not dpi....I always thought dpi was most important and the file size is what it is depending on the scan.......I'll have to keep reading it again and again to work it all out to see why my thinking isn't correct

 

[ABTog]

H'mm the link is confusing as they say the file size is the most important and not dpi....I always thought dpi was most important and the file size is what it is depending on the scan.......I'll have to keep reading it again and again to work it all out to see why my thinking isn't correct

Yup. It is confusing, hence why I posted the actual pixel resolution that I got.
IMO, so long as you have the pixels recorded in the scan, the dpi is only important if you come to printing the files out. But since we're talking about scans of film, that's kind of irrelevant as you can make proper photographic prints from the original negatives rather than printing out the file from a computer. Besides, you can convert the dpi in photoshop.

 

[ChrisR]

H'mm the link is confusing as they say the file size is the most important and not dpi....I always thought dpi was most important and the file size is what it is depending on the scan.......I'll have to keep reading it again and again to work it all out to see why my thinking isn't correct

Labs always have different reasons for saying why their way of quoting sizes is best. I generally think in terms of pixel dimensions, but if they quote 18 mb opened in Photoshop (for example), then for 8-bit JPEGs, three colour channels, just divide the mb by 3 and you get the size in megapixels, 6 mp in this case (and 2000*3000 for 35mm), qualifies as "medium" in my book.

Interesting information Chris, I'll have to give them a try. Am I reading their [Filmdev] website right, that developing AND medium sized scan for 120 C41 is only £5, with free return delivery? That seems very good. Though IIRC this is the lab that has a residential address isn't it?

Yes, that's right. The medium scans I got last year from the Lake District jaunt were 2075*2075 pixels, or 4.3 mp. EDIT: turns out various sizes up to 2175*2175 pixels... Next size up is £8, IIRC.

I didn't remember the residential address issue, but just checking on Google Maps you appear to be right. Not sure this is anything to be worried about, but might perhaps explain why they only offer such highly compressed JPEGs for WeTransfer download. The JPEGs on the CD are low compression, and I get TIFFs as well (though so far I've only used a couple).

 

[DowntonMini]

As anyone some across there guys before

http://www.kolorkraft.co.uk/products-services.asp

Their website says they process 35mm and 120 film and they are just up the road form me.

Edit I have just emailed them to ask if they still offer the service

 

[ChrisR]

As anyone some across there guys before

http://www.kolorkraft.co.uk/products-services.asp

Their website says they process 35mm and 120 film and they are just up the road form me.

Edit I have just emailed them to ask if they still offer the service

Can't see much on their web site to indicate they actually do any processing, as opposed to scanning already processed stock?

 

[Carl Hall]

Yes, that's right. The medium scans I got last year from the Lake District jaunt were 2075*2075 pixels, or 4.3 mp. EDIT: turns out various sizes up to 2175*2175 pixels... Next size up is £8, IIRC.

Thanks Chris, I'm going to try them out next I think. Their medium scans are £5 + free return delivery according to their website, which seems like very good value. Not sure what their turnaround time is like mind

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks Chris, I'm going to try them out next I think. Their medium scans are £5 + free return delivery according to their website, which seems like very good value. Not sure what their turnaround time is like mind

Last 7 batches averaging 4 days; at least one of those including a weekend. And you get the "digital contact sheet" via WeTransfer download one day earlier.

 

[ChrisR]

Thanks Chris, I'm going to try them out next I think. Their medium scans are £5 + free return delivery according to their website, which seems like very good value. Not sure what their turnaround time is like mind

Just to add, I'm going to request no sharpening next time from Filmdev. A few of the last lot look a bit over-sharpened, though they say they are sharpened suitable for a print with very little extra PP. They suggested requesting no (or less?) sharpening if you want to do work on the images and/or print to significantly larger sizes.

So: I request negs in sixes (wouldn't apply if 120... last year I got my 120 film in a Kenro sleeve), TIFFs as well as JPEGs, floppy envelope so it fits through the letterbox, and now no sharpening.

 

[AgPhotographic]

Hi All,

The reason we state the size of the file is the most important thing is the amount of DATA you have in the file.

We're not alone as it's by far the most common way of stating the scan size amongst established photographic labs, including what I would consider to be possibly the best lab in the UK and certainly one of the finest in the world, Metro Imaging:

http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/prices/photo-scanning

and others:

http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/cont/processing.php
http://www.palmlabs.co.uk/page/scanning
http://www.bayeux.co.uk/scanning?phpMyAdmin=FjnEhXgrBryudxhlIqpUHZ0QCLb
http://www.digitalab.co.uk/film-processing/

to name a few.

But I'll add some pixel dimensions to the website aswell in the near future!

Best, Matt.

 

[abdoujaparov]

The reason we state the size of the file is the most important thing is the amount of DATA you have in the file.

Pixel dimensions and file size both give the amount of data in the file. They're functionally equivalent measures, stated in different units. Except, as you can see, more people understand pixels than understand file size.

(assuming standard bits-per-pixel of course, but then if we don't assume that, the filesize is a useless measure)

 

[excalibur2]

Well if you order a scan and say I want a 6mb file it wouldn't mean much as first you would have to say 6mb tiff or 6mb jpg but we are used to pixels and we would know say 3mp as the digi guys use it as well.

 

[Carl Hall]

Just to add, I'm going to request no sharpening next time from Filmdev. A few of the last lot look a bit over-sharpened, though they say they are sharpened suitable for a print with very little extra PP. They suggested requesting no (or less?) sharpening if you want to do work on the images and/or print to significantly larger sizes.

So: I request negs in sixes (wouldn't apply if 120... last year I got my 120 film in a Kenro sleeve), TIFFs as well as JPEGs, floppy envelope so it fits through the letterbox, and now no sharpening.

Had my CD and film back yesterday and am very happy. The scans aren't the best scans I've ever had (there appear to be some colour casts, but I'm not sure if that's the lab or a filter that I used), but for the price they are very good value. I had an issue with the CD in my Mac, so I've spoken to them and am going to be sending a small USB stick with my films for them to transfer the images to.

When you consider that I got my CD back 4 days later with big scans, for £5 and no return postage, it's fantastic value.

I think I'm going to use Filmdev for a while now and see how I get on with them. I'll use them for most of my stuff, but for anything really important I'll probably use Peak or Carmencita.

 

[LonerMatt]

Pixel dimensions and file size both give the amount of data in the file. They're functionally equivalent measures, stated in different units. Except, as you can see, more people understand pixels than understand file size.

This is the least accurate phrase I have read today.

 

[abdoujaparov]

This is the least accurate phrase I have read today.

Instead of being passive-aggressive, you could actually make an argument.

People may understand compressed jpg sizes, but I don't believe there's any instinct for uncompressed images. I very much doubt most people have the concept of bits-per-pixel needed to make the conversion (especially as it depends on the image format), but pretty much everybody is aware of megapixels (because of digital cameras) and resolutions (because of computer screens).

 

[stevelmx5]

Had my CD and film back yesterday and am very happy. The scans aren't the best scans I've ever had (there appear to be some colour casts, but I'm not sure if that's the lab or a filter that I used), but for the price they are very good value. I had an issue with the CD in my Mac, so I've spoken to them and am going to be sending a small USB stick with my films for them to transfer the images to.

When you consider that I got my CD back 4 days later with big scans, for £5 and no return postage, it's fantastic value.

I think I'm going to use Filmdev for a while now and see how I get on with them. I'll use them for most of my stuff, but for anything really important I'll probably use Peak or Carmencita.

I've posted off 2 rolls of 35mm and one roll of 120 to FilmDev today. At £5 for dev and medium scan with free return delivery, it looks like really good value compared to other labs.

 

[stevelmx5]

Fair play to FilmDev. I haven't seen the results yet but have just had an email to say that my 3 films have been processed and scanned. I'll get the download link later this afternoon and my negs/disk will be in the post today.

 

[stevelmx5]

And I've just got my WeTransfer link. Really happy with the results, the quality of the scans are considerably better than I've received from other labs (Peak/AG) for much lower cost. They even apologised for not scanning my half-frame images individually!

I shot a roll of Agfa Vista in my Olympus Mju Zoom 115 for the cheap camera challenge and am surprisingly impressed with the results considering it's a £5 combo! I haven't edited these yet but a couple of examples;









I'll do some quick colour corrections but nothing major. These are 2988 x 1972 as the 'Medium' sized scans.

 

[stevelmx5]

This is an unedited 120 scan, Ektar 100 from my M645J/80mm.



I'll definitely use FilmDev again.

 

[Carl Hall]

The prices are pretty much what some other labs charge for dev only without any scans at all! :O The ones that arrive in the post are even better quality; Not sure why they cant sent the full quality ones via WeTransfer though really as UKFL have sent files in the hundreds of MB to me online.

I got my downloads back today from Filmdev too, 6x7's from the RB, and the files are 4393x3649 which is massive for £8. I asked them to send me TIFF files this time as well so I'm excited to get the USB stick tomorrow and see what they're like

 

[stevelmx5]

Yeah, I'm not sure why they compress the online versions either. I guess it fits their model of having a quick downloadable preview then full size images in the post?

I'm seriously impressed with the speed of turnaround and the quality of the scan versus overall cost. I hope some other labs adjust their prices accordingly. As a comparison, the Peak "CD Archive" quality scan with dev for a single roll of C41 35mm is £15.70!

from 35mm film
Negative film
Approx.
image size
(when opened)
Pixel dimensions
Optimum
print size
CD Image
7.96
6.2Mb JPEG
1800 x 1200
6 x 4
CD Archive
15.70
14.0Mb JPEG
2700 x 1800
9 x 6
CD Archive Gold
20.90
24.8Mb JPEG
3600 x 2400
12 x 8
CD Archive Platinum
25.66
38.6Mb JPEG
4500 x 3000
15 x 10

AG-Photo is £10.87 per roll with a Medium quality scan so although cheaper is still twice the price of FilmDev and neither offer the downloadable preview as far as I know?

 

[Carl Hall]

Had a look at my downloads when I got home from work but I've killed the highlights I think They're not quite blown but I don't think I can bring them back down without it looking flat and murky. Hopefully the Tiffs tomorrow will have more in them. Think I'm going to have to start using my ND grads a bit more!

 

[StephenM]

I'm very surprised. Probably I shouldn't be if I were more experienced with colour negative film but I genuinely believed that ND grads were only needed with colour transparency and digital (sorry about swearing in these hallowed portals ). What was the film?

 

[JoeyH--]

Hi Guys,

I've been reading through the comments over the recent weeks and just had my first ever two rolls of film developed which I picked up today (dropped off late last Thursday, so possibly around 3 working days). I read elsewhere of West End Cameras on Tottenham Court Rd in London, as I was in the area I decided to drop off at the store and see how they were. For one roll of C41 and one roll of BW pushed it came to a little under £25 for dev, scan and print. I believe the C41 total cost was like £8 plus or minus.

I've included some scans of Portra 400, what do you guys think? I feel some of the images are either a little green, or magenta. Shot at 400 ISO and most shots were overexposed 1 stop.

Then some Tri-X pushed to 1600:

I don't feel so happy about the colours of Portra 400. In your experiences is this true to colour? Could the varying tints I feel like I'm seeing be the scanner used by West End Cameras?

In regards to the Tri-x, I'm quite okay with how it turned out. The scans show detail in the shadows, but the prints I'm looking at aren't so good, it's extremely contrasty, very dark shadows. But the prints for Portra 400 were very similar to what the scans looked like.

It's my first post here so I don't think I can post links to a Flickr album I've just created with more images from the rolls.

Oh and these were shot on a Canon AE-1 with 50mm 1.8.

 

[JoeyH--]

Ah so images are also considered links! Hope no one minds if I spam a few more posts to show the pics?

 

[skysh4rk]

Had a look at my downloads when I got home from work but I've killed the highlights I think They're not quite blown but I don't think I can bring them back down without it looking flat and murky. Hopefully the Tiffs tomorrow will have more in them. Think I'm going to have to start using my ND grads a bit more!

I'm very surprised. Probably I shouldn't be if I were more experienced with colour negative film but I genuinely believed that ND grads were only needed with colour transparency and digital (sorry about swearing in these hallowed portals ). What was the film?

I doubt that the highlights are anywhere near actually blown, it's just that the highlights are much brighter in relative terms than other parts of the image (i.e., large subject brightness range), which may be much darker (again, in relative terms), so it's difficult to display all of that information. If you were scanning this yourself, you could make a local adjustment (as the detail should still be in the negative) on either the darker or lighter parts of the image with a virtual ND grad, for instance.

Labs, however, only make global adjustments to images, so there's no way to balance the exposure between bright and dark unless you do it at the time of exposure with an ND grad, I've found (Edit: if scanned to jpeg anyway).

 

[JoeyH--]

Eurgh ok while I figure out how to upload images directly here; this is the link to the flickr album:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64501117@N08/albums/72157669927901950/with/27654997493/