About Clark Photo Labs

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

Jeremy wrote:
"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.



It's actually a balancing act, you need a lab that's busy enough that
the chemistries are kept fresh, but not so busy that they throw quality
out the window. A mini-lab at grocery-world that gets 2-3 rolls a day,
probably will not see adequate replenishment of chemistries. A mini-lab
that sees 100 rolls a day, probably doesn't care if one roll turns out
poorly. I really don't care about prints, a print can be redone, it's
the C-41 process that is important, if they are not souping the film
properly, it doesn't matter what you do later on.

W

Jeremy wrote:
"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.



It's actually a balancing act, you need a lab that's busy enough that
the chemistries are kept fresh, but not so busy that they throw quality
out the window. A mini-lab at grocery-world that gets 2-3 rolls a day,
probably will not see adequate replenishment of chemistries. A mini-lab
that sees 100 rolls a day, probably doesn't care if one roll turns out
poorly. I really don't care about prints, a print can be redone, it's
the C-41 process that is important, if they are not souping the film
properly, it doesn't matter what you do later on.

W

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
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

Well, my point was that cheap labs cannot be relied upon, whether due to a
poor operator, poor equipment or use of chemicals beyond their exhaustion
levels.

You are saving money by doing much of the work yourself. When you factor in
the cost of the equipment, the cost of the consumables, your time, both in
learning how to edit and the time actually spent in doing so, your real cost
rises.

Sometimes, the higher-priced lab, that produces excellent results, can be
the better value.

I certainly have not found digital photography to be less expensive than
film. It is convenient, it gives me more control over the final print, but
it is time-consuming and it does require capital expenditures for equipment,
as opposed to just dropping the film off somewhere, and THEY having to
acquire the equipment and consumables necessary to furnish the print.

We are supposed to be the leisure class, but it seems that we are doing more
and more things that we used to offload to others. There are tons of people
in America that are frazzled because they're always running.

Sometimes I wonder if we really are better off than previous generations.

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
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

Well, my point was that cheap labs cannot be relied upon, whether due to a
poor operator, poor equipment or use of chemicals beyond their exhaustion
levels.

You are saving money by doing much of the work yourself. When you factor in
the cost of the equipment, the cost of the consumables, your time, both in
learning how to edit and the time actually spent in doing so, your real cost
rises.

Sometimes, the higher-priced lab, that produces excellent results, can be
the better value.

I certainly have not found digital photography to be less expensive than
film. It is convenient, it gives me more control over the final print, but
it is time-consuming and it does require capital expenditures for equipment,
as opposed to just dropping the film off somewhere, and THEY having to
acquire the equipment and consumables necessary to furnish the print.

We are supposed to be the leisure class, but it seems that we are doing more
and more things that we used to offload to others. There are tons of people
in America that are frazzled because they're always running.

Sometimes I wonder if we really are better off than previous generations.

"The Wogster" wrote in message
.. .
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

Well, my point was that cheap labs cannot be relied upon, whether due to a
poor operator, poor equipment or use of chemicals beyond their exhaustion
levels.

You are saving money by doing much of the work yourself. When you factor in
the cost of the equipment, the cost of the consumables, your time, both in
learning how to edit and the time actually spent in doing so, your real cost
rises.

Sometimes, the higher-priced lab, that produces excellent results, can be
the better value.

I certainly have not found digital photography to be less expensive than
film. It is convenient, it gives me more control over the final print, but
it is time-consuming and it does require capital expenditures for equipment,
as opposed to just dropping the film off somewhere, and THEY having to
acquire the equipment and consumables necessary to furnish the print.

We are supposed to be the leisure class, but it seems that we are doing more
and more things that we used to offload to others. There are tons of people
in America that are frazzled because they're always running.

Sometimes I wonder if we really are better off than previous generations.

Jeremy wrote:


Well, my point was that cheap labs cannot be relied upon, whether due to a
poor operator, poor equipment or use of chemicals beyond their exhaustion
levels.

That's true, however there are several kinds of cheap labs, and people
sometimes get them mixed up.

There is the cheap drugstore lab, where the drugstore ships your film
somewhere, you get it back a week later. There is no control over where
it goes, usually the lowest contract bidder, processing isn't always
cheap, because of shipping costs.

Cheap mail-order labs, problem here is that you can't control shipping
conditions, so your film cooks in the shipping vehicle in the summer and
freezes in the winter, there is always the possibility that films will
get lost in transit, they will get found eventually, but it can be
months or years later.

Cheap mini-labs, already discussed.

Pro mini-labs, once you find a good one, keep going there, can be tough
to find, unless you run into a pro photographer, on occasion, ask them
who they use......

The pro-lab I use only does C-41 and B&W, for C-41 the processing cost
is reasonable, $5 a roll (processed and sleeved), and they are on the
way to work, so I can drop a roll one day, pick it up the next. B&W I
would rather simply dig out the processing tank, mix up some chemicals
and do it myself. I'm looking for some C-41 kits, and then I will drop
the lab completely, mostly because I like doing it, not so much to save
costs.

You are saving money by doing much of the work yourself. When you factor in
the cost of the equipment, the cost of the consumables, your time, both in
learning how to edit and the time actually spent in doing so, your real cost
rises.

Sometimes, the higher-priced lab, that produces excellent results, can be
the better value.

True, it depends on a couple of factors though, if you *like* doing it,
then it's part of the process, not part of the cost.

I certainly have not found digital photography to be less expensive than
film. It is convenient, it gives me more control over the final print, but
it is time-consuming and it does require capital expenditures for equipment,
as opposed to just dropping the film off somewhere, and THEY having to
acquire the equipment and consumables necessary to furnish the print.

True, however the negative or capture is the play, the print is the
performance, and sometimes what the director does to your play, isn't
what you yourself would do. You might look at a nice Sunset shot, and
think, gee that's way too yellow, I know, golden sunset, but not that
yellow. So you might crop it differently, or you might balance the
colour differently, especially if it's an unusual shot.

We are supposed to be the leisure class, but it seems that we are doing more
and more things that we used to offload to others. There are tons of people
in America that are frazzled because they're always running.

Sometimes I wonder if we really are better off than previous generations.

We are not, in my grand fathers generation, you did your work, went
home, did some chores, and then had a couple of hours to smoke a pipe,
read a book, or even take those glass plates, and some toxic chemicals
and make a print or two. My fathers generation saw the telephone, which
meant that the boss could call you for more info, sure you could ignore
the phone, or tell to your S.O. - If it's for me, I'm in the darkroom.

Now you have pagers, cell phones, email, people were supposed to have
more leisure time, now people are available to their jobs 24/7/52 and
leisure has gone out the window.

The idea of having a couple of hours to yourself, heck you can't get 5
minutes unless your on the can, and even then somebody else has to
go..... Give me back the 1970's when I could take a winter day, and
spend it under the amber glow of a safe light with the wonderful smells
of the darkroom. Yeah, so I spent 8 hours in there, and the result is
one print. It's one reallllllllllllllly excellent print, it's perfect.
Yeah so, I wasted 27 sheets of paper on the imperfect ones, and a
gallon of chemicals, and the total cost was $25, yeah so, who cares, I
wanted to do it, and I did it.

You know what people need to do, turn off the cell-phone, take the
battery out of the pager, turn off the computer, call in sick to work,
dig out the old dusty enlarger, mix up some chemicals, put some lazy
jazz or classical on the radio, and take 8 hours to make one friggin'
perfect AgBr print. The mental health aspects alone will far and above
counteract the fumes from stop-bath and fixer. Okay, so you don't have
space for the enlarger, and decide to use the computer instead, that's
fine, as long as the email is turned off, that should be just as good.

W

Jeremy wrote:


Well, my point was that cheap labs cannot be relied upon, whether due to a
poor operator, poor equipment or use of chemicals beyond their exhaustion
levels.

That's true, however there are several kinds of cheap labs, and people
sometimes get them mixed up.

