Ughrahhck, why do labs "fix" without asking

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

Ahh the frustration of it all. I guess it's really getting to be time to start developing C-41 myself.

Had my daughter drop a couple rolls of C-41 35mm stuff off for me.

Ended up at the wrong lab.

The negatives are fine but the "proofs" don't show me what I did and I have and I'm left trying to decipher the corrections from the backs of the prints and I paid 2.5 times more than I should have for this "value added" service, Ugh.

Erik Petersson · Apr 30, 2009

I learn so much about the colour of light and of film just through scanning my negatives. Oooops! I said the "s"-word! Sorry.

/Erik

MikeSeb · Apr 30, 2009

Mark, I feel your pain; there is no convenient C-41 lab service I trust in my area, which has a metro population of a million or more! There used to be several.

I do my own C-41 in a Jobo. That part is brainlessly easy---far easier than B&W. Since everything is standardized, the "look" comes down merely to exposure and film choice.

But---there's always a catch---sourcing C-41 is not a given. Unless you live where there's a supplier (which would be a place where there is likely a good lab or two, rendering it moot) you have to order the stuff. I see that Ignacio CO is between Albuquerque and Denver, but close to neither, so you may face the same problem. Developer and bleach are considered hazmat, which means that B&H won't ship them, even though they have a good selection of the stuff. Adorama and Calumet have a narrower selection, but seem willing to ship what they have. Fixer doesn't seem to scare anyone too much regardless. I found a source for developer and bleach that ships; they are not cheap but per-roll it's not too bad if used efficiently.

Since both keep well as concentrates, I bit the bullet on hazmat (flat charge per shipment regardless of amount of stuff) and bought five-gallon cubes of both bleach and fixer. The fixer is perfect for B&W as well. I ordered a case (6 x 2L working sol'n) of Flexicolor developer, which is about 60-70 rolls' worth. I figure I can mix half of each 2L-kit at a time and use it before it goes bad.

So once you've worked out the logistics, it's pretty easy to do.

bob100684 · Apr 30, 2009

markbarendt said:
Ahh the frustration of it all. I guess it's really getting to be time to start developing C-41 myself.

Had my daughter drop a couple rolls of C-41 35mm stuff off for me.

Ended up at the wrong lab.

The negatives are fine but the "proofs" don't show me what I did and I have and I'm left trying to decipher the corrections from the backs of the prints and I paid 2.5 times more than I should have for this "value added" service, Ugh.

if you used a good lab, go back and tell them to print without corrections!

Tim Gray · Apr 30, 2009

Well, I owned a minilab caliber scanner for about a week and it opened up my eyes a bit as to how they operate. Not saying that all combinations of scanners and software do this, but a lot of the minilab scanners autocorrect color balance and exposure to a certain extent. So 'printing without corrections' might have some corrections already, at least relative to scanning at home on a coolscan or something. Certainly in relation to optical printing...

Sirius Glass · Apr 30, 2009

This is why I no longer use Dwanyes any more. They keep turning red rock into green grass!

Steve

bob100684 · Apr 30, 2009

Tim Gray said:
Well, I owned a minilab caliber scanner for about a week and it opened up my eyes a bit as to how they operate. Not saying that all combinations of scanners and software do this, but a lot of the minilab scanners autocorrect color balance and exposure to a certain extent. So 'printing without corrections' might have some corrections already, at least relative to scanning at home on a coolscan or something. Certainly in relation to optical printing...

in my experience, every minilab I've worked at, the scanner does SOME sort of color balance, certain color boosting, sharpening. BUT on all the machine's I've worked on for more than a couple days, there are very easy steps to make sure the lab scanner does NO corrections. 3 different frontier models each with a different scanner work this way, in fact, its a 3 mouse click job to dissable any autocorrections including sharpening. The same is true for the two different noritsu scanners I worked on. The only exception I've found is a d.lab on a fill in basis for a few days, but couldn't get deep enough into the software to find out if you can disable its autocorrections.

Sirius Glass · Apr 30, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
This is why I no longer use Dwanyes any more. They keep turning red rock into green grass!

Steve

These were OAFs [Operator Assisted Failures]! The operators, read OAFs, thought that they could improve the photographs. They did not "need to read no stinkin' instructions!"

Steve

Tim Gray · Apr 30, 2009

bob100684 said:
in my experience, every minilab I've worked at, the scanner does SOME sort of color balance, certain color boosting, sharpening. BUT on all the machine's I've worked on for more than a couple days, there are very easy steps to make sure the lab scanner does NO corrections. 3 different frontier models each with a different scanner work this way, in fact, its a 3 mouse click job to dissable any autocorrections including sharpening. The same is true for the two different noritsu scanners I worked on. The only exception I've found is a d.lab on a fill in basis for a few days, but couldn't get deep enough into the software to find out if you can disable its autocorrections.

