Ughrahhck, why do labs "fix" without asking

[markbarendt]

Well, I owned a minilab caliber scanner for about a week and it opened up my eyes a bit as to how they operate. Not saying that all combinations of scanners and software do this, but a lot of the minilab scanners autocorrect color balance and exposure to a certain extent. So 'printing without corrections' might have some corrections already, at least relative to scanning at home on a coolscan or something. Certainly in relation to optical printing...

Given C-41's range that's no surprise, have to condense some just to get a printable image in the papers range.

What I'm griping about is the extra corrections. The two rolls in question appear to have been fixed frame by frame to correct for the exposure settings I dialed in on purpose, to selectively bump saturation, etcetera...

Optical printing isn't too far off for me, got the equipment, just need some controlled, ventilated darkness with a sink and a drain.

[markbarendt]

This is why I no longer use Dwanyes any more. They keep turning red rock into green grass!

Steve

I'm beginning to believe that bad or unwanted corrections are the reason many people shoot digital, they just blame the film.

[markbarendt]

Are you saying that you expected a handmade contact sheet and got back machine proof prints instead?

No

If you asked for proof prints, I do not understand the problem. Proof prints are always adjusted for brightness and color, and usually based on an early frame. For example, if you shoot the first part of a roll under fluorescent light, and finish off the roll outdoors, the daylight shots will all have a magenta color cast, as the entire roll will be corrected for the fluorescents. Proof prints *never* show you that much about what you did, unless you were way off in exposure, focus, or composition. They don't even show you the full composition. Additionally, even if they did list an individual time or filtration, it would do you little good, as the times and filtration for your own RA prints would be different.

The other lab sets their machine to do no correction, the lab these rolls got to corrects every bloody frame. A while back I asked them if they profiled the monitor they used to correct the images with. No.

In other words, don't waste your time trying to learn how to print your color based on machine proof prints. Just make a proofsheet using your enlarger at your known-neutral filter pack and time. Proof prints are just that: Proofs. They give you a decent idea of which pictures to pursue and which ones not to pursue.

That truly is the lesson here.

[markbarendt]

Does not scanning per se interpret the negative differently from straight optical prints.
The reason I say is that I used to really like the colour of Agfa but all scanning algorithms (and my lab is very good at special instructions) have ruined the individual look of Agfa. They have to manipulate it to look like Agfa.

Absolutely.

This is why I'm working toward a darkroom.

[jnanian]

when you make a contact sheet
is every exposure exactly on?
basically your lab make a digital contact sheet
( proofs ) for you ... oh well ...

[markbarendt]

There is no way to scan a negative without some minimum adjustment. When you print optically you will have to set exposure time with a set of filtration to begin with. This is really the same when you scan a negative. You simply have to apply some adjustment to begin with. It is rather a basic setup for the scan than adjustment.

I understand having a set of baseline scanner setting to match say the Superia 400 I sent.

Beyond that I don't want the lab to do anything to the proof.

Is that such a tall order?

A lab operator would be incredibly non productive if he/she is forced to turn off all basic auto functions, such as auto exposure and auto color balance.

Don't care because I'm not asking for any fixes.

Most, if not all, of the scans would be way off and will need a lot of manual adjustment to get the scans to look OK. If you own a film scanner you can try to turn off auto exposure and auto color balance. You will understand how difficult or impossible to scan films without them.

Again, as a customer, I don't care.

What I do know is that one lab turns off their auto correct and I get the results I expect, the other tries fixing everything and I don't.

There was a third lab in town that went out of business a few months back, they had the same problem, always trying to fix it.

[Tim Gray]

so what you're saying is its balanced for a certain density......

No, it set it's exposure based on the density of the negative. You could go up or down a couple notches from that midpoint, which was usually enough, but there was no setting for base exposure. Same for white balance.

That being said, it was usually pretty good.

[mtjade2007]

I understand having a set of baseline scanner setting to match say the Superia 400 I sent.

When the scanner is set to auto exposure and auto color (balance) there is no such a thing called Superia 400 or Portra 160 NC. The scanner driver will do whatever it is programed to give you a scan that has a good looking histogram. And 80% of the time the image will look OK or good. But 20% of the time the color balance will be way off. If the scanner has a preset program for Superia 400 you will have a 50% chance of good images but the other 50% will be off color balance or overall density. The lighting condition at the time you shot your roll is a big unknown to the scanner. To get you the colors that you like or you think they should be you are the only person who can give you that up to maybe 90% of the images. You have to scan and correct your own images.

Beyond that I don't want the lab to do anything to the proof.
Is that such a tall order?
Don't care because I'm not asking for any fixes.
Again, as a customer, I don't care.

If you don't want the lab to do anything to the proof then the lab will simply turn on all the automatic setup and give you the scan with automatic corrections applied.

What I do know is that one lab turns off their auto correct and I get the results I expect, the other tries fixing everything and I don't.

Think about it. With all automatic functions turned off you will not even get a scan with a correct exposure, not even close, at all. Nor will you get any colors that make sense. Think again, even if it gives you a good scan for your Superia what will you get if you give them a roll of Portra 160VC?

There was a third lab in town that went out of business a few months back, they had the same problem, always trying to fix it.

I believe every lab has the desire to please you. It's good for you and for their business too. When you tell them not to adjust or fix anything they probably will not say no to you. But if they do not adjust or correct anything they know they will lose your business. What they will do, 100% of the time, because you insist in no adjustment made is to turn on all automatic functions and hope you will like the result.

I know I don't like the result by scanning my own films with my own film scanner with everything automatic. I will need to photoshop just about every image to correct them. On a same roll shot at a same time about 20% or even more the color balance will be way off for no obvious reason.

In my opinion if you want good images you will have to let the lab operator to scan automatically then let them do some tweaking of the colors. This is where if your images will come out right or not. If the lab operator is poorly trained and has no idea how to make good corrections that's when your images are screwed up. I don't believe they will scan with automatic functions turned off. Try to own a film scanner and use it for a month then you will agree with me.

[bob100684]

I agree, most mini-labs are geared to printing for comsumers. Also the digtal proof sheets have built in corrections. The older printers had ways to "lock" expusure & color but not the newer digtal ones.
Michael

Yes and no. Even by the time fuji made it to the SFA series, automatic density and ACCS correction was a matter of life. You could dial in ADDITIONAL CMY filtration or density settings and press a hold key, but the machine still did something. Turning off the ACCS(automated color correction service-auto exposure and color balance) was generally more of a hindrance than a help

[bob100684]

This whole discussion is more proof, at least in my mind, of why control negs are useful even in digital minilabs. Having a dedicated film chanel for each emulsion should give much more consistent results, and is something you are certainly able to do on a frontier. I've worked in consumer labs for almost 6 years now, and have made it a point at every frontier lab to register a kodak BWCN and ilford XP2 chanel. I've found most lab jockeys either don't realize the frontier has a greyscale button, or don't think customers will notice their b/w prints are now green and white. By registering a DX code, and using some aperion target negs, 20 minutes later, every time you put in either film, it recognizes the DX code and works perfectly.