Kodak Ektar 100, high (very ugly) contrast prints

zanxion72 · Mar 2, 2016

My last roll of Kodak Ektar 100 that had expired in 2014 (but has been refrigerated all that time), came back from the lab with prints of very high contrast. There where dark shadows and blown highlights almost in every frame.
Scanning the negatives I get far better results with detail even where there is plain black in the prints.
I had it exposed at box speed. Could it be that the lab does an awful print job, or that it is just that Epson Scan gets more out of the film from what the lab's printer can?

MattKing · Mar 2, 2016

Scanning requires skill and experience - just like optical printing.

The operator of your lab's scanning equipment didn't do a good job.

craigclu · Mar 2, 2016

Sounds like a lab issue.... Perhaps had the wrong film profile loaded?

zanxion72 · Mar 2, 2016

Do the labs scan the film and then print it? If so, getting the negatives elsewhere may give me a better chance getting good results out of it?

MattKing · Mar 2, 2016

APUGuser19 said:
This is a digital thread that I was baited to click on. Start with film, which is optical/silver/chemical process, translate to digital and computer, then back to optical/silver/chemical again. So it passes under the radar on this forum by the former and latter. But it's the central that opens up a complete can of worms, if not a trainload of them.

Actually no.

Strictly speaking the source of the OP's problem is probably purely digital, so it is therefor almost fully off topic for APUG.

But because the OP's question suggested that he/she didn't necessarily understand how things work in most labs, it was just common courtesy to point him/her toward where the problems probably arose from.

If we started to tell him/her how to fix things, or to discuss the pros and cons of scanning techniques, then that would be grounds for closing the thread down.

MattKing · Mar 2, 2016

zanxion72 said:
Do the labs scan the film and then print it? If so, getting the negatives elsewhere may give me a better chance getting good results out of it?

There are very few labs left that print optically (save some that still do optical custom enlargements).

So to a very great extent, the quality of prints you get from a standard development and print order will be based on the scanning equipment used, and the skill and experience of the operators with that equipment.

If it is practical, show the results to the lab and ask for better prints.

Athiril · Mar 2, 2016

There aren't any film profiles on things like Frontier minilab scanner/printer combos. They also work well with Ektar.

Your issue is in the processing, exposure, or condition of the film. Can you show us the prints and your scan? Might shed some light.

Anon Ymous · Mar 2, 2016

zanxion72 said:
Do the labs scan the film and then print it? If so, getting the negatives elsewhere may give me a better chance getting good results out of it?

Yes, they do and I seriously doubt that you can find any lab that prints optically. Giving the negatives elsewhere may get you better results, but if you've already scanned your negatives, why not give them the files? As an added bonus, nobody else will mess with your negatives, leaving fingerprints, gunk, scratches etc on them.

railwayman3 · Mar 2, 2016

As I understand it, the labs scan the neg, then print with lasers onto silver-based paper which is then processed normally, i.e. not inkjet prints ? As we probably have to accept this hybrid method if we use most labs, I think it is a legitimate query by the OP as to the cause of his poor results, even if it proves to be poor operation of the "digital" part of the process.

zanxion72 · Mar 2, 2016

Oh man! Things have changed so much that I am not aware of what is going on. Sorry if this has been posted in the wrong section. I had no idea i

Anon Ymous said:
Yes, they do and I seriously doubt that you can find any lab that prints optically. Giving the negatives elsewhere may get you better results, but if you've already scanned your negatives, why not give them the files? As an added bonus, nobody else will mess with your negatives, leaving fingerprints, gunk, scratches etc on them.

Would the scans form an Epson V600 produce prints of equal quality?

L Gebhardt · Mar 2, 2016

In my opinion the limited range of color papers available today can not cope with high contrast negatives when printing optically (without masking). That's what led me to stop printing color in the darkroom. I doubt your prints were done optically, but if they were it's probable they were printed on papers designed for digital printing (high contrast). High contrast films like Ektar just make the issue worse.

But most likely your poor prints are the result of a poorly run scanner. Explain the issue and ask them to reprint them.

DREW WILEY · Mar 2, 2016

Did you discuss this with your lab? My own C41 processing is actually done at what is mainly a digital lab, at least for small film (35mm and 120).
They send the sheet film out to someone else nearby. If there's any doubt about what I took, or for test per se, they offer both viewing discs and
contact sheets for a modest extra fee. Normally I don't need these; but sometimes I do diagnostic tests where I want a visual clue before printing
something myself in the darkroom. Ektar is slightly higher contrast than most color neg films, but distinctly less contrast than any chrome film.
In other words, if you can correctly expose slide film, Ektar is a piece of cake. I expose it at box speed (100).

MattKing · Mar 2, 2016

zanxion72 said:
Would the scans form an Epson V600 produce prints of equal quality?

We aren't supposed to talk about scanning here on APUG.

The sister site - DPUG.ORG - welcomes scanning discussions, however it has much less traffic and its software is to be updated in the next few months, so it is fairly slow.

The owner of the two sites - Sean - is going to be installing the same new software on DPUG as was recently installed here on APUG. That will permit him to move scanning questions over to DPUG and have them continue there. But for now, you need to sign in there separately and ask your question again.

Feel free to use the same username.

Don't feel bad about either not understanding the changes in the industry or about raising the question here. Scanning has been common in the industry since before APUG was born (but not since when APUGuser19 was young ).

zanxion72 · Mar 3, 2016

Many thanks all for helping me land in 2016! I really had no idea and it is time to get me a new enlarger with a color head as what excites me in analog photography is exactly what puts me off in digital (I am not implying anything for anyone, it just does not suit me)
(now how would one explain the need of a new enlarger to wife, any advice will be deeply appreciated )

Anon Ymous · Mar 3, 2016

zanxion72 said:
...(now how would one explain the need of a new enlarger to wife, any advice will be deeply appreciated )

If your can swap your condenser head for a colourhead, then you don't necessarily need another enlarger. Chances are that your wife won't notice.

twelvetone12 · Mar 3, 2016

zanxion72 said:
... it is time to get me a new enlarger with a color head ...

I got the color filters from freestyle, a bit fiddly to work with but cheap and I can just place them on the filter holder of my v35. Optical color prints are just stunning! (and I find them easier that B&W too!)

Roger Cole · Mar 3, 2016

Anon Ymous said:
If your can swap your condenser head for a colourhead, then you don't necessarily need another enlarger. Chances are that your wife won't notice.

You don't need another enlarger OR head. You can print color just fine using color printing filters in the filter drawer of a condenser enlarger. I've made probably at least a few hundred color prints on Ilfochrome (called Cibachrome in those days) and Kodak 2203 Type R and RA4, all using color printing filters. I've never owned a color head.

It takes a few second longer to change filters than to dial in a new setting, but it's only a few seconds. And you don't get the dust and scratch minimizing benefits of a color diffusion head, but it works perfectly well.

EDIT: We were replying at the same time.

twelvetone12 said:
I got the color filters from freestyle, a bit fiddly to work with but cheap and I can just place them on the filter holder of my v35. Optical color prints are just stunning! (and I find them easier that B&W too!)

Roger Cole · Mar 3, 2016

And it seems to me that saying "my scans are fine but the lab prints are not, does the lab have a problem or do my scans just do better than their process?" is, or should be, perfectly fine. It's not about how to scan or how to make good prints from scans, it's just a useful comparison for troubleshooting a possible problem with FILM.

[edited from previous outright rant]

Anon Ymous · Mar 3, 2016

Roger Cole said:
And it seems to me that saying "my scans are fine but the lab prints are not, does the lab have a problem or do my scans just do better than their process?" is, or should be, perfectly fine. It's not about how to scan or how to make good prints from scans, it's just a useful comparison for troubleshoot a possible problem with FILM.

[edited from previous outright rant]

+1

(Perhaps the like feature isn't so bad after all, "+1" posts aren't very nice IMHO)

zanxion72 · Mar 3, 2016

Anon Ymous said:
If your can swap your condenser head for a colourhead, then you don't necessarily need another enlarger. Chances are that your wife won't notice.

