Completely Frustrated with Film Processing--Please Help

[elekm]

I just received back from Dan's Camera City the six rolls of color print film that I sent them. They were shot with at least four different cameras and included rolls that I found in my nightstand drawer.

Dan's, as always, has done an excellent job. Turnaround time was about a week. One roll came out particularly poor, but I think that the fault is with the photographer (again).

The order included two rolls of Fuji 400, two rolls of Kodak 200 and two rolls of Rite Aid-branded ASA400 film. The rolls that impressed me the most were the Rite Aid-branded film. Colors were very nice, and grain was under control. This was notable, because nearly all were shot indoors inside an aviary.

My own thoughts are that the less you pay for processing, the higher the possibility of problems.

 

[mark]

I am confused, is the OP upset about the quality of the prints or the negatives? I never assume I am going to get good prints. I consider them working prints. If I see something I want blown up I send that neg for a custom blow up.

If the OP is talking about damaged negs then I readily sympathise. Damaged negs is why I no longer take my stuff to a consumer grade processor.

 

[FilmOnly]

I appreciate you sharing your recent experience, Mike.

mark: I have been upset about the quality of both the negatives and prints. This, of course, has not been in all cases, but enough to at least be irritating. In nearly all cases, when I have noticed a problem with a print, I have detected the same problem (i.e. scratches, specks, etc.) on the negative. With regard to 4"x6" prints, I consider them something more than working prints. I put my better shots in photo albums. I have heard (over and over) people comment on how "small" the 4x6 print is. I disagree with this perspective, as the common, "working," or everyday print size has gotten much larger over the past few decades. I can remember those 3x3s taken by my mother and father. These were the standard of the day. We have gone from a photo of nine square inches to a photo of twenty-four square inches. Thus, we have nearly tripled the size of an everyday print.

 

[jglass]

Can some of you guys who mentioned doing home C41 processing please join in the thread on C41 for Dummies on this forum and chip in? We're trying to get a good idea of availability (primarily in the US) of small batch Kodak or Fuji c41 chemistry for home processing. All thoughts welcome

 

[bob100684]

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...

the noritsu didn't give all your prints a blue tone, the poorly trained incompetent lab tech did....Whether it was because they didn't color correct or didn't bother balancing the paper.

 

[FilmOnly]

bob100684: what and excellent point this is--thank you. I had been wondering if "pilot error" had been the cause.

 

[Sirius Glass]

bob100684: what and excellent point this is--thank you. I had been wondering if "pilot error" had been the cause.

The proper technical term is the the acronym for Operator Assisted Failure also know as OAF. Usage: The OAF did not set up the film processing machine correctly and the films were tinted blue.

In the future please use the proper technical term as that will help the other readers.

Steve

 

[Chan Tran]

Bob and Sirus. When I sent my film to Target is for film developing only no print. Yes my film came back bad and I can tell. The problem with them is that even though the machine is designed for low volume it would still need around 10 rolls a day to keep the process in good control. Sometimes they don't have that many rolls a day. When they first received the machine from Noritsu, the tech from Noritsu set the machine up, fine tune it and it did an excellent job. But then it started to drift out of control and suffer from lack of cleaning which causes scratches and lump on the negatives. I suspect that they don't run test strip and make adjustment either as I suspect that they don't know how to make adjustment if the process start to drift from the aim point. I don't care if only the prints quality is bad. The problem is with film.

 

[naugastyle]

Concerning disposal: this has been discussed here over and over again; there should be an option siuted for whereever you are situated.

Just picking up on this bit: I tried searching the site and didn't really see any discussions (using Google search). I currently flush my b/w chemicals down the toilet. Can the same be done for color?

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.

If it varies from roll to roll, it could be something caught in the canister felt. I've gotten this before...but it's pretty rare. Are you storing your film in a dusty place??

If the major problem (other than scratches) is quality of prints, I'd really recommend you only get negatives (preferably uncut--one less process for the lab techs to screw up) and scan them. I never get process + print anymore, as color is so subjective. Either you have a tech who doesn't care how your photos look, or you have someone who means well but maybe doesn't understand the qualities of the film you were using or is basing color corrections off the preferences of the general public--lots of punch/contrast. I do my own corrections, save as sRGB, take the digital files to be printed, and even though it's done by machine the prints are on real photo paper and look great.

