TJV
Well-known
Well, I've had a lot of "bad luck" lately. It's all got me thinking about the merit of continuing to shoot film is an age where people are hired if they are intelligent enough to push a button rather than know certain process' and / or technique. A little back story is probably in order.
There are two "pro" labs in my city. One does 35mm and 120 roller transport E6 processing, bog standard digi printing using a standard Noritsu machine, and LED printing (250dpi max res.) The other does dip and dunk E6 of all formats and Lambda printing.
The first lab in renowned for scratching negs / trannies and rough handling. The LED prints are great for larger prints, the colour saturation is great and they're cheap, but the fine detail isn't there. Small prints and critical work don't look "correct," they look and feel, frankly, like digital prints.
The second lab have, in the past, done a great job with my E6 processing in all formats. 4x5 down to 35mm. But lately the staff have changed. I spent a massive amount of $$$ on processing the other day, all Astia chromes of different formats and different batches, and they ALL came out VERY cold with purple / magenta cast. Of course, the lab claims it's not their fault. I mean, what are you gonna do? What can I prove? The slides a so bad, with so little contrast and crazy colour, I'm at a loss as to how anyone could think they looked normal. On top of this, I had to get them to redo a simple 8x10" lambda print from a 120 scan FIVE TIMES before they got it right. First the print was obviously unsharp, with details slipping in and out of focus on the paper - which, having worked for years in a lab myself, was due to the paper not being flat as it passed over the laser / whatever a lambda uses to expose the paper. The next print was over sharpend with unsharp mask, with details having massive halos around them and objects looking like cardboard cut outs. The people over the counter didn't even know what sharpening was. In fact, when I mentioned that perhaps they had applied to much Unsharp mask they laughed and said that would blur the print... O.K.A.Y..... Three more reprints were needed due to funky colour and dirty roller marks on the print surface.
Anyway, not to bore you all with the rest of the sagas details, I got to wondering why I bother with film. I could get a D700, some Zeiss glass, or whatever, an Epson Ultrachrome printer and do it all in house. I love film but when I'm consistently let down by labs that I have to entrust my developing to, when they ruin the most important part of the process and their staff actually know less than most photographers that use their services, I have to ask - is my love for film really just a nostalgic, stubborn, clinging to the past and a tactile process?
Thoughts?
There are two "pro" labs in my city. One does 35mm and 120 roller transport E6 processing, bog standard digi printing using a standard Noritsu machine, and LED printing (250dpi max res.) The other does dip and dunk E6 of all formats and Lambda printing.
The first lab in renowned for scratching negs / trannies and rough handling. The LED prints are great for larger prints, the colour saturation is great and they're cheap, but the fine detail isn't there. Small prints and critical work don't look "correct," they look and feel, frankly, like digital prints.
The second lab have, in the past, done a great job with my E6 processing in all formats. 4x5 down to 35mm. But lately the staff have changed. I spent a massive amount of $$$ on processing the other day, all Astia chromes of different formats and different batches, and they ALL came out VERY cold with purple / magenta cast. Of course, the lab claims it's not their fault. I mean, what are you gonna do? What can I prove? The slides a so bad, with so little contrast and crazy colour, I'm at a loss as to how anyone could think they looked normal. On top of this, I had to get them to redo a simple 8x10" lambda print from a 120 scan FIVE TIMES before they got it right. First the print was obviously unsharp, with details slipping in and out of focus on the paper - which, having worked for years in a lab myself, was due to the paper not being flat as it passed over the laser / whatever a lambda uses to expose the paper. The next print was over sharpend with unsharp mask, with details having massive halos around them and objects looking like cardboard cut outs. The people over the counter didn't even know what sharpening was. In fact, when I mentioned that perhaps they had applied to much Unsharp mask they laughed and said that would blur the print... O.K.A.Y..... Three more reprints were needed due to funky colour and dirty roller marks on the print surface.
Anyway, not to bore you all with the rest of the sagas details, I got to wondering why I bother with film. I could get a D700, some Zeiss glass, or whatever, an Epson Ultrachrome printer and do it all in house. I love film but when I'm consistently let down by labs that I have to entrust my developing to, when they ruin the most important part of the process and their staff actually know less than most photographers that use their services, I have to ask - is my love for film really just a nostalgic, stubborn, clinging to the past and a tactile process?
Thoughts?
