[QUOTE=PKM-25;527217] this little lab in the middle of Kansas is trying to keep up and does care about quality control. QUOTE]
...but not trying nearly enough, I'm afraid! Poor service/QC does nothing to further the standing of traditional photography in these troublesome times.
I suspect that Kodak couldn't give a toss about what Dwayne's churn out on their behalf, but I have a feeling that if Fuji were to get wind of problems, they might have a bit more to say about it.
Fortunately, process-paid Fuji is (in my experience) handled very competently in the UK. I'm not sure whether it's specifically Fuji's own facility or someone else who has a contract with them, but no doubt someone on here will know.
Absolutely; fair enough, but it's also fair to add that I have recently sent and received 4 rolls of K64 (via Kodak Lausanne, processed by Dwayne's) and apart from some dust (inevitable, IMHO, and no big issue for me) they all look mighty fine to me.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
So, the processing problem might happen repeatedly, but certainly not continuously. Just my EUR 0,02.
-- A sinister little midget with a bucket and a mop / Where the blood goes down the drain --
[GEEK WARNING] Looks like a Ruston-Bucyrus dragline excavator [/GEEK WARNING]
Originally Posted by Stan160
Although Alum Bay always claimed that the sand was from the cliffs themselves I always thought that they probably got the sand from somewhere else. I didn't realise it was as close as Brighstone though.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
Was that the one with the Perkins sleeve-valve double-reciprocating sprocket advance diesel engine?? Hang on while I find my anorak...
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
Wow... I've never heard of dragline excavator geeks!
Sounds like a potential "Ripping Yarns" episode...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Mentioned this to dad yesterday. He said there was one extra colour of sand in the Brighstone quarry compared to Alum Bay, plus the added advantage of not eroding the cliff that the pleasure park was built at the top of! Not sure where the sand comes from now. The quarry in the picture was exhausted and filled in at least 20 years ago.
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
There was quite a cottage industry back in the '60s. Several of dad's colleagues used to take biscuit tins or buckets of sand home and spend the evenings drying it out and carefully filling the ornaments one layer at a time.
I should add my recent experience to this thread, I suppose for anyone curious about Kodachrome. Being 26, I have heard about this legendary film at various times in my life...but never tried any until three weeks ago. I went on a little hiatus from B&W photography and have been shooting Velvia with occasional other E6 emulsions for the last year in my Minoltas.
Finally, I had to try a roll of Kodachrome just to say "I shot that" :-) before I no longer could.
Long story short...I paid $4.88 to have it processed through Wal-mart (I really hate that place, but what a good price!) that sent it on to Dwayne's. Got it back in 10 days, perfect shape. Honestly looks as good as the E6 rolls that I pay $11 to the local pro-lab in town to dip & dunk process...except in cardboard mounts, when I would prefer the plastic mounts.
So...not sure what is going on at Dwayne's, and I feel for the photographer who's slides were not done properly - but mine came out good, so it's not an every roll thing...but obviously it's happening too often!
Did you speak to the owner? Did you call Kodak? I would levvy some well-formed complaints in the right direction - that would help every Kodachrome shooter.
I liked it enough that I will be buying more K64...here is a scan from my first roll of Kodachrome.
All the best,
Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith
There's certainly no arguing with that shot you posted!
Good luck with your continued use of K/chrome, but just imagine the disappointment if that shot had come back with a processing or mounting problem that spoiled it.
I appreciate your point about contacting Kodak, Dwaynes, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all, but I shouldn't have to. For one thing, Kodak have a downer on traditional products. For another, Dwaynes' QC clearly isn't worth a light, so even if I received back a conciliatory letter promising that all would be well for ever after, I wouldn't believe it. Thirdly, there are some excellent Fuji materials to work with these days (with quick and efficient processing in UK) and K/chrome IMHO doesn't have the lead over the competition that it used to have. Fourthly (here I'm in danger of going on but will do so anyway) I'd be more inclined to stir things up with Kodak and Dwaynes if they were just down the road or even in my own country, but the distance and all other factors leave me with the feeling that I'd be p***ing in the wind, as we say so eloquently in Blighty.
I also wonder whether the dust/crud stuck to film issue is perhaps not as problematic to some as to others. Holding slides up to the light, using a viewer, loupe, scanning or similar might not show up the flaws (and thus be quite OK for their intended purposes) whereas I do project slides regularly and see any faults (mine as well as the film's!) in their full glory.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing more shots like the one you posted!
What you say is very true. I would certainly be disappointed if they had messed up the processing on my first roll of Kodachrome. It may have turned me off to the film entirely, knowing that Dwayne's is the only place to get it processed. Thankfully they did a competent job, and I will purchase additional rolls of K64.
I do feel very much for the loss of your quality shots. After all, is it so hard to ask for decent processing after all the time we take to pack our gear around, compose the shot properly, and then support the lab with the film we shoot? Ah...I couldn't imagine having to send my film overseas to get it processed, either. It is a shame Kodak could not keep at least one lab in Europe processing Kodachrome. That is truly the end of an era, and I'm glad to have a small part in it.
By the way, I'd like to get to know you guys a bit better here - what sort of gear do you shoot, and what are your favorite subjects? I belive I will subscribe to APUG when I get paid on Friday...seems to be more my type of place than some of the other forums I am subscribed to at the moment, especially considering I am a dedicated film shooter.
Your comment about Fuji Chromes brings up a valid point. E6 has come a long way in archival properties - that was something that K14 always had an edge in before, or so I've been told. The processing of E6 can be done anywhere at a local pro-lab in a dip & dunk Refrema type processor with NO rollers touching your film! That is a major advantage in my way of thinking. :-) Also the latest E6 chromes are finer grained than Kodachrome, allowing for a possibility of more enlargement.
Here is a recent one I shot on Fuji Velvia 100 (plain 100 version, not 100F).
Let me know what you think...
Here's to hoping you've the best days yet to come for film photography across the pond!
Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith
I think you're right - a European K14 facility such as we used to enjoy at Laussanne would have gone a long way to help ensure the continuing use of K/chrome here. Surprisingly (to me) few people seem to see the two weeks plus turnaround time from Europe as a problem. I don't like it but would have lived with it if the results were up to scratch (bad pun - sorry!) but with everything else it's left me disillusioned and having just sold my last remaining roll of K25 on eBay for the ridiculous sum of thirteen of our English pounds. It was dated 07/2002 but of course the keeping qualities of K25 are legendary. It cost me less than half that as part of a bulk purchase - probably a better investment than gold!
The archival qualities of exposed K/chrome are pretty good, but when I look at thirty year old slides, I can see no fading or colour shift in the K25s whereas E4s from those days are frequently showing their age. On the other hand, the Ks are much more subject to mould issues than the Es, which I put down to the mounts - Ks came back in cardboard mounts then in the UK whereas E4s were invariably returned to me from local processors in plastic ones. UK Kodachrome processing later changed to plastic mounts, which was probably the best combination.
As for kit and subject matter, that's probably a question for a different forum, but as you've raised it here, I use an assortment of Pentaxes, 42mm and K-mount (even a pre-42mm Asahiflex on occasions). My interest goes up to and including the K series and my two favourites are the KX and K2. Much as I love the K2, if I knew a flying saucer was about to land, I'd pick up a KX because of my lingering distrust of too much automation and the KX's ability to function without batteries. Subject matter for me is usually industrial archaeology.