 |
 | 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 / August 2004Photo lab washed out images... what can I do?
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling in Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were mediocre but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same camera a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight were higher in HI. Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something different. Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second batch of film? Did the labs ruin the negatives or simply the prints and CD images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know I've learned my lesson about cheap labs. Thanks in advance. Mike I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners make a difference? > I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling in > Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were mediocre [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks in advance. > Mike >> I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling > in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something >> different. They were also shot under different conditions, so I wouldn't conclude it's necessarily the lab's fault, although it might be. I bet most 1-hour photofinishers aren't used to dealing with underwater photos; they'll likely have different color balance and whatnot than conventional land-based point-and-shoot photos, which could throw off their equipment. >> Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second >> batch of film? > > I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second > trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners > make a difference? In theory, airport security scanners should operate at low enough power that they won't damage film. If you put the film through the x-ray machine, though, and if it gave it too much of a jolt of x-rays, the film could end up fogged. This matches your description, so it MIGHT be what happened. It could also be problems with exposure or in processing. To find out, try examining your negatives. It's often hard to judge from a negative, particularly if you're not used to looking at them, but you may be able to discern something from them. For instance, look for detail that's washed out in the prints. If there's more detail in the negatives, it could be that the lab messed up. (Negatives can hold more detail than is usually printed, though, and trying to pull out detail at the extremes can have other negative consequences, like making film grain more noticeable.) You might also try comparing across rolls -- the roll you said came out OK on CD vs. the ones that didn't. That should give you a baseline for comparison. You might also try taking everything to a pro lab. Despite the name, most pro labs will happily help amateurs. Show them your prints and negatives and ask for advice. If nothing else, you can probably get a couple of sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want them to reprint or scan onto a CD.  SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking Thanks to everyone who responded. I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. The scanned images are just fine. > >> I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling > > in [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want > them to reprint or scan onto a CD. > Thanks to everyone who responded. > > I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS. > Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was > simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry. > The scanned images are just fine. If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. If you have a problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the fact when they pack them. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they can't or won't put it right. -- Dooey. >> Thanks to everyone who responded. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were using it that way isn't very productive. > If you have a > problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never > met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the > fact when they pack them. The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control, but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you. > Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button, > perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they > can't or won't put it right. I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints *AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's good at customer support. That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the prints. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean > both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. > IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to > developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's > obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were > using it that way isn't very productive. My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says this himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be corrected. > The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one > relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the > prints. Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he normally takes good underwater shots. I was simply trying to say that you shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in unusual circumstances. > Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he > normally takes good underwater shots. True, but underwater shots aren't exactly hard to spot -- at least, not by a human. After all, how often do you see fish floating in midair down the street? ;-) This is true whether or not a given customer frequently takes such pictures; whether or not they know that a customer takes such pictures doesn't make their ability or inability to handle them properly any better or worse. If such shots pass through the lab looking unacceptable, then that means that the lab's quality control isn't very good, or at the very least isn't prepared to deal with unusual subjects. > I was simply trying to say that you > shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in > unusual circumstances. I can certainly agree with that, although some mistakes are inexcusable, even on the first visit. Not having seen Mike's photos, I can't say whether his fall into this category or not, but probably not -- after all, his negatives are OK, so as you said in a bit that I snipped, the prints can be redone. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking The scanned images are http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/com.hp.HPGuestLogin?username=isvirtual&password=3 0940834 Your comments have all been helpful and revealing. The developing process went well. The printing process left a lot to be desired. The print of the first photo was monotone. I wanted to share these with the class so I had them developed while on vacation at a 24hr drugstore. It would be costly to return to the lab to have them reprinted at this point. I'm sure a local lab would do them over. Since I got the scanner, this is no longer an issue. Thanks again for the comments. I'm learning something new each day. Mike > > This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean > > both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in > unusual circumstances. > I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling in > Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were mediocre [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know I've > learned my lesson about cheap labs. You need to look at the negatives, C41 is the normal setup for most machines, so unless the machine isn't getting proper chemistry updates, or is out of temperature adjustment, the negatives should be OK. Every negative film manuyfacturer uses a slightly different emulsion, and slightly different orange mask on their negative films, the machines are setup to recognize the manufacturer and model of film being processed, this is so the machine can compensate for the density and colour of mask. If the machine didn't properly identify the film, it would be off. A good operator will see the first couple of prints, adjust the machine, and then reprint the few that were less satisfactory, most 1hr labs don't have the time to do this, and the teenager operating the machine doesn't care. Paul |
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.