Kodak "Perfect Touch" processing -- VERY poor results!

I just had 3 rolls of film shot on 200 ASA Fuji film processed at CVS.
They were shot on a Samsung Evoca 140 Neo, which has a very good
Schneider-Kreuznach Varioplan lens, and generally takes excellent
photos.

I have had these developed at CVS in the past with good results. This
time the sales person sold me on Kodak "Perfect Touch" processing,
which she told me was "better" and also cheaper that week due to a
special promotion. Without thinking much about it, I chose the Perfect
Touch option.

Got the photos back yesterday and they are TERRIBLE. They're grainy
(remember: 200 ASA film), the color balance is out of whack, contrast
is funky, etc. I immediately saw them and said, "these have been
digitally scanned, and badly digitally processed". If I wanted digital
pics, I would have used my digital camera!!

Upon researching what "Perfect Touch" is, I see I was correct in my
assessment. Kodak should be ashamed in my opnion. Some of us shoot
film because we like film.

I am going to take the negatives back to CVS and ask them to print
proper prints. I don't expect to be charged for this.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

John

P.S. We developed a roll my 3-year old son took with a DISPOSABLE
camera -- these were APS photos and were not processed with "Perfect
Touch". The quality of these prints, believe it or not, was
substantially BETTER than the ones printed using "Perfect Touch".

By digitally scanning, and laser exposing the paper, you can get much better
results. Any recent mini-lab does printing this way. But, ragardless of what
equipment is used, a poorly trained operator, or in many cases, the lack of a
human operator can make a mess from virtually anything.
I bet that if you took your film to a pro lab instead of a drug store you
would be amazed at how much nicer the pics can look.

Jon

John Salmon wrote:

P.S. We developed a roll my 3-year old son took with a DISPOSABLE
camera -- these were APS photos and were not processed with "Perfect
Touch". The quality of these prints, believe it or not, was
substantially BETTER than the ones printed using "Perfect Touch".

Sorry to hear about this.

I stopped using Perfect Touch (after one try) because instead of
sleeving my negatives, they put some sticky gummy paper-tab on them.

What does Perfect Touch mean to Kodak? It's explained at the webpage
below. Seems to be much like a Fuji Frontier, but with more attention
to eliminating redeye.

kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/perfectPB2003.shtml

Does the Fuji Frontier eliminate redeye? I dunno, being the owner of
good flash equipment. John, have you ever tried a Frontier? Walmart
and Longs Drugs have them. I'd be curious to see a comparison.

Note the passage:
"In fact, algorithms offer control over each pixel in an image, which is typically scanned
at 4.5 million pixels, as well as 4,000 gradations of color and density."

This essentially says that the "Perfect Touch" pictures are scanned at roughly

12 bit per pixel.
1200 dpi (at the film) ... for 35 mm that gives
width = 1700 pixels
height = 1133 pixels

Most of the better "consumer grade" scanners can exceed that by a factor of two or better,
and it's "nothing to write home about.". However, their three-color laser printer is
actually capable of quite good results.

For your typical 4" x 6" picture, that works out to something like 300 dpi. which should
be OK for "general consumption." Any enlargement from that size, and things go downhill
pretty fast.

As for the Fuji Frontier, I know very little, except that the scanner provided with the
system at my local Longs (two outlets) is a low-end Epson. When my scanner was off-line, I
had them scan a couple of pictures for me. What I got back was a TIFF file, scanned at 300
dpi at final size (in this case 8" x 10"). The Fuji Pictography printer ... which I'm
**assuming** is the basis of the print-engine side of the Frontier ... is usually set up
to print 400 dpi at final size.

However ... keep in mind that both of these systems are primarily aimed at servicing the
market consisting of the "snap-shooter" ... who is a couple of notches below even an
"amateur photographer" ... and well below the level of anyone who would be posting here.







"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
John Salmon wrote:

P.S. We developed a roll my 3-year old son took with a DISPOSABLE
camera -- these were APS photos and were not processed with "Perfect
Touch". The quality of these prints, believe it or not, was
substantially BETTER than the ones printed using "Perfect Touch".

Sorry to hear about this.

I stopped using Perfect Touch (after one try) because instead of
sleeving my negatives, they put some sticky gummy paper-tab on them.

What does Perfect Touch mean to Kodak? It's explained at the webpage
below. Seems to be much like a Fuji Frontier, but with more attention
to eliminating redeye.

kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/productFeatures/perfectPB2003.shtml

Does the Fuji Frontier eliminate redeye? I dunno, being the owner of
good flash equipment. John, have you ever tried a Frontier? Walmart
and Longs Drugs have them. I'd be curious to see a comparison.

In article ,
Mr 645 wrote:
By digitally scanning, and laser exposing the paper, you can get much better
results. Any recent mini-lab does printing this way. But, ragardless of what
equipment is used, a poorly trained operator, or in many cases, the lack of a
human operator can make a mess from virtually anything.
I bet that if you took your film to a pro lab instead of a drug store you
would be amazed at how much nicer the pics can look.

For some reason, 'more contrast is good'. At least in .nl, Kodak has been
using this approach for years, and it creates absolutely horrible prints
from my negatives. Some services that print digital files are also somewhat
contrasty, but with digital it is relatively easy to compensate.



--
The Electronic Monk was a labor-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video
recorder. [...] Video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving
you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electronic Monks believed things for
you, [...] -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Thanks. I have used very good pro labs here in Philadelphia (Photo
Cine Shop is particularly good), and continue to do so at times.
Actually, the last few rolls I had processed at CVS prior to the
"Perfect Touch" experience were surprisingly good.

So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed
they still did things more or less the traditional way.

John

EMOVE (Mr 645) wrote in message ...
By digitally scanning, and laser exposing the paper, you can get much better
results. Any recent mini-lab does printing this way. But, ragardless of what
equipment is used, a poorly trained operator, or in many cases, the lack of a
human operator can make a mess from virtually anything.
I bet that if you took your film to a pro lab instead of a drug store you
would be amazed at how much nicer the pics can look.

Jon

Greetings RSD99,

If you want the full details on Perfect Touch, Try visiting the following
URL as it should give you somne help.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ctPB2003.shtml

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company



" Note the passage:
"In fact, algorithms offer control over each pixel in an image, which is
typically scanned
at 4.5 million pixels, as well as 4,000 gradations of color and density."

This essentially says that the "Perfect Touch" pictures are scanned at
roughly

12 bit per pixel.
1200 dpi (at the film) ... for 35 mm that gives
width = 1700 pixels
height = 1133 pixels

Most of the better "consumer grade" scanners can exceed that by a factor
of two or better,
and it's "nothing to write home about.". However, their three-color laser
printer is
actually capable of quite good results.

For your typical 4" x 6" picture, that works out to something like 300
dpi. which should
be OK for "general consumption." Any enlargement from that size, and
things go downhill
pretty fast.

Greetings John,

I am surprised that your results were not what you expected. I sure would
like to help you get to the bottom of the reason for the poor results. I
hope you returned the prints and let the CVS store know about your
disappointment. They should return them for reprinting.

If you like John, I can have your results reviewed and reprinted here.
Truth is that Perfect Touch processing is a great way to get 'better'
results for the same issues note. Try visiting the following URL for
details on how this process works.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ctPB2003.shtml

If you want me to review your film for you, just let me know and we can have
that arranged.

Talk to you soon.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company


" I just had 3 rolls of film shot on 200 ASA Fuji film processed at CVS.
They were shot on a Samsung Evoca 140 Neo, which has a very good
Schneider-Kreuznach Varioplan lens, and generally takes excellent
photos.

I have had these developed at CVS in the past with good results. This
time the sales person sold me on Kodak "Perfect Touch" processing,
which she told me was "better" and also cheaper that week due to a
special promotion. Without thinking much about it, I chose the Perfect
Touch option.

Got the photos back yesterday and they are TERRIBLE. They're grainy
(remember: 200 ASA film), the color balance is out of whack, contrast
is funky, etc. I immediately saw them and said, "these have been
digitally scanned, and badly digitally processed". If I wanted digital
pics, I would have used my digital camera!!

Upon researching what "Perfect Touch" is, I see I was correct in my
assessment. Kodak should be ashamed in my opnion. Some of us shoot
film because we like film.

Thanks for the URL ... I've already read that page.



"Ron Baird" wrote in message ...
Greetings RSD99,

If you want the full details on Perfect Touch, Try visiting the following
URL as it should give you somne help.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/rese...ctPB2003.shtml

Talk to you soon,

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company

"John Salmon" asked:
"... So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed
they still did things more or less the traditional way ..."

It probably varies for each lab ... ask the one you use. My guess is

(1) A good pro lab would be offering both ... however the real "high end" professional
labs do *not* concentrate on the C-41 (print film) market. The professional marketplace is
highly biased towards transparency film (E-6, Kodachrome, etcetera);

(2) A good pro lab would probably be using a somewhat better scanner than the one(s) used
by the consumer-level Kodak "Perfect Touch" and Fuji "Frontier" systems. Probably
something like a Nikon Coolscan (4,000 dpi/spi), or maybe even a drum scanner (up to
15,000 spi ... or even higher);

(3) A good pro lab would probably have an experienced, and quite *professional* operator
running the scanner and imaging station ... a real person that really knows what he/she's
doing ... not a computer-driven, automated, programmed controller;

(3) A good pro lab would probably have a high-end photo printer, such as the Fujix
Pictography or Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet ... in addition to the more common Epson InkJet
printers such as the Stylus 2200, Stylus 4000, and other (wider) models.







"John Salmon" wrote in message
m...
Thanks. I have used very good pro labs here in Philadelphia (Photo
Cine Shop is particularly good), and continue to do so at times.
Actually, the last few rolls I had processed at CVS prior to the
"Perfect Touch" experience were surprisingly good.

So do most pro labs digitally scan & laser expose the paper? I assumed
they still did things more or less the traditional way.

John