Any harm in having film developed at a 1 hour place

There's no accounting for taste. I think they are perfectly exposed.
Kurt M.
 
dmr said:
I've found that the biggest issue with one hour photo places is consistency. It seems to vary from shop to shop, shift to shift, and person to person. Sometimes you get somebody who knows what he/she is doing, other times you get a total ditz, and often you get a competent button-pusher who knows very little outside of pushing buttons.
Click to expand...

I have 4 lab technicians (different shifts) working at my local Sams. I know them by name by now, surely they all can't be savvy, experienced photo developers, in fact, I chatted with them enough to know that only one is.

Yet, for almost the past year of two rolls per week average, I've never seen a negative that is mangled, scratched beyond repair, or messed up in general. And yes, the machine broke down once or twice, but that only means my film stays there overnight, not messed up afterwards.

And the results are consistent, for instance, when I developed two similar rolls, one at 200ASA, the other at 160ASA, I can tell the difference.

So either I'm extremely lucky to have access to the best minilab out there (super unlikely), or we probably ought to give them a bit more credit.
 
Drazin,

Maybe a Warming Filter...maybe...they look good to me...the exposure is well balanced for everything that's in there...what did you meter off of...
 
kshapero said:
And then what scanner do you use for the negs?
Click to expand...
I've been using a Minolta 5400 for the last several years, and have loved the results. I have used various film scanners with success before this one. There are all manner of film scanners, new and used, at various price points, that can do a good job. There's a bit of alchemy involved, between the hardware (not just the scanner, but the computer/monitor you lash it to), the software, and the experience brought to bear upon all of the above. All this may sound a bit daunting, but it shouldn't be.


- Barrett
 
i dont like how the sky is blown out in these:
877929494_2643c367ca.jpg


877060995_d5368710ec.jpg
 
drazin said:
i dont like how the sky is blown out in these:
Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but this is probably as good as you will get in a mini-lab scan.

I can see some detail in the clouds (on this monitor, at least) but the top of your gazebo is way blown out and the shadows under the bushes are buried in the mud. My hunch is that your negative shows at least some detail in both of them, but the one-size-fits-all auto-levels in their scanner clipped on both ends.
 
Most 1 hour photo stores use C41 rapid access process which is washless to save water and time. A professional lab will use the standard C41 process which includes two wash steps. In theory the standard C41 process will produce negs that will last longer.

Cary Chin
 
Last edited:
I've had prints from labs that looked like that-my own scan was much, much better. That said, when I get their scans, they look great too.

I doubt the negative is bad-can you get it scanned again, or have you tried to do any leveladjustments?
 
What do you want dev'd? B&W or colour? Colour is a no brainer. B&W is a different matter. You'd have to do some research. Why not approach different shops (Walmart, a high end pro shop, a local camera shop, etc). Hand them a roll of B&W and have them dev it for you. Prices will vary. Results will vary. Pick the one you feel most comfy about in the end.
 
I often use mini labs but do try to find one that you have confidence in. The main problem I have found is when using black and white dye based films that use the colour process (like Ilford XP-2 and the Kodak equivalent.) Many mini labs screw up the colour channels for these films resulting in sometimes horrrific colour casts in the printing. If you ask nicely and the lab is genuine in its customer service they will often reprint for you at no cost. A few will offer a service to print these films properly first time around maybe for a few bucks extra. One I found used to offer a service of printing such films on black and white paper which gave a true black and white result to the prints. But they charged extra and you often had to wait longer as they had to wait to the end of a print run to load the machine and do mine as a custom job.The other lesser problem is that because the lab machine sets the print exposure automatically with no human oversight I often found prints to be underexposed especially in the shadows. This was not a problem if I later scannned a print as I could correct in Photoshop.
 
Drainz-- great shots.. I think they are perfect.

As for developing at a 1hr place.. If you are doing color, I don't really see harm in getting them developed there. If you are doing xp2 or bw400cn. I'd say you're better of dev. yourself. Two rolls of 36exp xp2 cost me 23 bucks. I had to send them back so that they would fix the crappy scans they made. Waste of time and money.

I
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom