Oh, poor KT,

I didn't mean to upset the balance of your life this morning. I warned early that I don't have the right lingo. I did mean cyan, not blue. And since correcting the ph worked as my Kodak tech said it would. . . . I was happy. Again I have not said I would not, (as a matter of fact, I said I definitely would) begin using and understanding control strips so I can be more accurate and more certain of that accuracy. I was just relaying a story.
I am sorry that I seemed rude about your processing. What I should have said was, "I am not a process lab, I am a printing and reproduction lab." This would not have stirred things up. Again I apologize for my carelessness.
I too do plenty of reprography, and my negs and film can/are brought back to me, some done by my predecessors over 15 years ago and they always print fine if the negative was properly sheathed. I really am not too far off from being on the same page as you. However, I have no intention of going digital, because the copy cameras with the right lenses and skill out perform digital, not the lamba and the lightjet directly but the whole process, and the only reason I even decided to involve professional photographers directly to the shop is because they came to me and asked me to #1 stay analog and #2 cater to their problems.
What I am not too sure about is why is feels like you and I are in some sort of competition here. I don't want to be. I just want a site wherein I can discuss analog photography without being told to abandon my desire to become a master at analog and go put out digital stuff. I thought this might have been the place since the title is "analog photography . . . ."

Again I apologize for my carelessness yesterday, and I hope our tensions calm.

JL