 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / June 2004Kodak "Perfect Touch" processing -- VERY poor results!
I just had 3 rolls of film shot on 200 ASA Fuji film processed at CVS. They were shot on a Samsung Evoca 140 Neo, which has a very good Schneider-Kreuznach Varioplan lens, and generally takes excellent photos. I have had these developed at CVS in the past with good results. This time the sales person sold me on Kodak "Perfect Touch" processing, which she told me was "better" and also cheaper that week due to a special promotion. Without thinking much about it, I chose the Perfect Touch option. Got the photos back yesterday and they are TERRIBLE. They're grainy (remember: 200 ASA film), the color balance is out of whack, contrast is funky, etc. I immediately saw them and said, "these have been digitally scanned, and badly digitally processed". If I wanted digital pics, I would have used my digital camera!! Upon researching what "Perfect Touch" is, I see I was correct in my assessment. Kodak should be ashamed in my opnion. Some of us shoot film because we like film. I am going to take the negatives back to CVS and ask them to print proper prints. I don't expect to be charged for this. Anyone else have a similar experience? John P.S. We developed a roll my 3-year old son took with a DISPOSABLE camera -- these were APS photos and were not processed with "Perfect Touch". The quality of these prints, believe it or not, was substantially BETTER than the ones printed using "Perfect Touch". By digitally scanning, and laser exposing the paper, you can get much better results. Any recent mini-lab does printing this way. But, ragardless of what equipment is used, a poorly trained operator, or in many cases, the lack of a human operator can make a mess from virtually anything. I bet that if you took your film to a pro lab instead of a drug store you would be amazed at how much nicer the pics can look. Jon >By digitally scanning, and laser exposing the paper, you can get much better >results. Any recent mini-lab does printing this way. But, ragardless of what >equipment is used, a poorly trained operator, or in many cases, the lack of a >human operator can make a mess from virtually anything. > I bet that if you took your film to a pro lab instead of a drug store you >would be amazed at how much nicer the pics can look. For some reason, 'more contrast is good'. At least in .nl, Kodak has been using this approach for years, and it creates absolutely horrible prints from my negatives. Some services that print digital files are also somewhat contrasty, but with digital it is relatively easy to compensate.  SignatureThe Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency Thanks. I have used very good pro labs here in Philadelphia (Photo Cine Shop is particularly good), and continue to do so at times. Actually, the last few rolls I had processed at CVS prior to the "Perfect Touch" experience were surprisingly good. So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed they still did things more or less the traditional way. John > By digitally scanning, and laser exposing the paper, you can get much better > results. Any recent mini-lab does printing this way. But, ragardless of what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jon "John Salmon" asked: "... So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed they still did things more or less the traditional way ..." It probably varies for each lab ... ask the one you use. My guess is (1) A good pro lab would be offering both ... however the real "high end" professional labs do *not* concentrate on the C-41 (print film) market. The professional marketplace is highly biased towards transparency film (E-6, Kodachrome, etcetera); (2) A good pro lab would probably be using a somewhat better scanner than the one(s) used by the consumer-level Kodak "Perfect Touch" and Fuji "Frontier" systems. Probably something like a Nikon Coolscan (4,000 dpi/spi), or maybe even a drum scanner (up to 15,000 spi ... or even higher); (3) A good pro lab would probably have an experienced, and quite *professional* operator running the scanner and imaging station ... a real person that really knows what he/she's doing ... not a computer-driven, automated, programmed controller; (3) A good pro lab would probably have a high-end photo printer, such as the Fujix Pictography or Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet ... in addition to the more common Epson InkJet printers such as the Stylus 2200, Stylus 4000, and other (wider) models. > Thanks. I have used very good pro labs here in Philadelphia (Photo > Cine Shop is particularly good), and continue to do so at times. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John > "John Salmon" asked: > "... So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed > they still did things more or less the traditional way ..." > > It probably varies for each lab ... ask the one you use. My guess is Most pro labs I deal with are in the transition stage. Still offering wet process films and optical printing, but moving towards scanning and digital printing with plans to stop offering optical printing in the next few years. Optical printing is too labour intensive... video analyzing of the negatives, test prints, spotting and not to mention the balancing and matching of the analyzers and all the optical printers. > (1) A good pro lab would be offering both ... however the real "high end" > professional > labs do *not* concentrate on the C-41 (print film) market. The professional > marketplace is > highly biased towards transparency film (E-6, Kodachrome, etcetera); With the exception of commercial labs, most pro labs (wedding, portrait) are centered around negative film. I know quite a few commercial labs that don't even process film at all anymore. They are only concerned with output whether it's from a file or a neg/trans. > (2) A good pro lab would probably be using a somewhat better scanner than the > one(s) used [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (up to > 15,000 spi ... or even higher); I've only seen drum scanners in the commercial labs, most pro labs are using the high end Kodak scanners (HR500) and some smaller labs are using the Nikons and other high end consumer scanners. > (3) A good pro lab would probably have an experienced, and quite > *professional* operator > running the scanner and imaging station ... a real person that really knows > what he/she's > doing ... not a computer-driven, automated, programmed controller; With the labs in a transition stage, most of the scanner and workstation operators are the old optical department people. They may not be really computer savy (that's what the IT people are for) but having worked with the optical analyzers and printers, they know color. This is by far the pro labs' biggest advantage over the 1 hour lab. > (3) A good pro lab would probably have a high-end photo printer, such as the > Fujix > Pictography or Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet ... in addition to the more common > Epson InkJet > printers such as the Stylus 2200, Stylus 4000, and other (wider) models. I haven't seen a Pictro style printer in any pro lab... but the common output devices are the CS Lightjet (laser), Durst Lambda (laser)/Epsilon (led)/Zeta (laser), Kodak RP50 (led)/RP30 (laser), Polliotronics Laserlab (laser) and ZBE Chromira (led). Many of the pro labs are also using some amateur equipment from Gretag (netprinter), Noritsu (31pro) and Fuji (frontier). Most pro labs also offer wide format inkjet using Encad, HP, Epson, Colorspan, Mimaki, but the inkjet is more common in the commercial labs where large format display output is the heart of the business. A lot of the software and technology used in the modern pro lab is shared with the technology used in the "Perfect Touch" systems. The difference is that the pro lab technology is less automated allowing for a finer control of each individual image. In the Perfect Touch environment, the volume of images (and the price factor) requires less operator involvement and faster equipment. Price dictates everything. > > Thanks. I have used very good pro labs here in Philadelphia (Photo > > Cine Shop is particularly good), and continue to do so at times. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > John > > "John Salmon" asked: > > "... So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > analyzing of the negatives, test prints, spotting and not to mention the > balancing and matching of the analyzers and all the optical printers. But if thats not what peopel want to paythem for, they willsimply get replaced. This equally applies to their ability to get employees trained to understand digital of course. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ > P.S. We developed a roll my 3-year old son took with a DISPOSABLE > camera -- these were APS photos and were not processed with "Perfect > Touch". The quality of these prints, believe it or not, was > substantially BETTER than the ones printed using "Perfect Touch". Sorry to hear about this. I stopped using Perfect Touch (after one try) because instead of sleeving my negatives, they put some sticky gummy paper-tab on them. What does Perfect Touch mean to Kodak? It's explained at the webpage below. Seems to be much like a Fuji Frontier, but with more attention to eliminating redeye. kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/perfectPB2003.shtml Does the Fuji Frontier eliminate redeye? I dunno, being the owner of good flash equipment. John, have you ever tried a Frontier? Walmart and Longs Drugs have them. I'd be curious to see a comparison. Note the passage: "In fact, algorithms offer control over each pixel in an image, which is typically scanned at 4.5 million pixels, as well as 4,000 gradations of color and density." This essentially says that the "Perfect Touch" pictures are scanned at roughly 12 bit per pixel. 1200 dpi (at the film) ... for 35 mm that gives width = 1700 pixels height = 1133 pixels Most of the better "consumer grade" scanners can exceed that by a factor of two or better, and it's "nothing to write home about.". However, their three-color laser printer is actually capable of quite good results. For your typical 4" x 6" picture, that works out to something like 300 dpi. which should be OK for "general consumption." Any enlargement from that size, and things go downhill pretty fast. As for the Fuji Frontier, I know very little, except that the scanner provided with the system at my local Longs (two outlets) is a low-end Epson. When my scanner was off-line, I had them scan a couple of pictures for me. What I got back was a TIFF file, scanned at 300 dpi at final size (in this case 8" x 10"). The Fuji Pictography printer ... which I'm **assuming** is the basis of the print-engine side of the Frontier ... is usually set up to print 400 dpi at final size. However ... keep in mind that both of these systems are primarily aimed at servicing the market consisting of the "snap-shooter" ... who is a couple of notches below even an "amateur photographer" ... and well below the level of anyone who would be posting here. > > P.S. We developed a roll my 3-year old son took with a DISPOSABLE > > camera -- these were APS photos and were not processed with "Perfect [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > good flash equipment. John, have you ever tried a Frontier? Walmart > and Longs Drugs have them. I'd be curious to see a comparison. Greetings RSD99, If you want the full details on Perfect Touch, Try visiting the following URL as it should give you somne help. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/perfectPB200 3.shtml Talk to you soon, Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "> Note the passage: > "In fact, algorithms offer control over each pixel in an image, which is typically scanned > at 4.5 million pixels, as well as 4,000 gradations of color and density." [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > be OK for "general consumption." Any enlargement from that size, and things go downhill > pretty fast. Thanks for the URL ... I've already read that page. > Greetings RSD99, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ron Baird > Eastman Kodak Company Greetings John, I am surprised that your results were not what you expected. I sure would like to help you get to the bottom of the reason for the poor results. I hope you returned the prints and let the CVS store know about your disappointment. They should return them for reprinting. If you like John, I can have your results reviewed and reprinted here. Truth is that Perfect Touch processing is a great way to get 'better' results for the same issues note. Try visiting the following URL for details on how this process works. http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/perfectPB200 3.shtml If you want me to review your film for you, just let me know and we can have that arranged. Talk to you soon. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company "> I just had 3 rolls of film shot on 200 ASA Fuji film processed at CVS. > They were shot on a Samsung Evoca 140 Neo, which has a very good > Schneider-Kreuznach Varioplan lens, and generally takes excellent [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > assessment. Kodak should be ashamed in my opnion. Some of us shoot > film because we like film. "John Salmon" <usenet@sugarinthegourd.com> wrote in part: > Got the photos back yesterday and they are TERRIBLE. They're grainy > (remember: 200 ASA film), the color balance is out of whack, contrast > is funky, etc. I immediately saw them and said, "these have been > digitally scanned, and badly digitally processed". If I wanted digital > pics, I would have used my digital camera!! I had the opposite experience. I've been using Ofoto recently. They just switched to Perfect Touch. There were some shots in my last order of my son and his prom date in bright sun. The prints managed to hold the shadows and highlights. I was very pleased with the overall results. I only have two complaints: 1. Ofoto has apparently not yet turned on the red-eye elimination feature. 2. They scan at 1024x1536 which is great for 4x6 prints but not sufficient for enlargements. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.