briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (10/03/85)
The first paragraph applies only to Oregon, and is a reply to a local issue. The remainder is of general interest (if you like philosophy!) The "place in Eugene" that burned Tom Beach is probably Dot Dotson's (though the spelling may be off). Tualatin's Oregon City Photo does, or at least did, indeed use them. I also do not recommend this outfit. HOWEVER, I am getting to the point where I cannot recommend Kodak any more, either. The implications of this are pretty major, but it seems that big yellow can't be counted on to not mar negatives, etc. I wonder if this is a side result of increased competition from the Japanese - Fuji, and company. You might give this sort of thing some thought the next time you buy a roll of Fuji. Not only does this mess up our balance of payments, but if the product isn't CLEARLY superior (and I question that at least in Fuji's case) then the side effects may be unexpected. The point is, that for the last half century or so, Kodak has been unmatched in process quality control, not only in processing but in "soft goods" and chemicals. You KNEW when you bought Kodak exactly what you were getting, even if it was arguably not the ultimate product. To contrast, I have had photos ruined by bad batches of developers, boxes of papers with sensitivity anomalies, and many other things that made the slight superiority of the product not worth the risk. But you could always count on Kodak. Now, it seems at least in photofinishing this is no longer true, and I worry that this malaise will spread to the other parts of Kodaks's empire as well. And that makes me wonder as to the cause, which leads me to postulating about increased competition from foreign producers. Now don't flame me for being anti-competition or protectionist. I'm not, but I am tired of the terminally trendy buying foreign because it's perceived to be the thing to buy, and never really analyzing whether it's really a better pro- duct. Or what the other free-market effects are. -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc.
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (10/06/85)
You say you can no longer trust Kodak. Would you mind giving details of your experiences so that the rest of us can judge whether we want to draw the same conclusions you have?
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (10/06/85)
What's the point Brian? Has Kodak quality decreased? What is the
tie-in to free trade and all of that?
Each product is slightly different. Fuji film used to be quite
different in color rendition than Big Yellow (although I've noticed
that color rendition is getting closer and closer Kodak's). Agfa is
also different. If you really care about the rendition, then you will
use different film for different effects. Kodak, in my mind, has never
been completely the best. They are certainly the best in certain
aspects, but not in everything.
The free market does have an effect. If Kodak loses a big share of the
sales, then they will do something about it. Look at the situation in
black and white paper. Kodak was slowly losing interest in quality
black and white paper. For a while, you couldn't get a decent paper
from Kodak. A lot of photographers changed and started using papers
from *other* countries. (I switched to Ilford.) But now Kodak has two
very good black and white papers, Elite and Polyfiber.
Is this happening with film? I haven't noticed any changes. If
anything, I find the opposite. The VR films are good, and Vericolor
III is superior to Vericolor II. There are the Professional
Kodachromes that guarentee consistent color rendition.
Is it happening with processing? Kodak labs have been known to go
through periods of debugging when new equipment, or a new process
arrives. I remember when Kodachrome 25 came out I heard
recommendations that you send your film to New Jersey rather than
Rochester since the New Jersey plant had more experience processing
the new film.
Is there a problem?
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (10/07/85)
> Now don't flame me for being anti-competition or protectionist. I'm not, > but I am tired of the terminally trendy buying foreign because it's > perceived to be the thing to buy, and never really analyzing whether it's > really a better pro-duct. Or what the other free-market effects are. Now, I won't flame you, but I do disagree. I don't think competition with the Japanese has anything to do with decreasing Kodak quality. The way to beat someone who has a better price than you is to produce a better quality of product or service (at a reasonable rate). Kodak has very good, fast, automated equipment, and I suspect that other factors are involved in decreasing quality of their processing services, if they exist. Personally I buy Kodak film, paper, and developer, and do the processing myself, because it is better in quality than others, e.g., Unicolor. However, this has nothing to do with being "terminally trendy"; you have to buy the product that is of the best quality. Aside from that, I can't see why buying a roll of Fuji film should affect the quality of processing... do you send it to Japan to have it processed? -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
chip@vaxwaller.UUCP (Chip Kozy) (10/08/85)
*** REPLACE THIS WITH YOUR ***
........" But you could always count on Kodak. Now, it seems at least in
photofinishing this is no longer true, and I worry that this malaise will
spread to the other parts of Kodaks's empire as well. And that makes me wonder
as to the cause, which leads me to postulating about increased competition from
foreign producers."
Being a color photographer without a darkroom, I've found myself
at the mercy of the "big yellow", and I couldn't agree with you more!!
The quality of Kodak developing and printing in the San Francisco Bay
area has gone to the dogs. I used to be able to count on accurate color
reproduction (especially when using a gray scale), but now I cannot be
sure what I'll get...i.e. magenta skies, water spots, etc. I've complained
to Rochester, and gotten the "there, there now. Here's a free roll of film,
now be a nice boy and go play." letters back from them. My alternative was to
use a local house which costs a bit more, but I have immediate control over
what they do and don't do. I've found them extermely willing to listen
and work with me, so I don't mind the few extra pennies it costs.
As an aside, does anyone out there know how to get good sharp
prints from 35MM slides?
Anyway, back to the oars.
Happiness;
Chip
--
Chip Kozy (415) 939-2400 x-2048
Varian Inst. Grp. 2700 Mitchell Dr.
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!chipkanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (10/14/85)
In article <349@vaxwaller.UUCP> chip@vaxwaller.UUCP (Chip Kozy) writes: > As an aside, does anyone out there know how to get good sharp >prints from 35MM slides? > Since you say you are a color photographer without a darkroom, this may not be of interest to you, but I have never had any sharpness problems making prints on either Cibachrome, on the late-lamented Ektachrome 14, on Ektachrome 22, or on 2203 paper. I gave up on Cibachrome after a year of trying because of the excess contrast and excess color saturation. Most commercial shops, and I believe this includes Kodak, make an inter-negative from your slide and then print that on the same paper used for color negative originals. A real custom lab will probably make the inter-negative of the size 4 x 5 and charge you accordingly. Kodak and the other mass production places make a small inter-negative; I don't remember the exact size, but it is something like 2 x 3. This could reduce sharpness. Some commercial shops advertise that they print on Cibachrome. This would be professional Ciba, which I suspect is even more contrasty than the amateur stuff. You might give that a try. I do not know of any shops using the conventional reversal papers, such as Ektachrome 22. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
feikema@mmm.UUCP (John Feikema) (10/14/85)
> > As an aside, does anyone out there know how to get good sharp >prints from 35MM slides? > > > Chip Kozy (415) 939-2400 x-2048 > Varian Inst. Grp. 2700 Mitchell Dr. > Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598 > {zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!chip I have tried just about every available chemistry and paper combination on the market for making prints from slides. About two years ago I settled on Cibachrome. I recently upgraded to their new chemistry and paper combination. I loved the old and the new is even better. In addition to the improved quality, the new chemistry is much easier to use, (only 3 chemical steps, wide temperature range) and self neutralizing (better for the environment). The contrast of the old version used to be a bit of a problem but the new versions are self masking. If you have a slide with a real contrast problem then their is an alternate two part developer designed by Carl Krupp that I'll post if their's interest. Sharpness of a one step (no internegative) process is excellent. The usual disclaimers!! John Feikema (ihnp4!mmm!feikema)
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (10/27/85)
> This would be professional Ciba, which I suspect is even more contrasty > than the amateur stuff. You might give that a try. Why would you think that? In general, for color materials, "professional" materials are of lower contrast than the consumer products; it usually goes commercial > consumer > professional Just curious. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: Ofc: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer Home: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jerpc!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (10/28/85)
In article <1747@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> This would be professional Ciba, which I suspect is even more contrasty >> than the amateur stuff. You might give that a try. > >Why would you think that? In general, for color materials, "professional" >materials are of lower contrast than the consumer products; it usually >goes > > commercial > consumer > professional > >Just curious. I get a lot of my good foo from a journal called Darkroom Techniques, which started out as the hobby of the owner of a chemical supply house in Chicago and grew from four issues a year to six issues a year. Just about the point where I gave up on amateur Ciba and switched to Ektachrome 22, there was a glowing article in the mag about professional Ciba. Nowhere in the article was anything quantitative about contrast mentioned, but the various adjectives regarding color appearance sounded to me like another way of saying: "more color saturation." I realize that color saturation and contrast are not identical, but I think there is probably a monotonic relationship. Actually, I'm very curious about the process, which has one advantage and two disadvantages in comparison to the amateur kit. The advantage is that the bleach is in liquid form. That means that small amounts, e.g., 16 ounces, of solutions can be mixed up, eliminating the worry about old age of the bleach. The reason for the powder bleach in the amateur kit is safety; apparently the concentrated liquid is very corrosive. The two disadvantages are that the working temperature, if I remember correctly, is 86 degrees for the pro stuff as against 75 for the amateur. The other is that a minimum purchase of chemicals and paper would come to about $100, which is a lot to spend on an experiment. If anyone on the net has used professional Ciba, especially if they have also used amateur Ciba, Ektachrome 22, or both, I would love to hear about the comparative results. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner