I am not looking for a specific answer here, just opinions. On the one hand you have color photography, which is more expensive to develop than b&w at home, but cheaper to develop than b&w at a commercial lab. Let the debate begin. I will chime in from time to time.

-- Josh Randall (joshrandal@excite.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

How much do you value your time at? 24 exp colour 6"x4" prints cost me AUS $11.25 including film. To do the same in B&W but 5"x4" (4 to a 10x8 sheet) prints would cost about $10 as I roll my own film (about $14 if buying individual roll of film) To get the colour processed involves 2 trips to the shop to submit and retrieve them, the b&w's will take a whole night to process (assuming tray processing) So I'd say colour is cheaper than either B&W option. In reality though I don't enlarge any colour (their all family snapshots, travel pics,etc) where in B&W I'll do a proof sheet ($4.50 incl film) and then enlarge a few images, each one might cost $2 to $10 in materials to get right and several hours before I'm happy... or I throw it in the bin and start on something else! Which explains the opinion part of this answer... cost doesn't really come into the equation, it's all about enjoyment and control over your pictures.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), January 03, 2000.

To paraphrase Clinton- It depends on how you define "practice". If you want to process holiday snapshots as cheaply as possible, you can't beat a commercial lab for a few rolls a year. On the other hand, if you shoot quite a lot of film, but print only a limited subset, home processing of B&W wins hands down. I recently did a contest photo that had to be color. When all was said and done, the one shot cost me about $40. I could have done the same thing in B&W for about $5-10, max. Normally, time spent on B&W would have been greater, but with all the driving around to mess with color, I don't think I saved any time by having a lab do the work. I could have done the color myself, but the cost would have been way out of line for the few color shots I do per year. I think you need a serious commitment to color to warrant doing it yourself.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), January 03, 2000.

My comparison is home developed B&W to lab developed color. For that, B&W wins hands down because, except maybe for family snapshots, I never want prints of every negative, only a few per roll; so the time factor is not overwhelming. But my main motivation for the home darkroom is control in cropping, dodging, etc.. Plus the enjoyment of doing it myself and, now, teaching my daughter how to do it.

-- Chris Werner (cbwerner@att.net), January 04, 2000.

Comparing color slides to B&W negative: Chromes are more expensive.
From a personal perspective: Yes, B&W costs less but requires more time. Is that time well-"spent"? For me it is, since:
1. I enjoy it, which is crucial since this is my hobby.
2. I have more control over the final product.
3. I prefer B&W to color- even if B&W costs were higher than color, I would still shoot B&W. The actual lower cost is gravy.

Why does B&W cost me less than chromes? I buy all my film in bulk (chrome film too); B&W film (I use Tri-X) is cheaper than chrome film (I use Provia). Developing one roll of 36 exp ASA 100 chrome film costs me $8 at a good local lab. The cost per roll for B&W film developed at home is about $1-2. Since I don't have a true darkroom yet, I get my B& W prints developed professionally, costing just a bit less than a professionally done Cibachrome or Ilfochrome print.

-- Asher (schachter@a1.tch.harvard.edu), January 04, 2000.

I buy Koday T400CN chromogenic film at about $3.50 to $4.00 per roll of 36. Since that is black and white film developed using the C-41 color process, I can have it developed as color film. My employee flim service will develop and print (3 inch prints) the roll for $5.40. So, my per 36 exposure roll cost is under $10.

There's a tradeoff. The prints are more monochrome than true black & white. They often have a tint resulting from incorrect channel settings on the print processor. As a result, I call these prints "proofs". Much cheaper than a contact sheet in a B&W lab. If I ever shoot a picture I like, I can then have the negative printed properly as B&W.

I'm testing a roll of Kodak Black & White Plus, which they call a "consumer" version of their B&W chromogenic film.

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), January 05, 2000.

I don4t believe that is reale matter is only cost and time. I think went you was doint a photograph some Scene is better in B&W and other is cool in color (slides Color of course). The photograph need to understand wath kind of feeling or thematic you realy want to comunicated and every case you need to have roll in color and roll in B&W.

-- Orlando J. Montalvo (orlando_31@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

I don4t believe that is reale matter is only cost and time. I think went you was doint a photograph some Scene is better in B&W and other is cool in color (slides Color of course). The photograph need to understand wath kind of feeling or thematic you realy want to comunicated and every case you need to have roll in color and roll in B&W. I think went some ask me the same questions,that Caartier Bresson anwser sometime "the life is in color. the really is in B&W" Thanks. And sorry for my bat Inglish.

-- orlando J. Montalvo (orlando_31@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Well, I shoot B&W negative film and color slide film. I develop both at home. I mostly scan negatives and slides, though I'll print more B&W in the darkroom than color on the inkjet. Ilfochromes are rare for me, but I've done a few. Processing-wise, color is more expensive. I get much more film out of a cheap PMK kit than I do out of an expensive E-6 kit. Color also takes a lot of ink in my inkjet. The cost of good inkjet prints and Ilfochromes doesn't compare to the cost of B&W printing (it's the cost of those darned ink cartridges!).

Now I don't have a color enlarger at the moment (hence the low number of Ilfochromes), and I'll spend a *lot* more time working on a B&W print in the darkroom than I will either scanning or printing scans. I expect that if I get a color enlarger the ammount of time will be higher for color, so it'll still be more expensive.

Despite all that, if cost was that much of a factor (or indeed time costs were) I'd get a point and shoot digital camera. It's pretty easy to spend a lot less money and time than I spend on B&W to get color pictures. I think it's the difference between taking pictures and making images.

Paul

-- Paul D. Robertson (proberts@clark.net), January 14, 2000.