C-41 lab processing - is there much variation?

radiant · Jul 10, 2021

One good sign is if they develop their personal films with the machine That is what they do here in local lab. And if there isn't rush you are welcomed to see how the machine works..

foc · Jul 10, 2021

vedostuu said:
One good sign is if they develop their personal films with the machine

+1

I remember in the 1990s at the height of film use. there were always a few customers that had opinions about labs and their quality. Some were justified and some were pure speculation. Sometimes it was " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

I think nothing beats a well exposed transparency projected onto a projection screen (not a wall/sheet).
IMO next best thing is an image printed correctly and held in your hand.
Maybe from years of looking at images on a monitor (Frontier and Photoshop) I can take or leave an on-screen image (I prefer to print it).

Photo prints are what most people treasure. it is their memories on paper. When I had a minilab, we had a few customers with slides to be digitised and printed, a few with old negatives for prints but the majority were print from print. These were old photos found in attics, biscuit tins, wardrobes etc, and the customers wanted the images copied, printed (sometimes digitised) "in case the original got damaged".

runswithsizzers · Jul 10, 2021

vedostuu said:
One good sign is if they develop their personal films with the machine

That is a good idea. I'm pretty sure several employees of this store are long-time photographers. I think they all remember shooting film, but I don't know if any still are. There are some big prints on the walls, with credit given to a local camera club; I will try to find out if any were printed by the store lab from negatives. Once, I tried to contact the camera club to find out if any members were shooting medium format film, but my inquiry was forwarded to someone who did not reply.

btaylor · Jul 10, 2021

Old Gregg said:
Whatever makes us happy.

I couldn’t agree more. I know I am not alone when I express my enjoyment of purely analog photography as an antidote to the hours I must spend in front of computer screens for my work. As an old fart I don’t care to give up the familiar, like a paper print in a frame and my daily newspaper.

MattKing · Jul 10, 2021

I would hate to have a home with a whole bunch of screens on the walls, with each one displaying a different photograph or piece of art. .
Photography without prints wouldn't be nearly as meaningful to me. I do, however, really like projected slides.
I'm a member right now of two different photographic groups. We organize print exhibitions - have a new one coming up at the end of the year. I've also been involved in digital photography exhibitions. The latter tend to put me into a feeling of sleep deprived trance.
I can make digital files that look good on a screen. I find making good prints much more rewarding and much more challenging.
It is important to put your efforts into results that are meaningful to you. Old Gregg is welcome to his screens, but he should be careful about assuming that his preferences will turn out to be the preferences of others - particularly in these times where it is relatively more difficult to see good prints.

faberryman · Jul 10, 2021

Old Gregg said:
A computer with a high quality display is far superior medium to enjoy (and share!) a perfectly analog photograph. A print film was meant to be manipulated and interpreted, and computers are fantastic tools to do it. I enjoyed my time in B&W darkroom when I was a kid, and I enjoy my time in Lightroom just as much. Whatever makes us happy.

What exactly is a “perfectly analog photograph” and how does one enjoy it on a screen, by which I assume you mean an electronic screen.

Sirius Glass · Jul 10, 2021

MattKing said:
I would hate to have a home with a whole bunch of screens on the walls, with each one displaying a different photograph or piece of art. .
Photography without prints wouldn't be nearly as meaningful to me. I do, however, really like projected slides.
I'm a member right now of two different photographic groups. We organize print exhibitions - have a new one coming up at the end of the year. I've also been involved in digital photography exhibitions. The latter tend to put me into a feeling of sleep deprived trance.
I can make digital files that look good on a screen. I find making good prints much more rewarding and much more challenging.
It is important to put your efforts into results that are meaningful to you. Old Gregg is welcome to his screens, but he should be careful about assuming that his preferences will turn out to be the preferences of others - particularly in these times where it is relatively more difficult to see good prints.

There is nothing equal to holding a silver gelatin print in ones hands.

MattKing · Jul 11, 2021

Old Gregg said:
You are right. I don't think I was assuming that. I simply stated that the image quality of a print film is far superior to a transparency. This is true. This is physics and has nothing to do with feelings or preferences.

Not quite this simple at all.
The quality of negative film comes from that film itself plus the controls available when converting it into a positive image - either a print, or a projected image, or a back illuminated display image. It is the entire process that provides the quality.
In the right circumstances, a properly exposed and projected film transparency exhibits the highest quality, nearly equaled by the quality of a negative film printed on to projection stock, which itself is properly projected.
An image displayed on an iPad or a large, high quality screen can be impressive and dramatic, even if its quality isn't nearly as high as the well projected transparency.
And high quality prints have characteristics that are different again.
For drama, the displays are superb.

runswithsizzers · Jul 11, 2021

Back on topic - I just had a close look at the roll of Ektar negatives processed by my local lab. These are the ones that were put in a paper envelope with no sleeves. There was a moderate amount of dust - which was easily removed, and almost no scratches - but. There was also a very definite fingerprint at the end of each strip where someone held the negatives while cutting. If I continue to use this lab, I will definitely ask for uncut negatives!

I don't want to get into a hybrid discussion on this analog forum, but if the lab processing resulted in any color issues, they were not significant enough to cause problems when inverting the images in Negative Lab Pro.

Adrian Bacon · Jul 11, 2021

runswithsizzers said:
There was also a very definite fingerprint at the end of each strip where someone held the negatives while cutting.

somebody didn’t glove up. I hate that. It you request uncut negatives, you’ll probably have fingerprints as well.

foc · Jul 11, 2021

Adrian Bacon said:
somebody didn’t glove up. I hate that. It you request uncut negatives, you’ll probably have fingerprints as well.

If they are cutting 35mm negatives by hand, then they should be able to hold the negative by the edges between thumb and forefinger as they cut, glove or no glove.
It is the correct way to handle 35mm.

C-41 lab processing - is there much variation?

radiant

foc

runswithsizzers

btaylor

MattKing

Moderator

faberryman

Sirius Glass

MattKing

Moderator

runswithsizzers

Adrian Bacon

foc

C-41 lab processing - is there much variation?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency