At 6:21 AM +0000 8/27/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 02:20:17 GMT
>From: plp@xxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OM] Bad processing of film driving people to digital?
>
> >I have never had so many problems with prints or slides.
> >My slides have been coming back scrached and wrinkled in
> >their masks. My prints are most often improperly exposed...
>
>When people have problems with processing, I wish they'd name
>names, like, Target in Omaha. The only place I have ever had
>trouble with film processing was Target. They ripped the
>negative and then had the nerve to include a note that "the
>negative was received ripped." Maybe we will see a pattern.
The processor is Konica, via the dropbox at a pharmacy in Wellesley, MA. I
don't know where the Konica plant is located. Turnaround is a day or two, so
it can't be far.
The price is US $8.11 for double 4x6 prints of 24 frames.
The problem seems to be that Konica adjusts the print processor perhaps once a
week, to the "average photo", or some such nonsense. What Konica does not do
is adjust for each roll of film. All prints were equally overexposed, and all
negatives were equally exposed (looked the same on a lightbox).
Getting slides processed took two or three weeks, but the slides were OK. I
don't usually shoot slides; this was to test some cameras just back from CLA by
John H. (The cameras were spot-on.)
At 6:21 AM +0000 8/27/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:41:46 -0500
>From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Bad processing of film driving people to digital?
>
>Perhaps I am fortunate in not been having these problems. I send all 35mm
>transparency, with the exception of Scala 200X, to Qualex (a.k.a. Kodak
>Premium Processing) using the drop box at a local discount store. Yes, it
>takes 5-7 days, but I'v had very few problems considering the quantity of
>film I'm using (over a roll per week). The biggest issue was one instance
>of lost film and that one was bizarre; an entire bag of film was lost. On
>all other occasions, what was misplaced was eventually found.
Kate (my SO) has used Qualex with far better luck, although it's expensive (or
perhaps the photo store is expensive). Her favorite is Stone Photo in Boston.
Apparently, they do all C-41 processing in house, and do it right, but they are
a bit remote for me.
I think I'll look into Qualex. Even if turnaround is a week.
>Medium format 120/220? Another story and I quickly stopped sending it to
>Qualex. Everything else (35mm B/W and color negative, and all medium
>format) goes to a pro lab in Indianapolis, either by priority mail or via a
>friend of mine who owns and operates a local studio. Biggest problem I had
>with Qualex processing 35mm color negative was color balance. I may start
>using them again for B/W negative as color balance of that cannot be
>botched, but it takes them forever to process and print it.
How bad was the color balance? This is another adjustment issue, albeit less
serious than gross overexposure.
What happened when Qualex got hold of your 120/220 film?
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|