 

[bob100684]

Bob and Sirus. When I sent my film to Target is for film developing only no print. Yes my film came back bad and I can tell. The problem with them is that even though the machine is designed for low volume it would still need around 10 rolls a day to keep the process in good control. Sometimes they don't have that many rolls a day. When they first received the machine from Noritsu, the tech from Noritsu set the machine up, fine tune it and it did an excellent job. But then it started to drift out of control and suffer from lack of cleaning which causes scratches and lump on the negatives. I suspect that they don't run test strip and make adjustment either as I suspect that they don't know how to make adjustment if the process start to drift from the aim point. I don't care if only the prints quality is bad. The problem is with film.

Its still pilot error. the tech should be reading control strips daily....from there you can adjust the chemistry if it out of whack, for example if any given chemical is too weak you can add more replenisher, if the developer is too strong, starter can be added ect.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bob and Sirus. When I sent my film to Target is for film developing only no print. Yes my film came back bad and I can tell. The problem with them is that even though the machine is designed for low volume it would still need around 10 rolls a day to keep the process in good control. Sometimes they don't have that many rolls a day. When they first received the machine from Noritsu, the tech from Noritsu set the machine up, fine tune it and it did an excellent job. But then it started to drift out of control and suffer from lack of cleaning which causes scratches and lump on the negatives. I suspect that they don't run test strip and make adjustment either as I suspect that they don't know how to make adjustment if the process start to drift from the aim point. I don't care if only the prints quality is bad. The problem is with film.

Still Oaf, Oaf, Oaf, Oaf, Oaf and Oaf. [Even sounds like a law firm!]

Steve

 

[coloradocold]

I shoot digital and 35mm and 120 (6x7) slide film and have a lab develop and scan at the same time. First let me say that I like the look of film much better than that of digital. (When your chasing the grandchildren around digital is easier for me.)

There is always a small amount of dust specks on my slides and scans vary from good to poor - seldom great. Because my printing is done by local print shops that need a digital file, I remove dust and adjust color with Photoshop. When I shoot digital I spend even more time in Photoshop to get the results I want. I could better results with film if I invested in dark room equipment or my own $2000 scanner. As a perfectionist I always think I need better/more equipment and the patience and practice that goes with it.

I began with digital but started to use film when used medium format equipment became affordable. My experience so far has shown me that:

1. Larger format yields better results with film and digital. (Have you priced full frame digital cameras? $2,000 and up)
2. Digital requires a lot of post processing and there is a steep learning curve to Photoshop.
3. Film takes more time but the results are usually much better.
4. Most problems you encounter with your photography can be solved with time and money. (Having both at the same time is the problem)

Disclaimer: I am not a professional and have only had my 120 camera for about 8 months and am learning as I go. This website has been a great inspiration and resource for information and education. Thanks to all who post.

 

[nolanr66]

Labs are frustrating sometimes. I just had a photo CD made at CostCo tonight and when I got home the CD is blank. It's kind of a long drive over to CostCo so I am just going to scan the negatives myself this weekend. I have used all sorts of labs over the years and have found that they are all very capable of letting you down in a number of ways. I currently use a Nikon system of film and digital bodies. Currently it seems like a good idea to use both formats as they are each fun to use.

 

[darinwc]

Any Luck?

FilmOnly,
Have you had any resolve to your issues yet?
I recently had a similar experience. I took the film in to target for processing only at $1 a roll. Seemed like a good deal.
5 rolls came back and every frame scratched in the same place. All badly developed. Differnt film, different cameras. All looked like crap.

I fear that target will not be the only ones headed down this path. Retail shops will not be getting any qualified technicians, and equipment will age. Good color processing will only be getting harder to find and more expensive.

It's very depressing.

But I recently went over some older scans from negs properly developed and it re-energized me a bit. It's not me, it was just some OAF's. I got what I paid for, dirt cheap. I will move on and find a better place.

 

[FilmOnly]

I am glad you have asked how things are going. Indeed, the general state of film processing is depressing.

I have some good news to report, though. I took the advice of one of the above posters, and sent my film to Photo Works in San Francisco. They developed and printed two rolls for me, and did an excellent job. I will be sending all of my film their way. Whoever suggested Photo Works: thanks!