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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |