I have a strange exception to what I would generally agree should be the
rule for developing prints. My local K Mart has a one hour machine, and
used to send all other film out for processing. My results have been
better than when I have used the local pro processors. Even the B&W I
tried came back from them with only continuous tones of white to black. It
doesn't matter if it is Kodak or Fugi, gold (when I am desperate for film)
or Portra it is developed to it's best potential. Of course the Portra
films look much better than the Gold!
My point is, if your results consistently turn out poor, try another
processor. I can't try another pro without traveling an hour so I tried K
Mart. I got lucky!
Gregg
Ag Schnozz wrote:
Sounds like there is slightly more to the story...
The B&W prints looking olive-green. Well, that is
indicitave of 1-hour drugstore processing and not that
of real honest proofing from a professional lab.
I too have shot many a portrait, team and other event
(even quite a bit of product work) where I've handed
the exposed rolls to the client and accepted the check
in return. Where and how they get it processed and
proofed is their problem. I've probably shot 5,000
pictures that I've never seen. Also, I've, at the
request of the client, just had it processed at a
local 1-hour lab.
In my experience, the best film (Portra, etc) doesn't
handle the 1-hour labs too well. I've compared
negatives and they are substantially grainier and not
nearly as color "smooth" as those developed at my
regular professional lab. I'm not talking prints, but
the actual negatives.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|