Would You Have Ektar Processed/Printed From Local Drugstore?

[runswithsizzers]

DF, When you say "...they [are] awefull ... colors are yuck! Skies are barely blue, sometimes washed out..." I assume by "they" you mean the prints, right? Can you tell by looking at the negatives if they are exposed and developed correctly? If you are not sure about the negatives, can you photograph them on a light table and post the image here?

I would also assume that if the negatives are OK, and, if it is a reputable lab, then the lab might reprint them if you are not happy?

Ektar 100 is definitely capable of clean, bright colors. You can see my Ektar results at <this link> - but be aware that my online images, are "scans" (digital camera copies, actually) of the negatives, not prints. And those scans have had at least some postprocessing. I believe that if I sent these digital images off to be printed, the prints would look similar to the online images, but I haven't tested that theory in a while, so I can't say for sure how different they might look if printed.

I realize I am on thin ice here, using words like "scan" and "digital" in this analog forum. But. The topic is C-41 processing and prints. Can anyone say for sure if only some - or many - or all - machine prints made at the time of processing by commercial labs are made from scans of the negatives. Or to ask the question another way: Are there any commercial labs that still provide C-41 processing with 4"x6" prints that are machine made by an all-analog, wet chemistry process? That is: Is any discussion of commercial C-41 processing and machine prints, by necessity, a discussion of a hybrid process?

 

[DREW WILEY]

First, don't blame the film. Ektar is a superb product. Second, you don't get something for nothing. Cheapo outlets are going to be disappointing. Third, how can you monitor your own exposure technique if what you're looking at in print fashion is unreliable? How do you even get to first base? At the very least, you want to start out with quality prints to make such determinations or you won't get anywhere in the long run. You'll just be wasting money on good film, yet still come up with poor results, without understanding whether it's your fault or the lab's. Futility. I'd call that penny-wise but pound-foolish.

 

[foc]

I realize I am on thin ice here, using words like "scan" and "digital" in this analog forum. But. The topic is C-41 processing and prints. Can anyone say for sure if only some - or many - or all - machine prints made at the time of processing by commercial labs are made from scans of the negatives. Or to ask the question another way: Are there any commercial labs that still provide C-41 processing with 4"x6" prints that are machine made by an all-analog, wet chemistry process? That is: Is any discussion of commercial C-41 processing and machine prints, by necessity, a discussion of a hybrid process

I don't know of any labs that are purely analogue. There may be some that print optically but I would think they are in the minority. And the reason for that is that the industry has moved on from optical printing to scan and digital print. By digital print I mean the print can be made by wet process, RA4, silver halide print or it can be an inkjet print. (please bear in mind that commercial inkjet print is very much more sophisticated than a home inkjet.)

If a print is made by a "wet lab" Fuji Frontier or Noritsu printer it is on RA4 paper just like the print you got back in the 1980's and 1990's. The only difference is how the print was exposed. If the print was made by a Frontier/Noritisu/ other brand machine then it is an inkjet print, just you will be hard pushed to tell the difference. (quick tip: rub the print between your thumb and forefinger, if it squeaks then it's an inkjet print).

Personally I think scanning negs is better than making optical prints but then I am looking from a commercial point of view. so I am biased.

 

[CMoore]

Below is a SHORT Video about The Darkroom.
I have used them for the last 3-4 years and have been happy with anything they did.

 

[Kyle M.]

I have "The Darkroom" do all my color processing. On the rare occassion I shoot color it's Ektar. I believe it's $12 per roll for processing and regular scans $15 with enhanced scans. They do 4x6 prints for something like $4 per roll. Personally I just get the scans, if I want prints I can have Walmart print them for like 10 cents a piece. I don't know of any lab that still does optical color prints, it's all inkjet now.

 

[MattKing]

I don't know of any lab that still does optical color prints, it's all inkjet now.

We have labs (Costco in particular) around here that still print digital files on to RA-4 photographic paper, rather than inkjets.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You've pretty much painted yourself in a corner by stipulating machine prints. I'd imagine the parameters of these machine are calibrated more to ordinary lower-contrast, lower-saturation color neg films than Ektar. But what is still available differs from place place. Lots of small-roll RA4 paper is still being made and distributed, so that in itself tells you something.

 

[destroya]

blue moon camera in portland still does wet optical prints. They have a color enlarger and the results are great. I had one done 2 years ago and it was from an ektar 6x9 neg.

 

[AgX]

Lots of small-roll RA4 paper is still being made and distributed, so that in itself tells you something.

If you refer by "small roll" to the width of a rool, industrial labs still use a lot of these, but not necessarily for optical prints.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But little has improved; some things seem worse. Some sizable cities still have actual pro labs that offer small machine prints as well as custom printing services. That's certainly the case around here. You pay a little more, but can generally expect far higher quality control even in their machine prints than drugstore or big box outlet options. I see this stuff from time to time, but don't use any of these services myself because I do my own printing, always optical. But my wife once ordered a lot of small snapshots.

 

[Agulliver]

If you shot Ektar and the skies are washed out or flowers don't look spectacular then something has gone seriously wrong. It could be with your exposure but that's unlikely as Ektar has reasonable latitude. It's more likely the processing, scanning or printing. If you have your negatives, can you post pictures of them here? Can you post samples of the problems you mentioned with the lab prints/scans? It could simply be that you need the negatives re-scanned or printer again with different settings.

As an example, my avatar was shot using Ektar in a vintage Zeiss-Ikon folding camera, bright sunlight and guestimated shutter/aperture.