If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
Hello,
This is probably a question with a fairly obvious answer, but I was hoping to hear other people's experiences as well. I usually take my negative film to be developed at store A, and then scan the negatives. However, recently I've needed to drop off snapshots at a 1- hour lab, store B, a couple times to get prints for my friends. The prints come out looking fresh and vivid, but when I go to scan the negatives, all the colors are washed out and faded. I have to really crank up the saturation to get the scanned colors looking relatively like they do when developed by store A, but of course doing that destroys the smooth tones, increases noise, etc. I guess this is just a ground rule? It doesn't make any difference requesting development only vs. development + prints, right? I assume the different labs are just using different ratios/qualities of developing chemicals? Any insight as to the science behind why the negatives come washed out from store B, I'd be much obliged to know. Thank you. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
In article .com,
HeroOfSpielburg wrote: This is probably a question with a fairly obvious answer, but I was hoping to hear other people's experiences as well. I usually take my negative film to be developed at store A, and then scan the negatives. However, recently I've needed to drop off snapshots at a 1- hour lab, store B, a couple times to get prints for my friends. The prints come out looking fresh and vivid, but when I go to scan the negatives, all the colors are washed out and faded. I have to really crank up the saturation to get the scanned colors looking relatively like they do when developed by store A, but of course doing that destroys the smooth tones, increases noise, etc. The first thing to check is Dmin and Dmax. Compare the the fully exposed and the unexposed areas on both films and see if there are obvious differences. If you can lock the exposure of your scanner or if you can scan two film strips of different films at the same time, to can try to scan as slides and compare highlights and shadow areas. In my experience, the difference between different films is always bigger than the variations in developement. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
On Jun 13, 12:52 am, HeroOfSpielburg wrote:
Hello, This is probably a question with a fairly obvious answer, but I was hoping to hear other people's experiences as well. I usually take my negative film to be developed at store A, and then scan the negatives. However, recently I've needed to drop off snapshots at a 1- hour lab, store B, a couple times to get prints for my friends. The prints come out looking fresh and vivid, but when I go to scan the negatives, all the colors are washed out and faded. I have to really crank up the saturation to get the scanned colors looking relatively like they do when developed by store A, but of course doing that destroys the smooth tones, increases noise, etc. I guess this is just a ground rule? It doesn't make any difference requesting development only vs. development + prints, right? I assume the different labs are just using different ratios/qualities of developing chemicals? Any insight as to the science behind why the negatives come washed out from store B, I'd be much obliged to know. Thank you. Checking the max and min on densinty is fine and good. If you have the right gear. But some times the simplest answer is the lab A uses fresh chemistry, runs their process a bit tighter than lab B. Lab B may use a higher contract paper than A. Employees at either lab also make the difference. You didn't tell us if the film was the same type. This to makes a difference on how and what your negs and prints will look like. So with as many varibles that are there, I would suggest having your film developed at lab A and printed at lab B. Or you could shoot two rolls of the same film and take one to Lab A and the other to lab B. Making sure you noted exposures and other information on the way you shot the film to help you make the choice between labs. Good luck and keep shooting. Draco Getting even isn't good enough. Doing better does. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message oups.com... Hello, This is probably a question with a fairly obvious answer, but I was hoping to hear other people's experiences as well. I usually take my negative film to be developed at store A, and then scan the negatives. However, recently I've needed to drop off snapshots at a 1- hour lab, store B, a couple times to get prints for my friends. The prints come out looking fresh and vivid, but when I go to scan the negatives, all the colors are washed out and faded. I have to really crank up the saturation to get the scanned colors looking relatively like they do when developed by store A, but of course doing that destroys the smooth tones, increases noise, etc. I guess this is just a ground rule? It doesn't make any difference requesting development only vs. development + prints, right? I assume the different labs are just using different ratios/qualities of developing chemicals? Any insight as to the science behind why the negatives come washed out from store B, I'd be much obliged to know. Thank you. Automating processing machines ("Minilabs") have been around for many years (mine was made in 1982 and is still running just fine). The chemicals used are automatically replenished based on the square footage of film or prints processed. It is difficult for the machine operator to change the replenishment rate on a whim. The chemicals, whether they are manufactured by Kodak, Fuji, or any other, should have the same characteristics with regard to the film or print processing.. Usually the differnece between one chemical compared to another is things like it's keeping characteristics, replenishment rate, biohazards. As for your questions in your second paragraph, there should be no difference between dev only vs d&p; and the chemicals should provide similar results. Were these two different types of film? The film type is usually the biggest influence on the "look" of the negative. (There are different photo printing papers. If a certain negative were printed on Kodak Portra paper, it would have a soft, nearly pastel color. If the _same_ neg were printed on Kodak Royal, it would be very color saturated.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
I'm sorry. When composing the post I meant to say that this was
strange because the film is exactly the same. I bought several 20- roll packages of Konica Minolta Centuria Super 400; I've been using that same brand for several years and always gone to lab A. I guess lab B may just not renew their chemicals as frequently as lab A. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote
several 20-roll packages of Konica Minolta Centuria Super 400... that same brand ... always gone to lab A. I guess lab B may just not renew their chemicals as frequently as lab A. Is this difference repeatable or was it a one-time event? If a one-time event it may be the rolls were exposed differently: meter set wrong/exposure comp dial engaged/DX fingers not making contact ... and the change from lab A to lab B was just coincidental. And it could have been a one-time glitch at lab B: blix in the developer, partially busted mini-lab ... My experience, from life in general, is that it takes 4 incidents before correlation can safely infer causality, sans other evidence. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
Yes, interestingly enough, this has happened to four rolls of film
over the span of three occasions. Oh well, you get what you pay for I suppose. Thanks to everyone who submitted thoughts on this, I'm much obliged! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote
Yes, interestingly enough, this has happened to four rolls of film over the span of three occasions. Now _that_ makes it interesting. Has it ever _not_ happened at lab B? Has the manager of Lab B been consulted? I have, until now, held that any ole' lab [that didn't scratch the negs] was acceptable for developing C22 film. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
Ken Hart wrote:
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message oups.com... Hello, This is probably a question with a fairly obvious answer, but I was hoping to hear other people's experiences as well. I usually take my negative film to be developed at store A, and then scan the negatives. However, recently I've needed to drop off snapshots at a 1- hour lab, store B, a couple times to get prints for my friends. The prints come out looking fresh and vivid, but when I go to scan the negatives, all the colors are washed out and faded. I have to really crank up the saturation to get the scanned colors looking relatively like they do when developed by store A, but of course doing that destroys the smooth tones, increases noise, etc. I guess this is just a ground rule? It doesn't make any difference requesting development only vs. development + prints, right? I assume the different labs are just using different ratios/qualities of developing chemicals? Any insight as to the science behind why the negatives come washed out from store B, I'd be much obliged to know. Thank you. Automating processing machines ("Minilabs") have been around for many years (mine was made in 1982 and is still running just fine). The chemicals used are automatically replenished based on the square footage of film or prints processed. It is difficult for the machine operator to change the replenishment rate on a whim. The chemicals, whether they are manufactured by Kodak, Fuji, or any other, should have the same characteristics with regard to the film or print processing.. Usually the differnece between one chemical compared to another is things like it's keeping characteristics, replenishment rate, biohazards. OTOH, it does matter whether the operator gives a **** or not, and whether or not he does the required maintenance. They don't require a lot, but if you let it go to hell over time ... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Different labs make for differently developed negatives
"HeroOfSpielburg" wrote in message oups.com... Hello, This is probably a question with a fairly obvious answer, but I was hoping to hear other people's experiences as well. I usually take my negative film to be developed at store A, and then scan the negatives. However, recently I've needed to drop off snapshots at a 1- hour lab, store B, a couple times to get prints for my friends. The prints come out looking fresh and vivid, but when I go to scan the negatives, all the colors are washed out and faded. I have to really crank up the saturation to get the scanned colors looking relatively like they do when developed by store A, but of course doing that destroys the smooth tones, increases noise, etc. I guess this is just a ground rule? It doesn't make any difference requesting development only vs. development + prints, right? I assume the different labs are just using different ratios/qualities of developing chemicals? Any insight as to the science behind why the negatives come washed out from store B, I'd be much obliged to know. Thank you. It's been my experience that most labs get them into the ball-park, regardless of anything. But if I see Kodak or a yellow truck , or Quallex take them away, I know I screwed up. Bob Hickey |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to make negatives. | [email protected] | Film & Labs | 4 | July 13th 06 08:38 PM |
Shoot Digital, Make Negatives | Joseph Kewfi | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | May 10th 06 02:30 AM |
Seeking old EOS Mount dSLR for Differently Abled Person w/ Tiny Budget | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | February 27th 06 03:00 AM |
Simple algorithm for combining differently exposed images? | 223rem | Digital Photography | 2 | November 16th 05 03:26 PM |
Making 35mm negatives from 16mm or 110 colour negatives | [email protected] | General Photography Techniques | 3 | March 1st 05 06:43 PM |