 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / February 2008Another casualty on the digital highway
Polaroid to Close Last Remaining Film Plants. There were some things I wanted to try with Polaroid film, but never got around to doing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friday, February 08, 2008 CONCORD, Mass. (AP) -- The company that pioneered instant photography is getting out of the film business to focus on digital imaging. Polaroid says it will close its two remaining film manufacturing plants in Massachusetts. The facilities in Norwood and Waltham employed about 150 people and made large-format film for commercial use. Polaroid has already halted the production of instant cameras. Chief Operating Officer Tom Beaudoin told The Boston Globe the company will focus on digital photography equipment and flat-panel TVs. The Concord-based company will retain about 150 administrative workers in Massachusetts. In its heyday, Polaroid employed some 15,000 people in the state. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2001 as the advent of digital technology dampened demand for instant photography. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329985,00.html > Polaroid to Close Last Remaining Film Plants. There were some things I > wanted to try with Polaroid film, but never got around to doing. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- > In its heyday, Polaroid employed some 15,000 people in the state. The > company filed for bankruptcy in 2001 as the advent of digital > technology dampened demand for instant photography. ******************************************************************** Polaroid was Polaroids worst enemy, not digital photography. Their whole system was messed up from the start. They would develop a great process, improve it and then drop it. When they had the pack cameras (peel apart film) they came out with basically the same camera year after year. The first was the 100, then 200, the 360 introduced electronic flash. You would think they would have that on the 400 series but no, they came out with a flash cube flash. They went backwards. When the SX-70 came out they never really introduced any variations of it, but when they came out with the 600 series, the film would not work in the old SX-70's. So eventually those that had SX-70's were out of luck for film. Their history has shown a company that could never settle down with one format and stay with it. The whole idea with them was to get you to buy a new Polaroid every three years. People that wanted an instant film camera for sales or to document things soon found out they might as well use regular film cameras and go to a quick development lab. Fuji will probably make some instant films for the time being, but who knows for how long. Had Polaroid improved some of their better cameras like the 180 and 195, they might have been taken seriously. Eventually people like me that were supporters of the Polaroid system felt we were using toy cameras and lost interest in them. For some things, they were more conveinient than digital, but they are history now. Ric in Wisconsin. >> Polaroid to Close Last Remaining Film Plants. There were some things I >> wanted to try with Polaroid film, but never got around to doing. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > were more conveinient than digital, but they are history now. Ric in > Wisconsin. Now that Polaroid is out of it, maybe Kodak could bring back their Instant print film! IMHO, their instant phots were substantially better than Polaroid's: the color was better and they seemed to be a more rugged photo. > Now that Polaroid is out of it, maybe Kodak could bring back their Instant > print film! IMHO, their instant phots were substantially better than > Polaroid's: the color was better and they seemed to be a more rugged > photo. Imagine this: Cross a digital camera with a portable bubble jet printer and you've got the next generation of instant picture cameras. Any predictions on how long it will take? Contemplating, Dudley >>Now that Polaroid is out of it, maybe Kodak could bring back their Instant >>print film! IMHO, their instant phots were substantially better than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Contemplating, > Dudley Not very long. Polaroid and Zink are already marketing a portable printer, so all they need to do is stick it into a camera body and there it is. >Not very long. >Polaroid and Zink are already marketing a portable printer, so all they >need to do is stick it into a camera body and there it is. Yes, but can you make telephone calls with it? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>Not very long. >>Polaroid and Zink are already marketing a portable printer, so all they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- Sticking a telephone in there would be the easy part. >>Not very long. >>Polaroid and Zink are already marketing a portable printer, so all they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida No, but I'm sure there'll be MP3 playback... >>> Now that Polaroid is out of it, maybe Kodak could bring back their >>> Instant print film! IMHO, their instant phots were substantially [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Polaroid and Zink are already marketing a portable printer, so all they > need to do is stick it into a camera body and there it is. I recall that there was a combo camera-printer on the market, for a short time. It was rather big, of course. >>>> Now that Polaroid is out of it, maybe Kodak could bring back their >>>> Instant print film! IMHO, their instant phots were substantially better [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I recall that there was a combo camera-printer on the market, for a short > time. It was rather big, of course. I just want to know how they'd keep the paper in the paper tray... > Imagine this: > > Cross a digital camera with a portable bubble jet printer and you've got the > next generation of instant picture cameras. > > Any predictions on how long it will take? Why put the printer in the camera? A separate portable printer gives greater flexibility. > Why put the printer in the camera? A separate portable printer gives > greater flexibility. Marketing. Because instant gratification sells. Most camera owners don't see the difference, don't care about the difference and just want a snapshot to remember. Remember the Sony Betamax  SignaturePeter > Polaroid to Close Last Remaining Film Plants. There were some things I > wanted to try with Polaroid film, but never got around to doing. And the loss to the world is what? Polaroid was always good for accurately reproducing a few colors some of the time. The instant films were very dependent on temperature for development. And you'd be damned lucky to take two images just moments apart and have the same color balance in both prints. I used a lot of the peel-apart films in my studio days for passports and checking lighting/posing for special things...and used the SX-70 style film too. As long as you didn't care about color, they served a useful purpose. >> Polaroid to Close Last Remaining Film Plants. There were some things I >> wanted to try with Polaroid film, but never got around to doing. > > And the loss to the world is what? Whatever it was it wasn't enough to justify continuing the business. If you were making passport photos or taking snapshots at you grandkid's birthday parties I don't imagine it's anything at all. Other than to maybe entertain children for a moment or two with the magic of the emerging of a latent image. There are still people who use Polaroid film in the fine arts, but they're a minor minority within a minority. So my post was only to note the passing of a brief era in the history of photography. The world will little note nor long remember the passing.....or whatever it was that Abraham Lincoln said. If you are interested in a heartfelt utube wake for the passing you can go here: http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/006464.html > Polaroid to Close Last Remaining Film Plants. There were some things I > wanted to try with Polaroid film, but never got around to doing. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329985,00.html The news item I saw on this matter also said that Polaroid would seek to license another company to continue to make the films. That won't happen unless there is still enough market. > The news item I saw on this matter also said that Polaroid > would seek to license another company to continue to make > the films. That won't happen unless there is still enough > market. Fuji is happilly making instant film... In article <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaffa32@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Fuji is happilly making instant film... Does it suck as bad as their regular film? > In article > <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaffa32@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > >> Fuji is happilly making instant film... > > Does it suck as bad as their regular film? you've heard of Velvia? SignatureMichael > > In article > > <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaffa32@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > you've heard of Velvia? Don't you realise that Kodak v. Fuji is as serious a religious conflict as Canon v. Nikon in some small minds? >>> In article >>> <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaffa32@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Don't you realise that Kodak v. Fuji is as serious a religious conflict > as Canon v. Nikon in some small minds? In my Pentax film SLR I use both Fuji and Kodac films. Some times when I get artistic I buy old crappy out of date and condition film of any brand. When I bought a DSLR Pentax was the choice for me as I have lots of good cleen glass for the front of a Pentax body. Signaturehttp://cooze.co.nz home of the RecyclerMan aka Robert Cooze / __/ / / / / /__ / / ___/ / __/ / / / |/ / /__ / / / / /_/ / / /_/ / _-' / __/ / / / /_/ / / /| / _-' ___\ ____/ ____/ /___/ /____/ /_/ ___\ ____/ /_/ /_/ |_/ /___/ > In my Pentax film SLR I use both Fuji and Kodac films. Some times when I > get artistic I buy old crappy out of date and condition film of any > brand. When I bought a DSLR Pentax was the choice for me as I have lots > of good cleen glass for the front of a Pentax body. I wonder when they're going to bring out a DSLR to take my Praktica bayonet lenses. :-) >> In my Pentax film SLR I use both Fuji and Kodac films. Some times when I >> get artistic I buy old crappy out of date and condition film of any [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I wonder when they're going to bring out a DSLR to take my Praktica > bayonet lenses. :-) I'm waiting for one for my Pentax screw mounts from the '60s. :) SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net >>> In my Pentax film SLR I use both Fuji and Kodac films. Some times when I >>> get artistic I buy old crappy out of date and condition film of any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm waiting for one for my Pentax screw mounts from the '60s. :) Fortunately the collection of '60s and 70's Nikon lens I inherited from my father fit (after minor modification) the current line of Nikon DSLRs as well as the film cameras. This was one of the reasons I stayed with Nikon when I got my first DLSR. My Dad died just before digital cameras came in to being, but he would have been pleased to know that his lens could continue to be used in a digital age. <snip> > Fortunately the collection of '60s and 70's Nikon lens I inherited from my > father fit (after minor modification) the current line of Nikon DSLRs as > well as the film cameras. This was one of the reasons I stayed with Nikon > when I got my first DLSR. My Dad died just before digital cameras came in > to being, but he would have been pleased to know that his lens could > continue to be used in a digital age. I hope they are good lens. > <snip> >> Fortunately the collection of '60s and 70's Nikon lens I inherited from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I hope they are good lens. I'm pleased to be able to assure you that the quality of Nikon optics produced in the sixties and seventies was good. > > <snip> > >> Fortunately the collection of '60s and 70's Nikon lens I inherited from [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm pleased to be able to assure you that the quality of Nikon optics > produced in the sixties and seventies was good. That's good! I am one of many enjoy the quality of good lens, and I often suggest people to spend extra money on good lens. >> <snip> >>> Fortunately the collection of '60s and 70's Nikon lens I inherited from [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm pleased to be able to assure you that the quality of Nikon optics > produced in the sixties and seventies was good. They must have been. Paul Simon even wrote a song about Nikons and Kodachrome... "I've got my Nikon camera -- love to take a photograph..." >>> In my Pentax film SLR I use both Fuji and Kodac films. Some times when I >>> get artistic I buy old crappy out of date and condition film of any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm waiting for one for my Pentax screw mounts from the '60s. :) I'm waiting for a digital camera that uses the same films that my Canon FX's use, so that I can get the quality of film... > I'm waiting for one for my Pentax screw mounts from the '60s. :) Same here. My 1969 Spotmatic still works, but I want to use those old screw-mount lenses on my digital camera and have everything automatic. >> I'm waiting for one for my Pentax screw mounts from the '60s. :) > > Same here. My 1969 Spotmatic still works, but I want to use those old > screw-mount lenses on my digital camera and have everything automatic. As does my Spotmatic. Now, about that Mamiya C3 I still have... :) SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net In article <pan.2008.02.14.03.34.07.888755@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the Shark no.spam@box.invalid says... > > I wonder when they're going to bring out a DSLR to take my Praktica > > bayonet lenses. :-) > > I'm waiting for one for my Pentax screw mounts from the '60s. :) I thought you could get an adapter to use them as manual presets on some DSLRs. > In article <pan.2008.02.14.03.34.07.888755@thurston.blinkynet.net>, > Blinky the Shark [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I thought you could get an adapter to use them as manual presets on some > DSLRs. I wasn't aware of that. But mostly I was just reminiscing about the equipment of yore. And my. :) SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org Blinky: http://blinkynet.net >>In article <pan.2008.02.14.03.34.07.888755@thurston.blinkynet.net>, >>Blinky the Shark [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I wasn't aware of that. But mostly I was just reminiscing about the > equipment of yore. And my. :) It is possible to use M42 lenses on modern bayonet-mount (D)SLR cameras, the only wrinkle is that they must be a lens with a "manual" setting or preset aperture as the stop-down pin has nothing to push it in when the shutter goes off. Preset lenses are okay, as the stop-down ring does the same thing that it did on the old M42 SLR cameras. In article <47b4db89$0$20185$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme dj_nme@iinet.net.au says... > It is possible to use M42 lenses on modern bayonet-mount (D)SLR cameras, > the only wrinkle is that they must be a lens with a "manual" setting or > preset aperture as the stop-down pin has nothing to push it in when the > shutter goes off. Doesn't the adapter push the pin in when you screw in the lens? > In article <47b4db89$0$20185$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader- > 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Doesn't the adapter push the pin in when you screw in the lens? Not any comercially available ones that I've seen so far. Most of the M42 to bayonet adapters are pretty much a plain metal ring with the M42 thread machined all the way through, which is probably the cheapest way to do it. There are a few websites I've seen where some-one has hacked an adapter to push the stop-down pin in by glueing a ring onto the back of the adapter and this pushes the pin in as the lens is screwed into it. > Don't you realise that Kodak v. Fuji is as serious a religious conflict > as Canon v. Nikon in some small minds? After 40+ years of doing photography, I've tried 'em all. I've seen brands come and go. And I've never been able to get decent results from any Fuji film. If it ain't yellow, I don't wanna know about it. > > Does it suck as bad as their regular film? > > you've heard of Velvia? Yup...sux. If it ain't in a yellow box, I don't want to know about it. But, since I plan to never shoot film again, it really doesn't matter. > <adunc79...@mypacks.net> wrote: > > > Does it suck as bad as their regular film? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yup...sux. If it ain't in a yellow box, I don't want to know about it. > But, since I plan to never shoot film again, it really doesn't matter. ah, irrelevant then. just like your opinions. :-) > In article > <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaff...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > Fuji is happilly making instant film... > > Does it suck as bad as their regular film? dunno. I think suckage is what kodak users do. fuji ones just take photos. and they come out good. In article <b0f775a6-1e32-4132-9882-c4fd5dc5f5e3@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > dunno. I think suckage is what kodak users do. > fuji ones just take photos. and they come out good. I guess if you like green skin tones... > In article > <b0f775a6-1e32-4132-9882-c4fd5dc5f5e3@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I guess if you like green skin tones... Maybe your lab spent too much time with yellow boxes. > Maybe your lab spent too much time with yellow boxes. Or maybe Fuji film just sucked a.s. > > Maybe your lab spent too much time with yellow boxes. > > Or maybe Fuji film just sucked a.s. My nephew used expressions like that when he was in junior high school. >> > Maybe your lab spent too much time with yellow boxes. >> >> Or maybe Fuji film just sucked a.s. >> > My nephew used expressions like that when he was in junior high school. Anybody taking bets on who gives in first - the Kodak or the Fuji guy? > Anybody taking bets on who gives in first - the Kodak or the Fuji guy? Actually I use Ilford. :-) > Actually I use Ilford. :-) Never used their film...but I did try their B&W paper. I still preferred the yellow box. >>> > Maybe your lab spent too much time with yellow boxes. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Anybody taking bets on who gives in first - the Kodak or the Fuji guy? No need. I have no interest in reading that sort of crap. SignaturePeter > > Or maybe Fuji film just sucked a.s. > > > My nephew used expressions like that when he was in junior high school. I know "suck" when I see it. Fuji definitely sucks. > I know "suck" when I see it. Fuji definitely sucks. you wouldn't know a good film if it hit you between the eyes: 1- you used Kodacrap ages ago. 2- you haven't used film in decades. In article <336159eb-7c5c-4a0b-83e6-5258191ddd38@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > you wouldn't know a good film if it hit you between the eyes: > > 1- you used Kodacrap ages ago. > 2- you haven't used film in decades. Yeah...I only operated a portrait studio for many years. Dumb f.ck! > > you wouldn't know a good film if it hit you between the eyes: > > > 1- you used Kodacrap ages ago. > > 2- you haven't used film in decades. > > Yeah...I only operated a portrait studio for many years. Dumb f.ck! and you haven't done so fo many as well, by your own admission. Which makes you a nitwit when it comes to film and modern techniques to use it. Just like the Kodacrap you promote. In article <7ac5d9f5-efb2-4b7a-baa0-e8cfee9d7fd1@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > and you haven't done so fo many as well, > by your own admission. > Which makes you a nitwit when it comes > to film and modern techniques to use it. > Just like the Kodacrap you promote. Although I went digital, I'm still current on what's happening. Maybe it's my grasp of the amateur world that's lacking. > Although I went digital, I'm still current on what's happening. Maybe > it's my grasp of the amateur world that's lacking. I don't think so. It's your general lack of grasp of ALL matters to do with modern film that is lacking. Not just amateur. Almost all remaining film users, amateur or not, have converted to scanning and downstream digital workflow. Nowadays, virtually the only difference between digital and film is the sensor itself. Only some old folks insist on the old chestnuts of "dirty" grain and other such utter rubbish. Grain hasn't been an issue with modern filmscan workflow since about 2004. And Kodak were one of the first to modify their film to facilitate scanning, by getting rid of the uneven emulsion surface. In general, I tend to give folks who have converted from film some slack but quite frankly some of your statements were a bit over the top even for someone who hasn't used film in ages. But don't let that deter you from using digital! :-) In article <545acee9-9d0c-4f4b-a921-891c475d8608@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > I don't think so. It's your general lack of grasp > of ALL matters to do with modern film that is lacking. > Not just amateur. Uh-huh. > Almost all remaining film users, amateur or not, have converted > to scanning and downstream digital workflow. Nowadays, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of the first to modify their film to facilitate scanning, by > getting rid of the uneven emulsion surface. OK, I'll cut you some slack on your English, since you're not from the US ("Kodak were" should be "Kodak was."). I didn't say anything about grain. It was Fuji's horrible color balance that I never liked. > In article > <545acee9-9d0c-4f4b-a921-891c475d8608@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> itself. Only some old folks insist on the old chestnuts of "dirty" >> grain and other such utter rubbish. Excuse me...Im very conversant with digital and I also use film - I find my enjoyment of film has increased in recent years because more people just depend upon a digital camera to do all the work when the shutter is pressed. Film is fab. Grain is great. and youre a tit. McKev > OK, I'll cut you some slack on your English, since you're not from the > US ("Kodak were" should be "Kodak was."). the last place to claim anything about English is precisely the US... > I didn't say anything about grain. It was Fuji's horrible color balance > that I never liked. Fair enough. >> > Maybe your lab spent too much time with yellow boxes. >> >> Or maybe Fuji film just sucked a.s. >> > My nephew used expressions like that when he was in junior high school. I still think that commercial processors are the biggest problem in the film wars. As noted in a previous post, I got pissed off with having poor pics come back, so I got my own darkroom going, and then had good results from both (and other) brands. But, it took a lot of work. I had to work out different colour filtration settings, not only for each type of film that each manufacturer offered, but also for the various lenses I used on each camera. One has to remember that the coatings on lens elements tends to affect image colour. Just reflect sunlight off the end of a couple of lenses and check out the colour hew that you see. You'll note that some lenses reflect a greenish hew, some a more purple hew, and others a bit of a yellowish hew (others probably exist as well). A good processor has to take a shot of a colour chart with each film and lens combination and then process it with various colour filtration settings until the final print matches the original chart. How many commercial processors take that kind of time and effort to ensure good results for their customers? Not many. Most just find a happy medium for everything, and try to sell you on the merits of their trade off. So, as I noted before, if you want great results from either brand, do it yourself. Otherwise, find a processor who uses the same chemistry brand as the film your shooting and be happy with the mediocre results you pick up. Good Luck, Dudley >> In article >> <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaff...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dunno. I think suckage is what kodak users do. > fuji ones just take photos. and they come out good. I've used both films, and others, and I found that whatever film I used it was difficult to find a commercial processor that did a good job. That's why I went out and bought a processor, enlarger, etc. Once my darkroom was set up, I got good results from just about everything. (Of course, it took time working out all the exposure and filter settings...) Take Care, Dudley > I've used both films, and others, and I found that whatever film I used it > was difficult to find a commercial processor that did a good job. > > That's why I went out and bought a processor, enlarger, etc. Once my > darkroom was set up, I got good results from just about everything. (Of > course, it took time working out all the exposure and filter settings...) I used a professional lab (and still do). > >> In article > >> <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaff...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > darkroom was set up, I got good results from just about everything. (Of > course, it took time working out all the exposure and filter settings...) I must admit I've had a better experience. Back in the early 80s, inconsistent results were certainly the case. But nowadays I take all my film with exception of b&w to a commercial lab and the results are consistent and very satisfactory. >> >> In article >> >> <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaff...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to a commercial lab and the results are consistent > and very satisfactory. Have you checked the results against a colour chart? If not, try taking a picture of a colour chart that depicts a wide range of colours. Then, after picking up your pics, compare the chart to your commercially developed print. Maybe I'm a bit behind the times with commercial processsors, but don't be surprised if the end product doesn't match exactly with the original chart. For the sake of precision, check the colour match in the original lighting setting, ie. sunlight, flourescent, tungston, etc. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has done this recently. Take Care, Dudley > Have you checked the results against a colour chart? yes > If not, try taking a picture of a colour chart that depicts a wide range of > colours. Then, after picking up your pics, compare the chart to your > commercially developed print. Ah-ha, therein lies the diff: I don't do commercial chemical prints from colour negatives. I use mostly slide film, or b&w, which I scan at home and then either print in my HP Photosmart or take in a USB key, adobe-rgb balanced, to the local mall print shop - they know already which colour space I use - and it comes out near perfect to me. Yes, colour negative could be inconsistent. Nowadays most development shops end up scanning the lot anyway and then doing the rest digitally. In those conditions, it's a lot easier to get things fine: Frontiers are darn good boxes for that. >> Have you checked the results against a colour chart? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > it's a lot easier to get things fine: Frontiers > are darn good boxes for that. Yes, if the developer does a good job of developing the negs and then scans them to digital before printing, a lot of the guess work would be eliminated. However, it was my impression that a lot of commercial labs were still using chemical processing. In fact, I've even heard that if you take digital media in, a lot of the cheaper labs are using a "digital enlarger" to expose the image onto regular photographic paper and then develop using traditional processing. In this case, I would still be concerned about the labs using near depleted chemistry, not paying enough attention to colour balance, using expired paper, etc. This thread was started because people were extolling the virtues of one film brand over the others. In fact, I remember one message where the OP was complaining that Fuji film resulted in "greenish" skin tones. I was just trying to point out that such problems were probably due more to improper processing then on the choice of film manufacturer. Take Care, Dudley > Yes, if the developer does a good job of developing the negs and then scans > them to digital before printing, a lot of the guess work would be > eliminated. Seems to be the case in what I see here. > However, it was my impression that a lot of commercial labs were still using > chemical processing. In fact, I've even heard that if you take digital [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > near depleted chemistry, not paying enough attention to colour balance, > using expired paper, etc. Dunno about Stateside. Most commercial and even corner shop labs here (Australia) are now using Frontiers or equivalent for quick scans. It's been the norm for a while now. In fact most bundle a CD with scans into the whole deal. Haven't seen a new lab capable of doing optical enlargements for a while now, there are only two or three left in the whole of Sydney, I reckon. Apart from amateur or school workshops, of which there are many. B&W is seeing a bit of a ressurgence here, with optical being used by many. But for colour neg or slides? It's fast scanners and digital workflow all the way. > This thread was started because people were extolling the virtues of one > film brand over the others. In fact, I remember one message where the OP > was complaining that Fuji film resulted in "greenish" skin tones. > > I was just trying to point out that such problems were probably due more to > improper processing then on the choice of film manufacturer. Quite true and also my experience back in the late 80s and early 90s. But since about 2001 or so, it's been the case over here that most places have gone to digital workflow. That has certainly improved the inconsistency of the chemical workflow. Nowadays, I can take all neg film to even a shopping mall lab and be reasonably certain I'll get something nice and usable out of it. Assuming of course I haven't forgotten the lens cap on! ;-) |
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.