Anyone used North Coast Photographic recently?

[Moose22]

Speaking of NCPS… I last used them a couple of months ago. They developed some Lomo Metropolis for me and it came out waaaay grainier than from other labs. So that is my one demerit.

Negative grainy? Or just the scan. They use Noritsu and you can fool those pieces of crap sometimes with bad colors.

I did a roll of Lomo purple over the weekend and left it with them. It came back with no extra grain, but I've not tried metropolis yet with them or anyone else.

 

[Huss]

Negative grainy? Or just the scan. They use Noritsu and you can fool those pieces of crap sometimes with bad colors.

I did a roll of Lomo purple over the weekend and left it with them. It came back with no extra grain, but I've not tried metropolis yet with them or anyone else.

I scan myself with my digicam and it was super grainy. Same film developed locally scanned the same way was fine. I'm chalking it down as a one off.

 

[calico]

Got three rolls of 120 FP4+ back from North Coast Photo. The negs immediately looked thin to me.

I put the negs on my light table and compared to FP4 negs developed at three other labs. The numbers/arrows and the "Ilford FP4 PLUS" on the edges of those negs were all much darker than on the FP4 just developed at North Coast. So the thinness is due to developing, not my exposures.


I exposed the way I always expose, with my Sekonic meter, and used my usual cameras.


North Coast uses Clayton F76 for b&w film. I read on a couple of forums that people were getting thin negs for FP4 developed in that (they were developing themselves) -- I guess with strength/times recommended by Clayton for FP4 (they didn't say). I was thinking the lab would adjust for this.


I'm going back to a lab which uses Xtol which is what my FP4 has always been developed in.



 

[MattKing]

Got three rolls of 120 FP4+ back from North Coast Photo. The negs immediately looked thin to me.

I put the negs on my light table and compared to FP4 negs developed at three other labs. The numbers/arrows and the "Ilford FP4 PLUS" on the edges of those negs were all much darker than on the FP4 just developed at North Coast. So the thinness is due to developing, not my exposures.


I exposed the way I always expose, with my Sekonic meter, and used my usual cameras.


North Coast uses Clayton F76 for b&w film. I read on a couple of forums that people were getting thin negs for FP4 developed in that (they were developing themselves) -- I guess with strength/times recommended by Clayton for FP4 (they didn't say). I was thinking the lab would adjust for this.


I'm going back to a lab which uses Xtol which is what my FP4 has always been developed in.



Try printing or otherwise dealing with them the way you normally deal with them first.
You may find that you end up preferring the results from the negatives that appear thinner to the eye. Or you may not - but you should use your intended use as your quality check.
If you have a densitometer, it is of course better to use it rather than a visual check of densities.
It may, however, be simply a case of your North Coast negatives being developed to a lower contrast, and that may or may not be a bad thing.
Speaking generally, using the edge printing as a reference is somewhat unreliable, unless the films you are comparing were both from the same batch and stored similarly. Edge printing densities do vary, at least partially due to latent image keeping effects.

 

[calico]

Try printing or otherwise dealing with them the way you normally deal with them first.
You may find that you end up preferring the results from the negatives that appear thinner to the eye. Or you may not - but you should use your intended use as your quality check.

Yes, I will scan (Nikon LS9000) as I usually do. Thinner negs could actually be better for scans. We'll see.

Don't like the scans from North Coast at all. Muddy. But I never like scans from labs. Had them make them because I've never used them before and thought perhaps they would be different.

If you have a densitometer, it is of course better to use it rather than a visual check of densities.
It may, however, be simply a case of your North Coast negatives being developed to a lower contrast, and that may or may not be a bad thing.
Speaking generally, using the edge printing as a reference is somewhat unreliable, unless the films you are comparing were both from the same batch and stored similarly. Edge printing densities do vary, at least partially due to latent image keeping effects.

I do see from looking at edge printing on a lot of FP4 negs here that they do vary. But edge printing on the FP4 negs developed at other labs (three different labs) -- though darkness varies a bit from roll to roll -- are all quite a lot darker than the edge printing on the negs I just got from North Coast.

I think I need to learn to develop b&w film myself. I'm getting tired of dealing with labs. I put so much effort into taking pics, and then things get screwed up by labs. I developed 35 mm ages ago, when I had a darkroom. Just need to find time to relearn.

Thanks for your input.

 

[MattKing]

I do see from looking at edge printing on a lot of FP4 negs here that they do vary. But edge printing on the FP4 negs developed at other labs (three different labs) -- though darkness varies a bit from roll to roll -- are all quite a lot darker than the edge printing on the negs I just got from North Coast.

That may be due to North Coast developing your film to a lower contrast - which may very well be better!
Or not better.
And yes, I recommend doing your own development.

 

[calico]

That may be due to North Coast developing your film to a lower contrast - which may very well be better!
Or not better.
And yes, I recommend doing your own development.

Yes, must be intentional. Maybe they like thin negs for their scanning. It seems they would adjust strength or development time if they wanted otherwise.

