Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / June 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cheap lab processing

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Todd - 15 May 2004 19:08 GMT
I recently used Clark Color, Snapfish, Mystic (all part of the District
Photo monopoly) for some digi prints. The quality was surprisingly good. I
have to wonder what type of printing they do as examining the prints through
an 8x loupe I can see visible horizontal lines in the prints. Other prints
from Shutterfly and Ofoto appear to be normal wet lab prints with no visible
lines.

Could District Photo be printing these with inkjets? I would think that
would cost a fortune if so. If not, where are these lines coming form?

Todd
jakman - 18 May 2004 17:46 GMT
I had a great experiance with Kellards.com especially with
enlargments. they are well priced and use only Kodak Royal Paper so it
gives you more of a saturated and heavy feel.

Give them a try and let me know what you think.
Jim Nason - 20 Jun 2004 03:59 GMT
> I recently used Clark Color, Snapfish, Mystic (all part of the District
> Photo monopoly) for some digi prints. The quality was surprisingly good. I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Todd

No commercial processor is using inkjets...  I do at home and they are
slow, but my Epson 1280 creates wonderful prints with no lines...  
Clark  Color always did crap processing... you get what you pay for...
there is a reason I spend 16.00 bucks to process a roll of 36... I get
excellent pictures, properly exposed no matter what subject ot lighting
I throw at them... the guy running the machine understands photography,
negative density and is pretty darn good at deriviing the intent of the
photographer.

20 years ago when I worked in a photo store, a customer bought a Canon
AE1 from me.  We gave a free roll of Fujicolor and processing with the
camera sale.  He shot the roll and was happy.  From that point on he
bought a mix of Kodak and Fuji film from me.. but had it processed
elsewhere.  A couple of months later, he came in complaining the camera
was malfunctioning.  His pictures were blurry and washed out.   I
remembered his first roll   Great photos? No.  But they were clear and
sharp.  I suspected processing was the issue,  He brought in some
examples.  The paper was that horrible textured stuff of the 70's
(INMHO developed to hide the imperfections of the cheap 110 cartridge
cameras).  After a couple of weeks, I finally convinced him to send a
roll though our lab.  He was suprised at the results,  Sharp and
properly exposed.  Turns out he is was sending the film to Clark for at
that time 1.49 a roll... we cost 5.99. .  He became a faithful
customer.. and even took some decent photos.

Mystic when it was based in Connectiut was a great photo processor..
not the most expensive but not the cheapest.  I used them for years.  
Some my best stuff came out of their labs.   Something went ary.  I
don't know what, but the quality drifted off, I had to send stuff back
for reprinting. I stopped using them. Eventually, I learned the got
swallowed up by the house of mediocrity.. Clark Color.  A sad story.

Jim
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.