Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,648   Posts: 1,623,467   Online: 947
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    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?
    George,
    That's not quite the way I read the OP. The way I read the OP, is he's talking about the prints that came from walgreens as part of his order - he hasn't yet sent the negs out to the pro lab yet because he's seeing blown highlights in the machine proofs.

    Dan

  2. #22
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,090
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by dslater View Post
    George,
    That's not quite the way I read the OP. The way I read the OP, is he's talking about the prints that came from walgreens as part of his order - he hasn't yet sent the negs out to the pro lab yet because he's seeing blown highlights in the machine proofs.

    Dan
    He said (emphasis added)...

    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.
    I repeat, there is no scanning involved in processing the negative - so how could anyone go back and "fix" it at that stage?

    Maybe, just maybe, he blew the friggin' film!

    Now, if he had his own scanner (a good one) and scanned the neg he could go into PS and see if.... but I digress.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by nyoung View Post

    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:
    George,
    those proof prints are made be scanning the film and printing with a digital printer. That's where the scans come from. If he takes the film back to walgreens for more prints, they'll scan the negs again and digitally print them.

    Dan

  4. #24
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,090
    Images
    56
    Dan,

    I give up. You win.

    I'm just a tiresome old lawyer who is used to parsing language and come to a different conclusion.

    How can it be that you then take the negs to the pro lab and then report problems with blown highlights?

    Why would it matter what the Walgreen proofs showed - isn't the "proof of the pudding" what the pro lab prints from the neg?

    Anyway, you win, because you need to - I salute you on your victory.

    Meanwhile, once again, an APUG thread has dissed a film company. Tonight was Fuji's turn and it accursed Frontier processor.

    But, I am pleased to report, the new, just opened today, CVS 24/7 at 42nd St. & 3rd Ave. here has a Frontier and I can still get my film developed in Midtown.

  5. #25

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

    I give up. You win.

    I'm just a tiresome old lawyer who is used to parsing language and come to a different conclusion.

    How can it be that you then take the negs to the pro lab and then report problems with blown highlights?

    Why would it matter what the Walgreen proofs showed - isn't the "proof of the pudding" what the pro lab prints from the neg?

    Anyway, you win, because you need to - I salute you on your victory.

    Meanwhile, once again, an APUG thread has dissed a film company. Tonight was Fuji's turn and it accursed Frontier processor.

    But, I am pleased to report, the new, just opened today, CVS 24/7 at 42nd St. & 3rd Ave. here has a Frontier and I can still get my film developed in Midtown.
    George,
    What is it with you - this is the second time we have disagreed and you hav accused me of having some kind of need to "win" - frankly, I think it's you who has the problem. Your last three posts here simply haven't made a lot of sense - you go on and on about film processing and the pro lab when the 3rd sentence down in the OP asks:

    "Are the blown highlights a result of limitations in the scanning in the Fuji one hour processor?"

    Why would he ask a question like this if he were looking at prints from a pro lab?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Not to beat a dead horse, but the one time I did have problems with blown highlights in my scans (and as a result, the prints) was when I took Portra 160NC to a pro lab...

    Don't usually have that problem at Target. But I don't shoot very much color, so my sample size is literally like 8 data points.

    It wasn't in the negs, because when I scanned a couple of them at home, they were fine.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hollis, NH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    732
    Images
    3
    Does the new Portra film have more contrast than the old ones? If so, maybe the lab mistakenly used the curves for the old Portra on the new film and got too much contrast.

    Just a thought.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,787
    Images
    2
    Possible. To be honest, it cost $15-20 for negs, prints, and scans. Not that I have a problem with the cost, but not only were the scans not the best, but the negs were scratched and dirty - Target is usually cleaner, and for $3-4 for dev and scans, I'll just stick with them for what little C-41 I do.

  9. #29
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,377
    Images
    60
    George:

    The OP was slightly confusing.

    The question about blown highlights does seem to be connected with a Fuji minilab, but of course that minilab does three things - it processes the film, it scans the negatives, and then prints from the scans.

    You "parsed" the post one way. Others "parsed" it another way.

    Vive le difference!

    All the best.

    Matt

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MAINE, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1
    I love Portra NC, but VC, ugh the stuff is hot... that said, if its cloudy or overcast out, VC is the way to go... but NC is so much friendlier... About printing, ive been using Portra since they (Mr Eastman, et. al) tossed my beloved my VPSIII into the waste bin of history.... Porta seems to be a challenge to most every printer ive encountered... Even the semi-pro labs dont always get a good print (im pretty picky)... but ive definately seen huge differences in print quality between Wal-Mart operated and "lab" operated frontiers and other digital printers.. I opt to have the "labs" print my portra, the economy class just cant do it right...

    Now if i could just find someone who knows how to use an optical Noritsu... We'd be havin some mighty fine lookin Portra Proofs.... Anyone?

Page 3 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