Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,562   Posts: 1,573,328   Online: 999
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    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.

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,403
    Images
    65
    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.

    PE

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    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.

  4. #14
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    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.

    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!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,223
    How's yer blood pressure doing, George? Bad day at work? You seem a bit excitable at the moment. Take a deep breath!

  6. #16
    Dinesh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,605
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    How's yer blood pressure doing, George? Bad day at work? You seem a bit excitable at the moment. Take a deep breath!
    LMAO
    Kick his ass, Sea Bass!

  7. #17
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,403
    Images
    65
    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?

    PE

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Read the OP.

    He was NOT talking about blown highlights from scans.

    He was talking about blown highlights from a "pro" labs print of negs.
    Sorry George,
    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.

    Dan

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,403
    Images
    65
    Dan;

    Thanks.

    PE

  10. #20
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by nyoung View Post
    I've only recently began playing with the new Kodak PortraVC in 160 and 400 speed versions and am noticing blown highlights some prints when I expose as I always have for color neg - +1/3.

    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?

    Can the operator of a Fuji minilab go back to an individual negative and "print down" to render highlights - I know the analogue one hour operators could do this?

    Posting this knowing I risk being told it's more appropriate for the Hybrid Forum but this forum has more action and more expertise - particularly in the area of film exposure latitude.


    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    Sorry George,
    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.

    Dan
    Dan,

    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?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin