kenw@lcuxc.UUCP (K Wolman) (03/13/85)
Phil's point about razor-sharp slides coming out fuzzy as 8 x 10 prints doesn't merit a smile-face; it's a phenomenon I've run into myself, and it mystifies me. I do not own developing and enlarging equipment, and am at the mercy of commercial firms that are still willing to do black & white work. I've gotten contact sheets back that, when examined on a light table with a magnifying loupe, showed fine detail all the way through. When enlarged to 8 x 10, about 75% of the print--mainly the center--was sharp; but the corners were blurry, thus ruining what otherwise was a really good photo. I've heard explanations that the enlarger lens was faulty; and I've heard that's impossible in a good commericial shop. Anyone have any experience with this? -- Ken Wolman Bell Communications Research @ Livingston, NJ lcuxc!kenw You can't "read" me because I'm not a book.
jam@ho95b.UUCP (Joe Malecki) (03/15/85)
>I've gotten contact >sheets back that, when examined on a light table with a magnifying >loupe, showed fine detail all the way through. When enlarged to >8 x 10, about 75% of the print--mainly the center--was sharp; but >the corners were blurry, thus ruining what otherwise was a really >good photo. I've heard explanations that the enlarger lens was >faulty; and I've heard that's impossible in a good commericial >shop. Anyone have any experience with this? This happens because of carelessness of mounting the negative in the enlarger. Most negative carriers used to hold the negatives have little projections which are supposed to keep the negatives flat. Some don't, though. If you're at the end of a roll of film, or the negatives were left too long in a heated film dryer, the negatives can be curled a lot. So when the enlarger is focused on the center, the edges of the negatives end up being out of focus because they are at different distances from the enlarger lens, and hence out of the plane of focus. The simple cure to this problem is to use little pieces of masking tape on the edges of a curly negative to make sure it's flat. I would guess that it would be too much hassle for most commercial shops to take that much time and care when they want to keep their costs down. I would take the unsatisfactory prints back, and demand that they take the care that is required to make a good print. Joe Malecki AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ 07733 201-949-4847 {allegra, cbosgd, ihnp4}!ho95b!jam
ix654@sdcc6.UUCP ({) (03/18/85)
>The OM-1 and (I think) The OM-2 have a handy mirror lock up lever on the >right hand side of the lens mount, opposite the PC connector for the >flash. The OM-3's & 4's seem to have lost it in the race to >modernization. >{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu \ > ihnp4!amdahl / !rtech!daveb No, OM-2 has no mirror lock-up. Newer models (OM-2S, 3, 4) use the self-timer trick that someone mentioned in a related article. >..... about 75% of the print--mainly the center--was sharp; but >the corners were blurry, thus ruining what otherwise was a really >good photo. I've heard explanations that the enlarger lens was >faulty; and I've heard that's impossible in a good commericial >shop. Anyone have any experience with this? >Ken Wolman >Bell Communications Research @ Livingston, NJ >lcuxc!kenw If the slides are not glass-mounted, then they are never completely flat, so if the enlarger is focused on the center - the edges may be blurred. If I understand the principle behind depth of field correctly, this can be minimized by stopping the lens down (it should work "backwards", i.e. not only in cameras). But that means longer exposure times and I have yet to find a commercial lab that would be willing to slow down their tempo for the sake of their demanding clients (maybe .001 % ?) By the way, my experiences with processing labs, excluding Kodak, are disastrous, and I would like to hear some comments about that from other people. E.J. Behr, UCSD (sdcc6!ix654)
ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (03/18/85)
My experiance was of a much more destructive nature. I took
my precious roll of B&W to a private lab for a contact print.
Came out perfect. Upon examination with a loupe, I selected
a couple that were exceptional and had 8X10's made. The prints
had a few very obvious scratches on them. The lady at the lab
said I should get my camera serviced. Well, OK, I *did* buy
the camera used, but it's funny that none of the color prints
had scratches on them. (The color shots went to Kodak.) By
then a strong pattern was developing, but like a drooling idiot
I resubmitted one of the negitives for re-printing. They had
done a horizontal crop when I had ordered a vertical one.
Anyway, the second print had NEW scratches at RIGHT ANGLES to the
previous scratches. I politely pointed this out, having right
there on the counter the previous prints, and they offered to do
some touching up for free. Great, but now my negs are destroyed.
I never went back there.
I guess the moral is, there are labs, and there are labs. Try
one a couple of times, and if they're mashing your shots, go
elsewhere. Anyone with enough money can buy the necessary equipment
to open a photo lab. Doesn't necessarily mean he (or his employees)
knows what the hell he's doing.
My best results have been with an industrial quality photo lab
in this area. They are hideously expensive, but the quality is
truly amazing, and they can fix a shot you've badly over or under
exposed. A major drawback is they require a minimum order. They're
not interested in fixing your vacation photos.
For normal stuff, you can't go wrong with Kodak.
--
__
Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.)
{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,isi,idx}!wjvax!ron
"...so I did a 'fmt trip.report > trip.report' and..."ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/19/85)
> For normal stuff, you can't go wrong with Kodak.
Ditto, ditto. For years I did all my Black and White myself, good B&W
is fairly easy, it does take a little time. All my color work goes to
Kodak, which has never messed up anything permanently, and you can always
reject prints that to your taste, weren't done right. I've never had any
body even question me when I sent stuff back. What's really neat is that
I live close enough to the tranparency developing facility that I get one
day service on slides.
I did once take a picture of a yellowed painting under available light
with Daylight film. The colors on the slide are understandably lousy.
When I had an 8x10 made up, Kodaks color banancing wizmo color adjusted
the whole thing so that it looks almost natural (better than real life).
Of course they've messed things up also, causing a picture with some red
in it to turn almos purple.
-Ronrob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (03/23/85)
In article <381@wjvax.UUCP> ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) writes: > >I guess the moral is, there are labs, and there are labs. > ... >My best results have been with an industrial quality photo lab >in this area. > ... >For normal stuff, you can't go wrong with Kodak. I wonder if other people are as dissatisfied with Kodak's quality for color enlargements as I? I've found the difference between Kodak and a professional color lab to be remarkable. It is evident Kodak (at least the lab in their San Francisco area) does not take the time to get the color right and focus just perfectly like a reputable color lab does. However, I pay for it; the color lab costs about twice as much as Kodak. So I use Kodak for snapshot enlargements and the color lab for my more serious photography. -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob _^__ ~/ \_.\ _ ~/ \_\ ~/ \_________~/ ~/ /\ /\ _/ \ / \ _/ \ _/ \ \ /
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (03/25/85)
You sure are right about Kodak lately. Their quality control has really bitten the dust. I have worked at many camera stores in the Boston area, and have seen a great deal of photofinishing come through. Kodak has lately been (lately being the past 2 years) scratching negatives, using improper color balance, using bad chemicals, not focusing enlargements, doing shoddy copy slides, losing lots of film, etc. Personally, I sent an enlargement back 4 times, calling them about it once because the thing had so much cyan in it it was pathetic. They told me they couldn't do anything about it, and sent the identical photo back all four times. When I told them I was a photo employee, they said they'd fix it, and again sent back the identical photo. I gave up. Unfortunately, most retail photo labs are as bad, if not worse. You either have to take your chances, or spend megabucks for a custom lab. Mikki Barry
chip@vaxwaller.UUCP (Chip Kozy) (04/02/85)
My experience with "The Great Yellow God" has been mixed at
best. I've had some really good work from them, and some VERY bad
stuff. Most of my problems with them stem from printing from color
slides. Although I've yet to lose a slide to scratches, etc., some
of their work has gone back four and five times! (When things
REALLY get bad, I remind them of their PRINTED warrantee, and send
a copy to Rochester.)
My worst experience occured about a year ago when some klutz
in the So. San Francisco processing plant opened one of my rolls in
a "not quite dark" room. When I bounced the pix (prints), I received
a "Short Note" stating that I had opened the camera back, thereby
ruining the roll. Such was the light problem that there was no way
that such a thing could have happened. Anyway, after getting pretty
nasty with So. SF, and contacting Rochester (and telling So. SF what
I was doing), things suddenly (within 1 week...after 5wks of hassle)
got straightened out. My roll of film was replaced, Kodak Rochester
and So. SF sent me letters of apology, and things were all back to
normal. (It pays to make LOTS of noise.)
All in all though, Kodak has been pretty good to me. Considering
what I shoot (nature, gymnastics [try that if you REALLY want a chalange],
existing light portraits), I don't think I'll change...at least not yet.
BTW, the tip I read about going to an inter negative for printing
from slides sounds good. To who(m)ever...thanks.
--
Chip Kozy (415) 939-2400 x-2048
Varian Inst. Grp. 2700 Mitchell Dr.
Walnut Creek, Calif. 94598
{zehntel,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!chip