Can a Jobo Make up for the Initial Cost of the Machine in the Long Run???

[audioexcels]

So lets say we put together a $1200 used kit that includes a modern CPP2 with serial number 22XXXXX along with two primary "expert" drums that cover 35mm-8X10. This $1200 is a lot as an initial investment. Say the person shooting the film does 1000 35mm-120/220 shots in a year, and 200 Large Format Shots in a year...just tossing out numbers. Could be much less, could be much more. Some questions for Jobo owners:

1) Can the initial price down be paid off over time??? If so, how long, say, a typical shooter that does zero commercial work, etc. will the Jobo be able to pay off the initial investment?

2) Do people consider having the Jobo and their personal control with the developing process invalueable to initial and long term costs of having the Jobo? In other words, do people not even consider or take into account the cost of the processor because they know they can get as-good-as OR even better results than sending it off to a lab?

3) Another one...having the processor means not having to wait for the film to be developed unless lazyiness and procrastination sets in. In other words, one can easily drop a roll of 120 into an envelope and put it into the mail, whereas the Jobo owner may feel lazy about getting the negs processed, etc.

4) Do people feel that due to many photoshops closing out film and processing places becoming more scarce, feel that having the Jobo ensures that there will be no worries when it comes to not having to consider what options still exist some 2-5 years from now, etc.

[Greg Lockrey]

Processing 1000 rolls per year at a lab would run about $8000.00. To do it your self would be under $2000.00 + $1200 for the machine, it's a no brainer.

[Nick_3536]

1) It's about control. You do what you want not what the lab decides is profitable.

2) It's about time. It's quicker for me to run a batch of film then to drive to the lab and drop it off. That's not including the trip back to pick it up.

But once you decide to do your own versus a lab the question then becomes all the darkroom choices and not just a Jobo.

If you're doing just B&W trays etc all work for much less money.

[Steve Kefford]

1) If you are trying to do a financial analysis of the cost, then this is a very personal thing as you will have to include the cost of your time, and your personal costs associated with the benefits/disadvanatages of the alternatives. So, only you can answer that question, nobody else.

2) I don't really understand this question. I did consider the cost of the processor, but I reckon on at least as good as results, but also consistent results.

3) The question is?

4) I do my own b&w processing, although I do send out most of my E6. I don't worry about not having a lab available in 2-5 years, as I reckon they will still be around. If this is not the case, I will reconsider then. If E6 film is still available, which it certainly will, then a method to process it will be available.

Steve

[audioexcels]

Question 3 simply asked if those felt dropping film in an envelope or having to run back and forth to a store was more of a PITA than just doing the job yourself.

Problem I have is Color 120/220 film is extremely expensive to develop. Well, 4X5 is, also, but I see quality 4X5 shots (color) as being much less expensive unless one is blowing a lot of shots and getting poor exposures on them. In other words, I'd rather have one amazing 4X5 shot in color than 36 Good, but not amazing photos of 120.

For color work, most would be done with 4X5, though I have to say, I cannot seem to get my mind off of not shooting 120 film. I just don't see the results in digital output with a DSLR that I do with medium format film unless I have $4K to spend on the Canon 5D w/lenses. In other words, one can pickup a cheap 6X6-6X9 kit and use a Jobo, even one costing $400-$500, and have a setup for right around 1K which is about the price of a decent DSLR (i.e 8-10MP) and lens. Problem is, can an 8-10MP DSLR that costs $1200, say, with a nicer lens on it produce the quality of prints that a medium format film cam can??? Two tests have already proven the Canon 5D or any other similar ballpark type camera system cannot keep up with 6X7 or 6X9. Others obviously disagree...back and forth digital vs. analog thing, though I really have only seen "very good" 5D images on the Web that look as nice as a "typical" shot from a Rollei/Mamiya/Fuji/etc.

Way off topic here, but so confused about the point of digital photography when having an equivalently priced DSLR vs. a Medium Format system w/Jobo OR even without Jobo, but say, with the Epson V700 instead...

Perhaps this is one for another thread.


Thanks for the answers so far!!!

[Joseph O'Neil]

I agree, it's about personal control and quality control first and foremost. Put it this way, say this was about digital not film, and you were asking is buying a $1,200 printer for your computer worth it as opposed to sending out for big prints to be done, and again, it boils down to personal control of the final output. In terms of time, work and money - what is that worth to you?

If you are worried about value of hardware, well look at it this way - any computer or digital camera you spend $1,200 on today is likely to be near worthless 5 years from now. Your Jobo will likely still have good value assuming it's clean and in good shape.

joe

[Marko]

Comparing digital to film price-wise, you can't just compare the price of the two cameras and lenses, you also need to take into account the price of film you would shoot over the period of time you decide to amortize the camera over because a digital camera already contains the "film".

Then you need to compare your darkroom gear to your computer gear, while keeping in mind that:

1. Computers:

a) have shorter useful lifespan than traditional darkroom stuff
b) demand very little space and virtually no special considerations save for electricity
c) are multi-purpose technology - most everybody already has one for every day life and business, so it is mostly the question of upgrading, not buying one specifically for image processing.
d) are improving markedly with every generation

2. Traditional darkroom:

a) and everything that goes in it demands rather large, dedicated, specially equipped space (running water, drainage, ventilation...)
b) is a single-purpose technology
c) is a mature, developed technology that has reached its zenith and is improving no more
d) availability of materials needed is shrinking and they are getting more expensive to obtain

Finally, you need to account for your time and skills. The time spent processing either film or digital files yourself is worth something, but only you can put a price on it. Your skillset will also play a role - do you already have required Photoshop skills? If not, the learning curve can be rather steep - are you willing to learn?

All being said, it all comes down to your volume and preferred type of shooting, your preference and skillset bias and your overall goals. The two technologies are not mutually exclusive, though. Nothing (except the price and preference) would prevent you from using DSLR for 35mm and some MF work and film for LF and the rest of MF.

[Marko]

If you are worried about value of hardware, well look at it this way - any computer or digital camera you spend $1,200 on today is likely to be near worthless 5 years from now. Your Jobo will likely still have good value assuming it's clean and in good shape.

This is not quite true.

Let's put aside the fact that the times when computers were doubling in capacity and speed are long gone because the technology is maturing and slowing down. Ditto for digital cameras.

Let's also forget the fact that a DSLR bought 5 years ago is still perfectly usable, provided it was not abused, of course, just like any other camera. Say a Canon 10D, a 6MP camera which was in this exact price range.

What really matters in this comparison is the following:

A digital camera replaces both your camera and your film.

If you shoot $1200 worth of film or more in 5 years, then your camera has paid for yourself.

Ditto for computers and processing: Assuming that you already have a computer for other purposes, as most people do, then it comes down to the price of the upgrade needed for image processing. If you spend at least that much on your film and print processing over those 5 years, then your computer (upgrade) has also just paid for yourself.

That's very simple economic calculation. If your considerations are more emotional then economic, then it becomes an entirely different matter - only you can say for sure if it is worthwhile or not. But you can say it only for yourself.

P.S.

As for Jobo, its value will be tied to the availability of film and chemicals 5 years from now. It may be in perfect shape, but if there are no film and chemicals, it will become worthless.

[SamReeves]

Labs are closing left and right at the moment. Getting a Jobo is no longer an option but more of a necessity if you want to stay in the film game.

[RDKirk]

Marko,


2. Traditional darkroom:

a) and everything that goes in it demands rather large, dedicated, specially equipped space (running water, drainage, ventilation...)
b) is a single-purpose technology
c) is a mature, developed technology that has reached its zenith and is improving no more
d) availability of materials needed is shrinking and they are getting more expensive to obtain

For a lot of people, add a scanner to that and then nearly everything you mentioned for digital processing.

Or add enlarging capability to the darkroom...and color enlarging capability at that (which has a learning curve at least as steep as Photoshop).

[Marko]

RDKirk,

Yes, you are right for hybrid processing, of course. I was simply comparing the costs of all traditional vs. all digital workflow. Once a meaningful comparison is established, it should be relatively easy to adjust for a hybrid one, with scanner being the only missing link.

[audioexcels]

RDKirk,

Yes, you are right for hybrid processing, of course. I was simply comparing the costs of all traditional vs. all digital workflow. Once a meaningful comparison is established, it should be relatively easy to adjust for a hybrid one, with scanner being the only missing link.

I should have been a bit clearer. I would never go all traditional with 120-4X5 film. I would scan and photoshop everything at these sizes and do contact and/or scanning of larger sized film. Then inkjet the prints...

Thanks again for everyone's opinions.

[Steve Kefford]

Labs are closing left and right at the moment. Getting a Jobo is no longer an option but more of a necessity if you want to stay in the film game.

Whilst that might be the case, taking a simplistic overall view achieves nothing, other than panic. I don't know about the US, but my take of it in the UK is that those labs doing mainly high street colour prints are doing less of this type of work - to be expected as this is where digital is having the greatest inroads into analog. However, when looking at E6 and B&W, especially at the "top" end of the market, this is not so much the case.

If film is made and bought, which it will do for a long long time to come, then labs will be available. Perhaps not as many, and in the same locations, but they will still be there.

Steve

[Joseph O'Neil]

Let's also forget the fact that a DSLR bought 5 years ago is still perfectly usable, provided it was not abused, of course, just like any other camera. Say a Canon 10D, a 6MP camera which was in this exact price range.

-snip-
That is exactly how it *should* work, and I wish it would work, but in the "real world" of "we only make money of new sales, not repairs" - well, have you ever tried to get anything digital - camera or computer - this is 4 to 5 years old serviced or repaired? Everything breaks down with time. I've been there. You know what happens when you try to get something that old repaired. Here's a brief sampling of what i've run into in the past:

- sorry, parts that are special order and will take 2-3 weeks to get in;
- we don't have anybody here who can fix that so we have to send it out of town, it will take 3-4 weeks;
- the missing cable is propirtary and will take 3 weeks to get from overseas, and it cost aobut 25% of the cost of a whole new printer/camera;
- the total repair bill of new parts and service will be roughly 70% of the cost of a new unit, and with no warranty, why not just buy new?

...and so on, and so on, and so on. My dad likes to remind em that before we got rid of it, our 100 year old printing press was easier and quicker to fix.

I mean, I'm with you guys - I use a 4 year old digital camera myself, and have no need to replace it, but the minute anything goes wrong with it, I can tell you, the marketplace is geared to make money, and to do that is make sure you buy something new every five years.

That was the big problem with the film SLR market - most households had one, so the marketplace was saturated, few new sales. So out came the "point & shot" cameras with a million features. Re-invent the wheel, so to speak.

That sadly, IMO, is why with anything digital new "excuses" will come up constantly for upgrades. Personally I am happy to see people resisting this trend (aka - poor sales of Vista), but honestly, strickly from a business point of view, not a hobby point of view, anything digital has a limited life span.
:(

joe

[Marko]

Joe, you are right regarding repairs, but that's slightly beside the point I was trying to make:

The price of a digital camera should be compared against the price of film one would shoot for the given time period, not against the price of a film camera. For serious amateurs and professionals, such as most people on this board, the price of film and processing over a period of even a couple of years can positively dwarf the price of the camera itself.

If you calculate a 3- to 5- extended warranty of a repair-or-replace type into the overall price, you can all but eliminate the need for repairs and still come ahead.

Same could be said for prints w/processing compared to computers.

Bottom line: you will pay approximately X amount of dollars for Y amount of shots over Z number of years no matter what technology you use. It's mostly when and how do you pay it.

P.S. From a perspective of a mixed-OS user and someone who's used all versions of Windows since it was first introduced, I can tell you that Vista is the first version I will try to skip altogether. Not because of resistance toward the trend you talk about - I consider it natural and futile to resist - but because it is so cheesy as if it was made by marketers and not engineers.

To make it a bit more clear, it is not the technology usage and development patterns that need to be resisted, it is marketing pervasiveness and increasing obnoxiousness. I am not a trout to be baited into using or buying something and if offends me greatly when I get treated as such. ;)

Just my $0.02

[sog1927]

$1200??????

I think you're spending too much for your CPP-2.
I snagged mine (with lift) for $399 on the auction site and have sunk maybe $100 more into tanks and reels (I haven't gotten an expert drum yet, obviously). Does this alter your cost/benefit analysis?

Steve

[Jim Galli]

A Jobo is like an air compressor. Once you have one you wonder how you ever lived without one before. The initial 1200 bucks was definitely a hit. That said, if it broke I wouldn't wait a day before I found another one to replace the one I have. In my case it helped solve un-even development with pyro type developers which gave me a cake and eat it too scenario. I just bought a JOBO ATL to replace the CPA.

[audioexcels]

$1200??????

I think you're spending too much for your CPP-2.
I snagged mine (with lift) for $399 on the auction site and have sunk maybe $100 more into tanks and reels (I haven't gotten an expert drum yet, obviously). Does this alter your cost/benefit analysis?

Steve

That's super cheap. Was it a 22 based model (late model with new motor)??? The Expert drums are selling for $500-$600 for the pair used for 35mm-8X10 work.

If you got a "late production" CPP-2, you got a "steal" at $399. If you got an earlier model, it's still a fine price, but to see a late model go for this cheap is unheard of to me, at least. I prefer a late model just to feel safe about the new motor assembly in it. It's the next best thing to buying a new one.

