Discrepancy in Negative Framing/Composition and Print

[FilmOnly]

I was studying the edges of some prints I got back recently, and noticed that a certain object seemed to be a bit cut-off in several prints. I have taken this shot before, and have always framed the shot with enough room to capture a "railroad crossing" sign on the right. I normally leave a foot or two--of real space--to the right of the sign, to ensure that the sign is in the frame, near the edge (but not cut out). In the prints in question, the sign has no space to the right, and the print cuts out a bit of the sign itself. At first, I tought I had perhaps composed it incorectly, but when I checked the negs, I saw that I compsoed the shots as I always have, with the sign fully in the frame. Likewise, I also noticed that there is a bit on the left boundary that also does not appear in the print (in my view, the missing area on the right is more obvious).

What has happened here? Did the operator at the lab somehow mess up the magnification and/or framing of my shots? I looked at older shots I took of the scene, and the sign (and all else) are in the shot every time, and all looks as I had planned at the time of capture. The issue of processing has been an issue for me for years now (as I have seen other problems), and this latest one is yet another that may perhaps push me out of film photography. Some have suggested that I develop and print myself (and I know this is the best option), but I barely have enough time to shoot, let alone develop...and print, too.

I have tried a number of pro labs, and all seem to have issues now and then.

I welcome your comments and perspectives.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The aspect ratio of the negative does not match the aspect ratio of the print paper, so the guy running the printing machine, who has no idea of your composition - or, likely, composition at all, has cropped.
If you want it done right, get an enlarger and print the negatives yourself.

 

[FilmOnly]

I understand what you are saying, and I had figured there must be some differential in aspect ratio. However, I have not noticed an obvious discrepancy in other photos. Perhaps it is all a matter of the operator? In the other shots I inspected last night (which were processed at a different lab), the sign looked about as I had composed it at the time of capture. I gather there may be some cropping, but it was minute enough not to have any major impact.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I understand what you are saying, and I had figured there must be some differential in aspect ratio. However, I have not noticed an obvious discrepancy in other photos. Perhaps it is all a matter of the operator? In the other shots I inspected last night, the sign looked about as I had composed it at the time of capture. I gather there may be some cropping, but it was minute enough not to have any major impact.

Yes, it is a matter of the operator. The quality of processing available, particularly printing, is abysmal. See if you can find a pro lab where you can actually communicate with the person doing the printing.

 

[MDR]

Talk to the operator and tell him how you want your negative to be printed 9 out 10 lab guys will follow your wish

Dominik

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, folks...

I added the comment in post #3 that the other photos I inspected were processed at a different lab. I switched from that lab (and now use another lab) because I would sometimes see specks and such on my negs and prints. They also tended to have problem with slow speed black and white film, as the results were markedly dark. Hence, my dilemma...

 

[FilmOnly]

Another thought: my sales rep. at KEH has suggested sending to E-Six Lab in Atlanta. Any thoughts?

I am really at my wits end here, and do not want to switch labs again, but for me, it seems it is either that or you know what (the "d" word).

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Another thought: my sales rep. at KEH has suggested sending to E-Six Lab in Atlanta. Any thoughts?

I am really at my wits end here, and do not want to switch labs again, but for me, it seems it is either that or you know what (the "d" word).

Having a camera without a darkroom is like having the leash without the dog.

 

[ROL]

Having a camera without a darkroom is like having the leash without the dog.

.

Interestingly, the idea of "cropping" seems to reliably cause conniption fits among the less experienced and rigid thinkers. The standard print sizes one used to order from Kodak, or whomever, were always cropped from the original 35mm film. The same will be the case if you finally elect to adopt a dog, no matter the particular film type or aspect ratio. It would befit many to come to terms aesthetically and artistically with cropping.

 

[FilmOnly]

I guess those of us who use film equipment but do not develop and/or print are just misguided neophytes who are undeserving of film equipment.

 

[Ian C]

You're not misguided. Take the negative and unsatisfactory print back to the lab and request that it be reprinted to include the RR Crossing sign as you want.

 

[FilmOnly]

Thank you, Ian, as this sounds reasonable to me. I would, though, have to send it across the country, as I use a lab that is way out of town. Again, I appreciate your encouragement and sensible remarks.

 

[Chan Tran]

Most machine prints will crop a bit from your negative even if the print is 4x6 and has exactly the same aspect ratio as the negative.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I guess those of us who use film equipment but do not develop and/or print are just misguided neophytes who are undeserving of film equipment.

That's hardly the case. But you are missing a good deal of the enjoyment.

 

[Brian Puccio]

To the OP: I'd talk with the lab. Sadly, round trip shipping will kill you on one more print from one negative that the lab screwed up. You could always address the error now and tell them they can redo it for free with your next batch in a few weeks or you can opt to no longer use the lab. (I'm still shopping around for the perfect mail order lab for regular E6 and the occasional print myself.)

As for what happened, was it just one frame you sent them for a print or did you send a roll and ask for prints/development? If the latter, are all other frames cropped similarly? (You mentioned you looked at other prints from other labs, I'm not talking about those, I'm talking about all the prints from the problem lab.)

I can think of a few things, assuming 35mm format. Did you ask for a print with a 2:3 aspect ratio? Images on negatives (assuming you're not taking panoramic photos) are 24mm x 36mm. If you ask for a 4x6" print, you'll get pretty much the entire frame. (Unless you ask for printing to or of the sprocket holes, there's always a tiny bit of cropping.) If you asked for an 8x10" print, you'll actually lose some of the photo in the longer dimension, to get everything, you'd have to ask for an 8x12" print, since that's a 2:3 aspect ratio.

Does this print seem off-center? (Does the side opposite the missing sign have a bit of the neighboring frames?) That would mean that the negative strip wasn't aligned properly when printing.

If it's not aspect ratio, then it does sound like the lab made a mistake, whether it be cropping all around too much or simply printing off-center). I'm curious if it's just one frame or multiple. But your best bet is to call them and ask why.

Every lab I have dealt with has made at least a moderate effort to give me the print I wanted how I wanted it. It may be miscommunication, it may be operator error that slipped past quality control late one Friday night, it may be something else.

Best of luck!

I guess those of us who use film equipment but do not develop and/or print are just misguided neophytes who are undeserving of film equipment.

That's hardly the case. But you are missing a good deal of the enjoyment.

One man's enjoyment is another man's torture. Some of us are about end result (and so happen to prefer the analog end result as opposed to the digital) and find some if not many of the steps from taking the photo to getting the print annoying at best and miserable at worst. Others simply don't have the means. "Get a darkroom" as a response to someone who took the time to point out from the get-go that they weren't interested in a dark room is not helpful.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

He didn't say he wasn't interested, he said he didn't have time. How much time has he wasted futzing around with lousy labs? This isn't the first problem he has had.

He has two choices. Find a lab that will work with him, or do it himself.

Personally, there is no lab that can print what I have visualised for a given negative, unless the negs are simple snapshots.

 

[FilmOnly]

I appreciate the additional commentary.

Brian: I sent the lab three rolls of 35mm print film for processing (4x6 prints). I would have to say, no, the other frames are not similarly cropped. The cropping seems to vary. I will double check this, but I am pretty sure that is what I saw last night, on all rolls.

You are right about seeing nearly all of the frame in a 4x6 print. This is what I had thought, and it is the precise reason why I was bothered by what I saw from the lab this time. I spoke with E Six Lab today, and, after I told the representative of my problem, he responded by stating that about "98 percent" of the frame shows up on their 4x6 prints. Judging by what I see on the negs--and what I have seen numerous times in other prints--there has been some irregular cropping in my last batch. In any case, I have sent three rolls to E Six. They seem to have good customer service. We will see what happens.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

You didn't mention what camera you are using. Keep in mind that most 35mm SLRs show a bit less in the viewfinder than appears on the film. Exceptions are the Nikon F and F2, as well as a few others that I can't think of right now. A slight amount of cropping takes place to assure a clean edge of the image on the paper, but beyond this there should be no cropping on 3:2 ratio prints.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Having worked in the industry for many years I can understand your problem, and also sympathize with the labs. Getting a good lab can be as hard as finding a good cup of coffee, tastes vary!
Because of the borderless prints, even if the negative size matches the format of the print as in the case of a 6x4, it is necessary to crop all the edges a little to avoid black edges etc. This can vary with the way the machines are set up, some will do less, some more. Also the frame advancing mechanism will vary from time to time, cropping more from one end or another.
Some machines will give the alternative of printing the full neg, but getting them to do this for one customer may be a problem!
With our lab we had a few enthusiast customers with particular requirements with colour or density and we were happy to accommodate them, but second guessing what a customer wants is impossible as tastes vary so much....some are quite bizarre!
I can sympathize with your problem as not everyone can set up a darkroom, but in reality the only way to get exactly what you want is to do it yourself unfortunately. This is why I only do B&W these days!
!

 

[FilmOnly]

I am aware of viewfinder coverage, and it is not truly relevant here. If anything, my 95% coverage X-570 should give me even "more," so to speak, around the borders I observe at capture than my 100% coverage F3P. In both cases, there was enough there for the sign (or other such object) to be within the frame, as the negatives demonstrate. I have taken these shots a number of times, setting them up the same way each time, and I saw the cut-out issue this time on my prints. Also, these are tripod/cable release shots, and so there should be no issues in regard to the frame being "moved."

 

[John Koehrer]

Most machine prints will crop a bit from your negative even if the print is 4x6 and has exactly the same aspect ratio as the negative.

What he said! ^.

You're relying on an automatic printer, if the operator's doing a number of rolls of film, he likely doesn't have either time or ability to compare each print to a negative.