Photo lab washed out images... what can I do?
 

I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film? Did the labs ruin the negatives or simply the prints and CD
images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know I've
learned my lesson about cheap labs.

Thanks in advance.
Mike

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners
make a difference?



"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film? Did the labs ruin the negatives or simply the prints and
CD
images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know
I've
learned my lesson about cheap labs.

Thanks in advance.
Mike

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners
make a difference?



"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film? Did the labs ruin the negatives or simply the prints and
CD
images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know
I've
learned my lesson about cheap labs.

Thanks in advance.
Mike

Mike Jenkins wrote:
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film? Did the labs ruin the negatives or simply the prints and CD
images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know I've
learned my lesson about cheap labs.


You need to look at the negatives, C41 is the normal setup for most
machines, so unless the machine isn't getting proper chemistry updates,
or is out of temperature adjustment, the negatives should be OK.

Every negative film manuyfacturer uses a slightly different emulsion,
and slightly different orange mask on their negative films, the machines
are setup to recognize the manufacturer and model of film being
processed, this is so the machine can compensate for the density and
colour of mask. If the machine didn't properly identify the film, it
would be off. A good operator will see the first couple of prints,
adjust the machine, and then reprint the few that were less
satisfactory, most 1hr labs don't have the time to do this, and the
teenager operating the machine doesn't care.

Paul

Mike Jenkins wrote:
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film? Did the labs ruin the negatives or simply the prints and CD
images? Can someone explain how this works to a film neophyte? I know I've
learned my lesson about cheap labs.


You need to look at the negatives, C41 is the normal setup for most
machines, so unless the machine isn't getting proper chemistry updates,
or is out of temperature adjustment, the negatives should be OK.

Every negative film manuyfacturer uses a slightly different emulsion,
and slightly different orange mask on their negative films, the machines
are setup to recognize the manufacturer and model of film being
processed, this is so the machine can compensate for the density and
colour of mask. If the machine didn't properly identify the film, it
would be off. A good operator will see the first couple of prints,
adjust the machine, and then reprint the few that were less
satisfactory, most 1hr labs don't have the time to do this, and the
teenager operating the machine doesn't care.

Paul

In article ,
"Mike Jenkins" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

They were also shot under different conditions, so I wouldn't conclude
it's necessarily the lab's fault, although it might be. I bet most 1-hour
photofinishers aren't used to dealing with underwater photos; they'll
likely have different color balance and whatnot than conventional
land-based point-and-shoot photos, which could throw off their equipment.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film?

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners
make a difference?

In theory, airport security scanners should operate at low enough power
that they won't damage film. If you put the film through the x-ray
machine, though, and if it gave it too much of a jolt of x-rays, the film
could end up fogged. This matches your description, so it MIGHT be what
happened. It could also be problems with exposure or in processing.

To find out, try examining your negatives. It's often hard to judge from
a negative, particularly if you're not used to looking at them, but you
may be able to discern something from them. For instance, look for detail
that's washed out in the prints. If there's more detail in the negatives,
it could be that the lab messed up. (Negatives can hold more detail than
is usually printed, though, and trying to pull out detail at the extremes
can have other negative consequences, like making film grain more
noticeable.) You might also try comparing across rolls -- the roll you
said came out OK on CD vs. the ones that didn't. That should give you a
baseline for comparison.

You might also try taking everything to a pro lab. Despite the name, most
pro labs will happily help amateurs. Show them your prints and negatives
and ask for advice. If nothing else, you can probably get a couple of
sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want
them to reprint or scan onto a CD.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
"Mike Jenkins" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

They were also shot under different conditions, so I wouldn't conclude
it's necessarily the lab's fault, although it might be. I bet most 1-hour
photofinishers aren't used to dealing with underwater photos; they'll
likely have different color balance and whatnot than conventional
land-based point-and-shoot photos, which could throw off their equipment.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film?

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners
make a difference?

In theory, airport security scanners should operate at low enough power
that they won't damage film. If you put the film through the x-ray
machine, though, and if it gave it too much of a jolt of x-rays, the film
could end up fogged. This matches your description, so it MIGHT be what
happened. It could also be problems with exposure or in processing.

To find out, try examining your negatives. It's often hard to judge from
a negative, particularly if you're not used to looking at them, but you
may be able to discern something from them. For instance, look for detail
that's washed out in the prints. If there's more detail in the negatives,
it could be that the lab messed up. (Negatives can hold more detail than
is usually printed, though, and trying to pull out detail at the extremes
can have other negative consequences, like making film grain more
noticeable.) You might also try comparing across rolls -- the roll you
said came out OK on CD vs. the ones that didn't. That should give you a
baseline for comparison.

You might also try taking everything to a pro lab. Despite the name, most
pro labs will happily help amateurs. Show them your prints and negatives
and ask for advice. If nothing else, you can probably get a couple of
sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want
them to reprint or scan onto a CD.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
"Mike Jenkins" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did something
different.

They were also shot under different conditions, so I wouldn't conclude
it's necessarily the lab's fault, although it might be. I bet most 1-hour
photofinishers aren't used to dealing with underwater photos; they'll
likely have different color balance and whatnot than conventional
land-based point-and-shoot photos, which could throw off their equipment.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the second
batch of film?

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage scanners
make a difference?

In theory, airport security scanners should operate at low enough power
that they won't damage film. If you put the film through the x-ray
machine, though, and if it gave it too much of a jolt of x-rays, the film
could end up fogged. This matches your description, so it MIGHT be what
happened. It could also be problems with exposure or in processing.

To find out, try examining your negatives. It's often hard to judge from
a negative, particularly if you're not used to looking at them, but you
may be able to discern something from them. For instance, look for detail
that's washed out in the prints. If there's more detail in the negatives,
it could be that the lab messed up. (Negatives can hold more detail than
is usually printed, though, and trying to pull out detail at the extremes
can have other negative consequences, like making film grain more
noticeable.) You might also try comparing across rolls -- the roll you
said came out OK on CD vs. the ones that didn't. That should give you a
baseline for comparison.

You might also try taking everything to a pro lab. Despite the name, most
pro labs will happily help amateurs. Show them your prints and negatives
and ask for advice. If nothing else, you can probably get a couple of
sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want
them to reprint or scan onto a CD.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.


"Rod Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Jenkins" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while
snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used
the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab
and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and
sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did
something
different.

They were also shot under different conditions, so I wouldn't conclude
it's necessarily the lab's fault, although it might be. I bet most 1-hour
photofinishers aren't used to dealing with underwater photos; they'll
likely have different color balance and whatnot than conventional
land-based point-and-shoot photos, which could throw off their equipment.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the
second
batch of film?

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the
second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage
scanners
make a difference?

In theory, airport security scanners should operate at low enough power
that they won't damage film. If you put the film through the x-ray
machine, though, and if it gave it too much of a jolt of x-rays, the film
could end up fogged. This matches your description, so it MIGHT be what
happened. It could also be problems with exposure or in processing.

To find out, try examining your negatives. It's often hard to judge from
a negative, particularly if you're not used to looking at them, but you
may be able to discern something from them. For instance, look for detail
that's washed out in the prints. If there's more detail in the negatives,
it could be that the lab messed up. (Negatives can hold more detail than
is usually printed, though, and trying to pull out detail at the extremes
can have other negative consequences, like making film grain more
noticeable.) You might also try comparing across rolls -- the roll you
said came out OK on CD vs. the ones that didn't. That should give you a
baseline for comparison.

You might also try taking everything to a pro lab. Despite the name, most
pro labs will happily help amateurs. Show them your prints and negatives
and ask for advice. If nothing else, you can probably get a couple of
sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want
them to reprint or scan onto a CD.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.


"Rod Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Jenkins" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
I used an underwater 35mm camera to take 3 rolls of film while
snorkeling
in
Florida. I took these to a lab and had a CD made. The prints were
mediocre
but the CD image when run through photoshop are superb. I then used
the
last two rolls of 35mm film from the same bulk purchase with the same
camera
a week later while snorkeling in Hawaii. I sent these to a 24hour lab
and
the prints AND the CD images were washed out. The visibility and
sunlight
were higher in HI.

Since it was the same camera and film, I'm certain the labs did
something
different.

They were also shot under different conditions, so I wouldn't conclude
it's necessarily the lab's fault, although it might be. I bet most 1-hour
photofinishers aren't used to dealing with underwater photos; they'll
likely have different color balance and whatnot than conventional
land-based point-and-shoot photos, which could throw off their equipment.

Is there anything I can do to get the real color and depth from the
second
batch of film?

I just realized I checked this film through airport security on the
second
trip and carried through security on the first. Could the baggage
scanners
make a difference?

In theory, airport security scanners should operate at low enough power
that they won't damage film. If you put the film through the x-ray
machine, though, and if it gave it too much of a jolt of x-rays, the film
could end up fogged. This matches your description, so it MIGHT be what
happened. It could also be problems with exposure or in processing.

To find out, try examining your negatives. It's often hard to judge from
a negative, particularly if you're not used to looking at them, but you
may be able to discern something from them. For instance, look for detail
that's washed out in the prints. If there's more detail in the negatives,
it could be that the lab messed up. (Negatives can hold more detail than
is usually printed, though, and trying to pull out detail at the extremes
can have other negative consequences, like making film grain more
noticeable.) You might also try comparing across rolls -- the roll you
said came out OK on CD vs. the ones that didn't. That should give you a
baseline for comparison.

You might also try taking everything to a pro lab. Despite the name, most
pro labs will happily help amateurs. Show them your prints and negatives
and ask for advice. If nothing else, you can probably get a couple of
sample prints for a buck or so, and use that to decide what else you want
them to reprint or scan onto a CD.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.


If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. If you have a
problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never
met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the
fact when they pack them. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button,
perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they
can't or won't put it right.

--
Dooey.

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.


If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing. If you have a
problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never
met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the
fact when they pack them. Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button,
perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they
can't or won't put it right.

--
Dooey.

In article ,
"dooey" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.

If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing.

This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean
both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film.
IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to
developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's
obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were
using it that way isn't very productive.

If you have a
problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never
met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the
fact when they pack them.

The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one
relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships.
That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the
average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME
quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing
personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos
you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control,
but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you.

Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button,
perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they
can't or won't put it right.

I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come
out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least
check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they
don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't
run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify
for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints
*AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer
service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have
them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn
any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be
redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's
good at customer support.

That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're
underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average
automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some
slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on
typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the
processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the
prints.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
"dooey" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.

If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing.

This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean
both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film.
IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to
developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's
obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were
using it that way isn't very productive.

If you have a
problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never
met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the
fact when they pack them.

The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one
relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships.
That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the
average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME
quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing
personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos
you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control,
but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you.

Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button,
perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they
can't or won't put it right.

I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come
out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least
check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they
don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't
run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify
for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints
*AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer
service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have
them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn
any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be
redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's
good at customer support.

That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're
underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average
automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some
slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on
typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the
processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the
prints.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
"dooey" writes:

"Mike Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Thanks to everyone who responded.

I got a photo negative scanner and discovered the negatives were FABULOUS.
Most of the images were loaded with color and details. The processing was
simply horrible. I guess you get what you pay for if you are in a hurry.
The scanned images are just fine.

If the negs were ok than you can't blame the processing.

This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean
both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film.
IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to
developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's
obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were
using it that way isn't very productive.

If you have a
problem with the printing why not ask them to reprint? If a lab has never
met you before and your prints aren't great their not going to question the
fact when they pack them.

The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one
relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships.
That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the
average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME
quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing
personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos
you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control,
but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you.

Perhaps the operator hit the wrong channel button,
perhaps they had a fault on the machine etc. A lab is only poor if they
can't or won't put it right.

I don't agree. To take an extreme hypothetical example, if prints come
out with lime green skin tones, the operators should certainly at least
check their calibration, whether or not they've ever met you. If they
don't double-check the results, or if they find that they erred but don't
run the prints through again before you ever see them, then they qualify
for the adjective "poor," IMHO. If they give you the green-skinned prints
*AND* refuse to reprint them, that just makes them poor at customer
service, too. Put another way: If I have to come back to a lab to have
them redo half the shots on every roll, time after time, they won't earn
any praise from me, even if they happily redo every print I ask to be
redone. This hypothetical lab does a poor job at printing, even if it's
good at customer support.

That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're
underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average
automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some
slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on
typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the
processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the
prints.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

"Rod Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dooey" writes:

This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean
both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film.
IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to
developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's
obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were
using it that way isn't very productive.

My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says this
himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make
horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be
corrected.

The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one
relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships.
That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the
average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME
quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing
personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos
you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control,
but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you.


