I’m wondering if I just got ripped off.
Why does it cost more to take negatives into a photo shop and get the whole roll re-printed into standard 4X6 shots, than it does to take an undeveloped roll in, get it developed, get 4X6 pictures AND get free doubles or a free roll of film?
In a phrase: Economies of scale.
If people brought already developed rolls of film in to have prints made frequently enough, it would be worth making machines to automate the process.
Imagine if the machine costs 10 grand, and it gets 50,000 rolls of film run through it in its lifetime, then the cost of processing related to paying for the machine should be about 20 cents. You could never find a human to duplicate the machines labor for that price.
Now, if the demand was such that the machine would only be used 1000 times, the cost related to the machine would be 10 bucks per use. If you had to pay a human $5. to do the same job, you’re better off not buying the machine.
Busy photo shops probably process hundreds of rolls of undeveloped film in a day. This creates a situation begging to be automated. But how many come back with the negatives. Not many, I’ll bet. So, if it is automated, you have to pay a larger share of the cost of the machine. Or if it isn’t automated, you have to pay a little more for a real human to do the job.
Is the short version of your post that developing and printing the original roll of film is automated, while making reprints is done by hand?
(admitted lack of color photgraphy follows)
I always assumed they just fed the negatives into the machine and churned out the prints the same as they had the first time.
What is the process for making reprints?
Well, I’m not sure, but when I’ve seen the machines run the originals were made with one long roll of film which is inserted into the machine then cut into strips that will fit into the envelope.
I guess the little strips won’t go into the machine as easily.
There’s another answer though, that didn’t come to mind before. Price elasticity.
It might cost more because people who need reprints are willing to pay more. And people who don’t need reprints wouldn’t buy them regardless of how cheap they are. In other words, why cut the price if cutting the price won’t increase your sales.
If I already have copies of my prints from the original developing that I don’t need, I wouldn’t buy more even if it was only 25 cents.
So if you charge 10 bucks to redo a roll you might do the job 100 times. If you charge 5 bucks for the same job, you might do it 105 times. That’s 1000 dollars versus 525 dollars. Why cut your throat?
Original developing is cheap because going from $5. to $4. might triple your business by getting customers from down the street. That’s worth it.
I have worked for Kodak installing and maintaining the printing machines. Here’s how it works: You take your roll in and, in a dark room it is spliced with a gazillion other rolls of film so that you have a loooong roll. This is developed by feeding it through baths of chemicals, then a dryer. Now you have a long batch of developed film (negatives). This goes into the printing machine which is, essentially, an automated enlarger. First each negative is notched at the edge to mark the position of the frame, then each negative is projected onto a roll of paper which advances for every new exposure. A tiny punch hole is made between prints to mark the border. This long roll of prints is developed in a similar fashion by going through baths and then a dryer.
The roll is scanned by a human (you would not believe how fast) for quality control. He has a table and the roll goes from one spool to another controlled by a pedal like an accelerator. He marks with a grease pencil any prints which are bad for any reason. He has a chance to have a quick look at those pictures of your naked girlfriend but he cannot keep them or make copies for the obvious reason that it would mess up the entire process.
Now the roll of prints and the roll of negatives are fed to the print and negative cutter. This machine cuts the prints and negatives in batches that go into the envelope you get back at the store and rejects any prints marked with the grease pencil. You can see the process is quite automated.
Now, when you order reprints there is much more labor involved. A smaller lab may have manual machines where each negative is fed to the printer by hand. A large lab will make a batch by using adhesive paper along one edge. This is considerably more time consuming, the machine has to be told what to print and what not to print, if you want differentr sizes they have to go in different batches, … everything is more complicated and labor intensive.
Sailor is right on time. He also answers why photos from large chain stores are cheaper than independent minilabs.
I’ve worked at smaller labs, and even there, the cost difference between develop/print orders is cheaper than reprints because of the automation process. In a minilab, the uncut roll of film is fed through the print machine pretty quickly. Once you set the film type, the machine reads the density of each frame and prints it. You can basically walk away and do other things while it runs a roll. Some may need to be redone, but printers are amazingly accurate now. Double prints don’t take much more time either at that point.
Reprints take alot more labor. Once the roll is cut, you have to take it out of the sleeve, find which frame to print, and print each neg individually. As sailor says, that is more labor intensive.
Strange, but black & White prints seem to cost more.