I don't understand where this thread is going.
Assuming the film was developed properly, despite the paper used by the pro lab, the highlights would not be blown.
Whether Fuji or Kodak paper - we're talking blown out highlights (not color tone etc.)
The OP asked if the blown highlights were a result of the Fuji Frontier processor?
I don't think so. I do think for the extra dollar or two, he should have asked Walgreen's to run some prints. That way, when he found the highlights blown on the "pro lab" prints he would know where the problem lay.
George, there is a possibility that a Fuji Frontier operated poorly with Kodak film (especially a new one) might do what was observed. A scan without the right profile might make the problem worse. IDK.
I do think that the post here have merit and one of the suggestions here was to do as you say. That might narrow down the possible errors here.
I've had some scans from Frontiers and the like that had blown highlights. Of course, the prints did too, but looking back at the lousy jpg's, I would say that's where the fault lay.
These were scans of kodak film by the way.
Read the OP.
Originally Posted by Tim Gray
He was NOT talking about blown highlights from scans.
He was talking about blown highlights from a "pro" labs print of negs.
As far as I am concerned, the LAST thing this site needs to get into is a F v. K free-for-all!
For cryin' out loud - why does this site keep shooting itself in the foot?
We NEED F and K and I and whomever.
Congrats again folks. You've 'dissed another film company. You want to know why folks from F or K don't show up here? Take a read of the thread.
You sometimes have to wonder if APUG isn't really a conspiracy to advance digi photography since it seems to regularly piss on its own shoes!
How's yer blood pressure doing, George? Bad day at work? You seem a bit excitable at the moment. Take a deep breath!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
The OP specifically states "scans". I have to take that at face value, as well as the comment on "Fuji".
So, knowing the differences in the equipment and papers, I made reasonable comments. Knowing the capacity for over and under exposure, I can make the comments I did with some degree of being correct.
I was involved in the selection of the sensitization of Kodak color paper, and have a good friend who worked on the laser and diode printing capabilities as well.
So, where is the problem?
Originally Posted by copake_ham
I think it is you who needs to re-read the OP. He is talking about scans. The prints he's talking about come from a walgreens - not a pro lab.
Also, this thread doesn't strike me as a F vs. K thread - PE was just pointing out the differences between the papers.
Originally Posted by nyoung
Originally Posted by dslater
I do stand corrected!
The OP ...
"When I shoot neg, I use my Walgreen's one hour to develop and print for proof and then take/send any negs for enlargement to a "pro" lab so my questions are two:
Are the blown highlights a result of limitations in the scanning in the Fuji one hour processor?"
He thus seems to be confusing the "developing" process of the Frontier with scanning!
AFAIK, the Frontier "develops" the film negs using chem process. It does produce prints via a scan of those negs but he is talking about his "pro lab" results.
As he states, he is taking his Walgreen negs to a "pro lab". So - the problem is NOT the film development - it is the pro lab's processing of the negs.
So, if that is the case, how can one "blame" the Fuji one-hour processor?