That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're
underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average
automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some
slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on
typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the
processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the
prints.


Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he
normally takes good underwater shots. I was simply trying to say that you
shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in
unusual circumstances.

"Rod Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dooey" writes:

This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean
both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film.
IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to
developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's
obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were
using it that way isn't very productive.

My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says this
himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make
horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be
corrected.

The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one
relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships.
That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the
average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do SOME
quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing
personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos
you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality control,
but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you.


That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're
underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average
automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some
slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on
typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the
processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the
prints.


Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he
normally takes good underwater shots. I was simply trying to say that you
shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in
unusual circumstances.

In article ,
"dooey" writes:

Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he
normally takes good underwater shots.

True, but underwater shots aren't exactly hard to spot -- at least, not
by a human. After all, how often do you see fish floating in midair down
the street? ;-) This is true whether or not a given customer frequently
takes such pictures; whether or not they know that a customer takes such
pictures doesn't make their ability or inability to handle them properly
any better or worse. If such shots pass through the lab looking
unacceptable, then that means that the lab's quality control isn't very
good, or at the very least isn't prepared to deal with unusual subjects.

I was simply trying to say that you
shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in
unusual circumstances.

I can certainly agree with that, although some mistakes are inexcusable,
even on the first visit. Not having seen Mike's photos, I can't say
whether his fall into this category or not, but probably not -- after all,
his negatives are OK, so as you said in a bit that I snipped, the prints
can be redone.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

In article ,
"dooey" writes:

Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he
normally takes good underwater shots.

True, but underwater shots aren't exactly hard to spot -- at least, not
by a human. After all, how often do you see fish floating in midair down
the street? ;-) This is true whether or not a given customer frequently
takes such pictures; whether or not they know that a customer takes such
pictures doesn't make their ability or inability to handle them properly
any better or worse. If such shots pass through the lab looking
unacceptable, then that means that the lab's quality control isn't very
good, or at the very least isn't prepared to deal with unusual subjects.

I was simply trying to say that you
shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken in
unusual circumstances.

I can certainly agree with that, although some mistakes are inexcusable,
even on the first visit. Not having seen Mike's photos, I can't say
whether his fall into this category or not, but probably not -- after all,
his negatives are OK, so as you said in a bit that I snipped, the prints
can be redone.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

The scanned images are
http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/com.h...ord=30 940834

Your comments have all been helpful and revealing.

The developing process went well. The printing process left a lot to be
desired. The print of the first photo was monotone.

I wanted to share these with the class so I had them developed while on
vacation at a 24hr drugstore. It would be costly to return to the lab to
have them reprinted at this point. I'm sure a local lab would do them over.
Since I got the scanner, this is no longer an issue.

Thanks again for the comments. I'm learning something new each day.

Mike


"dooey" wrote in message
. uk...

"Rod Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"dooey" writes:

This is a semantic issue. Mike was clearly using "processing" to mean
both developing the film and creating prints (or CDs) from the film.
IMHO, that's a perfectly valid usage. You're using it to refer to
developing the film only. IMHO, that's also perfectly valid, but it's
obviously not how Mike was using the term, so responding as if he were
using it that way isn't very productive.

My point was that the lab made a good job of the processing. Mike says
this
himself as he made good scans from them. The lab then went on to make
horrible prints of a difficult subject. They did nothing that couldn't be
corrected.

The assumption here is that the lab actually has ongoing one-on-one
relationships with its customers, and CARES about those relationships.
That may be true of the average pro lab, but I doubt if it's true of the
average lab in a drug store. I'd also contend that any lab should do
SOME
quality control on what it puts out, whether or not it has an ongoing
personal relationship with you. If they know you and the types of photos
you bring to them, they may be able to do a better job at quality
control,
but that doesn't excuse poor quality control if they don't know you.


That said, Mike's photos are of unusual subjects (namely, they're
underwater photos) that might not be handled well by the average
automated equipment. Personally, I'd be more willing to cut the lab some
slack on getting poor results from such a roll than from poor results on
typical snapshots. Still, I won't argue with Mike's statement that "the
processing was simply horrible," particularly since I've not seen the
prints.


Exactly, Mike's images where taken underwater. The lab didn't know that he
normally takes good underwater shots. I was simply trying to say that you
shouldn't judge a lab on the results of one visit. Especially those taken
in
unusual circumstances.