You haven't met my wife! Long ago I had just the Roleinar I for my Rolleiflex. After a few months I bought the R II and III and a week later she noticed the R II on my rolleiflex! It will be a hell of a yelling, but it will be worth every minute of it

Roger Cole said:
You don't need another enlarger OR head. You can print color just fine using color printing filters in the filter drawer of a condenser enlarger. I've made probably at least a few hundred color prints on Ilfochrome (called Cibachrome in those days) and Kodak 2203 Type R and RA4, all using color printing filters. I've never owned a color head.

It takes a few second longer to change filters than to dial in a new setting, but it's only a few seconds. And you don't get the dust and scratch minimizing benefits of a color diffusion head, but it works perfectly well.

EDIT: We were replying at the same time.

I will live with that until I get a new printing head. It is about time to get a better head anyway along with a lens as my 50mm EL-Nikkor does only 135 film.

Athiril · Mar 3, 2016

zanxion72 said:
Would the scans form an Epson V600 produce prints of equal quality?

Ignore the unrealistic luddites.

In terms of contrast and colour, you can do better, since you have full control, can set black and white clipping points, colour, gamma of each colour, etc.

In terms of print size/resolution, a flat bed will be much poorer. Minilab scanners often are quite high resolving. But I'm assuming you're getting 6x4 prints with 6x4 sized scans.

A colour head is better than filters imho since you can dial in the colour balance. Keep in mind the paper you have now is pretty high contrast, so you may have trouble.

Roger Cole · Mar 3, 2016

I'm not sure what "since you can dial in the color balance" even means. Sure, and you can adjust the color balance with filters just as easily, just a bit more slowly. There is no practical difference.

Filters do require certain discrete steps but the smallest units (variously labeled .25 or 2.5 but both mean the same things) produce a change that is just barely perceptible IME on RA4 prints. I don't really see any benefit to finer steps.

A color head IS better, in the sense that it's a little quicker to use and is a diffusion light source. But don't let the lack of one stop you from printing color. They're nice but nowhere near necessary.

EDIT: Ok, unless you are Drew Wiley. If you are Drew Wiley you can probably distinguish the difference from a 0.0001 change in color filtration in any channel, on a 4x6 test print, from across the room, in bad lighting, with your glasses off. For the rest of us though the steps available with filters will suffice just fine.

J/k Drew, I just expect you to chime in!

Athiril · Mar 3, 2016

A diffusion head is important, given the contrast of RA-4 papers we are left with. Differences will be more amplified on Ektar, esp with a polariser, on modern colour paper with a condenser head. Anyway, I gave it up since I prefer to print big when I do print, I also prefer a bit higher quality than I can achieve in the colour dark room.

Roger Cole · Mar 3, 2016

The increased contrast from a condenser head does not occur when printing through the diffuse dye clouds of a color negative like it does with particulate silver grain, or at least not to the same extent. I compared a print I made with my condenser head with one from the same negative my buddy made with a color head and could see no difference in contrast.

But there WILL be a difference in how prominent dust and scratches are, and that's an advantage of the color head. I don't disagree that a color head is better, just certainly not indispensable.

L Gebhardt · Mar 3, 2016

I never printed color without a dichroic head, but I found that for a given film and paper I rarely changed filter values more than a few CC once it was dialed in. So I'd expect sheet filters could work well. But with either system the color temperature of an incandescent bulb will fluctuate with the voltage, so if your voltage isn't stable you may want to pick up a voltage regulator/stabilizer. I know it made a difference with my Chromega head when I had it in my poorly wired bathroom with a high wattage processor.

Kodak Ektar 100, high (very ugly) contrast prints

zanxion72

MattKing

Moderator

craigclu

zanxion72

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Athiril

Anon Ymous

railwayman3

zanxion72

L Gebhardt

DREW WILEY

MattKing

Moderator

zanxion72

Anon Ymous

twelvetone12

Roger Cole

Roger Cole

Anon Ymous

zanxion72

Athiril

Roger Cole

Athiril

Roger Cole

L Gebhardt

Kodak Ektar 100, high (very ugly) contrast prints

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency