1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

film labs

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by pocketshaver, Dec 4, 2019.

  1. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    Im in the states, so the labs are different from yours ill guess.

    How do you know that a lab is actually able to give a good film development to you?

    How do you know if a film roll where the photos are all over exposed was caused by you or by the lab?

    This is posed by the fact that the lab I used, and had develop a few rolls for me, gave me a lot of scans that were lower quality then the ones I did myself of the same rolls of film with an old 5 MP scanner

    I mean, if the noritsu roll scanner takes a frame that was shot in low light, and cant do more then a white blob, but on my 5 mp scanner I can get a blurry image that lets me see what time it was when I shot the photo on a grand father clock at 2 am...

    Is the lab good or bad?
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    If the film is overexposed that's down to you. The lab could under- or over-develop it but I'd think that unlikely if it is C41 process you are talking about as that is usually automated. Scanning quality depends on the lab but they usually have reasonable quality ones but if their main business is D&P for 6x4 prints the scans may be of low resolution.
     
  3. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Hi P_S,

    Where in Trumplandia are you located? I know of a few good labs on the West Coast (Calif, Oregon and Wash)... I'm in BC, FWIW :)

    Whether or not the lab is good is, really, dependant upon what you think of the results and, of course, what I may consider OK, you might consider to be cr@p and vice versa :)

    Jack
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019
  4. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    have been using pro photo in Irvine California. Their scanning sucked.. seriously they couldn't get an image off a frame that my 7 year old 5mp film negative scanner could.
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  5. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Hi P_S,

    Not sure which lab you're using in Irvine, but, I know that, whilst Vancouver has several pro labs, more than a few of our film customers
    prefer to use "The Darkroom" in California -- I think, it's near San Clemente (?) -- and here's a link:

    https://thedarkroom.com

    As well, I had a few photographers from Oregon and Washington tell me that they use The Darkroom.

    Perhaps, send down a few negs that your local lab hasn't been able to satisfy you with and see if The
    Darkroom can do a decent job :0

    Hope this helps :)

    Cheers,
    Jack
     
  6. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    https://prophotoconnection.com/

    $4 USD to develop a roll of color film. Not bad at all. However I don't believe ill be using them anymore. I don't believe they are developing things correctly.

    I had to cut my negatives into sections today and saw a lot of alarming things. For example some things ill shoot several times in a row to get a GOOD shot. IF two frames of the same scene are DAYGLO NEON to the naked eye when held in hand, and the third frame of that exact scene is barely viewable when held to the ceiling light I have bad feelings.
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  7. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Four bucks a roll is a decent price for film processing, however, if the results are $hite, it's a moot point. I'm guessing, P_S, that you've taken your concerns to the lab manager but, again, I'm guessing, that results weren't to your satisfaction (?).

    Cheers,

    Jack
     
    neilt3 and peterba like this.
  8. pocketshaver

    pocketshaver In the Stop Bath

    they be as baffled as I am
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  9. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Reminds me of me when I look at a lot of my archived photos ;)

    Jack
     
    peterba likes this.
  10. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Spot on, Jack! When I resumed using film, around ten years ago, I found a fairly local lab which did 'reasonably-priced' :rolleyes: developing. Errrrrrr... BIG mistake. :eek:

    After that, I chose to pay rather more for developing, and the results were in a completely different league... simply NO comparision. So... there we have it: a Lesson Learned. By me. The hard way.
     
    Done_rundleCams and neilt3 like this.
  11. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Between this thread and your other thread on what seems to be the same roll of film , you need to ascertain whether or not the film was exposed correctly or not , and if the film was developed correctly or not .

    If you won't post sample shots of the negative on the light box , can you say if the writing on the film rebait is correctly shown ?

    The Kodak print should be clear and fairly bold .
    If so the film was correctly developed .
    In which case the weak / thin negatives are down to you .

    If on the film rebait the writing is very faint , then the problem is with the developers .

    Even an unexposed developed roll would have very clear writing on it even though the frames are blank .

    You really need to show us the negatives if you want help finding where the fault lies .
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.

Share This Page