mini-lab b&w Processing

How would you grade the quality of the processing only?
In the darkroom you can of course decide how long to use the developer
for, how long to adgitate etc..
Overall the print is more important than the processing , as long as
its not too thin..

geletine wrote:
How would you grade the quality of the processing only?
In the darkroom you can of course decide how long to use the developer
for, how long to adgitate etc..
Overall the print is more important than the processing , as long as
its not too thin..


I don't think B&W mini-labs exist. Unless you're talking about C-41 B&W
film then it's C-41 so a standard. If you asking about the general quaility
of commerical B&W film processing well it varies. But two rolls from a good
pro-lab will cost you not much less then a full kit of equipment to process
your own.

Nick

"geletine" wrote in message
oups.com...
How would you grade the quality of the processing only?
In the darkroom you can of course decide how long to use the developer
for, how long to adgitate etc..
Overall the print is more important than the processing , as long as
its not too thin..


I am not aware of any minilab in my area that will process B&W. But I do
take exception to what I think you said. You seem to be suggesting that it
is OK to vary the amount of time a print is in the developer, fixer, etc.,
in order to get a print that you like. I disagree.

A print that is pulled from the developer too soon is going to be muddy and
splotchy. The only things you should vary when printing are the aperture,
time, and contrast filter (if appropriate). All other processes should be
exactly the same. This is the beauty of automated processors - consistent
quality.

If I misunderstood your question, I apologize.

Walt Hanks

BTW, I have my B&W film developed and scanned only. I print them myself, as
needed.

Walt Hanks wrote:

is OK to vary the amount of time a print is in the developer, fixer, etc.,
in order to get a print that you like. I disagree.


I think he means developer time can be varied for film.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:
geletine wrote:
How would you grade the quality of the processing only?
In the darkroom you can of course decide how long to use the
developer
for, how long to adgitate etc..
Overall the print is more important than the processing , as long
as
its not too thin..


I don't think B&W mini-labs exist. Unless you're talking about C-41
B&W
film then it's C-41 so a standard. If you asking about the general
quaility
of commerical B&W film processing well it varies. But two rolls from
a good
pro-lab will cost you not much less then a full kit of equipment to
process
your own.

Nick

There are in England mini-labs that do still have b&w chemicals as well
as
c-41, but only colour paper in them, strange ...
anyway..

They process them with a standard contrast, if that makes sense, you
can get them pulled or pushed.

I don't think the processing differs from mini-labs to pro-labs, but of
course the printing is diffrent from a mini-lab to a pro-lab..

Correct me if i am wrong..

"Nick Zentena" wrote in message
...
Walt Hanks wrote:

is OK to vary the amount of time a print is in the developer, fixer,
etc.,
in order to get a print that you like. I disagree.


I think he means developer time can be varied for film.

Nick

Yes, that would make more sense. But I never know any more since the local
High School photo teacher has students pulling prints from the developer
"when they look right."

Walt

geletine wrote:


There are in England mini-labs that do still have b&w chemicals as well
as
c-41, but only colour paper in them, strange ...
anyway..

Kodak makes RA-4 [colour] process B&W paper. It's faster to process then
B&W paper would be. Also lets the labs work with one set of chemicals.




I don't think the processing differs from mini-labs to pro-labs, but of
course the printing is diffrent from a mini-lab to a pro-lab..


Pro labs can mean anything from a guy with a Patterson tank. Or something
much more complex. The hope is the people doing the work have a solid idea
what they're doing and take the effort to produce high quality work. They
should also provide more flexibilty in how they process your film.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:
geletine wrote:


There are in England mini-labs that do still have b&w chemicals as
well
as
c-41, but only colour paper in them, strange ...
anyway..

Kodak makes RA-4 [colour] process B&W paper. It's faster to process
then
B&W paper would be. Also lets the labs work with one set of
chemicals.




I don't think the processing differs from mini-labs to pro-labs,
but of
course the printing is diffrent from a mini-lab to a pro-lab..


Pro labs can mean anything from a guy with a Patterson tank. Or
something
much more complex. The hope is the people doing the work have a solid
idea
what they're doing and take the effort to produce high quality work.
They
should also provide more flexibilty in how they process your film.

Nick

how would the processed b&w negative be different from a patterson tank
than a mini-lab for instance?

I am not talking about the print, just the development of the b&w
negative

geletine wrote:


how would the processed b&w negative be different from a patterson tank
than a mini-lab for instance?

I am not talking about the print, just the development of the b&w
negative

I'm not sure about these B&W minilabs but assuming it's a similar setup to
C-41 machines. Those machines can only use one time for all the film. They
also use one batch of chemicals. That's all fine for C-41 but B&W isn't so
simple. Not only will some people want to use different developers for
different film but even things like dilution.

Any setup that only gives you one choice is going to have problems
providing good negatives. It might work fine for one type of film but not
for another.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:
geletine wrote:


how would the processed b&w negative be different from a patterson
tank
than a mini-lab for instance?

I am not talking about the print, just the development of the b&w
negative

I'm not sure about these B&W minilabs but assuming it's a similar
setup to
C-41 machines. Those machines can only use one time for all the film.
They
also use one batch of chemicals. That's all fine for C-41 but B&W
isn't so
simple. Not only will some people want to use different developers
for
different film but even things like dilution.

Any setup that only gives you one choice is going to have problems
providing good negatives. It might work fine for one type of film but
not
for another.

Nick


one of the mini-labs told me they use Ilford or Agfa developer as
applicable.
seems limited as you just said.
xtol can be used on quite a varied amount of film, am I right?