Are Photo labs much worse today than they were before digital?

Heres the thing: i went to this exhibition from a photographer's 35mm work from the 60s and the stuff just looks so much better (quality wise) than anything new that i see on 35mm. How could this be?

In addition, i look at my stuff that i shot in the early 90s with a lousy point and shoot and i feel like the prints look better than any of my current stuff. I wonder if the labs have gotten worse because the demand has dropped? What could it be?

Can someone help me make sense of this?

I bet some labs have gotten worse, and others have stayed the same.

But of course, the general adoption of digital prints may have something to do with it.

Bad premise.

Professional labs - maybe unchanged.

One "professional" lab in Portland, Oregon, in the 1990's, printed my color medium format shots with so much magenta that it looked like I had a pink filter on the lens. They wouldn't refund my money. Fuck them - I've never been back and I've spread the word among photographers I know.

Another "professional" lab in Portland printed my negatives reversed (though it wasn't obvious because they were landscapes). No refund. That was around 2005. They can go to hell - I've not been back.

Local processing from stores: oh yes, much worse today! They don't use fresh chemicals, they don't clean the machines, they view people coming in with film as tech-phobic dinosaurs.

"Bad Premise"
Your statement would hold more weight if you specified which premise.

keenmaster486 said:

"Bad Premise"
Your statement would hold more weight if you specified which premise.

Click to expand...

See post #1

one other theory i have is that because we see so much digital stuff on a daily basis, maybe we

BrianShaw said:

See post #1

Click to expand...

dude just say what you mean and stop being so mystical

Odot said:

Heres the thing: i went to this exhibition from a photographer's 35mm work from the 60s and the stuff just looks so much better (quality wise) than anything new that i see on 35mm. How could this be?

Click to expand...

What sort of prints were they? Exhibition prints from the 60s might be Cibachrome or dye transfer, and those should hold up well over time. They're certainly going to be far superior to anything that comes out of a one-hour photo lab machine. So it's hard to answer your question without really knowing what you were looking at.

BrianShaw said:

See post #1

Click to expand...

That was already implicit in your first post.

When volume of processing was much higher, keeping machine processing chemistry calibrated was more commonly done; and keeping machines running well in calibration was easier to accomplish with higher volume. I dare say that calibration probably falls by the wayside when processing volume has declined so much.

Moopheus said:

What sort of prints were they? Exhibition prints from the 60s might be Cibachrome or dye transfer, and those should hold up well over time. They're certainly going to be far superior to anything that comes out of a one-hour photo lab machine. So it's hard to answer your question without really knowing what you were looking at.

Click to expand...

the only thing noted (other than the work itself) was the gelatin silver process. i wonder how much of a role this may play?

Without more facts hard to say, were the prints color or B&W, what size, who printed, the photographer or a lab? In the 60s there were many pro level photographers who did there own printing. While in high school in the early to mid 60s I worked (well not paid work) for a photographer, he did a lot of weddings, events, and some freelancing for the local paper. He printed his own B&W, sent his color out to a lab. His B&W was excellent, his color was hit or miss depending on the lab. In term of black and white there were so many more papers and surfaces available in the 60s, sometimes it was the paper or maybe the film. In the 90s what kind of lab did use, a mini lab or a pro lab?

I develop all of my film. B&W and C-41. I sent a special roll in to a lab to develop, it was a year long project that I shot in my half frame. First off, they couldn't scan or make prints because it was a half frame. Second, the negs were filthy. I've done consistently better with home development.

Odot said:

I wonder if the labs have gotten worse because the demand has dropped?

Click to expand...

Probably the good labs are still about as good, but the so-so labs have overall less qualified people. I'd say it's more a case of what people are willing to pay for specific lab services than the overall demand.

Here's an example from the beginning of the 1hour lab era. The large chain studio outfit where I spent a lot of years also got into the minilab business early on. We had a lot of good "photo people" in those days. Eventually we got up to about 600 standalone 1 hour labs in an attempt to become reasonably profitable. But much competition came from large retailers who added minilabs to their huge retail stores. They didn't need much profit, as much of their value came from the ability to pull a potential shopper into their store for an hour or so. Plus they could use the generally less qualified store employees to fill in at the minilab. The result was overall lower prices for minilab finishing. This helped kill off qualified employees, as they couldn't be paid decently. After about ten years, my employer concluded that worthwhile profit was not in cards and sold off the division. ( The future buyers all eventually went bankrupt, to the best of my knowledge.) In essence, the customers killed off the better quality minilabs by putting their money into the cheaper processing.

Odot said:

Heres the thing: i went to this exhibition from a photographer's 35mm work from the 60s and the stuff just looks so much better (quality wise) than anything new that i see on 35mm. How could this be?

In addition, i look at my stuff that i shot in the early 90s with a lousy point and shoot and i feel like the prints look better than any of my current stuff. I wonder if the labs have gotten worse because the demand has dropped? What could it be?

Can someone help me make sense of this?

Click to expand...

Were they vintage prints from the 60s or new prints made today/ recently?

Are we talking about minilabs or specialist darkroom printers/ scanner operators/ inkjet printers here? Massive difference between those categories in qualitative and financial terms.

I suspect you may be talking about the difference between a competent darkroom printer & a mediocre minilab...

Mr Bill said:

In essence, the customers killed off the better quality minilabs by putting their money into the cheaper processing.

Click to expand...

As I read your post, this is precisely what I was about to reply. Spot on, sir.

As always in the market, it's the consumers who decide what survives and what does not. In this case, the consumers didn't care about or didn't notice the difference between better or cheaper processing. Most people just wanted what they considered "acceptable" images back. The average mom with a point-and-shoot taking Christmas pictures doesn't expect nearly as high quality as a professional making huge prints for sale.

So the moms with their point-and-shoots, who were the primary users of the mini-labs, dictated the quality of those with their wallets.

The pro photographers, who, I assume, largely spurned mini-labs, demanded higher quality and were willing to pay for it (and still are) and so the pro labs (non-1-hour services) stayed mostly good quality.

At least, that's my theory. I could be wrong.

The biggest difference now is that there are very few labs left where, in return for slightly higher prices and slightly slower service times, you could get really good quality exposure and colour correction on machine prints.
I used to do colour proofing and machine enlargements for a number of wedding and portrait photographers, using a Durst machine printer. Every single print was preceded with at least one test strip, and colour and density adjustments were made from that.
Now, much of the work that I did back then has essentially been downloaded to the photographers themselves, and unless they have calibrated workflows and fairly high level skills they won't get the same results that just leaving it in the hands of the lab used to get them.

I have been part of the professional lab scene for almost 40 years , 25 of them owning my specialty lab.

I hope that I am just as good as I was 25 years .. I have learned a lot over the years , but also forgotten a lot.

I will say this , about 25 years ago I was on a campaign to make the perfect print, after years of effort I realized there is no such thing as the perfect print.
Most here that print frequently can make an excellent quality exhibition print that could hang in museums and galleries.

The trick is to be consistent day to day, and be willing to learn new tricks and adapt. The best printers I know are chameleons who can bend to a vision.

When the labs switch to digital, all the custom work died. I prefer to use optical only labs whenever possible.

About twenty years ago I tried a roll of XP2 Ilford and sent it to the colour lab I had used for years and they knackerd it up well and good, I still have the purple terrible thin heavy grained negatives to hand.

As for me, I look back wistfully at the good old days so I see pictures from the 60's-80's with a receptive eye. I had that experience going to the Ed Ruscha show recently.

Bob Carnie said:

I have been part of the professional lab scene for almost 40 years , 25 of them owning my specialty lab.

I hope that I am just as good as I was 25 years .. I have learned a lot over the years , but also forgotten a lot.

I will say this , about 25 years ago I was on a campaign to make the perfect print, after years of effort I realized there is no such thing as the perfect print.
Most here that print frequently can make an excellent quality exhibition print that could hang in museums and galleries.

The trick is to be consistent day to day, and be willing to learn new tricks and adapt. The best printers I know are chameleons who can bend to a vision.

Click to expand...

Little information is available even from the web, about 'proper process calibration' that Kodak or Fuji might want labs to maintain for their processing equipment.

Can you provide us with an explanation geared for the layman, about how often/when such calibration should be done, either in terms of time intervals or vulume of photos processed or whatever threshhold?
And then also comment about throughput (let's say 1995 vs. now) and how that increases the need to calibrate or the challenge of maintaining calibration?

Most labs, even the best, are no where near as good as they might have been 10-15 years ago, this is true across all of the US, and to a large extent in Europe as well.
Part volume, part lost talent/knowledge base, part who cares about quality anymore when most people who actually shoot film have a holga/lomo.

Bob Carnie excluded from this of course. His work has always been top notch, and you will not need the CNN special video of a band playing "near my god to thee" to know the end of times has arrived, just watch for Bob's quality changing.

wiltw said:

Little information is available even from the web, about 'proper process calibration' that Kodak or Fuji might want labs to maintain for their processing equipment.

Can you provide us with an explanation geared for the layman, about how often/when such calibration should be done, either in terms of time intervals or vulume of photos processed or whatever threshhold?
And then also comment about throughput (let's say 1995 vs. now) and how that increases the need to calibrate or the challenge of maintaining calibration?

Click to expand...

I can speak about E6 for example , the best Refrema's in the world needed volume to keep the plots in line, PE jump in to explain E6 plot theory. The one lab I worked at that had a incredible
E6 line was Colourgenics in Toronto, It was for years was in Fuji's top ten for plot control ... Basically the machine would run calibration at 6 am , plots checked and adjusted if needed , then every two hours
for the rest of the day a control strip would be run to keep the line solid.
This may be overkill but some of these small dedicated E6 labs were turning over incredible amounts of film 7 days a week and the plots needed to be consistent.... Remember Grey Backgrounds will show any drift and we did not have the Photoshop tools to fix any cross overs.


Today vs 1995 - well I own a Durst Lambda 76 which in the last 25 years has been a powerhouse for creating prints. Today I no longer make C prints with it as I feel inkjet prints are better in many ways, I use it only for Black and White silver prints and Black and White silver negative .

Toronto Image Works still does C print and is in Toronto as my lab is, I still feel TIW is as good as the old days because Ed Burtynsky owns it , uses it and is a lab tech through and through. Most of the lesser labs in Toronto have fallen through the cracks, and the good E6 labs are all gone due to lack of film.

Today the ink machines are extremely stable and require one good Profile to keep in Balance.. The spectrometer is the key and a good tech making the profile.
Today also I am making alternative prints that are much more demanding than any prints I have made in the past, keeping control of the gum process in colour is quite daunting and once Sean finishes
the new site design I can talk freely about the new real wave of photographic printmaking.

hope this helps
Bob

Thx for the insight Bob! Readers need to especially note your opening comment, "the best Refrema's in the world needed volume to keep the plots in line" and your later summarizing "and the good E6 labs are all gone due to lack of film."

Even if Kodak had not discontinued EPN, it would be in vain for lack of great processing! Sad.