This one had an extra lift (oh goody), but also an older serial number, with no expert drums and look what it ended at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Jobo-CPP-2-darkroom-color-processor-lift-EXTRA-exc_W0QQitemZ270171441056QQihZ017QQcategoryZ29993QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

This was the last one to go on Ebay. The last CPA-2 went for $565 and had "basic" drums included and an older serial number.

[audioexcels]

A Jobo is like an air compressor. Once you have one you wonder how you ever lived without one before. The initial 1200 bucks was definitely a hit. That said, if it broke I wouldn't wait a day before I found another one to replace the one I have. In my case it helped solve un-even development with pyro type developers which gave me a cake and eat it too scenario. I just bought a JOBO ATL to replace the CPA.

I noticed that. I was curious why you went with the ATL since it is an older model, though I know it will make life, or should make life easier on you.

Thanks a lot for the input. Makes me want to stick even with MF film or even a cheap 35mm Film camera and just shoot film. I know digital is nice, but being able to process the film is very convenient. Thinking of time again:

What is the real difference in time when processing even a roll of 35mm vs. loading in 36 RAW shots from a 10MP+ digital camera? Of course one must then scan the film which is kinda like loading in the digital files;), but in the end, is time really such a big deal?

Off-topic, yes, but seems like I have no choice but to use the Jobo. I think I may buy a less expensive CPA type and sell the nicer CPP2 so I can cut costs enough to warrant expenses for living:).

Thanks Jim and Others!!!

[Baxter Bradford]

The ATL makes life so much easier, load with film and chemicals and forget. It beeps when everything is done. The time this frees up is probably immeasurable in cost terms, but life enhancing nonetheless.

As has been noted, labs are closing down their E6 and C41 lines and selling their ATL at cheap prices. For B+W having your own machine enables use of the more exotic developers which labs are loath to use.

Expert drums are not essential to get great processing results from a Jobo and are greatly skewing your costings IMO.

[Scott Davis]

Baxter- if you're shooting anything larger than 4x5, Expert drums are virtually required. Bigger than 8x10? Absolutely required. And even though I can only do 5 sheets of 5x7 at a time in the 3010 drum, I know that every time I pull them out, they will be exactly what I was looking for. Having the Jobo, I can process as little or as much as I want, when I want. This is a tremendous time and effort savings, over having to depend on a lab. I can also easily adjust processing times/temperatures without having to pay special fees to a lab and waiting until the lab has a large enough batch to run my special requirements. And on top of it all, I still get that magic feeling every time I open the lid on the drum and pull out that sheet of film, and see the developed image. I don't get that when clicking the "download" button on my digicam driver.

[Don Hutton]

Baxter- if you're shooting anything larger than 4x5, Expert drums are virtually required. Bigger than 8x10? Absolutely required.
That's simply not correct. You can process 8x10 in a 2500 series paper drum - I actually prefer it for C41 because it leaves my negs flatter than the 3005 drum and I've never noticed any processing artifacts. You can process up to 16x20 sheet films in other 2500 series drums. Only 20x24 film would require a 3063 expert drum. In fact, in my experience, you're better off for ULF film with the paper drums if you do not own the long discontinued Jobo ULF sheet film holders. I used the 2500 tanks with the 2509N reels for a lot of 4x5 processing - never had any issues (although I now use a 3010 for 4x5 and a 3010 for B&W 8x10).

[Dave Jeffery]

I should have been a bit clearer. I would never go all traditional with 120-4X5 film. I would scan and photoshop everything at these sizes and do contact and/or scanning of larger sized film. Then inkjet the prints...

Thanks again for everyone's opinions.

Unless you pay others to do some of the work for you the equipment you will need will be: two sets of camera gear, a scanner with good software and wet mounting hardware, your film processing equipment, a good monitor, a good calibration hardware/ software product for you monitor and printer, Photoshop, and a good printer as well as framing equipment and a means to sell any prints you make.

I didn't understand all the equipment requirements that I would need when I jumped into large format photography but I'm still glad that I did. Each step of the process is an art IMHO.

Enjoy!

[Roy L Faverty]

Essentially yes to all of the questions, plus commercial photo processors never offered the control you can get with temperature controlled dip and dunk or rotary processing. One or two excellent images that sell well will make the jobo worth its price. I have used one since they first came out (the most basic model with a Jobo lift) and with precise testing the results exceeded what I could achieve otherwise, I live in acold climate and temperature control essential to what I expect.