You might be correct that the print machines are set up for average
negatives. Still I think the problem with the print go a bit beyond that,
there is a halo effect on the print, almost like there was Vaseline on the
enlarger lens.

I would argue that the negative was exposed well, any less and I would have
lost detail in the shadows. I think what the print shows is that for people
who just want to drop there photos off and pick up prints film is not being
used to its full capabilities. If I can’t use the more heavily exposed parts
of a negative it greatly reduces its effective dynamic range.

So my choices as I see it are, shoot film and do my own scanning, shoot film
and accept the limitations of the standard printer, shoot film and use a pro
lab to produce my prints.

I don’t like what I get from the mini-labs, and from the article in Consumer
Reports there is a lot not to like, I don’t want to pay the cost to have a
pro lab make my prints, I would rather not take the time to scan my
negatives, this leaves digital, which is working very well for me.

I do, on occasion, get some great looking prints from film. These have been
over the years and have come from the same labs that produce crap much of
the time. Clearly it is possible from them to produce good prints but the
consistency is lacking. I have any number of prints that are so out of focus
that they look like crap, and yet the negative is sharp.

I have a love hate relationship with my film scanner, I love that I can
"rescue" photos that I have had printed in the past. I hate that it takes so
much time and effect to do so. Did I mention that the mini-labs seem to love
to put scratches on my negatives, it can take a long time to clean the
scanned image.

Sadly I am loosing my negatives over time, here is another print from about
20 years ago

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45171664/original

And here is what a scan of the negative looks like today

http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/45171665/original

I live in Hawaii, which is probably one of the worst places you can store
negatives. The above is a pretty extreme case but most of my negatives from
20 years ago are showing some level of degradation, a few are not. So when
people tell me that film is archival and digital is not I have to just shake
my head.

Scott

For the film scanner I am using a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III,

it takes a lot of work to get it set up right and has pretty disappointing
dynamic

range, it is a 16 bit scanner but the bottom bits are all pretty much just
noise.

But with a bit of care it can get the color right, which is more then I can
say of the places I have had my prints done at in the past.

Scott

I haven't worked on a film processor with an adjustable speed setting
for over 10 years.  To me it just looks like bad printing or an out of
control situation in a printer.

You must be pretty good to diagnose a temperature increase in
development and a speed increase on a film processor by looking at a
scan of a print from a 35mm negative.

What a load of rubbish! These a simply colour balance issues. In fact, in my
experience it is high volume labs that monitor their process control
particually carefully as the cost of retanking is obviously higher with
larger tanks and increased downtime. Different paper and chemistry types and
processes have different temps and process speeds.

Dooey.

Upside down is not too hard to fix, using the mechanical rotation
method, although I am never sure if I should rotate right or left 180.

But I had one whole set of negative printed from the wrong side, the
result was of course that the prints were all mirror images.

I had another case where I got prints, but someone else's negatives.
I did not notice until I went to scan the negatives years later,
whether the other person ever notice I don't know.

Scott

Yes. I notice that they print my slides backwards about half the time,
too.....