Miller's Color Film Processing

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Printing / processing = not the same thing. You can get perfect 4X6 prints in seconds at any wallgreens printed on a dry fuji/nuritsu/epson machine for next to nothing. Optical printing is long gone anyways so what difference does it make?

Most costco and 1hour desks at stores no longer have wet anything, no minilabs no film processing.

Photo finishing is not doomed, its just transformed into something that is different.
The concept that one is a "pro" photographer, as opposed to someone who is just a plain old photographer is whats doomed, and for good reasons, none of which are the fact someone is grinding down the price (after all thats the basis of free market capitalism) and a natural occurring thing in all aspects of life.

If you do a test and send the same file to Walgreens, Costco and then to a good lab like Millers or White House Custom Color, you will see a remarkable difference in the side by side comparison. We have a Walgreens literally ½ mile from my house, and I wouldn't send a picture of a sidewalk to be printed there. It's just awful. I know they have a Fuji machine, but it just isn't being used or maintained properly. No good.

Costco has remarkably decent output, although color can be spotty, usually trending red. Good enough for family snapshots, quick 4x6 proofs, etc. Once you get to the 16x20 size they actually use large format inkjet which is quite good.

The price for an 8x10 at Millers or White House Custom Color is usually 4x what it would be at Costco, but the attention to quality and finish is remarkable, along with the customer service. (The competitive nature of the industry is such that if you don't have sparkling customer service, you will perish.) These two labs get 90% of my work, and for the finest art prints, my local large format Epson guy handles all of that. My lab bill last year was $12,000, and I could cut that considerably by using Costco, but with lower -- to me unacceptably -- quality.

The debate about "professionalism" in photography goes all the way back to the Daguerreotype days. The popularity of and demand for Daguerreotypes was such that the market was suddenly flooded with fly by night Daguerreotypists! There was a vigorous debate about who was a "professional" Daguerreotypist. This has been repeated over and over for decades.

The compression in the photo printing industry is primarily a result of people not printing their digital files. Too few customers + too many labs = lots of players going bankrupt. I can't tell you how many labs I've worked with over the years that just one day weren't there! Last year we lost our last E6 lab:

 

[Bob Carnie]

PMA did a North American Wide test in the early to mid 80's as a result of the mini-lab company's popping up and taking away the big custom labs business away.

They sent identical negatives to a huge cross section of professional labs, and then a huge cross section of Mini labs.

The prints were requested at 8x10 size and leading colour correction experts were blind testing the results and picked the winners.


The results were clear and concise,,, the mini labs blew away the custom labs in colour accuracy density and contrast.


The fall out was a lot of technicians lost their jobs in the big labs , every major lab bought mini lab equipment ,and the internal so called colour experts were fired for incompetence and or job redundancy.

History repeats itself , in this industry every 20 years.

Today the move is to buy the Fuji type dry labs, wet is dead, Costco will soon follow if not already.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Sample case

Photographer sends film to a mini lab that processes via roller transport, but then scans and applies Digital Ice program to hide dust and scratches.
(Digital Ice programs were available to the large and mini labs for over 15 years.)
They then pull off brilliant 4x6 proof prints or even 8x10 prints, photographer is very happy .
Two years later , photographer comes to me with their cherished images, and ask me to make a series of 16 x20 silver gelatin prints.

I make the prints on my condenser enlargers, with Apo lenses, with level glass carriers resulting in beautiful prints with heavy scratches due to scratching in process.
Client thinks I am a shit, because the proofs were lovely but the prints are scratched , and I have already charged them for my services.
Very early in my printing for others day this was a common occurrence , if it wasn't scratches from other labs it was improper processing that usually resulted in poor shadow detail.
What is a poor boy to do, WELL I started to refuse foreign film negatives (film processed by others) , I was called arrogant, snobbish, reclusive,, ***Dinesh can add a few more names***.

Thanks for your thoughtful input Bob. One of the biggest challenges for any business is finding the right type of clients. In our portrait studio business (lower volume, higher price) my wife can tell in the first ten seconds of a phone call if a client is right for us. We actually tell people that they can expect to invest $XX on their portraits. If they say yes, they are our clients. If not, then we've just screened them out and saved us both a lot of time.

I really admire these boutique labs that still produce beautiful handmade silver and platinum prints. As they say, there's riches in niches...

 

[Bob Carnie]

We do the visa card test within the first minute as well to see if the client is going to value our services, or if sticker shock puts them into a cold sweat.

Very good lesson to learn in small business.

 

[CatLABS]

The results were clear and concise,,, the mini labs blew away the custom labs in colour accuracy density and contrast.

I think this pretty much sums it up.

Proofs are proofs, not pieces of art. If you only want to see what you have a zerox print would do.
E6 labs are gone because E6 film is gone, and so are its users, save a few nutcases here and there. As largest number of E6 films were shot by amature photographers, who moved to digital cameras, this makes the whole who is a professional and what impact that might have a non issue.

When i worked for the AP, photos were more important then anything else. Pro or not did not matter, and if the photo was useful even talent had little meaning. Being a pro is not derived by what camera you use, or if you are at all good at what you do, its just a function of station and circumstance.

Bob runs a Jobo, and other "small time" labs run similar processes for color and BW, and offer superb if not superior results to the best of Pro labs, just as you can do on your own with your very own machine.

And - at the very bottom line - as far as i can tell millers has no customer service, and at least none that i would ever be interested in.
Attention to detail and finish does not equal great detail and or finish.

I am happy to hear that you in your business have the option to screen potential clients/work. That means, in my book you are doing well!

 

[Mr Bill]

PMA did a North American Wide test in the early to mid 80's as a result of the mini-lab company's popping up and taking away the big custom labs business away.

They sent identical negatives to a huge cross section of professional labs, and then a huge cross section of Mini labs.

The prints were requested at 8x10 size and leading colour correction experts were blind testing the results and picked the winners.

The results were clear and concise,,, the mini labs blew away the custom labs in colour accuracy density and contrast.

Bob, this is a bit hard for me to swallow. I've got quite a lot of lab background as well as some knowledge of 1-hour labs. At one time, the large outfit where I worked also owned a chain of mini-labs. I occasionally worked with the mini-lab people on certain types of problems, so I know how much variation there was in process control among other things.

Anyway, with our mini-lab chain, it would have been ludicrous to suggest that they could compete, quality wise, with a competent custom (pro) lab. Especially on a pro film (VPSII or III at that time), as our labs didn't generally even have printer setup (slope) negs for same. (Why set up channels if no customers ever bring in that type of film?)

Anyway, I'm very skeptical about the test and results you described. I should also point that you said, "The prints were requested at 8x10 size...," although most mini-labs could only produce 4x6 inch prints, or thereabouts. (Although we had 8x10-capable "enlargers" in some of our busier locations, this was not a standard piece of mini-lab gear.)

I wonder if you're mis-remembering a test Consumer Reports once did on 1-hour labs, perhaps around 1990 (?), which might have also included large amateur (not pro) labs.

 

[Bob Carnie]

All the labs I worked during this period were PMA members, No I am not mis-remembering, the size may have been 8x10 or it could have been 5x7, the test was to prove that the mini labs were not providing good colour density, and this was clearly not the case.

The pro labs of the day were full of incompetent technicians with not a grain of colour theory and as well lousy eyes. The breakthrough of the mini labs was helped by this.

Dig deeper and you may find someone from the day in your area who remembers this as well.

Bob, this is a bit hard for me to swallow. I've got quite a lot of lab background as well as some knowledge of 1-hour labs. At one time, the large outfit where I worked also owned a chain of mini-labs. I occasionally worked with the mini-lab people on certain types of problems, so I know how much variation there was in process control among other things.

Anyway, with our mini-lab chain, it would have been ludicrous to suggest that they could compete, quality wise, with a competent custom (pro) lab. Especially on a pro film (VPSII or III at that time), as our labs didn't generally even have printer setup (slope) negs for same. (Why set up channels if no customers ever bring in that type of film?)

Anyway, I'm very skeptical about the test and results you described. I should also point that you said, "The prints were requested at 8x10 size...," although most mini-labs could only produce 4x6 inch prints, or thereabouts. (Although we had 8x10-capable "enlargers" in some of our busier locations, this was not a standard piece of mini-lab gear.)

I wonder if you're mis-remembering a test Consumer Reports once did on 1-hour labs, perhaps around 1990 (?), which might have also included large amateur (not pro) labs.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Back when I started my portrait studio almost 9 years ago, I was using a local lab for everything. When White House Custom Color got my attention, they did a free set of five 8x10 prints for me, and once I compared them to the prints produced by my local guys, I switched. Most labs will do this for new accounts.

I'm kind of sorry that I brought the word "pro" into the conversation. "ProLab" is really more of an industry term meaning portrait and wedding specialist labs. That was never to imply that a local lab can't do great work. I think the problem is that margins are always so tight for the local guys, and with their lower volume they really have to make up the difference, and that usually comes out of customer service.

it's like this:


Professional photographers are the ones who scrape a living out of the hard packed dirt where nothing but weeds grow. I've been doing it for 17 years and it isn't always fun or pretty but I don't really know how to do anything else, so...

 

[mweintraub]

That must be a southern thing. I have never heard of that, at ANY pro lab, yet.

I live in Dallas and the "Pro Lab" here (BWC) didn't require an account. Maybe things have changed since "creating an account" so I can just be charged and not have to deal with calling in my CC number.


BTW, I send Millers some scanned files and got their free 8x10s and I'm impressed.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I live in Dallas and the "Pro Lab" here (BWC) didn't require an account. Maybe things have changed since "creating an account" so I can just be charged and not have to deal with calling in my CC number.


BTW, I send Millers some scanned files and got their free 8x10s and I'm impressed.

BWC does great work. Creating an account probably makes it all sound like more of a hassle than it is. Name, contact info, credit card on file, let's make some photos.

 

[mweintraub]

BWC does great work. Creating an account probably makes it all sound like more of a hassle than it is. Name, contact info, credit card on file, let's make some photos.

My point was that I didn't need to make an account to view prices or even get film processed there at first.

 

[RPC]

The pro labs of the day were full of incompetent technicians with not a grain of colour theory and as well lousy eyes. The breakthrough of the mini labs was helped by this.

And the minilab operators were better? The minilabs I used in the 80s and 90s for proof prints often had prints that were too dark, too light, off color and sometimes out of focus, with well shot negatives. Sometimes it was good but they were not dependable. I lived in four different cities during during that time and it was the same everywhere. The workers were often young with little experience. I never used a custom lab, but it is difficult to believe pro photographers would have ever put up with anything inferior to the minilabs. There must be more to the story, or the test results were biased.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I think what Bob was referring to was the transition from manual printers, like the Kodak Model 5 printer, that required skilled operators and the automated printers, like the Kodak Model 2620 printer, that relied on automated printer algorithms to make the printing decisions with no operator intervention.

When I started at Photographic Technology at Kodak in 1971 all our employee Pilot Lab prints were made on Model 5 printers with VERY experienced operators and the quality was superb! When we switched over to the automated printers my print quality dropped noticeably. However, in the trade, customers saw a print quality improvement because the previous Model 5 printers were not operated by skilled operators.

 

[Bob Carnie]

So I'm making this stuff up??

And the minilab operators were better? The minilabs I used in the 80s and 90s for proof prints often had prints that were too dark, too light, off color and sometimes out of focus, with well shot negatives. Sometimes it was good but they were not dependable. I lived in four different cities during during that time and it was the same everywhere. The workers were often young with little experience. I never used a custom lab, but it is difficult to believe pro photographers would have ever put up with anything inferior to the minilabs. There must be more to the story, or the test results were biased.

 

[CatLABS]

Optical printing went out with twirl sticks in processing tanks.
What about a fuji frontier (or D-labs, nuritsu's etc...)?
A frontier in a Pro lab and a frontier hole in the wall kiosk, is the same exact thing.
True Joe might be using fuji supreme paper and shmoe is using lucky paper.
The quality potential of the machine is identical. Bad printer operators can be anywhere. In most cases even a truly awful printer on a good machine will make better prints then a "pro" printer, on "pro" gear which needs to be done my hand/optically or any other way.

I think thats what bob was talking about as the consequence of minilabs proliferating.

 

[Mr Bill]

All the labs I worked during this period were PMA members, No I am not mis-remembering, the size may have been 8x10 or it could have been 5x7, the test was to prove that the mini labs were not providing good colour density, and this was clearly not the case.

The pro labs of the day were full of incompetent technicians with not a grain of colour theory and as well lousy eyes. The breakthrough of the mini labs was helped by this.

Dig deeper and you may find someone from the day in your area who remembers this as well.

Well, my memory is not my strong point, but my experience is quite a bit deeper than I generally say. My company started early with the mini-lab business, when 6-hour labs first came out, and eventually got up to about 600 mini-labs. I spent a short time, a year or so, as manager of an equipment refurbishing group with about 25 or 30 techs. It would have been news to them that a mini-lab unit could print 5x7 or 8x10 inch prints. As I said, there WERE some special machines known as "enlargers" that could do this, but they were not mainstream in the business.

Prior to the Agfa MSC family of labs, with their advanced (for the time) scanning of individual negatives, mini-labs mostly used a variation of "integrate to grey" to automate printing. An experienced operator could override this with plus or minus "button" corrections for non-average negatives, but it was mostly guesswork. A skillful operator could do 2 or 3 iterations, and get pretty fair results, but nothing like a professional color corrector (I've worked with dozens and dozens over the years).

To tell me that one of these earlier mini-labs could outperform a pro lab is like telling me that you saw a flying pig that was more graceful than the birds.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Well Mr Bill

I think you are totally missing my point.. Pigs do fly.. PMA did this blind testing, the Mini Labs won,
sorry you disagree,but on the theme of animals, I can take a horse to the water but I cannot make it drink.

so that I understand, you started a family of 600 minilabs?, now that is a real accomplishment and I tip my hat off to you.

I think that this PMA test was after the earlier mini labs, I also used them in the 70's, I do know I left BGM colour lab around 1986/7 and that is the period of mini lab machines that were tested against what Professor Pixel describes.

This is a little like the Paul Bunyon Disney production, I have always sided with Paul, but that little bugger did cut down more trees than him and won the competition. I remember going to bed crying my eyes out.

 

[Mr Bill]

Well Mr Bill
...
so that I understand, you started a family of 600 minilabs?, now that is a real accomplishment and I tip my hat off to you.

I should have been more clear that it was my EMPLOYER. (I often use the term "my company," not meaning that is is "mine," but that it is the place where I worked.)

I was part of a division that did what I sometimes refer to as industrial-level photo processing, and I sometimes worked with the 1-hour lab division on various problems. They were the smaller part, and didn't have the expertise that we did. I should really say that their expertise was in different areas.

 

[removed account4]

i work with a lady ( locally ) who runs a mini lab.
the prints are every bit as good as the same prints
i get from white house custom color who i have used
for the best part of 10-13 years ..
and she costs about the same ...

in the end i think if you get a lab operator who has an eye
has a clue about color theory and how the machines ( and computer interface ) works
you can get some beautiful work.
i have a show with a few other people up through february and i couldn't be happier with the way
it was printed by a local lab / mini lab /// a pro lab would have charged me 3x what i paid ..

and i just walked in .. and of course paid afterwards.

 

[RPC]

So I'm making this stuff up??

So you think I am?

 

[Bob Carnie]

I was not questioning your statements. can we end this now?

So you think I am?

 

[mweintraub]

Well, I've sent them my lonely scans from my Epson V500 and got my free welcome prints. WOW. Pretty damn nice prints for the little scans I did. I scan at 300 dpi and usually size them up to 5x7" or 7x7" so seeing them "blown up" to was a testament of this workflow.

I had four rolls of film to process so I sent them off to them. I didn't have their film order forms, but they just said to write on paper my account number and what I wanted done.

I had one roll of 120 (645) and three 35mm. I got proof sets for all of it, not realizing what the cost would be for the 35mm. It's a little pricy, probably because the 35mm stuff I usually shoot are snapshots. None-the-less, it's nice seeing positive prints before I scan. The prints from 120 showed some grain, but that's probably because it's a little expired 400H. Something to be expected.

Today I got a stack of film and digital order forms and labels for shipping. I think I found my new lab!

Now, I have to find an order form translator. I'm still trying to figure out what the masks are...

 

[CatLABS]

are the prices still a secret?

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

WHCC, which I use for all my color printing, forces you to set up an account before ordering. They also have you ship them several files from which they make free test prints. Since they print the file exactly the way you send it to them, they do not want to be getting calls from soccer moms wondering why there is a blue cast on the prints. This is WHCC's way of doing at least a bit of screening to assure themselves that the files they are getting are prepped correctly (correct size, DPI, profile, etc.) They have determined that this is the best business practice for them.

As to Millers, they have always catered to the professional wedding and portrait trade. I'm sure they also don't want to engage in too much hand-holding. The masks are provided so you can crop a medium-format negative and still have a machine print made at machine print prices (the operator just selects the mask you choose). At one time Millers had a number of competitors around the country. One that I was familiar with was North American in Detroit. It operated exactly the same way.

 

[removed account4]

are the prices still a secret?

naaa, they just choose to not publish them on the internet
&c unless you are a potential serious customer and not a time waster like i guess i am

===

rolfe,

yeah i agree it weeds out handholding and coddling and time wasters ( like me ) &c
but after its all said and done, whcc still publishes all their prices and will give them to you over the phone

oh well, what can you do, we are lucky to have the millers in this evolving and tight market !

===

thanks for publishing the link parker

its a small world and good to know respected labs that do great work.

john