Film SLR - preview exposure

[granni]

Hi,

Im using a digital compact, and thinking to go slr. Ya film is cheaper for me i guess. Can i ask the gurus a few questions:
1. Can i check does a film slr show u the exposure results in the viewfinder? I.e. if my shutter is too slow, it will cause the film to overexpose, so can i see this effect in the vf or i have to develop the film first?

2. This is kinda related to the first question, which iso would be good for a total newbie, i will be shooting landscapes and in daylight mainly. Will try night soon.

3. I send the film for processing, can i ask for digital copies? If so they scan my photos or the neg? Since me not guru yet, so think i be doing post-effects w/ PS for the time being
(i could have posed this ques to the developer, but since im asking, dun mind tell me also )

4. Is EOS 66 a good start for me?

5. I know my EF lens can only be used on a full frame dslr (right?) but can i borrow my frens' EF-S lens for my film slr?

Apologise if my ques sound silly :embrass: . But am seriously thinking to go along this line, esp for my trips abroad, will tote along my S2 IS to exp the important shots. And i feel i should give myself more flexibility so budgeting some money on film and processing too. :bigeyes:

Guess after my calculation and reading, feel that end of the day would be more cost effective to use the 500-600 i would save from a dslr to use on films + processing + experimenting oh oh how much have u guys spent on films + processing? Just genrally

Thanks for your time :lovegrin:

 

[SnapSnap]

First off, I am not a guru... but having gone from digital compact to slr to dslr... here's some comments...

1. You will not see exposure results in the viewfinder like digital compact. What you may be able to see depending on the model of the camera, would be an indicator showing that your setting may be over exposed. However, if you stick to the Program mode, I think the camera will try its best to compensate.

2. ??
3. Yes, they scan neg.
4. ?? never used this before... Why not try it before buying?
5. ??


See many question marks... but that all I know... I ended up buying a second hand dslr after awhile because the film and processing cost too much... and I figured that I would be able to recover the cost within 12 months... :bsmilie:

 

[fWord]

1. Not sure if I understood this right, but although a film camera cannot show you the exposure result immediately, a camera can (if it has a built-in metering system) show you a recommended shutter speed and aperture setting, or indicate to you if the shutter speed is too fast for a proper exposure, or if the aperture you have chosen is too small. It depends on what mode your camera is on. The EOS 66 sounds fairly modern, so it should have a program mode that will automatically choose a combination of shutter speed and aperture for a correct exposure.

Of course, camera meters can be fooled by difficult lighting situations, bright snow, overly dark subject filling most of the frame etc. For these, check up the books and dial in exposure compensation where necessary.

2. Can't comment directly since I haven't officially gone film yet. But based on experience with a DSLR, you could try ISO 200 film first. ISO 400 is commonly available and this is probably more than fast enough. Take care of handholding technique as well.

3. Not sure...would like to know this as well.

4. Can't answer this one. The 'right' camera for you would depend on your needs, wants and applications. There should be quite a few modern SLRs on the market now going for a steal and I would think they're all good. Again, the EOS 66 looks versatile, judging by its features, but I am not experienced enough to tell you what's the best buy for your money. How much are you paying for this camera?

5. EF-S lenses cannot work on a FF Canon DSLR, and neither will they fit onto a film camera. Only EF lenses can be accepted by a Canon film SLR.

 

[foxtwo]

2. ISO 100 slide & neg. Few ISO 200s in the market. Better selection for ISO 100. ISO 400 will be grainy, so expect it and don't come complaining afterwards. i think it's more expensive the faster the film gets, so even better. hhaha

3. I think they will offer to scan & print using their Frontier machine. the scans will be shitty and the auto-prints just as shitty. If you want better scans then expect to pay, don't know how Singapore labs charge, by MB probably. You're better off just asking for 'Develop only', then look for kex (CSer) for scanning services.

 

[gossipmonger]

my answer to questions 1 and 2....

1. if you are afraid of under- or over-exposing your shots, just bracket your shots.

2. for landscapes, it's best you stick to slow film e. ISO 100 and below. Try using Velvia 50 and Velvia 100. Advisable to use a tripod though. Try rating the Velvia 50 at 40 and Velvia 100 at 80 for more colour saturation.

hope this helps....

 

[Caspere]

Hi,

Im using a digital compact, and thinking to go slr. Ya film is cheaper for me i guess. Can i ask the gurus a few questions:

1. Can i check does a film slr show u the exposure results in the viewfinder? I.e. if my shutter is too slow, it will cause the film to overexpose, so can i see this effect in the vf or i have to develop the film first?

Most modern film camera (like the Eos 66) you are buying will most likely have decent meters to tell you that when you are shooting. On AUTO, it will choose the appropriate Shutter and Aperture for what it thinks is the correct exposure. If you use MANUAL, it will tell you the current subject/scene is TOO BRIGHT or TOO DARK for the choosen Shutter and Aperture. You then adjust accordingly; which you may choose another subject/scene, or wait for the sun/clouds to move into position, or change the Shutter and Aperture.

2. This is kinda related to the first question, which iso would be good for a total newbie, i will be shooting landscapes and in daylight mainly. Will try night soon.

Day 100asa. Night 800asa.

3. I send the film for processing, can i ask for digital copies? If so they scan my photos or the neg? Since me not guru yet, so think i be doing post-effects w/ PS for the time being (i could have posed this ques to the developer, but since im asking, dun mind tell me also )

You may ask for Prints only, Prints with CD, or CD only. They should also give you the negatives back for free.

4. Is EOS 66 a good start for me?

Yes.

5. I know my EF lens can only be used on a full frame dslr (right?) but can i borrow my frens' EF-S lens for my film slr?

You may borrow if you like. But you cannot use it on the Eos 66. This baby will use all the EF lens in Canon collection; except EFS.

Apologise if my ques sound silly :embrass: . But am seriously thinking to go along this line, esp for my trips abroad, will tote along my S2 IS to exp the important shots. And i feel i should give myself more flexibility so budgeting some money on film and processing too. :bigeyes:

It is OK. My answers are silly too but I am not embarrassed. But then again, why would a total newbie be using a film camera and pay about $500-$600 for processing what might potentially be crap. Do not trust me. Just use your Digital Compact. You will enjoy the trip more. You will get your lovely digital prints. They will last as long as the those crappy (most likely) prints from film. I am sure you will enjoy the prints from the digital compact more than those from the film camera.

Guess after my calculation and reading, feel that end of the day would be more cost effective to use the 500-600 i would save from a dslr to use on films + processing + experimenting oh oh how much have u guys spent on films + processing? Just genrally

See above.

$4.50 per roll of film.
Process and print 1 x roll of 36 exposures – from $9.90 to $13+
Generally….

Thanks for your time :lovegrin:

You are welcome.

 

[Caspere]

Oh ya...

After you come back from the trip, take a basic photo class. Not only it will answer all the above questions, you will also discover why Digital is so popular.

 

[alexj]

Hmm... not to discourage people from shooting film, but 500-600 cost savings aren't much really... depends on your workflow (do you end up viewing digitally or printing?), the way you shoot (sparingly and thoughtfully or experiment, shoot, shoot, shoot) and how frequently.

approx pricing
. cheap single roll 36exp - $5.00 (expensive slide rolls goes to about $10++)
. processing and scanning to cd - $10-20 (depending on scan size; not really sure about the prices since i only did once and came up to around 13 for the lower res scan)
. travel and time cost to lab; i suppose you'll want to stick to one for more consistency.


.There's no way to judge your results until you get your film processed. Even then, results vary from lab to lab, mostly due to the scanning since its part of their service to adjust your shots (unless you specify).
.There's no white balance. It's done in the lab (again, you'll need to specify over the counter, since lab operators will go by their instincts. Like the green tinge from florescents, do you want to keep it green or tune it to white? You may possibly need to know which shot). I've no personal experience with this though (as in asking them to colour correct).

 

[waileong]

There are some important questions here and it's sad to see the digital brigade giving some misleading info.

1. Film prints = crappy (most likely)-- This has no basis in fact, how crappy prints are depends on (a) the photographer and (b) the lab.

Actually, negative films have much better lattitude than digital that the chance of getting a usable print is much higher. And the newbie does not have to worry about white balance, USM, layers, etc-- just leave it all to the lab.

2. Shooting film = $15-18 per roll ($4.50 per roll + $9-$13 process and print)

Actually, film is a lot cheaper (you can get as low as $2 from those $1 shops) but of course pro film can be expensive (up to $11 per roll for Velvia 100). It's never made sense to me to print all my exposures, esp. if I know I didn't get every exposure corect.

Digital shooters don't print every shot they take, so why should film users? But in any case, the user incurs print cost whether he gives the lab a digital file or film to print, so the figures quoted above for process + print are misleading.

3. $500-600 not worth saving.

This depends on how many rolls the user shoots. If you shoot 1 roll a month with total cost of (say) $6.50 per roll ($2 for film + $4.50 for processing), $500-600 can last you more than 6 years. And the user can avoid the cost of post-processing, archiving onto CD/DVD, etc.

4. Cost of film shooting

The real cost of film shooting occurs when you ask the lab to scan. They charge like $10 per roll, totally crazy. If you can live without scanning every exposure, than film is for you. If not, you should buy a scanner, a cheap flatbed can cost less than $100 and is adequate for routine scans.

5. Actually, you should be using your S2 IS for the less important shots, and use film for the more important shots. Almost any ISO 100 film has more megapixel equivalent than any digital compact P&S, plus the film has better dynamic range, exposure latitude and archival qualities than digital.

Film is shoot and forget, whereas digital is shoot and immediately check the shot you just took. In the last century, everyone used film and had a great time. If you can overcome your desire for instant feedback and trust your film camera, then film is a good choice, esp. if you are not a heavy shooter.

Wai Leong
===

Hi,

Im using a digital compact, and thinking to go slr. Ya film is cheaper for me i guess. Can i ask the gurus a few questions:
1. Can i check does a film slr show u the exposure results in the viewfinder? I.e. if my shutter is too slow, it will cause the film to overexpose, so can i see this effect in the vf or i have to develop the film first?

2. This is kinda related to the first question, which iso would be good for a total newbie, i will be shooting landscapes and in daylight mainly. Will try night soon.

3. I send the film for processing, can i ask for digital copies? If so they scan my photos or the neg? Since me not guru yet, so think i be doing post-effects w/ PS for the time being
(i could have posed this ques to the developer, but since im asking, dun mind tell me also )

4. Is EOS 66 a good start for me?

5. I know my EF lens can only be used on a full frame dslr (right?) but can i borrow my frens' EF-S lens for my film slr?

Apologise if my ques sound silly :embrass: . But am seriously thinking to go along this line, esp for my trips abroad, will tote along my S2 IS to exp the important shots. And i feel i should give myself more flexibility so budgeting some money on film and processing too. :bigeyes:

Guess after my calculation and reading, feel that end of the day would be more cost effective to use the 500-600 i would save from a dslr to use on films + processing + experimenting oh oh how much have u guys spent on films + processing? Just genrally

Thanks for your time :lovegrin:

 

[Caspere]

There are some important questions here and it's sad to see the digital brigade giving some misleading info.

1. Film prints = crappy (most likely)-- This has no basis in fact, how crappy prints are depends on (a) the photographer and (b) the lab.

Actually, negative films have much better lattitude than digital that the chance of getting a usable print is much higher. And the newbie does not have to worry about white balance, USM, layers, etc-- just leave it all to the lab.

The person posting the question is total newbie in film and is going on a trip abroad. For all practical reasons, film IS definitely BETTER. However, in this instance the individual here need time to learn what most regular film users like you and me already know; that is to understand and made good use of film. Before that happens, the only responsible thing would be to encourage the individual to use what he/she already uses. “Crappy” in this instance refers to the potentially lousy pictures (by the photographer using his/her experience in digital on film).

2. Shooting film = $15-18 per roll ($4.50 per roll + $9-$13 process and print)

Actually, film is a lot cheaper (you can get as low as $2 from those $1 shops) but of course pro film can be expensive (up to $11 per roll for Velvia 100). It's never made sense to me to print all my exposures, esp. if I know I didn't get every exposure corect.

Digital shooters don't print every shot they take, so why should film users? But in any case, the user incurs print cost whether he gives the lab a digital file or film to print, so the figures quoted above for process + print are misleading.

Seriously, how many newbie film shooters will actually ask for processing of film first (paying $5- $7 per roll of neg). Then go home to look at the index or worst at the negs itself to decide to print the best images? Is the above comment reasonable? Like what the individual says, generally. Generally film shooters just sends the rolls for printing, sometimes with or without CD.

Again, seriously, no real film user (nor would I) would recommend cheap $1 no-brand film from anywhere. Starting with fresh good film is essential to have good experience with film. Differences already exists between batches of same brand film, be it commercial or professional. One should not introduce questionable film and expect anything better than that of what those questionable labs can produce.

3. $500-600 not worth saving.

This depends on how many rolls the user shoots. If you shoot 1 roll a month with total cost of (say) $6.50 per roll ($2 for film + $4.50 for processing), $500-600 can last you more than 6 years. And the user can avoid the cost of post-processing, archiving onto CD/DVD, etc.

Again, generally. Generally, film shooters on trips do not skimp on film because they are the cheapest part of the trip. Shoot & shoot. A single trip alone with 5 rolls of film? Plus the regular 1 roll a month on babies and family stuff. $600 is not a lot.

4. Cost of film shooting

The real cost of film shooting occurs when you ask the lab to scan. They charge like $10 per roll, totally crazy. If you can live without scanning every exposure, than film is for you. If not, you should buy a scanner, a cheap flatbed can cost less than $100 and is adequate for routine scans.

How much is our time worth? I thought about archiving my negs; I started on a roll to realize the effort involved. I stopped. Dust removal, feeding the negs, preview, dust removal, preview, scan, sharpen, auto levels, etc. Mix the process and make a guess how much effort it is for a non regular/experienced person doing the scanning. The scanner may be cheap, your time is not. Furthermore, unless one thinks its fun, it is not a way to spend a beautiful day doing such tedious tasks.

5. Actually, you should be using your S2 IS for the less important shots, and use film for the more important shots. Almost any ISO 100 film has more megapixel equivalent than any digital compact P&S, plus the film has better dynamic range, exposure latitude and archival qualities than digital.

I am a film worshipper. No kidding. They are sacred to me. I use to shoot many rolls in a year. Film sheets for LF, 120 and 220 for 6x9, and 645s. Name it I used it. Rolled my own 35mm film, process, print. I did it for B&W, color negatives, color positives. I process Tech-pan, develop E-6, print Cibachromes. It is a religion to me. But for the non-converts, I must warn them of the effort involved to do a good job. If they are newbies, we should suggest an easier alternative. It is the only reasonable thing to do.

Film is shoot and forget, whereas digital is shoot and immediately check the shot you just took. In the last century, everyone used film and had a great time. If you can overcome your desire for instant feedback and trust your film camera, then film is a good choice, esp. if you are not a heavy shooter.

Correct. But with the knowledge that the individual is a newbie and planning on saving money, is it responsible or even reasonable to encourage the use of film at this early stage of photo discovery?

