 |
 | 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 / May 2005faulty "punching" in film?
Hi! I'm wondering how rare it is to have the half-circular holes on the other edge of 35mm film (which mark the center of the frame I assume) misaligned? After now having seen three developed rolls which have had at least one frame longer or shorter than it should be. All the rest of the perforation (the one on both edges) and the printed marks are ok. In the first roll one frame was only 1mm shorter, in the second one was 8mm longer and in the third there was even one frame 14mm longer than it should. Now, you can guess how that looks after the lab has cut the negatives and printed the misaligned frames... The first roll was Fuji Superia 400 and the two other Agfa Vista 800. I'm just learning photography, so it's not that big deal to me (no good frames were trashed), and the lab is roughly the cheapest around (a pro lab would perhaps paid attention to the misalignment?) and I can't really blame them. So, the question is does this happen often, or have I just had bad luck? And is there a trend toward crappy amateur (market-quality) films (I'd expect pro films to be of higher quality in any aspect)? The difference in price doesn't seem to be that high, I wonder if it would be wise to move to what camera shops seem to call pro films. Needless to say, I won't touch Agfa Vista (regardless of sensitivity) for some time in case they've had a bad patch :) Hoping to hear your opinions and experiences, Esa  SignatureEsa Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi > Hi! > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Hoping to hear your opinions and experiences, > Esa Hello there, The holes (or notches) are punched at the lab after the film has been developed, so using more expensive film won't make any difference. Simon. > I'm just learning photography, so it's not that big deal to me (no good > frames were trashed), and the lab is roughly the cheapest around (a pro > lab would perhaps paid attention to the misalignment?) and I can't really > blame them. I would blame the lab most certainly, most pro-labs at least mine don't perf the film at all. > So, the question is does this happen often, or have I just had bad luck? > And is there a trend toward crappy amateur (market-quality) films (I'd > expect pro films to be of higher quality in any aspect)? The difference in > price doesn't seem to be that high, I wonder if it would be wise to move > to what camera shops seem to call pro films. It depends, but I certainly wouldn't continue going to a lab that does poor, inconsistent or otherwise fails to pay attention to detail. Not with the amount of competition for your business, that there is. Shop around. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> I'm just learning photography, so it's not that big deal to me (no good >> frames were trashed), and the lab is roughly the cheapest around (a pro [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would blame the lab most certainly, most pro-labs at least mine don't > perf the film at all. I somehow thought those notches would mark the frames, but that's because I have fully manual (well, excluding exposure meter) camera and thought there had to be something to mark the frames... So, there's more complex mechanics involved than I though. Well, now I know :) I wonder why do they perforate the film, then? >> So, the question is does this happen often, or have I just had bad luck? >> And is there a trend toward crappy amateur (market-quality) films (I'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with the amount of competition for your business, that there is. > Shop around. Yeah, if the issue is because of the lab, I'll have to visit one of the two shops here that do developing. Despite of my young age I almost got a stroke when I developed some film on the other one - they're awfully expensive... I'll check out the other one, their prices are more reasonable anyway. Thanks! Esa SignatureEsa Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi > I'm wondering how rare it is to have the half-circular holes on the other > edge of 35mm film (which mark the center of the frame I assume) misaligned? Those notches are cut by the photofinisher, not by the film manufacturer. > After now having seen three developed rolls which have had at least one > frame longer or shorter than it should be. All the rest of the > perforation (the one on both edges) and the printed marks are ok. Are you saying that your frames are unevenly spaced -- that is, that some of them overlap? If so, then that's a problem in your camera. If you get frames that actually overlap (as opposed to just slightly uneven spacing between frames), then I'd suggest you take the camera to a repair shop or (if it's new) exchange it for another sample. > I'm just learning photography, so it's not that big deal to me (no good > frames were trashed), and the lab is roughly the cheapest around (a pro > lab would perhaps paid attention to the misalignment?) and I can't really > blame them. The lab is definitely not at fault here. Arguably, they might have done a better job cutting their notches, and if they sliced any good frames mid-frame when cutting the negatives into strips, that's pretty awful. The basic problem of the overlapping frames, though, is in the camera. > So, the question is does this happen often, or have I just had bad luck? > And is there a trend toward crappy amateur (market-quality) films (I'd > expect pro films to be of higher quality in any aspect)? The difference in > price doesn't seem to be that high, I wonder if it would be wise to move > to what camera shops seem to call pro films. I've heard that some Konica films are thinner than average, and some motorized cameras end up tearing them as a result. I've not experienced this myself, though. Other than that, I'm unaware of any common films that are physically in any way substandard. That said, the experts can and do endlessly debate the merits of Film X vs. Film Y. I won't get into that; but I will say, in case you didn't know, that only five manufacturers make the vast majority of the color print film sold in the US (and I believe in most of Europe): Kodak, Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and Ferrania. The first two of these are sold mostly under their own names. The remaining three are sold mostly as store brands, at least in the US. You can tell which is which by noting where it was made: Konica is made in Japan, Agfa is made in Germany, and Ferrania is made in Italy. (Fuji is also made in Japan, and is occasionally rebadged, but most house-brand stuff that's made in Japan is made by Konica.) In Finland, you might also get some Eastern European film brands, but I'm not familiar with them (at least, not in color print form; I know a bit about Efke and Foma B&W films). > Needless to say, I won't touch Agfa Vista (regardless of sensitivity) for > some time in case they've had a bad patch :) Go ahead and buy more Agfa if you like; the film was *NOT* to blame for your problems. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >> I'm wondering how rare it is to have the half-circular holes on the other >> edge of 35mm film (which mark the center of the frame I assume) misaligned? > > Those notches are cut by the photofinisher, not by the film manufacturer. Ok, that was my misunderstanding. >> After now having seen three developed rolls which have had at least one >> frame longer or shorter than it should be. All the rest of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > between frames), then I'd suggest you take the camera to a repair shop or > (if it's new) exchange it for another sample. The problem frames are ones that I either grossly underexposed or had black background. Ah, now that I look at them again, the frames are neatly spaced, it's the notches that are out of place and I counted on them. The camera? It is from 1977 I think, so there could be something wrong with it, too, but I'd say that the blame seems to be on the lab after all... > The lab is definitely not at fault here. Arguably, they might have done a > better job cutting their notches, and if they sliced any good frames > mid-frame when cutting the negatives into strips, that's pretty awful. The > basic problem of the overlapping frames, though, is in the camera. If the frames were truly overlapping, you'd be right about the lab, of cource. I don't know how automatic their system is, it's a postal service and the biggest lab in Finland. I was lucky enough to order scanned pics also, and there are no problems with them (they scanned the film before cutting it). I'm really glad that they didn't cut the good frames in half, but I think I'll give them some feedback on their system... After all, when they get regular 35mm film, the frames are supposed to be of equal size, so why try to search for correct places for cutting... Those frames which have clear borders on the negatives were cut correctly, but they did manage to cut one church in evening lighting in two somehow... > I've heard that some Konica films are thinner than average, and some > motorized cameras end up tearing them as a result. I've not experienced > this myself, though. Other than that, I'm unaware of any common films that > are physically in any way substandard. That said, the experts can and do > endlessly debate the merits of Film X vs. Film Y. I won't get into that; I think experts of all trades can do that kind of debates :) > but I will say, in case you didn't know, that only five manufacturers make > the vast majority of the color print film sold in the US (and I believe in > most of Europe): Kodak, Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and Ferrania. The first two of I've never seen Ferrania films anyway, just the other four. > these are sold mostly under their own names. The remaining three are sold > mostly as store brands, at least in the US. You can tell which is which by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > film brands, but I'm not familiar with them (at least, not in color print > form; I know a bit about Efke and Foma B&W films). I haven't seen any Eastern European films, I think, but if I ever need to find them, I'll only have to cross the border (some 40 km) to get some Russian ones (will hardly happen ever whether they are good or not). Oddly enough I haven't seen any store brand film either, what they sell here in markets are all Kodak, Fuji, Konica or Agfa... The only brand I've never run into before seems to be Ilford, but they are sold under heading "pro films". > Go ahead and buy more Agfa if you like; the film was *NOT* to blame for > your problems. Yes, I see. That's a relief somehow, anyway. Thanks for all who replied! Live and learn, so it goes... Esa SignatureEsa Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi > The problem frames are ones that I either grossly underexposed or had > black background. Ah, now that I look at them again, the frames are neatly > spaced, it's the notches that are out of place and I counted on them. > The camera? It is from 1977 I think, so there could be something wrong > with it, too, but I'd say that the blame seems to be on the lab after > all... OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said about your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your description -- at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could be you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals user error rather than mechanical failure. > I don't know how automatic their system is, it's a postal service and the > biggest lab in Finland. In the US, a lot of mail-order outfits also seem to notch films. I don't believe I've ever seen this from one-hour labs or pro labs. > I was lucky enough to order scanned pics also, and > there are no problems with them (they scanned the film before cutting it). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > borders on the negatives were cut correctly, but they did manage to cut > one church in evening lighting in two somehow... Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off, or it can go out of whack because the photographer exposed half a roll of film, rewound it, loaded it again, advanced past the previous end point, and began shooting again. (There are perfectly valid reasons for doing this, but I suspect it's fairly rare.) In any event, a lab that finds the first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from that point is asking for trouble. Unfortunately, mis-cut negative strips are quite common, in my experience. Usually it's a matter of a millimeter or less cut from a frame. Sometimes it's more serious. Dark scenes are definitely tricky to cut right. You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers will return uncut negative strips, but many won't. As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess it has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At worst, you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said about > your camera having problems; it seems fine, judging by your description -- > at least, the film-advance mechanism sounds fine. If the frames you > mention were underexposed because of a meter error, of course, it could be > you've got a metering problem, but usually this sort of problem signals > user error rather than mechanical failure. User error, yes. Or well, the meter does work only until evening conditions, it's pretty useless when it starts to get dark. That's by design, though, and teaches my how to estimate correct exposure. > Unfortunately, frames aren't always evenly spaced. Camera problems (like > the one I initially thought your camera had) can throw the spacing off, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first