Ughrahhck, why do labs "fix" without asking

[srs5694]

What's sad though is that the average Joe C-41 shooter will never understand what is lost.

That's what experts/afficionados in any field say! Audiophiles say the same about cheap stereos; car buffs say the same about most cars; computer geeks say the same about OSs and computer hardware. The fact is that people can only care passionately about a few products in their lives. More than that and they'd have no time to do things like work or eat!

 

[ozphoto]

Hi Mark.
In the case you presented, my only advice is to ask for your film to be printed with "No corrections added". In which case they should all be printed as "normal", allowing highlights to blow out and colour shifts to remain.

From the lab's point of view - remember they are there to make $$ and the only way they can be assured of that is to (hopefully) produce well exposed, colour corrected prints. In your instance, you just want uncorrected proofs and they should, rightly, produce what you are asking for.

Sorry to hear you have to travel so far to change labs - makes it rather more frustrating I am sure.

Jglass - these are woeful as far as colour cast is concerned and also too light for my eye - I would have made the waterfall darker. But this is another example of the way amateur labs work, and since the digital changeover on the machines, I don't think they have so much control as they look at the screen capture now, not the actual neg. Would never had made it out of my lab looking like that. Care factor is obviously zero on that front. Hope you were able to get them rescanned and looking better than the originals you posted.

- Nanette
www.nanettereid.com

 

[markbarendt]

Hi Mark.
In the case you presented, my only advice is to ask for your film to be printed with "No corrections added". In which case they should all be printed as "normal", allowing highlights to blow out and colour shifts to remain.

That is exactly what I want.

Getting them to listen is the challenge

From the lab's point of view - remember they are there to make $$ and the only way they can be assured of that is to (hopefully) produce well exposed, colour corrected prints. In your instance, you just want uncorrected proofs and they should, rightly, produce what you are asking for.

I was surprised to find out that this no correction setting is my local Wal-Mart's norm. Right price, right settings. This will do until I get the darkroom operational, this summer God willing.

 

[bob100684]

That is exactly what I want.

Getting them to listen is the challenge



I was surprised to find out that this no correction setting is my local Wal-Mart's norm. Right price, right settings. This will do until I get the darkroom operational, this summer God willing.

No. I can say with 100% certainty looking at the backprint of a walmart print, that "no correction" is not the norm. There have been no MANUAL corrections, but the following settings are changed from neutral: Sharpness=+1, saturation is increased, and "autocorrections"(think autolevels in photoshop) are enabled.

 

[markbarendt]

No. I can say with 100% certainty looking at the backprint of a walmart print, that "no correction" is not the norm. There have been no MANUAL corrections, but the following settings are changed from neutral: Sharpness=+1, saturation is increased, and "autocorrections"(think autolevels in photoshop) are enabled.

Bob,

Here's the back of mine.

 

[RPC]

I am puzzled by the repeated use of the term "no corrections".

When a print is made from a color negative, the reddish mask must be removed by your printing system, whether printed by an enlarger, or scanned and then printed, to get something that is even close to reality, as the print would be way off in color if the mask is not somehow corrected for. To get a print that is acceptable to the printer's eye, additional adjustments are also made. In general this happens with all color negatve printing and my point here is that printing with "no corrections" is meaningless, as a lot of correction always has to occur to color balance a print from a color negative.

I have operated a minilab machine and the machine always made it's own "corrections" after analyzing the film, then the operator would examine the resulting print and then make further corrections if needed, which was nearly all the time, as the machine would only get you in the ball park. Comparing the back of your print with my machine's, all the zeros likely mean the the operator has made no correction, but the print itself is the machine's correction. If there were other numbers instead of zeros, this would indicate the operator made some additional correction to the machine's. The bottom line here is that you are always getting prints with corrections made, at least the machine's corrections, which are more or less arbitrary. Zeros on the back of the print does not mean no correction! And if you think the zeros mean you are seeing what you shot, you are not. You are seeing what the machine thought you should see.

If you want to get an idea of how your different shots compare you could select a negative that appears well exposed, make an acceptable print from it, then use those same color and density settings to print all your other shots. This way, lighter ones would remain lighter, darker would remain darker, color shifts would be seen, etc, and you would have a good idea of what you have done.

 

[markbarendt]

I am puzzled by the repeated use of the term "no corrections".

When a print is made from a color negative, the reddish mask must be removed by your printing system, ...

It would be my assumption that, for say Fuji Superia, Fuji has a standard for shooting, developing, scanning, and printing that they use to test and calibrate their machines, their film runs, etcetera... A baseline if you will to control their manufacturing process. I'd bet Kodak and Ilford and Foma have a similar standards.

That "benchmark" development and printing is what I want, no corrections beyond that.

This is simply processing to a standard.

Zeros on the back of the print does not mean no correction! And if you think the zeros mean you are seeing what you shot, you are not. You are seeing what the machine thought you should see.

I'm beginning to get that.

I will say that of all the films developed over the last year by mini-labs, those where the operator made no choices have been consistently better than where an operator has made choices.

I have two thoughts about this.

One - none of the local mini-labs calibrate their monitors so they can't really see what's right or wrong anyway. (I actually know this to be true by their own admission.)

Two - the ambient lighting in the lab isn't anywhere near the lighting the images are normally viewed under, and they don't ask, so the lab has no clue of how the image should be corrected for it's real use anyway.

At least when the operator makes no corrections no new errors are introduced.

If you want to get an idea of how your different shots compare you could select a negative that appears well exposed, make an acceptable print from it, then use those same color and density settings to print all your other shots. This way, lighter ones would remain lighter, darker would remain darker, color shifts would be seen, etc, and you would have a good idea of what you have done.

My intent is to have a darkroom operating by summers end. At that point I want to have a standard development process for each film that proof sheets are always printed to.

 

[bob100684]

Bob,

Here's the back of mine.

that's very different from the frontier backprint I'm seeing on my prints. It omits all the settings of the autocorrections built into the frontier software and enabled by the factory. Additionally, there are several options for backprint format in the frontier menu ranging from none, to frame number only, frame and sort number, to including all manual and autocorrections. I'll scan the back of a print showing all data and include explanations for all as soon as I have access to a flat bed.

 

[RPC]

I have a color darkroom and for my own quality control, for each film I use, I have shot a McBeth color chart with electronic flash, bracketed, then carefully processed the film. I then selected the best exposure and made the best print I could make from it. Thus I have a standard for both negatives and prints to compare everything else with. I can use those color and density settings to print nearly everything else I shoot for that film, with usually only minor deviations, but it can tell me what I have done shooting wise. But I mostly use it not so much for shooting as to check my processing and printing.

RPC

 

[markbarendt]

I have a color darkroom and for my own quality control, for each film I use, I have shot a McBeth color chart with electronic flash, bracketed, then carefully processed the film. I then selected the best exposure and made the best print I could make from it. Thus I have a standard for both negatives and prints to compare everything else with. I can use those color and density settings to print nearly everything else I shoot for that film, with usually only minor deviations, but it can tell me what I have done shooting wise. But I mostly use it not so much for shooting as to check my processing and printing.

RPC

This is very much where I want to be.

 

[ozphoto]

Each film has its own "corrections" for the orange film base - this gives a correctly colour balanced print under daylight conditions. When I talk about "corrected" prints, I am referring to removing any colour casts (green grass often makes the machine print too magenta), correcting for photos taken under tungsten or flouro lighting (too yellow or green)and darkening or slightly lightening highlight or shadow detail.

In my lab an "uncorrected" print meant that it was printed without any corrections to these casts or over/underexposure - the colour balance remained "daylight" (neutral) and any corrections required were ignored.

Our prints had N as the standard for YMCD - any changes registered as +/- 1-5. Any print that had N for all 4 standards, was "uncorrected", only the film base/type was selected to ensure "correct" colour balance for a daylight shot. Anything else - you would see it all; over/under, casts, wrong lighting for the film type were all guaranteed when I printed a neg on N only.

Note I'm talking about a Noritsu machine that was not yet digital capable - I decided any corrections by "reading" the negative. I cannot comment of the newer machines that operators print by looking at a screen.

Think I could probably still beat the machine for output time and most probably colour balance as well. Nothing compares to being able to read the neg - any screen that isn't calibrated correctly will hamper the final results and the "automation" does produce some outrageous results!, eg: just like your PC and printer.

- Nanette
www.nanettereid.com

 

[markbarendt]

Each film has its own "corrections" for the orange film base - this gives a correctly colour balanced print under daylight conditions.

"Corrections" is properly set apart in your post, I don't know if I'd call normal steps to completion that are designed into the process "corrections".

Ilford's XP2 has a clear base, it was designed from the start to be used with normal B&W paper; Rollie makes a clear base C-41 film "Digibase CN200". "Correcting" for a clear base makes no sense either.

Problems, like color casts, with these films for daylight shots are introduced when a lab doesn't use the proper standards for the film.

When I talk about "corrected" prints, I am referring to removing any colour casts (green grass often makes the machine print too magenta), correcting for photos taken under tungsten or flouro lighting (too yellow or green)and darkening or slightly lightening highlight or shadow detail. In my lab an "uncorrected" print meant that it was printed without any corrections to these casts or over/underexposure - the colour balance remained "daylight" (neutral) and any corrections required were ignored.

This is exactly the "product" I want from the lab first time round, without this I get no feedback about how I can improve my shots or use the film to my advantage.

I can see the lab's interest in providing a corrected product too. I don't fault them for providing it either, I just want the option not to have the machine or the operator making decisions about how it's supposed to look.

Note I'm talking about a Noritsu machine that was not yet digital capable - I decided any corrections by "reading" the negative. I cannot comment of the newer machines that operators print by looking at a screen. Think I could probably still beat the machine for output time and most probably colour balance as well. Nothing compares to being able to read the neg - any screen that isn't calibrated correctly will hamper the final results and the "automation" does produce some outrageous results!, eg: just like your PC and printer.

- Nanette
www.nanettereid.com

I do also buy corrected processing for certain work, like weddings. In that case having someone like you at the controls is really a value added.