X700 disappointment, probably not the camera

[spacer]

When I got my test roll back from CVS, there were spots and artifacts on the photos. I'll scan some in later and post 'em later maybe.
The marks were about the same with both lenses, IIRC, so I don't think it was the camera or the lenses... I'm thinking it was the equipment
at the drug store maybe. Tomorrow I'll break out the negatives, give 'em a good wipe with my squeegee, and run a few through my film
scanner to see how those turn out.

[MattKing]

When I got my test roll back from CVS, there were spots and artifacts on the photos. I'll scan some in later and post 'em later maybe.
The marks were about the same with both lenses, IIRC, so I don't think it was the camera or the lenses... I'm thinking it was the equipment
at the drug store maybe. Tomorrow I'll break out the negatives, give 'em a good wipe with my squeegee, and run a few through my film
scanner to see how those turn out.

Don't use a squeegee on negatives - water marks and dust are far better than scratches.

[dynachrome]

A properly working X-700 is capable of excellent results.

[nhemann]

With the exception of a few shots, everything I have on here is done with an X-700. Its a great camera.

[2F/2F]

CVS

There ya go. A camera could not cause those problems.

[spacer]

Yeah, that's what I figured. Since I used two separate lenses for the test roll, and the contamination showed up clearly anyway, I
think I'll have to give the Minolta another roll, and take it to a real camera shop.
I've ranted on and on about folks buying bicycles at big box stores, so I guess I can't really get too mad. What service they do still have
is getting pretty... casual, anyway. I would absolutely not be surprised to find they weren't keeping their equipment clean, in hopes that it'll all go away soon anyhow.
Unfortunately, I lost the aperture detent ball for my 50/1.7 lens. I can still use it in "A", but I like to have more control than that.
Any sources for just one of those, or should I just scavenge one out of a junker lens?

[Chan Tran]

Back in the mid 80's I used mostly 1 hr. lab. I never have any problem with them developing my negatives although I did have many problem with the printing. Nowaday, It seems too difficult to find a place that can do the C41 well. I think the problem could be lack of volume.

[spacer]

That's pretty much it these days. It's so much easier for the employees if you just bring in an SD card and use the photo printer than having to bother with film. I've yet to find a drugstore photo tech who showed any real love for the work.
At least... for a few years. When I was growing up, Duffy's was a great place to go, just a funky little shop on Main Street, but it was the place to be if you wanted the best prints from your exposed rolls.

I may have to get some color supplies and just try a roll or three myself one of these days.

--on the detent issue... I'm sitting here staring at a ball point pen, wondering if it might be close enough to the right size. Where's my hammer?

[mikecnichols]

That's pretty much it these days. It's so much easier for the employees if you just bring in an SD card and use the photo printer than having to bother with film. I've yet to find a drugstore photo tech who showed any real love for the work.
At least... for a few years. When I was growing up, Duffy's was a great place to go, just a funky little shop on Main Street, but it was the place to be if you wanted the best prints from your exposed rolls.

I may have to get some color supplies and just try a roll or three myself one of these days.

--on the detent issue... I'm sitting here staring at a ball point pen, wondering if it might be close enough to the right size. Where's my hammer?

I love it.....so, there, now you've met one...lol!

[dynachrome]

Are you saying that your aperture ring is stuck or is something wrong with the camera body?