That's cool then. I had a Pakon scanner. You could definitely set the adjustments to zero, but it always seem to find it's base exposure and set white balance by itself. Of course, there was a raw file option, but that wasn't of much use since it's gamma was linear and it was inverted.

Don Wallace · Apr 30, 2009

Even before scanners, prints from labs were always a pain in the arse. If I did bracketing for any reason, the results always got lost in the bland, "corrected" prints I got. I stopped getting prints and got contact sheets. That way each frame got the same light and I could see the variations. Now no one does contact sheets - it is all scanning - so I just get negs and scan the whole sheet at home to get an idea of what I might want printed.

bob100684 · Apr 30, 2009

Tim Gray said:
That's cool then. I had a Pakon scanner. You could definitely set the adjustments to zero, but it always seem to find it's base exposure and set white balance by itself. Of course, there was a raw file option, but that wasn't of much use since it's gamma was linear and it was inverted.

so what you're saying is its balanced for a certain density......

2F/2F · Apr 30, 2009

markbarendt said:
The negatives are fine but the "proofs" don't show me what I did and I have and I'm left trying to decipher the corrections from the backs of the prints and I paid 2.5 times more than I should have for this "value added" service, Ugh.

Are you saying that you expected a handmade contact sheet and got back machine proof prints instead?

If you asked for proof prints, I do not understand the problem. Proof prints are always adjusted for brightness and color, and usually based on an early frame. For example, if you shoot the first part of a roll under fluorescent light, and finish off the roll outdoors, the daylight shots will all have a magenta color cast, as the entire roll will be corrected for the fluorescents. Proof prints *never* show you that much about what you did, unless you were way off in exposure, focus, or composition. They don't even show you the full composition. Additionally, even if they did list an individual time or filtration, it would do you little good, as the times and filtration for your own RA prints would be different.

In other words, don't waste your time trying to learn how to print your color based on machine proof prints. Just make a proofsheet using your enlarger at your known-neutral filter pack and time. Proof prints are just that: Proofs. They give you a decent idea of which pictures to pursue and which ones not to pursue.

msage · Apr 30, 2009

I agree, most mini-labs are geared to printing for comsumers. Also the digtal proof sheets have built in corrections. The older printers had ways to "lock" expusure & color but not the newer digtal ones.
Michael

2F/2F said:
Are you saying that you expected a handmade contact sheet and got back machine proof prints instead?

If you asked for proof prints, I do not understand the problem. Proof prints are always adjusted for brightness and color, and usually based on an early frame. For example, if you shoot the first part of a roll under fluorescent light, and finish off the roll outdoors, the daylight shots will all have a magenta color cast, as the entire roll will be corrected for the fluorescents. Proof prints *never* show you that much about what you did, unless you were way off in exposure, focus, or composition. They don't even show you the full composition. Additionally, even if they did list an individual time or filtration, it would do you little good, as the times and filtration for your own RA prints would be different.

In other words, don't waste your time trying to learn how to print your color based on machine proof prints. Just make a proofsheet using your enlarger at your known-neutral filter pack and time. Proof prints are just that: Proofs. They give you a decent idea of which pictures to pursue and which ones not to pursue.

Ektagraphic · Apr 30, 2009

The lab doesn't know that you did what you did on purpose. You have to tell them that you don't want corrections. My lab has two services, one with corrections and one without.

mtjade2007 · Apr 30, 2009

There is no way to scan a negative without some minimum adjustment. When you print optically you will have to set exposure time with a set of filtration to begin with. This is really the same when you scan a negative. You simply have to apply some adjustment to begin with. It is rather a basic setup for the scan than adjustment. A lab operator would be incredibly non productive if he/she is forced to turn off all basic auto functions, such as auto exposure and auto color balance. Most, if not all, of the scans would be way off and will need a lot of manual adjustment to get the scans to look OK. If you own a film scanner you can try to turn off auto exposure and auto color balance. You will understand how difficult or impossible to scan films without them.

The problems is those auto functions will not always produce scans you will like. Most of them will be OK but maybe 10% of them will have wrong color balance. You will have to rescan and make some manual adjustment to the scanner setup. Such manual adjustment again may not suit your taste and you will complain still. It is a tough job to be a film scanning operator. People are very subjective to colors and color balance. If I were you I would not want to get any proofing. I would only ask for processing of my films. They generally process films with decent quality. Things start to go wrong when you ask for more service, such as scanning and proofing. That's when your film gets scratched or soiled.

I would only ask them to process my films. I will scan all my films myself. If they screw up in the processing I definitely will find that out for sure.

Sirius Glass · Apr 30, 2009

mtjade2007 said:
It is a tough job to be a film scanning operator. People are very subjective to colors and color balance.

Sure it is tough. Especially if oaf cannot read the instruction to not make the automatic instructions. Even more so when oaf has processed over ten rolls of photographs of red rock [slick rock] and the oaf has made all the natural arches a bright kelly green for half the rolls!

Steve

cowanw · Apr 30, 2009

Does not scanning per se interpret the negative differently from straight optical prints.
The reason I say is that I used to really like the colour of Agfa but all scanning algorithms (and my lab is very good at special instructions) have ruined the individual look of Agfa. They have to manipulate it to look like Agfa.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

Erik Petersson said:
I learn so much about the colour of light and of film just through scanning my negatives. Oooops! I said the "s"-word! Sorry.

/Erik

Done my digital time and learned those lessons already.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

MikeSeb said:
Mark, I feel your pain; there is no convenient C-41 lab service I trust in my area, which has a metro population of a million or more! There used to be several.

Our county only has 25,000 people.

MikeSeb said:
I do my own C-41 in a Jobo. That part is brainlessly easy---far easier than B&W. Since everything is standardized, the "look" comes down merely to exposure and film choice.

I like that!

MikeSeb said:
But---there's always a catch---sourcing C-41 is not a given. Unless you live where there's a supplier (which would be a place where there is likely a good lab or two, rendering it moot) you have to order the stuff. I see that Ignacio CO is between Albuquerque and Denver, but close to neither, so you may face the same problem. Developer and bleach are considered hazmat, which means that B&H won't ship them, even though they have a good selection of the stuff. Adorama and Calumet have a narrower selection, but seem willing to ship what they have. Fixer doesn't seem to scare anyone too much regardless. I found a source for developer and bleach that ships; they are not cheap but per-roll it's not too bad if used efficiently.

I'm probably going to call labdepot.com in the morning and make sure they ship. Their kit supposedly does 475 - 24 exposure rolls for about $70.

I spent better than half that on the two rolls that got me started on this rant.

MikeSeb said:
Since both keep well as concentrates, I bit the bullet on hazmat (flat charge per shipment regardless of amount of stuff) and bought five-gallon cubes of both bleach and fixer. The fixer is perfect for B&W as well. I ordered a case (6 x 2L working sol'n) of Flexicolor developer, which is about 60-70 rolls' worth. I figure I can mix half of each 2L-kit at a time and use it before it goes bad.

So once you've worked out the logistics, it's pretty easy to do.

Knowing they keep well is comforting.

Thanks for the input.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

bob100684 said:
if you used a good lab, go back and tell them to print without corrections!

That's on my list for tomorrow, this is not the first time though.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

Tim Gray said:
Well, I owned a minilab caliber scanner for about a week and it opened up my eyes a bit as to how they operate. Not saying that all combinations of scanners and software do this, but a lot of the minilab scanners autocorrect color balance and exposure to a certain extent. So 'printing without corrections' might have some corrections already, at least relative to scanning at home on a coolscan or something. Certainly in relation to optical printing...

Given C-41's range that's no surprise, have to condense some just to get a printable image in the papers range.

What I'm griping about is the extra corrections. The two rolls in question appear to have been fixed frame by frame to correct for the exposure settings I dialed in on purpose, to selectively bump saturation, etcetera...

Optical printing isn't too far off for me, got the equipment, just need some controlled, ventilated darkness with a sink and a drain.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
This is why I no longer use Dwanyes any more. They keep turning red rock into green grass!

Steve

I'm beginning to believe that bad or unwanted corrections are the reason many people shoot digital, they just blame the film.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

2F/2F said:
Are you saying that you expected a handmade contact sheet and got back machine proof prints instead?

No

2F/2F said:
If you asked for proof prints, I do not understand the problem. Proof prints are always adjusted for brightness and color, and usually based on an early frame. For example, if you shoot the first part of a roll under fluorescent light, and finish off the roll outdoors, the daylight shots will all have a magenta color cast, as the entire roll will be corrected for the fluorescents. Proof prints *never* show you that much about what you did, unless you were way off in exposure, focus, or composition. They don't even show you the full composition. Additionally, even if they did list an individual time or filtration, it would do you little good, as the times and filtration for your own RA prints would be different.

The other lab sets their machine to do no correction, the lab these rolls got to corrects every bloody frame. A while back I asked them if they profiled the monitor they used to correct the images with. No.

2F/2F said:
In other words, don't waste your time trying to learn how to print your color based on machine proof prints. Just make a proofsheet using your enlarger at your known-neutral filter pack and time. Proof prints are just that: Proofs. They give you a decent idea of which pictures to pursue and which ones not to pursue.

That truly is the lesson here.

markbarendt · Apr 30, 2009

cowanw said:
Does not scanning per se interpret the negative differently from straight optical prints.
The reason I say is that I used to really like the colour of Agfa but all scanning algorithms (and my lab is very good at special instructions) have ruined the individual look of Agfa. They have to manipulate it to look like Agfa.

Absolutely.

This is why I'm working toward a darkroom.

removed account4 · Apr 30, 2009

when you make a contact sheet
is every exposure exactly on?
basically your lab make a digital contact sheet
( proofs ) for you ... oh well ...

Ughrahhck, why do labs "fix" without asking

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency