Completely Frustrated with Film Processing--Please Help

dynachrome · Sep 27, 2009

Frustrated With Film Processing

If you are still willing to pay for color film processing then try A&I in Los Angeles. Their work is excellent. Postage is a major cost in sending film back and forth so you would want to send a few rolls at a time. What you might try is using A&I to make negatives and possibly also scans. You would make your own 4X6 and 5X7 color prints at home either from A&I's scans or from your own. A scanner capable of generating a good 5X7 from 35mm film is not very expensive. If you want an 8X10 or something larger you can have A&I scan the selected negative at the appropriate resolution level and make the print. My local lab is very good but the cost of shooting a lot of color print film and having prints made of all of the frames is going to be high no matter who does it. Having a lab make negatives so you can scan and print them digitally wil be less costly, assuming that you do some editing before printing, and will extend your ability to use your film equipment.

I would use traditional b&w film and develop that myself. There have been many improvements is digital b&w printing but they do not provide the same look as projection printing.

keithwms · Sep 27, 2009

keithwms said:
Actually, there is an excellent pro lab in C'ville, Stubblefield photo. They do fantastic work at good prices. They do trad processing from 35mm through 8x10, b&w E6 and c41 (although N.b. I think the only do c41 to 4x5"). They also do high end drum scanning as well as 'normal' scanning, and output by various means.

P.S. One block from John Stubblefield's lab in C'ville is Pro Camera, run by Bill Moritz, a very well respected art photographer. His camera store has a nice selection of cameras for sale and rent, from 35 through LF, plus all the digital toys. Stubblefield and Pro Camera are routinely used by, suffice it to say, many successful people.

Any doubters of 35mm chromes need to stop by Stubbies and see his murals from the east. They are total jaw droppers.

markbarendt · Sep 27, 2009

Home processing was a bit of a learning curve for me and yes I even scratched some of my own.

I've started doing my own C-41 and it's working fine too. I use small tanks half full and syringes to measure the liquid concentrates into one-shot batches.

Once I got my system down my problems vanished.

It took me two years to get my digital processing where I liked it and it would still bite me. Film and Digital just have different strengths and weaknesses.

cooltouch · Sep 27, 2009

I know a lot of folks despise Wal-Mart, but I'll mention them anyway. If you have one close by, you might want to give it a try. Fuji labs does the developing/printing for the stuff they send out (like 120 and slides), and the results are consistently good. Just sayin'. If you're close to a Costco, I'd recommend their one-hour processing over Wal-Mart. They don't do B&W, but since you use Kodak 400 CN, this isn't an issue.

FilmOnly · Sep 27, 2009

Yes, Wal-Mart was fairly good...but they scratched at least two rolls that I can remember. I used their off-site Fuji service that you mention. Again, pretty good results, but the horizontal scratches ruined some nice shots.

FilmOnly · Sep 27, 2009

Well, Keith, you have helped me. I think I will be taking a trip down to C'ville pretty soon, as Stubblefield interests me. I just finished two rolls and they are ready to go--a roll of Ektar 100 (my first of this film) and a roll of 400 CN. Should I get both rolls done? I ask because I have noticed that the "scratch probability" seems to increase when multiple rolls are done at once. I think one poster has suggested this above, too. For me, though, since I will be traveling, I would much prefer to have both rolls processed at once. Also, could you please provide some directions?...perhaps in a PM (if you wish)? I will be heading south, entering town on Route 29.

keithwms · Sep 27, 2009

Sure, put 'em both into Stubblefield. And he gives me most of my stuff same day if it's in by 9 am... including 8x10 slides. So try to get it to him in the morning and then you can have it after lunch.

You can't go wrong with Stubblefield, the lab is excellent. Directions to Stubblefield can be found here:

http://www.stubphoto.com/print_directions.html

I and my darkroom are in physics at UVa, right off 29 (which becomes Emmet when you go south from 29N) on McCormick Rd. Very easy to find, I am in bldg 41 on this map:

http://www.virginia.edu/webmap/GMcCormickRoadArea.html

You can turn from 250 onto Emmet and after a mile or so, turn right via the small ramp onto McCormick just before the bridge; physics will be on the immediate right. The parking garage is bldg 8 on the map. If you miss the ramp you will find yourself on JPA and then in the university hospital area.

~~~

When you do start your own processing, I wouldn't start with anything precious. Just shoot a test roll or two of the same subject.... pick a subject with good range of tones and colour. Then you can clip the film and do small tests and satisfy yourself that it is easy enough. Most people (including me) think that putting the film on the spools is the hardest part. So it's nice to have a roll of cheap film to practice with in daylight.

cooltouch · Sep 27, 2009

I've had even pro labs scratch my negs and slides. All it takes is the tiniest piece of dust. I don't like it any more than the next guy when this happens, but I guess the way I look at it is how frequently it happens, not the number of times it's happened in total.

mopar_guy · Sep 27, 2009

There is another possibility to explain your problems with scratches. These scratches in the emulsion may be caused by something going on in your camera prior to the lab receiving the film. Just a thought.

keithwms · Sep 27, 2009

Yes, do clean the innards of your camera, especially if you see scratches parallel to the direction of motion of the film

FilmOnly · Sep 27, 2009

The scratches I have noticed are parallel to the direction of motion of the film. I do, however, check and clean my cameras. I have always doubted that the camera is the cause because it happens on one roll, and then the next roll is perfect. Based upon what I know and have heard about cameras scratching film, it is almost always a repeated occurrence (and usually something in the film transport causing the scratches). A fair number of cameras will even repeatedly scratch at the same point--for example, from frame 24 to the end of the roll.

cooltouch: I appreciate the comments you have made. Indeed, pro labs are not quite perfect, either. Few people seem to understand this. Throwing money at this problem does not seem to suffice. Such is why I have been considering digital. I am having a hard time justifying continuing in a medium that is, apparently, flawed in a most critical aspect. Film is indeed superior, but how many times could I tell myself that it is okay that a nice shot is ruined?

Christopher Walrath · Sep 27, 2009

Just remember a few things. First, check out Keith's labs. Make sure the gear you have is clean. Check it regularly. In the meantime, figure this out. (Your film consumption/year) + (your processing - printing fees/year) + (your stress and general angst). Then figure this. (Your film consumption/year) + $200. This gives you your total (more or less) for processing your own black and white film for a whole year. The next year you only need to purchase more film and chemistry. And the learning curve is zero to really quick. Here's a link to a recent article on black and white film processing. CiM: July 2009 And ask any questions you might have. Do not hesitate.

Chan Tran · Sep 27, 2009

Tim,
All of the Target's around my area have been switching to the Noritsu QSF-T15 film processor. It's a nice processor but only do 35mm, no 120 or 220 like the older and larger machine. (Most Walmart have the Fuji that can process 120 and 220 but they don't offer that service. They would accept your film but send them out)

FilmOnly · Sep 28, 2009

Chan Tran is correct. I have noticed the Noritsu at my local Target. It had worked quite well on my first roll (about three weeks ago), but it ruined my second roll (as noted above...it gave all of my prints an awful sky blue tone).

Chris W: I thank you for the advice and encouragement. I will consider the relevant factors.

All: As of this writing, I have yet to purchase digital gear. In fact, I could not resist buying an MA Motor Drive for my A-1. Thus, I suppose I have made a decision (at least for now). I also sent two rolls on their way to PhotoworksSF. Their prices are very reasonable, and they sound like they know what they are doing. We will see...

Vonder · Sep 28, 2009

Good gods. This isn't world politics with your decision potentially affecting millions of people. If you think digital is better then go for it. Lots of people use digital cameras and are very happy. Your images are yours - why exactly did you think they HAD to be shot on film in the first place?

One other thought. My pro lab here does great work, but sometimes my negatives get scratched. I asked about it and they think it's the film cutter they use. Have you tried getting your negatives back uncut?

photomem · Sep 28, 2009

When I want some color processed locally (granted I usually do color slide instead of print), I use Memphis Professional Imaging. They do good work and I believe they do mail order as well. When my old Mamiyaflex was failing, they actually processed my rolls, found them all to be underexposed, and gave them back to me at no charge. Good people.

FilmOnly · Sep 28, 2009

Indeed, there are things that are of much greater significance than photography. No, I do not think the cutting of the negatives has anything to do with the scratches I have found. The scratches are horizontal. They are typical of either a camera scratching the film or film developing equipment scratching the film (perhaps via the rollers or from improperly maintained equipment). Also, as I have mentioned above, the specs and spots--not just the scratches--are equally irritating.

Vonder · Sep 28, 2009

Digital makes sense

FilmOnly said:
Indeed, there are things that are of much greater significance than photography. No, I do not think the cutting of the negatives has anything to do with the scratches I have found. The scratches are horizontal. They are typical of either a camera scratching the film or film developing equipment scratching the film (perhaps via the rollers or from improperly maintained equipment). Also, as I have mentioned above, the specs and spots--not just the scratches--are equally irritating.

Given these factors, digital might seem the way to go. I would avoid a DSLR because they are subject to dust problems which could mimic a condition you are having trouble with. Of course you can fix the problems in Photoshop and have pristine images that way, but you can do that with scanned film just as easilly, even scratched or spotted film. Digital will of course not give you a negative, so if that is what you really want, why consider digital in the first place?

I'm reading between the lines here, I guess. If digital images are what you want you can get them from film or a digicam - and film scratches and spots can be fixed digitally.

Am I correct in that what you really want are clean, unscratched negatives - or are you happy with a digital file? One thing is certain, it's easy to make digital images from film but not so easy to do the reverse.

BradS · Sep 28, 2009

the state of film processing is indeed pathetic and seems to get worse by the day. There is one pro lab left near my home...it is in the neighboring town and we are not out in the boonies either! This particular pro lab (E&J Photo Lab in Dublin, CA) has always done consistently good work...yes, it costs a bit more to have a roll of film processed there than at the local Target or Walmat....but they never screw up the color or scratch the film. If they ever stop processing film or their quality slips....I'll probably just quit shooting color and shoot B&W exclusively. I process my own B&W and it really looks as if that is the only real future for film...and for photography. This is the major reason for me to shoot Large format too incidently. It is much easier for me, with my meager printing skills, to get a decent print from a 4x5 negative than it is to do so from a 35mm negative.

Digital is crap. It lasts for only a few minutes, looks like shit and has no soul. I'll never shoot digital.

Seriously, look into processing your own B&W. Use Kodak D-76, Kodak indicator stop, Kodak fixer, tap water and Photoflo200...it only smells funny...it isn't dangerous to your health.

FilmOnly · Sep 28, 2009

There are some good comments here. I could not agree more: digital has no soul. This is the main reason why I have not switched to that rather "flat" format. I will continue to consider the input that has been offered.

Chan Tran · Sep 28, 2009

This is APUG a forum for film shooters. For whatever reason we want to shoot film and not digital we do not need to discuss. The problem here is if you shoot film, how do you get your film processed. It's getting more and more difficult as time goes by. I think we should put our heads together and find a solution rather than simply quit shooting film.

Anscojohn · Sep 28, 2009

Chan Tran said:
This is APUG a forum for film shooters. For whatever reason we want to shoot film and not digital we do not need to discuss. The problem here is if you shoot film, how do you get your film processed. It's getting more and more difficult as time goes by. I think we should put our heads together and find a solution rather than simply quit shooting film.

*******
You are correct, of course. But my guess is that O.P. is one of those folks who cannot accept anything less than 110% perfection. With film, as we all know, mistakes happen in processing. We have to accept that dismal fact as one of the "costs" of doing photography. Some people can accept that; some people can't or won't. For those photographers, there is digit hell and the hope that the computer doesn't crash at the wrong time.

keithwms · Sep 28, 2009

FilmOnly said:
I could not agree more: digital has no soul.

Film has no soul either. Photographers and their subjects provide 100% of the soul.

Vonder · Sep 28, 2009

keithwms said:
Film has no soul either. Photographers and their subjects provide 100% of the soul.

I thought it was "A big legged woman ain't got no soul" ...

FilmOnly · Sep 29, 2009

Film is an inanimate object. I was using the term, "soul," in a figurative manner. The photographer and subject define a photograph. The film, however, adds a certain character, a character that does not seem to be expressed in digital images.

I find the term, "digit hell," interesting and effective. It seems to capture the limited range of expression I tend to observe in digital. I gather that all of us, to one degree or another, could be considered "perfectionists." The original intent here was not to bash film or justify digital, but to discuss solutions or approaches in regard to the issues associated with contemporary film processing.

Completely Frustrated with Film Processing--Please Help

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency