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

About Clark Photo Labs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 2nd 05, 09:48 PM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy wrote:
"Michael Weinstein" wrote in message
news:2004123000531475249%notreallymeNOSPAM@ixnetco mcom...

On 2004-12-29 12:31:11 -0500, Joe Pucillo said:


Wasn't it Ryan who said...

Funny you should mention, I just went to both Clark's and York's web
sites and they are INDENTICAL, especially the "about us" page.


Clark, York, Mystic (and maybe a few others) are all part of District
Photo in the DC suburbs. District Photo also runs Qualex (supermarket
"Kodak" processing) and other markets.

Where they all used to be separate (and Mystic was the best, by far)
now they're all just the same as dropping your film at the grocery
store.

Find a good local lab - you won't get the lowest price, but that's
really not the most important thing, is it?


I got a mailing from "what used to be Mystic," a new company IN Mystic,
CT under a new name (I think it's ABC but not sure) telling the story
of how the old Mystic was bought out by a Maryland company and even
though the film is mailed to CT it is then trucked to Maryland for
processing. So the old Mystic is gone. The old FACILITIES are under a
new name with what sounds like most of the old people, just not under
the name Mystic. But it IS in Mystic, Ct. I wish I could remember the
new name for sure.
--
Michael | "He's dead, Jim."



Mystic sold out to Clark/York/whatever, and as far as I know, they have laid
off their employees and film is processed along with the other stuff by
District Photo, in Maryland.

The Postal Service has a service where they "sweep the PO Box," meaning that
they take all the film that was received at the PO Box and put it into an
Express Mail bag and ship the whole bag to Maryland. They can arrange to do
this once a day, or several times a day, whatever District Photo wants.

So you send your film to Connecticut, thinking that it is being processed
there, but it goes to Maryland by this circuitous route.

Check to see where the prints are returned from. I'd bet that it comes from
Maryland.


You know you can also go the other way, it's called a remailing service,
they simply send the express mail bag back to CT, and get the mail
processed there. Mind you they probably do it, not to try and hide, but
to allow the customers to continue using the old mailers, and shipping
address......

In 1977 a company here in Canada (Black's), was known as the worst lab
in the country, out of 150 labs, they were in 150th place for quality.
They are probably 25th place now, because so many labs have gotten much
worse. These days I use a local pro-lab, that simply soups the film,
put's it in a long plastic sleeve, and gives it back to me, $5 a roll.
I then feed the film carefully through my own scanner, and go digital
from there......

















  #12  
Old January 2nd 05, 09:48 PM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy wrote:
"Michael Weinstein" wrote in message
news:2004123000531475249%notreallymeNOSPAM@ixnetco mcom...

On 2004-12-29 12:31:11 -0500, Joe Pucillo said:


Wasn't it Ryan who said...

Funny you should mention, I just went to both Clark's and York's web
sites and they are INDENTICAL, especially the "about us" page.


Clark, York, Mystic (and maybe a few others) are all part of District
Photo in the DC suburbs. District Photo also runs Qualex (supermarket
"Kodak" processing) and other markets.

Where they all used to be separate (and Mystic was the best, by far)
now they're all just the same as dropping your film at the grocery
store.

Find a good local lab - you won't get the lowest price, but that's
really not the most important thing, is it?


I got a mailing from "what used to be Mystic," a new company IN Mystic,
CT under a new name (I think it's ABC but not sure) telling the story
of how the old Mystic was bought out by a Maryland company and even
though the film is mailed to CT it is then trucked to Maryland for
processing. So the old Mystic is gone. The old FACILITIES are under a
new name with what sounds like most of the old people, just not under
the name Mystic. But it IS in Mystic, Ct. I wish I could remember the
new name for sure.
--
Michael | "He's dead, Jim."



Mystic sold out to Clark/York/whatever, and as far as I know, they have laid
off their employees and film is processed along with the other stuff by
District Photo, in Maryland.

The Postal Service has a service where they "sweep the PO Box," meaning that
they take all the film that was received at the PO Box and put it into an
Express Mail bag and ship the whole bag to Maryland. They can arrange to do
this once a day, or several times a day, whatever District Photo wants.

So you send your film to Connecticut, thinking that it is being processed
there, but it goes to Maryland by this circuitous route.

Check to see where the prints are returned from. I'd bet that it comes from
Maryland.


You know you can also go the other way, it's called a remailing service,
they simply send the express mail bag back to CT, and get the mail
processed there. Mind you they probably do it, not to try and hide, but
to allow the customers to continue using the old mailers, and shipping
address......

In 1977 a company here in Canada (Black's), was known as the worst lab
in the country, out of 150 labs, they were in 150th place for quality.
They are probably 25th place now, because so many labs have gotten much
worse. These days I use a local pro-lab, that simply soups the film,
put's it in a long plastic sleeve, and gives it back to me, $5 a roll.
I then feed the film carefully through my own scanner, and go digital
from there......

















  #13  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:13 AM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Walt Kienzle" wrote in message
news
You are correct. It is "ABC Photo Lab", www.ABCPhotoLab.com. If anybody
has tried them out and has any comments, I would be interested in hearing
your opinion.


I tried York Labs, and it was a mistake. In fact, every time I tried to
save a buck using a cheap lab, it was a mistake.

Here is my assessment: you buy a good camera and lens, you use a lens hood
and a tripod. You use the best film. Then you go and compromise it all by
using a cheap lab, one that probably uses exhausted chemicals, and that uses
cheap enlarging lenses, and you wonder why your photos come out looking like
they were taken by a disposable camera?

If you want to use a good lab, one whose enlarging lenses cost $10,000
apiece and that maintains strict temperature control to within 1/4 of a
degree, and that video analyzes every single print, try www.dalelabs.com.
They will send you razor-sharp, bright prints, with colors that jump off the
paper at you. They are not the cheapest, but they will give you an idea of
what your camera is capable of producing. You may decide that "cheap" is no
"value" when the photos are of inferior quality.


  #14  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:13 AM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Walt Kienzle" wrote in message
news
You are correct. It is "ABC Photo Lab", www.ABCPhotoLab.com. If anybody
has tried them out and has any comments, I would be interested in hearing
your opinion.


I tried York Labs, and it was a mistake. In fact, every time I tried to
save a buck using a cheap lab, it was a mistake.

Here is my assessment: you buy a good camera and lens, you use a lens hood
and a tripod. You use the best film. Then you go and compromise it all by
using a cheap lab, one that probably uses exhausted chemicals, and that uses
cheap enlarging lenses, and you wonder why your photos come out looking like
they were taken by a disposable camera?

If you want to use a good lab, one whose enlarging lenses cost $10,000
apiece and that maintains strict temperature control to within 1/4 of a
degree, and that video analyzes every single print, try www.dalelabs.com.
They will send you razor-sharp, bright prints, with colors that jump off the
paper at you. They are not the cheapest, but they will give you an idea of
what your camera is capable of producing. You may decide that "cheap" is no
"value" when the photos are of inferior quality.


  #15  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:17 AM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Craig Schroeder" wrote in message
...
Thanks.... I've missed the affordable 5X7 proof processing that I was
getting at the old Mystic. Has anyone had personal experience with
ABC? I'll send my next stuff that's suitable for an experiment to ABC
and report back if no one has added info about them.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:06:11 GMT, Michael Weinstein
wrote:
.

Here is what used to be Mystic lab, still in Mystic, under a new name.
I am not sure how it is connected to the old Mystic (which sold out)
but the had a mailing that complained about the sell out, complained
about the Maryland firm, and posited themselves as the real successor
to Mystic labs. you can find them, still in Mystic:
http://www.abcphotolab.com/



Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

-Eschew Obfuscation-


If you require cheap prints, but want to get the most bang for the buck, try
Kodak (Qualex) processing from one of the warehouse clubs--either BJ's or
Costco, if they are in your area.

I can get 24 exposures developed and printed at 5x7 for $4.00 at BJ's (their
house-brand processing, which happens to be Kodak.). I have had POOR
results from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, which use Fuji. I stick with Kodak,
through the BJ's Wholesale Club.

It is not the best, but there is no place that will give you better for
$4.00 a roll!


  #16  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:17 AM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Craig Schroeder" wrote in message
...
Thanks.... I've missed the affordable 5X7 proof processing that I was
getting at the old Mystic. Has anyone had personal experience with
ABC? I'll send my next stuff that's suitable for an experiment to ABC
and report back if no one has added info about them.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:06:11 GMT, Michael Weinstein
wrote:
.

Here is what used to be Mystic lab, still in Mystic, under a new name.
I am not sure how it is connected to the old Mystic (which sold out)
but the had a mailing that complained about the sell out, complained
about the Maryland firm, and posited themselves as the real successor
to Mystic labs. you can find them, still in Mystic:
http://www.abcphotolab.com/



Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

-Eschew Obfuscation-


If you require cheap prints, but want to get the most bang for the buck, try
Kodak (Qualex) processing from one of the warehouse clubs--either BJ's or
Costco, if they are in your area.

I can get 24 exposures developed and printed at 5x7 for $4.00 at BJ's (their
house-brand processing, which happens to be Kodak.). I have had POOR
results from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, which use Fuji. I stick with Kodak,
through the BJ's Wholesale Club.

It is not the best, but there is no place that will give you better for
$4.00 a roll!


  #17  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:21 AM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Wogster" wrote in message news:Y6ZBd.2961$P%
These days I use a local pro-lab, that simply soups the film,
put's it in a long plastic sleeve, and gives it back to me, $5 a roll.
I then feed the film carefully through my own scanner, and go digital
from there......


Cheap mail-order labs will make your prints look like they came from a
disposable camera. I cannot understand how so many otherwise intelligent
people will expect first class results from high-volume labs. I learned my
lesson long ago.

Your technique at least gives you some control, rather than letting some
minimum-wage operator mess up your colors.


  #18  
Old January 3rd 05, 04:21 AM
Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Wogster" wrote in message news:Y6ZBd.2961$P%
These days I use a local pro-lab, that simply soups the film,
put's it in a long plastic sleeve, and gives it back to me, $5 a roll.
I then feed the film carefully through my own scanner, and go digital
from there......


Cheap mail-order labs will make your prints look like they came from a
disposable camera. I cannot understand how so many otherwise intelligent
people will expect first class results from high-volume labs. I learned my
lesson long ago.

Your technique at least gives you some control, rather than letting some
minimum-wage operator mess up your colors.


  #19  
Old January 3rd 05, 02:49 PM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy wrote:

If you require cheap prints, but want to get the most bang for the buck, try
Kodak (Qualex) processing from one of the warehouse clubs--either BJ's or
Costco, if they are in your area.

I can get 24 exposures developed and printed at 5x7 for $4.00 at BJ's (their
house-brand processing, which happens to be Kodak.). I have had POOR
results from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, which use Fuji. I stick with Kodak,
through the BJ's Wholesale Club.


Fuji isn't the problem though, some Pro labs use Fuji equipment, so it's
not the processor, it's the operator. Often when there are problems
it's due to three problems.

1) The operator is paid $3.25/hour and doesn't give a crap.
2) Poor operator training, usually it's just Joe shows Frank how to do
it at the shift change, but they are not trained to deal with issues.
3) Stale/Exhausted chemistries usually caused by improper replenishment,
or an inadequite schedule of changes of chemistries. No matter what,
even with proper replenishment, you need to statt over sometime.


It is not the best, but there is no place that will give you better for
$4.00 a roll!


I usually tell the lab, just processing, no prints, no scans, just soup
and sleeve. I scan them at home. Often it's the printing that causes
scratched /damaged negative.

W
  #20  
Old January 3rd 05, 02:49 PM
The Wogster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jeremy wrote:

If you require cheap prints, but want to get the most bang for the buck, try
Kodak (Qualex) processing from one of the warehouse clubs--either BJ's or
Costco, if they are in your area.

I can get 24 exposures developed and printed at 5x7 for $4.00 at BJ's (their
house-brand processing, which happens to be Kodak.). I have had POOR
results from Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, which use Fuji. I stick with Kodak,
through the BJ's Wholesale Club.


Fuji isn't the problem though, some Pro labs use Fuji equipment, so it's
not the processor, it's the operator. Often when there are problems
it's due to three problems.

1) The operator is paid $3.25/hour and doesn't give a crap.
2) Poor operator training, usually it's just Joe shows Frank how to do
it at the shift change, but they are not trained to deal with issues.
3) Stale/Exhausted chemistries usually caused by improper replenishment,
or an inadequite schedule of changes of chemistries. No matter what,
even with proper replenishment, you need to statt over sometime.


It is not the best, but there is no place that will give you better for
$4.00 a roll!


I usually tell the lab, just processing, no prints, no scans, just soup
and sleeve. I scan them at home. Often it's the printing that causes
scratched /damaged negative.

W
 




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
Capacity and display clarity of IPod Photo Mac's Photo Ipod Digital Photography 2 January 4th 05 11:55 PM
Question about Photo printers John Digital Photography 35 December 24th 04 03:30 AM
Photo Papers For Epson 2100 John Digital Photography 5 December 1st 04 11:09 PM
Try DVD Photo Album version 3.01 to make digital photo album playable on TV with DVD player Michael Shaw Digital Photography 2 September 24th 04 10:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM.


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.