Wai Leong
===

Caspere

 

[Caspere]

Thinking about what can actually help; say… specifically how to use the film in the most convenient of methods to achieve generally good results; like

1. “color negative in this instance, buy asa200 and shoot at asa100, or buy asa400 and shoot at asa200, buy asa800 shoot at asa400.” This makes use of the latitude that was mentioned.
2. “Avoid slides at this early stage of your film experience.” Avoid the problem of requiring super accurate exposures; again latitude.
3. “Use f8 for aperture, let the camera decide the shutter” Reduces focusing inaccuracies, especially common among newbies with SLRs.
4. “Use an external flash for night-time shoots with people as the subject” Reduces problems with underexposure, again common among newbies.
5. “If shooting scenes and monuments at night time under special artificial lights, brace your camera on something sturdy and shoot without flash.” Again, reduces problems with underexposure, again common among newbies.

Any more suggestions, people?

 

[waileong]

The point is not to mislead the newbie at this stage. Remember that most newbies (or even not so newbies) only know about Fuji Superia or Koadak Max, they have never heard of Reala or Provia, and really, they don't need to. Superia or Max are damn cheap, and you can get them even cheaper at the $1 shops.

As for printing every shot, I beg to differ. After people realise how much it costs to print 4R of everything, they start to be selective. Even if they don't have a lightbox and can't judge the exposure of a negative, at least they will skimp on printing of pictures where the subject blinked, etc. I know I did, even many years ago, before I became serious about photog. It's just economics.

I can't comment how much a user will shoot on a trip, obviously it depends on the nature of the trip and how keen the user is on photog. I just wanted to point out that $500-600 goes a long way, and the cost of digital is not just in the body, but also in the time of post-processing, noise reduction, PS-ing, etc. which one does not have to incur with film unless one chooses to.

On scanning, I agree, which is why I do what was done in the last century-- I just file my negs. I lived happily without scanning then, I can live happily without scanning now. If there is a pix I must share with friends on the web, I can get it scanned, but I am certainly not going to scan every neg or pay someone to do it-- it's just too expensive for what it does (those 16base scans don't even capture half the resolution available in my Velvia, for instance).

Your last point (is it reasonable to encourage them to use film at this stage?) sounds very depressing. There's nothing wrong with film, as you know, people used it last century and they got along perfectly fine. Put a roll of Kodak MAX 400 into a Nikon F55 and what do you get? A very powerful but easy to use picture taking machine! What's the difficulty in encouraging people to use that setup? He doesn't have to worry about white balance, USM, noise ninja, etc. All his worries go to the lab. All he needs to do is find a quality lab. What could be better than that for a newbie?

SLRs reached the apex of their development long ago. In fact, any film SLR made since the 80s is capable of taking perfectly exposed pictures 90% of the time in Auto mode. For the remaining 10% (like backlighting situations), I don't see how digital will help, unless a newbie is willing to learn exposure compensation or selective metering, which are also available in SLR's. Thus to say that using film leads to crappy prints for a newbie is misleading to me.

In fact, any SLR made since the 80's, when coupled with today's high quality consumer films like Fuji Superia or Kodak Gold, has more resolution and higher quality than most DSLR's today. The film resolution is equivalent to at least 10 MP, and has better dynamic range and exposure lattitude, plus there's no worries about chromatic aberrations or digital artifacts. And you can do wide angle much more cheaper with a SLR as there's no crop factor.

As I'll explain in the next post, if your concern is cost and you do not need to scan every shot, film is a good way to go.

Wai Leong
==

Seriously, how many newbie film shooters will actually ask for processing of film first (paying $5- $7 per roll of neg). Then go home to look at the index or worst at the negs itself to decide to print the best images? Is the above comment reasonable? Like what the individual says, generally. Generally film shooters just sends the rolls for printing, sometimes with or without CD.

Again, seriously, no real film user (nor would I) would recommend cheap $1 no-brand film from anywhere. Starting with fresh good film is essential to have good experience with film. Differences already exists between batches of same brand film, be it commercial or professional. One should not introduce questionable film and expect anything better than that of what those questionable labs can produce.

Again, generally. Generally, film shooters on trips do not skimp on film because they are the cheapest part of the trip. Shoot & shoot. A single trip alone with 5 rolls of film? Plus the regular 1 roll a month on babies and family stuff. $600 is not a lot.

How much is our time worth? I thought about archiving my negs; I started on a roll to realize the effort involved. I stopped. Dust removal, feeding the negs, preview, dust removal, preview, scan, sharpen, auto levels, etc. Mix the process and make a guess how much effort it is for a non regular/experienced person doing the scanning. The scanner may be cheap, your time is not. Furthermore, unless one thinks its fun, it is not a way to spend a beautiful day doing such tedious tasks.

Caspere

 

[waileong]

On the cost of film photography

Film photography is so cheap these days that if it were not for the desire to share photos online or to view them on a computer screen, the choice of shooting film is a no-brainer if you are not a high volume shooter.

Think about it-- a secondhand budget body (like a Canon EOS 500) costs $100 or so; a semipro body (like a EOS 30) costs $300 or so. An equivalent secondhand digital body like the 350D or 20D costs at least $1,200 to $1,700. That's more than $1,000 savings with just the body alone (haven't even added the memory card, card reader, etc yet). I think you can do better than $500-600 savings, especially if you or your father already has a SLR at home from long ago (which means no need to pay a single cent for a SLR).

Film is cheap-- as I mentioned, you can get Kodak film for as low as $2 per roll at those $1 shops, average is around $3-4 per roll if you buy elsewhere in packs of 3 or 10. Processing is $4.50 per roll, and printing is 30 cents per piece (3R), of course how much you spend on prints depends on how many you choose to print-- and remember, digital also incurs costs for printing, even if you do it at home you got to pay for the printer and ink cartridges (and for the wasted prints).

The big cost of film comes with scanning-- as much as $10-15 per roll, in my view not worth it since they don't even capture half the detail of what your film has. So if you need digital files, you're better off with a DSLR because the scanning costs (either in $$ or in your own time) will kill you in the long run. As Caspere mentioned, scanning yourself is tedious (but not too bad if you have a good film scanner) and not a good use of time. However, if you can live with selective scanning, then film is a good way to shoot.

With film, you just shoot and let the lab handle everything after that-- no worries about PS-ing, noise ninja, USM, etc. It's actually a very liberating experience-- you can get on with life. So film is really good for those who (a) can live with not having instant feedback; (b) can live with not having jpgs for every frame; (c) do not shoot very high volumes; (d) can trust their camera to take good pictures (rather than checking histogram after every shot), and (e) would rather let the lab handle everything than to do photoshop.

 

[Caspere]

Reading at the posts again...Looks like we are both stretching at boths ends of based on our experience with both film and digital. The fact is, I can see where you are coming from and I agree with your logic. I do not doubt for a second that film will always be around, so I would never discourage film use for photo enthusiasts (spelling?).

However, I do dread the idea we give to newbies that film is better because they are "higher" resolution and have better lattitude, and that film is cheaper so its better, and that they will get better results without putting actual time into learning it. This idea runs counter to every film user's experience. Actually it sounds like a digital camera commercial!

The individual did say he has a digital compact, so there are no additional requirement/cost of learning an film SLR. He can see the results of his images immediately after his shoots. Chooses to keep and delete his unwanted images. Brings back and prints those he wanted to be printed. I just don't see how using film now can be cheaper (and with much less effort)than what he is already doing.

I like you. You have not called me names yet.... Guess we can agree to disagree. Upzz for the thread.

 

[granni]

Thanks thanks so much for the info and kind replies. Guess i posted in the right place

Ya when come to film im total newbie, exclude my 4 mths of shooting when i was a kid, then again i took out the 24exp from pocket cam and have a peek... and the rest u know lar. Tt's when i learn the meaning of the word "exposed"

Ok back to the topic, i appreciate the advise. Since im gog to start my degree soon, i fig i be shooting alot lesser. Actually i did call a fren of mine if i can borrow his film cam, his advise is before doing so, just treat my current S2 as a film lor, as training, before borrowing from him. After hearing his is a EOS 1v or something like tt ($1500??) hehe i think i look elsewhere. Dun wanna spoil his baby . His advise is shoot digital cheaper lar @ the end of the day, like what you guys mentioned. Thats y i posted here to ask about pricing and stuff.

For the trip yes, sorry should have specified that i will of course get to speed with using film before i actually go. Even then, i will still bring my digi as never know whats gonna happen.

Guess the initial cost of a DSLR is justifiable after all :bsmilie:

Really appreciate the advise of everyone

Ok we talk again. When Im back from the trip will post the pics, film and/or digi. A photo is a photo after all

 

[fWord]

Actually this thread is turning out to be of significant interest to me because, although I've always shot digital, actually bought an old film camera recently, and I'm interested to venture into shooting film.

I've been reading that some of these Fuji and Konica films are available for as little as $2 a roll. Where can I go (specifically) to pick up film at this price? I think the initial phase of shooting will be pretty much hit and miss, so I'll need a source of cheap film, just in case. Although I very much hope that my camera and I won't botch things up too much. The camera itself is capable, and hopefully, I have half a mind to know how to shoot photos and focus manually. :sweatsm:

Where are the cheaper places I can go to and get processing done? Cheap is not always good though, but reliability is of course important. I stay in Kovan and there might be a store in Heartland Mall, but I've never checked prices there before.

 

[raptor84]

Actually this thread is turning out to be of significant interest to me because, although I've always shot digital, actually bought an old film camera recently, and I'm interested to venture into shooting film.

I've been reading that some of these Fuji and Konica films are available for as little as $2 a roll. Where can I go (specifically) to pick up film at this price? I think the initial phase of shooting will be pretty much hit and miss, so I'll need a source of cheap film, just in case. Although I very much hope that my camera and I won't botch things up too much. The camera itself is capable, and hopefully, I have half a mind to know how to shoot photos and focus manually. :sweatsm:

Where are the cheaper places I can go to and get processing done? Cheap is not always good though, but reliability is of course important. I stay in Kovan and there might be a store in Heartland Mall, but I've never checked prices there before.

I havent been able to find cheap film and the lowest i've gone is $2.8 for a roll of superia 200. If you have been with a digital you will find yourself slowing down alot more before pressing that shutter . As for development and scannig i have been going to kex in bedok even though i stay in punggol. Its $9 for developing and scanning in a roll and i think its very worth the service.

 

[fWord]

I havent been able to find cheap film and the lowest i've gone is $2.8 for a roll of superia 200. If you have been with a digital you will find yourself slowing down alot more before pressing that shutter . As for development and scannig i have been going to kex in bedok even though i stay in punggol. Its $9 for developing and scanning in a roll and i think its very worth the service.

Thanks. A film somewhere around ISO 200 is precisely what I'm going to try for initially. ISO 100 film will be fine, but I am just afraid that it'll be a tad slow for a person like me who usually doesn't shoot from a tripod. Where do you get your film for $2.80 a roll?

Heheh, speaking of Punggol, I stay in Kovan, so Bedok will also be fairly far away. I'll explore the one at Heartland Mall first to see what services they offer and how much they charge.

 

[raptor84]

I dont know if they still sell that at that price but it was at MS colour... Thier current prices for fuji 400 are $3.5 .. if you are a regular there might be able to get it lower...

 

[fWord]

I dont know if they still sell that at that price but it was at MS colour... Thier current prices for fuji 400 are $3.5 .. if you are a regular there might be able to get it lower...

I see. They sell the Fuji 400s at the nearby supermarket as well, but I don't remember them being as cheap as that. Looks like I'd be taking a trip to MS Colour again, and I didn't even think I'd be going back there.