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.

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

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.

"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.)

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.

"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

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!

"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

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 ...

"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