Wolf Camera--how bad can it be?

[DrTebi]

Hello,

I am fairly new to film, so please bare with me...

Usually I have a local lab develop my film, and I scan it in at home on a Canon Canoscan FS4000US. I get quite good results this way, I mostly used my Yashica Electro 35 GSN.

Well, this weekend I shot my first roll on a Hasselblad Xpan. For the first roll of a camera, I always take the same "test" shots around a park. But since I needed the pictures back quickly this time, I decided to do the "1-hour" processing at Wolf/Ritz Camera.

So I just got it back--the scans, what they call "hi-res scans" are horrible to say the least. Most pictures are around 5 MB, which already tells a lot about how "hi-res" the image can possibly be.

But when I started scanning the first frames myself, I noticed that they also looked quite strange. They don't look as "fresh" and saturated as the ones developed by the local lab. Dark colors disappear, even details seem to be obscured. A lot worse than any of the other films I got back from the local lab (however, shot with different cameras).

So now my question:
Can the developing of the film really make that big of a difference, or is there something about the camera, my setting, or the film? I heard before that at these mainstream development places chemicals are not refreshed often enough, and operators don't know what they are doing... but to what extend can it get messed up?

Thanks... a bit disappointed over here...
DrTebi

 

[DNG]

Send your film to Blue-Moon in Portland OR. or another "Real Film Lab" with knowledgeable people working there.

I tried a few local 1 hour labs, and all of them had under 20 year-olds that had no idea of film handling or chemical maintenance.
It's just not worth the trouble.

Living in SF Calif, you should be able to find a real lab in driving distance.

High Res at 5mp LOL
I scan my film at 6000dpi (optical), and my files are 100mp for TIF and 40mp for JPG, with a 35mm dedicated scanner. Plustek 7300

 

[chris00nj]

Some say dip and dunk processing is better because of lower drying temperatures and no rollers to give scratches.

I think it depends on the competency of the operator and with a good operator, a minilab machine could be just as good. Usually Wolf and Ritz have more competent staff, but it could vary by location.

Much of the quality difference between labs is in the prints. The local pro lab usually does the best job in adjusting exposures but they may not be always perfect.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I think Chris is 100% correct. It depends on how competent the operator is. Most of the places in my city do all their "one hour" using Fuji minilabs. Many of the places give mediocre results, only one of them does a decent job, even though they all use similar machines.

 

[DrTebi]

Thanks for the info so far. They are using a Fuji Frontier 670 I believe.

Fortunately I do have a local pro lab just around the corner, but as I said, I needed the film developed very quickly, and I guess now I am paying for it...

 

[alfredian]

Ask them "how fresh" the chemicals are

Ask them "how fresh" the chemicals are

I deal with the Ritz outlet 2 blocks down the pke (about ten miles from Ritz corporate HQ). The staff there are good, and told me the major variable (at their end) is "how fresh" is the batch of chemicals in the Machine. If it's a critical batch of film, I'll inquire and maybe come back later. The negative is the critical thing - so I'm more careful about that. They will reprint or re-scan stuff if you don't like it - not bad, post-Millennium.