Ughrahhck, why do labs "fix" without asking

[markbarendt]

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.

I understand having a set of baseline scanner setting to match say the Superia 400 I sent.

Beyond that I don't want the lab to do anything to the proof.

Is that such a tall order?

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.

Don't care because I'm not asking for any fixes.

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.

Again, as a customer, I don't care.

What I do know is that one lab turns off their auto correct and I get the results I expect, the other tries fixing everything and I don't.

There was a third lab in town that went out of business a few months back, they had the same problem, always trying to fix it.

 

[Tim Gray]

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

No, it set it's exposure based on the density of the negative. You could go up or down a couple notches from that midpoint, which was usually enough, but there was no setting for base exposure. Same for white balance.

That being said, it was usually pretty good.

 

[mtjade2007]

I understand having a set of baseline scanner setting to match say the Superia 400 I sent.

When the scanner is set to auto exposure and auto color (balance) there is no such a thing called Superia 400 or Portra 160 NC. The scanner driver will do whatever it is programed to give you a scan that has a good looking histogram. And 80% of the time the image will look OK or good. But 20% of the time the color balance will be way off. If the scanner has a preset program for Superia 400 you will have a 50% chance of good images but the other 50% will be off color balance or overall density. The lighting condition at the time you shot your roll is a big unknown to the scanner. To get you the colors that you like or you think they should be you are the only person who can give you that up to maybe 90% of the images. You have to scan and correct your own images.

Beyond that I don't want the lab to do anything to the proof.
Is that such a tall order?
Don't care because I'm not asking for any fixes.
Again, as a customer, I don't care.

If you don't want the lab to do anything to the proof then the lab will simply turn on all the automatic setup and give you the scan with automatic corrections applied.

What I do know is that one lab turns off their auto correct and I get the results I expect, the other tries fixing everything and I don't.

Think about it. With all automatic functions turned off you will not even get a scan with a correct exposure, not even close, at all. Nor will you get any colors that make sense. Think again, even if it gives you a good scan for your Superia what will you get if you give them a roll of Portra 160VC?

There was a third lab in town that went out of business a few months back, they had the same problem, always trying to fix it.

I believe every lab has the desire to please you. It's good for you and for their business too. When you tell them not to adjust or fix anything they probably will not say no to you. But if they do not adjust or correct anything they know they will lose your business. What they will do, 100% of the time, because you insist in no adjustment made is to turn on all automatic functions and hope you will like the result.

I know I don't like the result by scanning my own films with my own film scanner with everything automatic. I will need to photoshop just about every image to correct them. On a same roll shot at a same time about 20% or even more the color balance will be way off for no obvious reason.

In my opinion if you want good images you will have to let the lab operator to scan automatically then let them do some tweaking of the colors. This is where if your images will come out right or not. If the lab operator is poorly trained and has no idea how to make good corrections that's when your images are screwed up. I don't believe they will scan with automatic functions turned off. Try to own a film scanner and use it for a month then you will agree with me.

 

[bob100684]

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

Yes and no. Even by the time fuji made it to the SFA series, automatic density and ACCS correction was a matter of life. You could dial in ADDITIONAL CMY filtration or density settings and press a hold key, but the machine still did something. Turning off the ACCS(automated color correction service-auto exposure and color balance) was generally more of a hindrance than a help

 

[bob100684]

This whole discussion is more proof, at least in my mind, of why control negs are useful even in digital minilabs. Having a dedicated film chanel for each emulsion should give much more consistent results, and is something you are certainly able to do on a frontier. I've worked in consumer labs for almost 6 years now, and have made it a point at every frontier lab to register a kodak BWCN and ilford XP2 chanel. I've found most lab jockeys either don't realize the frontier has a greyscale button, or don't think customers will notice their b/w prints are now green and white. By registering a DX code, and using some aperion target negs, 20 minutes later, every time you put in either film, it recognizes the DX code and works perfectly.

 

[markbarendt]

This whole discussion is more proof, at least in my mind, of why control negs are useful even in digital minilabs. Having a dedicated film chanel for each emulsion should give much more consistent results, and is something you are certainly able to do on a frontier. I've worked in consumer labs for almost 6 years now, and have made it a point at every frontier lab to register a kodak BWCN and ilford XP2 chanel. I've found most lab jockeys either don't realize the frontier has a greyscale button, or don't think customers will notice their b/w prints are now green and white. By registering a DX code, and using some aperion target negs, 20 minutes later, every time you put in either film, it recognizes the DX code and works perfectly.

Bob,

This is exactly what I expect as a consumer. I want a standardized, stable, predicable, repeatable process. In essence I want a robot doing it and a human making sure the robot is working as expected.

 

[bob100684]

Bob,

This is exactly what I expect as a consumer. I want a standardized, stable, predicable, repeatable process. In essence I want a robot doing it and a human making sure the robot is working as expected.

Except it really doesn't work out perfectly. The minilab (optical or digital) even after making a channel attempts to print every frame at the same density much like your camera's meter averages every scene to 18% grey. Often something is lost in the shadows, or the scene appears too bright or dark, so you play with the density. Other times people shoot daylight film in tungsten light or florescent. Maybe they did it on purpose, but chances are if they don't mention they did, they don't realize their prints will be orange/greenish, so you correct it out as best you can. The trick is just finding a lab that will listen to you. If they tell you they can't turn off the automated corrections, they're lying.

 

[markbarendt]

Often something is lost in the shadows, or the scene appears too bright or dark, so you play with the density.

Your point is well taken about the lab having to listen.

My point in this thread is that I don't want lab that "plays" with the proofs at all, especially without being asked to "play".

What I really, really, really, really, really want with my proofs; is to know where I am at in relation to the design standard of the film, or at least in the case of a mini-lab, in relation to the norm of the "dedicated film channel" you speak of.

If I over-expose or under-expose, on purpose or not, I want the proof prints to give me that feedback. If I screw up I want to know, if I do well I want to know, if the negative is going to be tough to work I want to know.

When a lab "fixes" my proofs they rob all that valuable info from me.

Without the unbiased feedback of an honest proof how the heck am I supposed to improve my shooting techniques or make good judgments on how or even if I should make a final print from a given frame?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Mark,

Well said.

That is why I have my C-41 processing and prints done at Costco for 35mm film and Samys for 120 film.

Steve

 

[bob100684]

Mark,

Well said.

That is why I have my C-41 processing and prints done at Costco for 35mm film and Samys for 120 film.

Steve

so you're letting them print on a machine that doesn't use film channels unless they're manually built by the tech and is set to make automatic corrections a slow clap for you.

 

[markbarendt]

so you're letting them print on a machine that doesn't use film channels unless they're manually built by the tech and is set to make automatic corrections a slow clap for you.

Bob,

I think that what Steve might be inferring, and I know I'm inferring, is that it is better to have a well maintained machine that is run by somebody that is paid only to make sure the machine works well, than it is to have someone who knows nothing about what I want messing with my shots.

At least in the former case the processing will be consistent.

 

[bob100684]

Bob,

I think that what Steve might be inferring, and I know I'm inferring, is that it is better to have a well maintained machine that is run by somebody that is paid only to make sure the machine works well, than it is to have someone who knows nothing about what I want messing with my shots.

At least in the former case the processing will be consistent.

it really won't. The machine will make a different decision almost every time you put the neg in.

 

[aparat]

In my experience, the only way to get a truly uncorrected scanned image is via 16-bit linear scans. Then you can apply whatever curve you want to get you the look you expected. Otherwise, there's always going to be some level of variability.

On the other hand, I have had really good prints back from A&I done through their C-41 mailers. Really decent color and exposure balance.

 

[markbarendt]

it really won't. The machine will make a different decision almost every time you put the neg in.

If that's true, that sucks.

It's this kind of stuff that makes me want to scream.

Is there a way to make a mini-lab process consistent based on the film in use.

This reinforces my aversion to scanning and reinforces my want to proof print with my own enlarger.

 

[msage]

Yes and no. Even by the time fuji made it to the SFA series, automatic density and ACCS correction was a matter of life. You could dial in ADDITIONAL CMY filtration or density settings and press a hold key, but the machine still did something. Turning off the ACCS(automated color correction service-auto exposure and color balance) was generally more of a hindrance than a help

Bob
When I worked in a lab we had Noritsu printers. There were no way to print with out corrections on the Digital printers we had.
The last optical print we had I could lock exposure and color.
Michael

 

[bob100684]

Bob
When I worked in a lab we had Noritsu printers. There were no way to print with out corrections on the Digital printers we had.
The last optical print we had I could lock exposure and color.
Michael

I've worked primarily on fuji equipment, both the optical SFA's and the digital frontiers, but I did work on two different noritsu's for a bit. There are ways around the autocorrections on the noritsu, but they are somewhat buried in service menus. On the frontier a click of "autocorrection off" did the trick.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Bob,

I think that what Steve might be inferring, and I know I'm inferring, is that it is better to have a well maintained machine that is run by somebody that is paid only to make sure the machine works well, than it is to have someone who knows nothing about what I want messing with my shots.

At least in the former case the processing will be consistent.

Bingo, you broke the code.

Samys' work is all chemical and all optical.

I am on a first name basis with the film processing manager and he handles all the printing for me. When I show up at the counter, he stops what he is doing and asks if there is something special that I want him to do that day.

Therefore, I do not have to make a trip to the post office, pay for return postage and mail the negatives and the prints back to Dwaynes and argue with their managers over the telephone.

Steve

 

[ozphoto]

I used to run a semi-pro lab. When I taught printers to classify negs, the easiest way was to try and identify the main subject. Of course what we thought was the main point of focus may not have necessarily been what you wanted it to be.

When I worked, we used Noritsus that allowed us to adjust the exposure ie: make the print lighter or darker as needed. My best advice is to find a lab where the manager actually takes an interest in what they do - not just a "job". Talk to them when you drop the film off and explain what you are trying to achieve. When you pick them up, have a good look and ask for anything that isn't quite right to be re-printed. Any lab worth its weight will be happy to redo for you - if they grumble and seem unhelpful change. You'll never get a good result from them no matter what you say or do.