There is the cheap drugstore lab, where the drugstore ships your film
somewhere, you get it back a week later. There is no control over where
it goes, usually the lowest contract bidder, processing isn't always
cheap, because of shipping costs.

Cheap mail-order labs, problem here is that you can't control shipping
conditions, so your film cooks in the shipping vehicle in the summer and
freezes in the winter, there is always the possibility that films will
get lost in transit, they will get found eventually, but it can be
months or years later.

Cheap mini-labs, already discussed.

Pro mini-labs, once you find a good one, keep going there, can be tough
to find, unless you run into a pro photographer, on occasion, ask them
who they use......

The pro-lab I use only does C-41 and B&W, for C-41 the processing cost
is reasonable, $5 a roll (processed and sleeved), and they are on the
way to work, so I can drop a roll one day, pick it up the next. B&W I
would rather simply dig out the processing tank, mix up some chemicals
and do it myself. I'm looking for some C-41 kits, and then I will drop
the lab completely, mostly because I like doing it, not so much to save
costs.

You are saving money by doing much of the work yourself. When you factor in
the cost of the equipment, the cost of the consumables, your time, both in
learning how to edit and the time actually spent in doing so, your real cost
rises.

Sometimes, the higher-priced lab, that produces excellent results, can be
the better value.

True, it depends on a couple of factors though, if you *like* doing it,
then it's part of the process, not part of the cost.

I certainly have not found digital photography to be less expensive than
film. It is convenient, it gives me more control over the final print, but
it is time-consuming and it does require capital expenditures for equipment,
as opposed to just dropping the film off somewhere, and THEY having to
acquire the equipment and consumables necessary to furnish the print.

True, however the negative or capture is the play, the print is the
performance, and sometimes what the director does to your play, isn't
what you yourself would do. You might look at a nice Sunset shot, and
think, gee that's way too yellow, I know, golden sunset, but not that
yellow. So you might crop it differently, or you might balance the
colour differently, especially if it's an unusual shot.

We are supposed to be the leisure class, but it seems that we are doing more
and more things that we used to offload to others. There are tons of people
in America that are frazzled because they're always running.

Sometimes I wonder if we really are better off than previous generations.

We are not, in my grand fathers generation, you did your work, went
home, did some chores, and then had a couple of hours to smoke a pipe,
read a book, or even take those glass plates, and some toxic chemicals
and make a print or two. My fathers generation saw the telephone, which
meant that the boss could call you for more info, sure you could ignore
the phone, or tell to your S.O. - If it's for me, I'm in the darkroom.

Now you have pagers, cell phones, email, people were supposed to have
more leisure time, now people are available to their jobs 24/7/52 and
leisure has gone out the window.

The idea of having a couple of hours to yourself, heck you can't get 5
minutes unless your on the can, and even then somebody else has to
go..... Give me back the 1970's when I could take a winter day, and
spend it under the amber glow of a safe light with the wonderful smells
of the darkroom. Yeah, so I spent 8 hours in there, and the result is
one print. It's one reallllllllllllllly excellent print, it's perfect.
Yeah so, I wasted 27 sheets of paper on the imperfect ones, and a
gallon of chemicals, and the total cost was $25, yeah so, who cares, I
wanted to do it, and I did it.

You know what people need to do, turn off the cell-phone, take the
battery out of the pager, turn off the computer, call in sick to work,
dig out the old dusty enlarger, mix up some chemicals, put some lazy
jazz or classical on the radio, and take 8 hours to make one friggin'
perfect AgBr print. The mental health aspects alone will far and above
counteract the fumes from stop-bath and fixer. Okay, so you don't have
space for the enlarger, and decide to use the computer instead, that's
fine, as long as the email is turned off, that should be just as good.

W

Jeremy wrote:


Well, my point was that cheap labs cannot be relied upon, whether due to a
poor operator, poor equipment or use of chemicals beyond their exhaustion
levels.

That's true, however there are several kinds of cheap labs, and people
sometimes get them mixed up.

There is the cheap drugstore lab, where the drugstore ships your film
somewhere, you get it back a week later. There is no control over where
it goes, usually the lowest contract bidder, processing isn't always
cheap, because of shipping costs.

Cheap mail-order labs, problem here is that you can't control shipping
conditions, so your film cooks in the shipping vehicle in the summer and
freezes in the winter, there is always the possibility that films will
get lost in transit, they will get found eventually, but it can be
months or years later.

Cheap mini-labs, already discussed.

Pro mini-labs, once you find a good one, keep going there, can be tough
to find, unless you run into a pro photographer, on occasion, ask them
who they use......

The pro-lab I use only does C-41 and B&W, for C-41 the processing cost
is reasonable, $5 a roll (processed and sleeved), and they are on the
way to work, so I can drop a roll one day, pick it up the next. B&W I
would rather simply dig out the processing tank, mix up some chemicals
and do it myself. I'm looking for some C-41 kits, and then I will drop
the lab completely, mostly because I like doing it, not so much to save
costs.

You are saving money by doing much of the work yourself. When you factor in
the cost of the equipment, the cost of the consumables, your time, both in
learning how to edit and the time actually spent in doing so, your real cost
rises.

Sometimes, the higher-priced lab, that produces excellent results, can be
the better value.

True, it depends on a couple of factors though, if you *like* doing it,
then it's part of the process, not part of the cost.

I certainly have not found digital photography to be less expensive than
film. It is convenient, it gives me more control over the final print, but
it is time-consuming and it does require capital expenditures for equipment,
as opposed to just dropping the film off somewhere, and THEY having to
acquire the equipment and consumables necessary to furnish the print.

True, however the negative or capture is the play, the print is the
performance, and sometimes what the director does to your play, isn't
what you yourself would do. You might look at a nice Sunset shot, and
think, gee that's way too yellow, I know, golden sunset, but not that
yellow. So you might crop it differently, or you might balance the
colour differently, especially if it's an unusual shot.

We are supposed to be the leisure class, but it seems that we are doing more
and more things that we used to offload to others. There are tons of people
in America that are frazzled because they're always running.

Sometimes I wonder if we really are better off than previous generations.

We are not, in my grand fathers generation, you did your work, went
home, did some chores, and then had a couple of hours to smoke a pipe,
read a book, or even take those glass plates, and some toxic chemicals
and make a print or two. My fathers generation saw the telephone, which
meant that the boss could call you for more info, sure you could ignore
the phone, or tell to your S.O. - If it's for me, I'm in the darkroom.

Now you have pagers, cell phones, email, people were supposed to have
more leisure time, now people are available to their jobs 24/7/52 and
leisure has gone out the window.

The idea of having a couple of hours to yourself, heck you can't get 5
minutes unless your on the can, and even then somebody else has to
go..... Give me back the 1970's when I could take a winter day, and
spend it under the amber glow of a safe light with the wonderful smells
of the darkroom. Yeah, so I spent 8 hours in there, and the result is
one print. It's one reallllllllllllllly excellent print, it's perfect.
Yeah so, I wasted 27 sheets of paper on the imperfect ones, and a
gallon of chemicals, and the total cost was $25, yeah so, who cares, I
wanted to do it, and I did it.

You know what people need to do, turn off the cell-phone, take the
battery out of the pager, turn off the computer, call in sick to work,
dig out the old dusty enlarger, mix up some chemicals, put some lazy
jazz or classical on the radio, and take 8 hours to make one friggin'
perfect AgBr print. The mental health aspects alone will far and above
counteract the fumes from stop-bath and fixer. Okay, so you don't have
space for the enlarger, and decide to use the computer instead, that's
fine, as long as the email is turned off, that should be just as good.

W

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:12:42 -0500, The Wogster
wrote:

.... and take 8 hours to make one friggin'
perfect AgBr print. The mental health aspects alone will far and above
counteract the fumes from stop-bath and fixer.


jan305 from Lloyd Erlick,

Don't forget the beneficial effects of quietly
trickling water ...

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--