I guess for those who are using DSLR camera this is not an issue, but for the film SLR users (like me) one major issue is actually the cost of developing the film, which at 36 exposures per roll is going to hurt the pocket some.
Actually, I have two questions with regards to the developing of negative and photos.
1. Where should I go to develop my film? I heard there is a difference, as some shops are more experienced and can do a better job. Or is there a difference? I mean, most shops are using that big machine to process negative (Sorry, I dun know what it is called ) in this everything-also-want-fast world, and I don't really think they wil spend time to actually adjust the settings to optimise the negative processing?
2. The matter I am more concerned with. Okay, after processing the negatives, should I develop the photos? Sounds like a dumb question, what's the use of photographing stuff if you don't develop them???
But a while back, when I was looking for a flatbed scanner, I happened to see one CannonScan LIDE 500F, which can scan negatives. I had used that scanner for the first batch of photos I took with my FM2. Is that advisable?
When I scanned the photos into my PC, the program kinda allows for enhancing, like brigthening some really dark shots to get the details. Is this considered 'cheating' . Of course I do keep a copy of the unedited shot, to remind myself of the 'mistake' but, heck, the enhance photo looked so much better
The thing is, even after I develop the shots, I will still want to scan them into digital copies, if I want to share them with my friends, or just use as my own PC wallpaper. I just skipped the develop the shots on photo paper and directly scanned the negatives..... and the cost savings! I processed 3 rolls of film and the total cost I spent, $12.00, as opposed to developing the photos, which costed like $0.20 - $0.40 a pop
Any comments? Is that advisable?