From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Processing stupidity
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 10:49:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.211432.9812@walter.bellcore.com>, root@ardour writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.154243.13922@progress.com>, matth@progress.COM (Matthew J. Harper) writes:
> 
> |>   Only thing different was where we got them developed.
> |> 
> |>   I surmise that some shops can do Kodak well, some can do Fuji well and
> |> few can do both well.
> |> 
> |> -Matth
> 
> You are absolutely right!

Well, here we go again... C-41 is C-41 is C-41. Some labs can do it, some can't.
If you want to know if they can, ask to see their control plots. If they don't
know what you are talking about, don't have any, or won't show you, walk.

> 
> Whenever I saw articles claiming colors from a certain (nega) film look better
> than those from a different negative film, I would like to suggest the authors
> look up John Hedgecoe (sp?)'s book.
> He photographed a face of a white female with different negative color
> films and let the manufacturers develop and print the picture on their papers.
> He then photographed the prints for the book.  Amazingly, all the
> colors were so similar that I cannot say which one is better than others.
> He then photographed the same face with several different slide
> films, and again let the manufacturers develop them. He then conveyed the
> image on his book.     This time, the differences among the different color
> slides are obvious.
> 
> So folks, I do not see any point when you people(guys) claim colors
> from a certain NEGATIVE film are better than those from others.  There are 
> so many variables in the reproduction of a negative film.  The film is just one
> variable among many others such as:
> 

By the time the printers hae got through with it, god knows whatthey originaly
looked like. Never trust a printed copy of a photo, for anything.
The above gives one interesting point though. With E-6, what comes out is what
you get. No second guessing. With C-41, the prints can be corrected. The sad
bit is that some labs 'improvment' is a big loss.

> 1.  film
> 2.  developing process. C-41 may be different between manufacturers.

Do you know that Kodak market 3 C-41s? These are set up to a specific type
of processor, so it will deliver *STANDARD* results from that type of machine.
It is up to the lab to keep it all in control though.

>    Some labs may develop three rolls with an amount of chemicals for only
>    two rolls.
Take your suspect negs. Measure the cyan density on a densitomiter. Put the
neg through fresh blix and stabilizer. Re-measure. If the cyan density goes up,
their chemistry is stuffed. The only other way to check them is to put the lab
is send them a control strip for processing. they may or may not like it...
I can't imagine what lab would do as you state above and be in bussiness for
more that a few months.

> 3.  the enlarger lamp.  It ages.
> 4.  Color balance setup in the enlarger.
> 5.  Enlarging lens      ==> sharpness, contrast, uniformity and 
>                             slightly color as well.
> 6.  focusing on the easle  ==> sharpness.
> 7.  printing paper.
> 

None of the above have ANY effect on the neg.

> Rule of thumb:
> 1.  Find decent labs for your choices of films.  I use Kodalux for Kodaks
>    and Fuji Anaheim for Fuji's.    Fuji has a technology center near
>    Anaheim which shares facility with the lab.
> 

Talk to the lab people. Tell them what you want from them. If they don't know,
you will get 'Fred Nurk' standard processing.
DON'T try to tell them how to do their job. And don't be upset if they tell you
they can't deliver +-1cc tolerances in 1Hr. Also don't be upset if they say no
thanks... go to xxx, thats the stuff they do.

> 2.  As a special instruction, do not let them play with the color balance
>    on their enlargers.  Instruct them to use their standard color balance
>    which has already been set up for their specific films.  Of course, you
>    should never use your daylight films under the indoor lighting.   You 
>    also need to use some filters in the shadow on a sunny day.
>    I realized that letting them do custom-color-balancing would only hurt the
>    picture, unless you include a 18% grey picture and they are kind enough   
>    to measure the first grey picture with their color meter.
> 
First I would hope that you know more about their lab, equipment, processing
and process control than they do. Second, I hope you will put up with the
result of getting what you asked for.

~Paul

Newsgroups: rec.photo