It should be similar. Did you have a great variation in exposure and/or lighting?
This brings an interesting point. A Mini-lab automated machine will not adjust the filtration for every frame ? correct. ? I don't even know how an automated machine can come up with the correct filtration in the first place, but once found , exposure and filtration will be consistent throughout the roll. so for those 4x6 prints, what was wrong stays wrong . Am I correct ? Can someone with experience elaborate on this.
This brings an interesting point. A Mini-lab automated machine will not adjust the filtration for every frame ? correct. ?
I don't even know how an automated machine can come up with the correct filtration in the first place, ...
Hi, not correct. A mini-lab printer DOES adjust for every frame.
Early mini-lab machines typically had three color sensors somewhere after the negative, so they could measure the average amount of light (and color) coming through the negative. They would change both the exposure time and the filtration in an attempt to get a roughly grey average. This is similar to the way we use a light meter to measure exposure for an outdoor scene, and the earlier mini-labs were easily fooled in the same ways. If you took photos outdoors in the snow, the mini-lab printer would want to print it too dark; it was up to the operator to notice this possible problem, and override the machine by pressing the appropriate density or color buttons.
Different types of film had different characteristics, so the machines were pre-calibrated for specific film types. This was done with the assistance of printer setup negatives (often called "Shirleys") which were available on different films. The results were saved on a "channel," and it was always necessary to select the proper channel for the customer's film type.
Printing errors due to "non-average" negatives was an ongoing problem with such printers until Agfa came out with their "MSC" mini-lab, incorporating the first (to my knowledge) built in scanner. Although the scanner was low resolution, it was the first time such machines could be "smart" about the scene content, and adjust accordingly. They were a bit like today's advanced "matrix metering" cameras, compared to an averaging meter.
Those drug store machines were usually just about as capable as the fancier versions. The built in automatic exposure and automatic colour corrections are/were quite capable of responding to poorly exposed photographs and photographs exposed under unusual lighting conditions. However, they still required proper setup, regular callibration and maintenance, proper chemical replenishment and experienced operators. Some drug stores offered that, along with a policy that required their staff to regularly check results and reprint where required. Others ......How about the Machines at the Drug Stores.? Those level of details are not - were not taking in consideration in chain drug stores 1 hr. photo location. right ?
I remember getting bad pictures when I took bad pictures when I was young . nobody corrected my regular consumer pictures I sent to the drug stores for 1hr development.
How about the Machines at the Drug Stores.? Those level of details are not - were not taking in consideration in chain drug stores 1 hr. photo location. right ?
I remember getting bad pictures when I took bad pictures when I was young . nobody corrected my regular consumer pictures I sent to the drug stores for 1hr development.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?