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?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If this was my problem I'd be tempted to go the digital route for colour and stick with black and white for film. I love shooting film but I've also had similarly poor results from a so called pro lab. For colour shots I love my M8 as it allows the use of very good lenses and processing black and white at home successfully has been a fairly painless learning curve!
These people aren't doing much for film generally by the sounds of it and I'm sure there are a lot of other labs producing similar efforts and not really accepting responsibility for the poor results.
These people aren't doing much for film generally by the sounds of it and I'm sure there are a lot of other labs producing similar efforts and not really accepting responsibility for the poor results.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,
This is pretty much what I do. Unless I'm in a major city with good E6 labs (the last one was Peking 3 years ago) I process my own E6. C41 is ideally self-processed but for illustrative shots for publication where I can't use digital I have it done commercially and rely on Digital ICE.
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Hi Roger,
I was looking longingly at E-6 processing kits from Freestyle and B&H today ... targically they can only groundship with these and the only Australian seller I found on line was at least twice the price. C41 colour doesn't really excite me at all but colour chromes are really spectacular and I'd love to try my own developing in this area! I'm also not prepared to pay the only lab I know of anywhere near me that can do it $20.00 per roll just to give me the developed film.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I foresee the end of accessible film processing too.
Then I'll go digital for most photos, and go to very very expensive niche suppliers and processors every once in a while.
Many people dream of how to spend a large win on the lottery. For most that would be a large house, a supercar, and a world cruise. For me it would be a fully equipped film processing solution.
Then I'll go digital for most photos, and go to very very expensive niche suppliers and processors every once in a while.
Many people dream of how to spend a large win on the lottery. For most that would be a large house, a supercar, and a world cruise. For me it would be a fully equipped film processing solution.
Toby
On the alert
Sounds like their E6 chemistry was old - E6 needs a certain amount of films running through the machine to keep the chemistry fresh. Forget about that lab if they're not getting enough film in to replenish the machine.
I shoot digital for colour and film for black and white. There really is no advantage to shooting up to 6x4.5 film in colour compared to digital.
I shoot digital for colour and film for black and white. There really is no advantage to shooting up to 6x4.5 film in colour compared to digital.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear, dear: agreeing twice in a row (see also 'style'). For the first para, this raises the interesting possibility that colour film may disappear before mono.
For the second, not so sure. Tripod-mounted, drum-scanned 35mm tranny equates to 18-20 megapixels; drum-scanned MF to 30-75.
But flatbed scanners don't deliver drum quality (though dedicated 35mm scanners like the Konica/Minolta (edit added for clarity) tend to come a lot closer with 35 than flatbeds do with with 120) and besides, effective megapixel equivalents with hand-held 35mm can be as low as 6 megapixels.
Of course these figures are guesses (or if you're being polite, estimates) but they're widely accepted guesses/estimates in both the photo industry and printing industry -- a friend used to be a lecturer in photomechanical reproduction at Brunel University, and a while back scrapped his drum scanner because no-one was willing to pay for the quality.
Cheers,
R
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
TJV
I have had similar problems where I live. The solution was a D700 and I am not looking back. I will still use film to exercise the old cameras that I love. If you want complete control from taking the image to processing and printing it, a completely digital work flow seems the way to go for , me anyway.
Bob
I have had similar problems where I live. The solution was a D700 and I am not looking back. I will still use film to exercise the old cameras that I love. If you want complete control from taking the image to processing and printing it, a completely digital work flow seems the way to go for , me anyway.
Bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Keith,
Check with Tetenal to see what they can do -- and reflect that even at high kit prices, it's still cheaper than the lab AND you're in control. A CPE-2 and you're well away.
Cheers,
R.
TJV
Well-known
It's hard for me to admit how disappointed I am with the state of things. Two years ago, or there abouts, I took out a big loan so I could take the plunge into the digital age. I sold my M3 and M6 (kept my M7) and got the first M8 I could get my hands on. I tried very hard to like the camera and get to know digital workflow but over eight months the M8 went to Germany four times without me and was completely replaced three times for massive faults - all the documented ones, it now seems. More than anything I started to worry about how much money I had tied into a product I didn't feel I could rely on like I did with film. I was shooting a lot back then, documentary mainly but also commercial jobs. It made me very nervous because the reason I went digi was to avoid what is happening now, to save money on processing, be self reliant and to make sure I was learning how to make the most of new photographic technology. Maybe to even reinvent my personal vision. In the end I got a refund on the M8 and reinvested back in film, bought back my original kit for a big loss and accepted my wallets fate. I haven't looked back, have had no regrets until recently
Now I think it's really time to consider re-diving into digi. Despite the now favorable reports of reliable M8's I'm not prepared to go there again. The D700 looks and feels great but that's a lot of money to sink into a complete new system considering I've got a complete Leica kit. So the only option is to wait, use the film that is filling my fridge, and see what I can use my Leica lenses on in the future.
