A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 18th 04, 11:28 AM
dooey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #12  
Old August 18th 04, 11:28 AM
dooey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #13  
Old August 18th 04, 09:59 PM
Rod Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #14  
Old August 18th 04, 09:59 PM
Rod Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #15  
Old August 18th 04, 09:59 PM
Rod Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #16  
Old August 19th 04, 11:58 AM
dooey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.




  #17  
Old August 19th 04, 11:58 AM
dooey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.




  #18  
Old August 19th 04, 03:53 PM
Rod Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #19  
Old August 19th 04, 03:53 PM
Rod Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #20  
Old August 23rd 04, 07:09 PM
Mike Jenkins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
washed out in photo editors Pat Digital Photography 4 August 9th 04 06:46 PM
(update) Photo Exhibition, in images Daniel ROCHA General Photography Techniques 0 February 4th 04 06:23 AM
(update) Photo Exhibition, in images ! Daniel ROCHA Photographing People 0 February 3rd 04 06:17 AM
WHO Photo Contest "Images of Health and Disability 2003" Nenad Kostanjsek General Photography Techniques 0 November 23rd 03 04:15 PM
WHO Photo Contest "Images of Health and Disability 2003" Nenad Kostanjsek Photographing People 0 November 23rd 03 04:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.