By building a rapport with the lab, you'll soon discover that the printing will begin to reflect what you envisaged. But please remember, these labs are often there for quick turnover and acceptable amateur results. They have a formula that works well for 90% of their customers - anything special will need some discussion and often reprinting.

Don't get mad with them for "fixing" your image; they can't read your mind, but once you have explained your ideas and vision, they should usually be able to nail it for you first time around.

I took a great deal of pride in what went out of my lab at the time; in a way your picture was also mine. Have visited since I left, and it's just a lab - no pride, little care and the interest factor of the staff is now zero. I would not recommend it to anybody wanting good quality cheaper printing. Great pity, as in my job, I get asked to recommend a lab quite often and they could make $$ if they just took some pride in their work.

- Nanette
www.nanettereid.com

 

[nicefor88]

They need to make corrections because their machines work so badly!

 

[markbarendt]

I used to run a semi-pro lab. When I taught printers to classify negs, the easiest way was to try and identify the main subject. Of course what we thought was the main point of focus may not have necessarily been what you wanted it to be.

This is the crux of the issue Nanette. P&S'ers may want "finished" 4x6's, I don't, I want proofs that show me exactly what I did.

When a printer/operator/lab tech makes ANY creative or subjective decisions about how to adjust any frame for printing I lose all the feedback the proof could have given me.

I also believe a lab should at least try to figure out what the client wants before the fact.

This is not a tough question, labs already have the process in place; "do you want glossy or matte?" Simply asking one more question; "do you want us to correct for color and exposure?" addresses the problem.

Is that so tough?

The second thing this extra question does is it educates the client about the services the lab is providing (hence justifying the price) and how the C-41 process works.

My best advice is to find a lab where the manager actually takes an interest in what they do - not just a "job". Talk to them when you drop the film off and explain what you are trying to achieve. When you pick them up, have a good look and ask for anything that isn't quite right to be re-printed. Any lab worth its weight will be happy to redo for you - if they grumble and seem unhelpful change. You'll never get a good result from them no matter what you say or do.

Good advice but not real practical for me. The sum-total of all my local choices within 50 miles (one-way) include 1 Wal-Mart, 1 Rite-Aid, 2 grocery stores, and 1 touristy camera shop mini-lab. The close labs are still 20 miles away and 5 of that is on dirt. This is a once a week trip for me.

When a local lab screws up by not listening or not telling the tech doing the job what I want, I'm another week away from seeing the fix.

All I am really asking for here is for the lab to develop the film in the standard C-41 process and then print 1 proof set exactly per the film's and paper's process design standard.

It seems as though it takes three back flips in front of the manager to get any lab to that point and I'm beginning to believe that it isn't even possible for a modern mini-lab to do a no correction proof.

The only real fix, it seems, is to process and contact print for myself at home.

 

[jglass]

me too!

This is exactly what is driving me nuts also. And I only need web-size scans. I'm thinking of just ordering contact sheets with developing and then ordering 8x10 prints of the selects and then flat bed scanning the prints for my web site, since I can't afford a film scanner. Any comments on this solution?

I was about to post a thread on this same issue here (having gotten ONE reply on HybridPhoto). In fact I might do so if this thread is exhausted.

Below is one KR64 scan from Dwaynes. Horrible! I know the kodachrome scans are bad because the slides come out great, but they are apparently trying to fix my intentional "underexposures" and this is accompanied by a horrific color shift into cyan/green. And Horrible grain!

I believe the same thing may be happening with the Portra, scanned at a local lab, except they may be auto correcting intentional "overexposure".

The upshot is that, like Mark, I simply can't tell what my exposures are actually doing. I am trying to learn these films and it looks virtually impossible with the intrusion of scanning in the work flow. (With KR64, I'm happy with my exposures 90% of the time, but Dwayne's is re-scanning the negs after I emailed them a couple of scans).

I will go all optical at some point, but whew, I think I'll load up some tri-x and forget this color frustration!

Jeff Glass

 

[jglass]

scans

Here is a KR64 scan that I was talking about in post above.

And one from Portra VC 400 from a local lab.

 

[srs5694]

This is the crux of the issue Nanette. P&S'ers may want "finished" 4x6's, I don't, I want proofs that show me exactly what I did.
...
The only real fix, it seems, is to process and contact print for myself at home.

I think you need to adjust your expectations. It sounds like you're in a rural area. Would you expect a major-league baseball team, specialty art-supply store, a bookstore specializing in computer books, or other such big-city conveniences in a small town? I wouldn't. (Although a small college town might have some of these.) With the decline of film photography, choices in film photofinishing are on the decline everywhere, and the sort of service you want falls into the category of things you can expect in big cities, but not in small towns. Live with it and adjust. As I see it, you've got three choices: Send your film out to a mail-order lab that can do what you want, do it yourself, or move to a big city. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's just the nature of the retail world generally, and of photography retail in particular.

 

[markbarendt]

I think you need to adjust your expectations. ...

Probably so.

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

 

[markbarendt]

I will go all optical at some point, but whew, I think I'll load up some tri-x and forget this color frustration!

Jeff Glass

I have considered that too.

There are some subjects that just scream for color though.