I love film, editing on a light table, scanning and processing - if I'm doing B/W. I love the look of film, something that's important seeing as I've been working on several projects long term and want to keep the images consistent in "quality." This could perhaps be solved with working on my digi raw conversion skills. Even so, I fear, actually know, the time has come. Colour film is dead in New Zealand. It's being let to die by the people who's very own businesses depend on their ability to prove film still has a place, a quality and physical presence that digi does not.
It's all money, really. My Mac's USB ports are worn out, my hard drives are full, my film is purple and my camera's are not exactly run of the mill. Perhaps it's time to talk to the bank again. Anyway, Mastercard have upped my limit.
Now I think it's really time to consider re-diving into digi. Despite the now favorable reports of reliable M8's I'm not prepared to go there again. The D700 looks and feels great but that's a lot of money to sink into a complete new system considering I've got a complete Leica kit. So the only option is to wait, use the film that is filling my fridge, and see what I can use my Leica lenses on in the future.
I love film, editing on a light table, scanning and processing - if I'm doing B/W. I love the look of film, something that's important seeing as I've been working on several projects long term and want to keep the images consistent in "quality." This could perhaps be solved with working on my digi raw conversion skills. Even so, I fear, actually know, the time has come. Colour film is dead in New Zealand. It's being let to die by the people who's very own businesses depend on their ability to prove film still has a place, a quality and physical presence that digi does not.
It's all money, really. My Mac's USB ports are worn out, my hard drives are full, my film is purple and my camera's are not exactly run of the mill. Perhaps it's time to talk to the bank again. Anyway, Mastercard have upped my limit.
NickTrop
Veteran
If the local labs in your hometown aren't doing the job, why not just mail your stuff out to better labs?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
Because of a visceral fear of losing images in the mail; because of the cost of fully insured postage (including consequential loss); because of the time delays.
Cheers,
R.
charjohncarter
Veteran
It is tempting to go digital. I have three digital cameras, but I just can't warm to them. I use them so little that I have to read for an hour prior to their use. My lab has slowly lost their quality control over the last 10 years. They are the same people but I think they are stretching their chemicals.
usagisakana
Established
I find it odd, that for such a small city (on an international scale), that film processing is readily available and relatively cheap here in Perth, western australia. I can get E6 done for between $8-$11 AUD, and the results have been excellent. Hence I got Keith to order me some slide film from freestyle to try out in 35mm, as my only previous foray into E6 was with 120.
feenej
Well-known
I'm lucky; I live not too far away from a lab that does a great job, and they really care. This pretty woman even remembers my name. One Hour Photo in Mequon, Wisconsin. I'm gonna drop seven rolls of Reala off there today. It's about an hour's ride,one way, on my bicycle.
Attachments
Last edited:
pfoto
Well-known
Reading this thread is depressing, and I only use B&W! Personally I think I'd be like others above, if I needed color I would buy a D700 (or the future equivalent) and Zeiss glass. Right now I don't forsee using color at all, and if I wait long enough maybe Nikon will make a digital RF body that works properly and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
sanmich
Veteran
The mail + good lab is a much more reliable workflow than a local but untrusty lab.
Now, you are sure that your slides won't get lost in the mail (and they won't) but you have good odds to see them ruined by processing??
I send all my K64 to Dwayne (overseas mind you) and never had a problem...
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I've shot very little color since begining to do my own black and white. Even my rookie black and white negatives are better than the lab's color work.
I'm still nursing an old canon 300D, but I see a FF digital SLR in the not too distant future. I'll still shoot black and white in my rangefinders and pinhole cameras, but color will go to digital.
I'm still nursing an old canon 300D, but I see a FF digital SLR in the not too distant future. I'll still shoot black and white in my rangefinders and pinhole cameras, but color will go to digital.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes, but it'd only take one film to scare me off a local, untrustworthy lab. And that wouldn't be an irreplaceable roll!
Cheers,
R.
TJV
Well-known
As Roger has said, it's pretty much just introducing at least one other person who could potentially throw a spanner in the works.
Actually, I think I will now post my work out to a bigger center. It's just not convenient, time efficient or conducive to good communication. Nothing will ever compare to talking to someone face to face. That's how I've always learnt.
As far as going digital again is concerned, my choices may be dictated by economy and good, practical logic. I'm loathed to think my Leica lenses will never be used on a digital camera but I'm also wary that unlike the other boys, Leica don't have a service center this side of the world. That's my biggest concern but a topic for another thread altogether.