Dwayne's Kodachrome processing -- hmmm.

[Colin Corneau]

The long awaited package has arrived from Dwayne's -- 10 rolls of film from a recent trip to China. Once in a lifetime, really, in terms of the trip and the film choice since Kodak's announcement of the future of Kodachrome.

Sifting through the hundreds of slides, a few things became apparent right away.

• Kodachrome is totally unique.

• Dwayne's has some problems mounting slides.

An average of 20% of the slides show the edge & sprocket holes due to faulty mounting, and being mounted off-kilter. This is just unacceptable.

I haven't seen any scratches or other faults, and at least with wonky mounting the entire image is still printable/scannable, but...

Has anyone else had this problem? I plan to write a polite but firm message to Dwayne's about this issue - I'm not looking for battles - but wanted to let everyone know and see if this is common or just a one-off oddity.

 

[gr82bart]

Crap! I just sent them my rolls I shot this summer ... I've had issues about this with them a few years ago. I vowed never to use them again back then, but they redeemed themselves processing my 110 film recently. I hope they don't fcuk up again. They're also not the most pleasant people to deal with over the phone from what I recall.

Regards, Art.

 

[Ektagraphic]

They are mounted by a machine which is fully automatic and many times they cut slides in half. You may want to mount yourself.

 

[DanielStone]

I had a problem with some kodachrome received recently too. Some slides showed a very distinct part(like 1 stop underexposed) across some of the slide.

here's an example. I was using a fill flash, and I know that the shutter and sync is working properly, and 80% of the others don't show this problem. Does Kodachrome have to be re-exposed in the processing?



IDK if this could have caused the problem.

please forgive the dollar signs. my scanner software is a demo !!!

-Dan

 

[wildbill]

I haven't had those problems but they have sent me the dirtiest slides I've ever seen. I've come to terms with that.
I'm going to see if they'll return them uncut and unmounted.

 

[Darkroom317]

I had the same problem with sprocket holes on a roll of Kodachrome. Also, some black and white 120 I sent in had development problems with areas of over development.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Development, so far, looks just fine. And it seems clean -- again, so far.

 

[Iwagoshi]

An average of 20% of the slides show the edge & sprocket holes due to faulty mounting, and being mounted off-kilter. This is just unacceptable.

There should be enough play in the mount to manually adjust the slide within the mount. If the slide is tacked into the mount your may need to totally re-mount the slide, which I have never had to do.

 

[drkhalsa]

I've had about 20 rolls of fuji E6 film processed and mounted by Dwayne's over the past year and haven't had any problems with them.

Sat Kartar

 

[PeteZ8]

Crap! I just sent them my rolls I shot this summer ... I've had issues about this with them a few years ago. I vowed never to use them again back then, but they redeemed themselves processing my 110 film recently. I hope they don't fcuk up again. They're also not the most pleasant people to deal with over the phone from what I recall.

Regards, Art.

You also don't have a choice, short of throwing your exposed rolls of Kodachrome into the dumpster.

 

[PeteZ8]

I had a problem with some kodachrome received recently too. Some slides showed a very distinct part(like 1 stop underexposed) across some of the slide.

here's an example. I was using a fill flash, and I know that the shutter and sync is working properly, and 80% of the others don't show this problem. Does Kodachrome have to be re-exposed in the processing?



IDK if this could have caused the problem.

please forgive the dollar signs. my scanner software is a demo !!!

-Dan

Do you have others you could post? I'm trying to look at the ambient vs. background but it looks like the natural shadows fall in roughly the same area as where the line is so it's hard to tell if that was a mechanical error in your camera or something with the processing.

Yes Kodachrome does need to be reexposed but AFIK the lights are all colored to develop the different bases, and it is reexposed in between the development stages of different layers of the film (develop, expose, develop, expose...). So I would expect a reexposure error to have a heavy color cast.

Also, what kind of camera were you using? Were you using something with a vertical traveling multiblade shutter or a side curtain shutter like a Pentax K1000?

 

[nickstreme]

It is pretty obvious that you set your shutter over your cameras sync-speed.

 

[nickandre]

That's a camera error. If you processed it in a film chain, any issues would be running the length of the film not across it. Plus if you look at the sun on the right it's the same while the people are darker.

I've had a slide mounted incorrectly out of the 10 rolls I've sent them over the years. Even that one wasn't bad you could sort of see the sprockets. I tried to ask for unmounted slides when I sent a roll through walmart but the reply was "sorry, we're set up to mount them" or something like that. IF you send them directly will they forgo the mounting?

 

[Michael W]

I send it to them direct & always ask for unmounted, they send it back as a sleeved uncut roll. I then cut them in strips of 6 frames & put in my archival sleeves.

 

[Colin Corneau]

One has the option now of getting slides unmounted, by mailing directly to Dwayne's...I declined that option this time, obviously.

Kudos to them for offering, being fair.

 

[dr5chrome]

...this is not a process problem. It is a user error.

regards.

I had a problem with some kodachrome received recently too. Some slides showed a very distinct part(like 1 stop underexposed) across some of the slide.

here's an example. I was using a fill flash, and I know that the shutter and sync is working properly, and 80% of the others don't show this problem. Does Kodachrome have to be re-exposed in the processing?



IDK if this could have caused the problem.

please forgive the dollar signs. my scanner software is a demo !!!

-Dan

 

[dr5chrome]

...you'll have to unmount the frames and remount them. This is a mounter problem. Likely a dull blade.

dw

The long awaited package has arrived from Dwayne's -- 10 rolls of film from a recent trip to China. Once in a lifetime, really, in terms of the trip and the film choice since Kodak's announcement of the future of Kodachrome.

Sifting through the hundreds of slides, a few things became apparent right away.

• Kodachrome is totally unique.

• Dwayne's has some problems mounting slides.

An average of 20% of the slides show the edge & sprocket holes due to faulty mounting, and being mounted off-kilter. This is just unacceptable.

I haven't seen any scratches or other faults, and at least with wonky mounting the entire image is still printable/scannable, but...

Has anyone else had this problem? I plan to write a polite but firm message to Dwayne's about this issue - I'm not looking for battles - but wanted to let everyone know and see if this is common or just a one-off oddity.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

It's pretty sad, but my slides always come back with either dust or scratches, or both. Scratches aren't that common, but when they happen it's always to the best shot in the whole roll of course...
They're the only game in town, so beggers cant be choosers I guess, but I dont send them my E-6 stuff.

 

[MMfoto]

The trick to minimize the enevitable Dwayne's K-14 mounting/cutting problems is to only shoot film in a camera that you know has consistent film spacing, and NEVER shoot to the end of the roll, 35 max unless you want that last frame cut in half/taped. They use quite a bit of the end to tape each roll end to end for there Cine processor.

The processing itself always looks great, but the handling and service is poor. I would quite easily say that 50% of my film comes back with some issue. My favorite is the familiar end image cut in half with the rest of the roll cut through the edge of each image, AND half a frame cut off on both sides sitting loose in the box. Sending multiple rolls in a box and getting back ten mounted rolls worth of loose slides in a thin padded envelop because all they used was scotch tape to hold the slide boxes shut - which the slides are now stuck to, is another. Again, I sent some film in via Fuji marked Do Not Cut, and instead of returning them unprocessed, they went ahead and cut the film and included a note saying 'Do Not Cut' is not a service they offer (though they do it for direct orders).

 

[Steve Roberts]

Wonky mounting, bad cutting, marks and dust were the main reason I stopped using Kodachrome a couple of years ago (I raised the issue at the time and a thread followed) The British and European processing were in my long experience excellent but good ol' Dwayne's couldn't seem to get to grips with these most basic aspects of film processing. At the price of Kodachrome (and the fact that the price includes processing in the UK), I'm damned I'll be spending valuable hours of my life mounting slides just because they can't get it right. Goodbye Kodachrome, hello Fuji....
I wonder how many others (whether on APUG or not) abandoned Kodachrome because of the poor/inconsistent processing and whether if the service had been better more people would have continued to use it?

Steve

 

[ozphoto]

Hi Alex,
Who are you using for E6 processing these days?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Wonky mounting, bad cutting, marks and dust were the main reason I stopped using Kodachrome a couple of years ago (I raised the issue at the time and a thread followed) The British and European processing were in my long experience excellent but good ol' Dwayne's couldn't seem to get to grips with these most basic aspects of film processing.

This is why I stopped using Dwayne's a few years ago. They are only interested in processing as fast as they can and they don't need no stinkin' quality control.

Steve

 

[DanielStone]

Do you have others you could post? I'm trying to look at the ambient vs. background but it looks like the natural shadows fall in roughly the same area as where the line is so it's hard to tell if that was a mechanical error in your camera or something with the processing.

Yes Kodachrome does need to be reexposed but AFIK the lights are all colored to develop the different bases, and it is reexposed in between the development stages of different layers of the film (develop, expose, develop, expose...). So I would expect a reexposure error to have a heavy color cast.

Also, what kind of camera were you using? Were you using something with a vertical traveling multiblade shutter or a side curtain shutter like a Pentax K1000?

______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, it was shot with a K1000. Using a Vivitar 283 on camera. If I remember correctly, I was using 60th for shutter speed (for ambient sunny behind)(max shutter sync speed on k1000) and aperture for flash fill.

I might have accidentally set it at 1/125th or so, its my bad. I've just never had this happen before at all. But since it is in the same place in every frame, I guess it was my bad after all. Oh well, live and learn
here are some more.

-Dan

 

[nickrapak]

This is why I stopped using Dwayne's a few years ago. They are only interested in processing as fast as they can and they don't need no stinkin' quality control.

Steve

Amen to that! My last roll (of E-6) that I got back came back as a clear strip of acetate. The only reason I sent it to them was to use up the old Kodak mailers, but damned if I'm going to use them any more!

 

[Darkroom317]

I have never had a problem with them on my E-6 just one roll of Kodachrome and a few 120 b/w rolls. How is Samy's with their processing? I hear that they are offering $5.00 E-6 processing and I am considering switching,