frame and then blindly cuts the film at appropriate intervals from > that point is asking for trouble. In this case, they re-adjusted the cutting interval in the middle of the film although they shouldn't have done that. And more importantly, failed to adjust back after the somewhat black frames... I have a few times thought about the possibility of exposing only half of a roll and reloading it afterwards, but that does come with a increased probability of goofing it up somehow. > You might try asking to have your film returned uncut; then if you have > problems, you've nobody to blame but yourself. ;-) Some photofinishers > will return uncut negative strips, but many won't. Yes, I might... I know if I sent my films to be developed in Vyborg across the border, I'd get them uncut, but the quality of the prints reflects the low price :P > As to the notches themselves, don't worry about it. I really don't know > why some photofinishers cut them into the negatives, although I'd guess it > has to do with aligning the negatives for printing. In any event, they > aren't necessary for that purpose in any general sense, so misplaced > notches won't prevent you from getting reprints or enlargements. At worst, > you'll need to find a photofinisher that doesn't use the notches. So far, there hasn't really been any need for reprints, maybe after some practise :) Thanks, Esa SignatureEsa Non-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi Well Here is my 2-bits worth having worked in the photo bussiness since 1979 The Photo labs have a piece of equipment which scans the film and notches the film either in the center or towards one edge of each frame these notches are for the automatic printing equipment. These notches let the printer know where each frame is so that it knows when to stop and print each frame. These automatic printers can print up to 20,000 prints per hour. As for the Notcher most can handle frames even if they are not equally spaced. However even the best labs have equipment or operator problems which can cause the film to mis-notch. If the film has a lot of underexposed images such as fire works or other night photos negatives can become mis-notched as well. Hope this answers some of your questions. >> OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said >> about [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Thanks, > Esa >>> OK, if your frames are properly spaced, then I take back what I said >>> about [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Hope this answers some of your questions. Thanks, that was pretty much their excuse, too, but still a bad excuse for mis-notching the better exposed areas in half from the rest of the film ;) To compensate, they did some manual work trying to fix things (I think the reprints were somewhat better quality overall than their normal work) and reduced the price. I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a computer (bad composition or underexposure etc). I'd also expect learning to expose better if I see the results without all the automatical adjustments which are unavoidable with this mail order lab this thread is about. Esa SignatureNon-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi > I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film > scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with > better results hopefully), get prints for only those frames I feel > deserve it (not very many at this stage of learning) and additionally > get digital versions of those frames which I could easily fix using a > computer (bad composition or underexposure etc). This is a perfectly reasonable approach, but remember that it'll take you some time to scan a roll of film. If you set a dollar value to your time, it may be more than you'll save from getting prints only on the good frames and/or from not ordering digital scans from the lab. OTOH, if your scanner is halfway decent, you'll probably get better scans than the lab will give you, at least once you learn how to use the software to good effect. > I'd also expect learning to expose better if I see the results without > all the automatical adjustments which are unavoidable with this mail > order lab this thread is about. If you want to learn about exposure, I recommend you try shooting slide film. Slide film has narrower exposure latitude than print film, so exposure errors will be more obvious with slides. That can be a good learning tool, and can also be helpful if you want to check out your camera's exposure consistency. Since you've got a scanner, you can scan the slides and get prints made as easily as you would with negative film. Slide film's also got a different character, which you might or might not like. It's more expensive than negative film, at least if you don't order prints with your negative film processing. All in all, it's worth shooting at least a roll or two of slide film just as a learning experience. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >> I'm ok with that, but have already bought a film >> scanner from eBay so I can just develop the films in a local lab (with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > will give you, at least once you learn how to use the software to good > effect. This is a hobby, so my time is cheap :) I'm also used to things that take some time and would do something else while the scanner is doing its work. Besides money, I don't like the idea that the mail order lab ruins any good frames (from their response I'd guess they rely completely on the automatic machines, thus lower costs). Anyway, mere developing costs in the local lab(s) as much as developing and prints combined from the mail order place with their constant "special offers" (I don't know what scanning would cost locally, I'd guess a lot more). The quality is of course somewhat higher with the local one, and the prints are much more durable if I need them. So, I'm trying to aim for higher quality and have more influence with the results by doing some of the work by myself. The scanner is Minolta Dimage Elite II, a bit old but from what I've seen it should be clearly above average quality in its group, and I don't feel I'd need the extra dpi of the newer and more expensive scanners. > If you want to learn about exposure, I recommend you try shooting slide > film. Slide film has narrower exposure latitude than print film, so [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > prints with your negative film processing. All in all, it's worth shooting > at least a roll or two of slide film just as a learning experience. I think I'll try it some day, you're not exactly the first one to recommend it. I've read and heard a lot of good things about slide film. Besides, experimenting is fun :) Thanks for your input! Esa SignatureNon-spammers may reply to etikka at lut dot fi |
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.