Personally, I like having as much to work with as possible in the neg. Never desired thin negs.

Interesting that what I experienced with this lab matches what a number of people in forums said about developing FP4 in Clayton F76.

Thanks again for your comments.

 

[MattKing]

Personally, I like having as much to work with as possible in the neg. Never desired thin negs.

This is one of those examples of where doing things through the internet is challenging. It would be so much better if we could actually look at your negatives themselves.
It may be that your North Coast developed negatives have excellent density throughout, but have less contrast because the highlights aren't as dense as in your negatives developed elsewhere.
While those negatives might visually appear thin, they may actually be excellent, full range negatives that give you everything you need to work with, albeit requiring slightly higher contrast settings.
Or the development may be so deficient that the range of densities on the negative is so low that adjusting your contrast settings won't make enough of a difference - those are negatives that are too thin.
Alternatively, your North Coast developed negatives may lack sufficient density in the shadows to give you useful results - those are negatives that are too thin.
FWIW, the negative that this image results from is almost transparent, but it prints wonderfully in the darkroom, and scans well as well.

 

[calico]

Alternatively, your North Coast developed negatives may lack sufficient density in the shadows to give you useful results - those are negatives that are too thin.

This is what I'm seeing. Will see how scans turn out. Fortunately, these were photos of inanimate objects which I can redo if necessary.

Interesting what you could get from almost transparent neg!

 

[Moose22]

Personally, I like having as much to work with as possible in the neg. Never desired thin negs.

Interesting that what I experienced with this lab matches what a number of people in forums said about developing FP4 in Clayton F76.

No offense, I mean this genuinely if it sounds snarky.

Develop your own.

Xtol is a breeze, it's cheap as chips, and if you want more control over density, you've got it! Plus, I like xtol in general. If you can use it or find someone who does it is great. It makes a grain I find more pleasing when scanning negatives. If you're scanning at home anyway, the hard part about home hybrid is already handled.

That said, I never had problems with FP4 in Clayton 76, which I do at North Coast Photo. They're my local, I'm in there pretty much every week dropping off or picking up. And they're super nice people who really held my hand when learning both how to prepare for printing and when I switched to film. If you have questions about how or why they do anything, you can certainly drop them an email or call. I asked plenty of stupid questions, and I mean stupid. I am not the sharpest knife on the christmas tree.

Also, they just use Noritsu scanners, like everyone else, and Noritsu are trash. Nobody charging these prices will have anything better, though. I've long since set up my own rig for anything that matters.

But, since we're talking about it, FP4, North Coast Photo, their scan, cropped for a CD cover:

Another of theirs:

Another

As I said, I actually much prefer Xtol for FP4 and do most of my Black and White at home now, but I have never hesitated to use NCP. They do my color and have done a lot of color prints for me the last two years, and I never think twice about giving them any film including B&W if I'm getting paid and need to get something developed in a hurry.

However, my scanned negatives might not be what you want in your negatives, so I really do encourage you to invest in a home setup. One of the better photography decisions I made last year.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use North Coast because they also do my color chromes. If you want a firm that uses XTOL, try LTI Lightside in NYC. They no longer do color chromes which I shoot as well. So I switched from them to North Coast. But check with LTI to see if they still use XTOL as their standard developer. Note they will also use other developers at an additional fee. They do color negative as well, just not color chromes.

 

[calico]

I use North Coast because they also do my color chromes. If you want a firm that uses XTOL, try LTI Lightside in NYC. They no longer do color chromes which I shoot as well. So I switched from them to North Coast. But check with LTI to see if they still use XTOL as their standard developer. Note they will also use other developers at an additional fee. They do color negative as well, just not color chromes.

I do not use LTI anymore because of a problem I had with them. You and I discussed this here in another thread, but I guess you forgot. (No problem.)

The Find Lab uses Xtol and their developing of my FP4 was fine in the past. Praus Productions and Richard Photo Lab also use Xtol. I was just trying North Coast Photo because people here seemed to like them so much.

 

[calico]

No offense, I mean this genuinely if it sounds snarky.

Develop your own.

Xtol is a breeze, it's cheap as chips, and if you want more control over density, you've got it! Plus, I like xtol in general. If you can use it or find someone who does it is great. It makes a grain I find more pleasing when scanning negatives. If you're scanning at home anyway, the hard part about home hybrid is already handled.

That said, I never had problems with FP4 in Clayton 76, which I do at North Coast Photo. They're my local, I'm in there pretty much every week dropping off or picking up. And they're super nice people who really held my hand when learning both how to prepare for printing and when I switched to film. If you have questions about how or why they do anything, you can certainly drop them an email or call. I asked plenty of stupid questions, and I mean stupid. I am not the sharpest knife on the christmas tree.

Also, they just use Noritsu scanners, like everyone else, and Noritsu are trash. Nobody charging these prices will have anything better, though. I've long since set up my own rig for anything that matters.

But, since we're talking about it, FP4, North Coast Photo, their scan, cropped for a CD cover:

Another of theirs:

Another

As I said, I actually much prefer Xtol for FP4 and do most of my Black and White at home now, but I have never hesitated to use NCP. They do my color and have done a lot of color prints for me the last two years, and I never think twice about giving them any film including B&W if I'm getting paid and need to get something developed in a hurry.

However, my scanned negatives might not be what you want in your negatives, so I really do encourage you to invest in a home setup. One of the better photography decisions I made last year.

Totally agree, I should develop film myself. I just haven't had time yet -- have to re-learn how to get film on reels and everything else.

Glad you have been happy with FP4 in F76.

I will say that North Coast was very professional -- I was notified when they got my film, when they shipped it out, and they did the job very promptly. Also, no dust on negs which is always a plus. I think the F76 developing is simply not what I prefer.

They also developed some Provia 100F in same order which turned out fine.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I do not use LTI anymore because of a problem I had with them. You and I discussed this here in another thread, but I guess you forgot. (No problem.)

The Find Lab uses Xtol and their developing of my FP4 was fine in the past. Praus Productions and Richard Photo Lab also use Xtol. I was just trying North Coast Photo because people here seemed to like them so much.

What happened? I forget.

 

[calico]

What happened? I forget.

I see I mentioned it in this thread....see my June 4 post.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I see I mentioned it in this thread....see my June 4 post.

Sorry you had dust and scratches. I'll have to check closer next time I use them. Thanks.

 

[calico]

Sorry you had dust and scratches. I'll have to check closer next time I use them. Thanks.

No, it was horrible residue all over the FP4 due to hardener they were using, and I didn't like how they handled the situation.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sorry that happened. You should change companies since you're unhappy.

 

[calico]

Sorry that happened. You should change companies since you're unhappy.

I did, as I mentioned in my posts.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I did, as I mentioned in my posts.

Who did you change to and how's their work?

 

[Moose22]

Totally agree, I should develop film myself. I just haven't had time yet -- have to re-learn how to get film on reels and everything else.

Thanks for taking it as the encouragement it is.

I typed it and thought it might come across wrong. Like "Love it or leave it jerk!" when it's really just excitement at the better results I'm getting. You know how it goes, learn something and suddenly you want to tell everyone. But far and away the hardest part was getting the scanning right. Loading reels, processing, hanging up to dry all were a breeze after very little practice. Even easier than I remembered and I hadn't loaded a reel since I was in Jr High.

And, for my being fine with NCPs work, I really do prefer xtol for scanned negatives. I don't have examples online, but I played around a bit and I just like the character of the grain better. The shots seem a touch sharper, too, without too much work.

We're spoiled for choice here and there's definitely more than one way to do it.

 

[calico]

Thanks for taking it as the encouragement it is.

I typed it and thought it might come across wrong. Like "Love it or leave it jerk!" when it's really just excitement at the better results I'm getting. You know how it goes, learn something and suddenly you want to tell everyone. But far and away the hardest part was getting the scanning right. Loading reels, processing, hanging up to dry all were a breeze after very little practice. Even easier than I remembered and I hadn't loaded a reel since I was in Jr High.

And, for my being fine with NCPs work, I really do prefer xtol for scanned negatives. I don't have examples online, but I played around a bit and I just like the character of the grain better. The shots seem a touch sharper, too, without too much work.

We're spoiled for choice here and there's definitely more than one way to do it.

Totally understand the excitement at finding something that works....and how you then want to share the info!

I hope to have time to get into my own developing soon.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I just got back a roll of Acros II, in 35mm, that I sent them. Just in case anyone is interested, here's a sample image.

 

[Arthurwg]

I used NCPS for some B&W recently, mostly as a test for the future. The 120, shot with a Hasselblad, looked great but the 35mm came back consistently underexposed and muddy, Shot with my F6 in program mode using a 24mm lens with a light yellow filter. It was an overcast day so I didn't really need the filter. I sent those negatives back for analysis. I need to know if it was the lab or the camera to proceed.

Just had my second bad experience with NCPS. They informed me that somehow another roll of 35mm Tri-X I sent them managed to "touch" other film while in the processor, and half of the roll was badly damaged. Yes, they refunded the cost of that processing, but not the cost of the film, the postage or my other expenses when making those pictures. Well, that's it for them. So can anyone recommend a competent mail order lab that I can use? Very aggravating.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Just had my second bad experience with NCPS. They informed me that somehow another roll of 35mm Tri-X I sent them managed to "touch" other film while in the processor, and half of the roll was badly damaged. Yes, they refunded the cost of that processing, but not the cost of the film, the postage or my other expenses when making those pictures. Well, that's it for them. So can anyone recommend a competent mail order lab that I can use? Very aggravating.

I had been using NCPS myself. I used to use LTI Lightroom in NYC which is a pro developer. They do dip and dunk, push and pull if desired, and use XTOL, or at least they used too. Call them for what they're doing now.