</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (edz @ May 13 2003, 01:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Commercial mini-lab RA-4 chemistry sets seem to cost a fraction of the ambient temperature monochemicals.. some of the RA-4 minilab sets even appear to be more environmentally sound and safer, to provide better capacity etc. Cheaper. Better. All sounds great.. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Uh .. I would suggest that there are more problems here...
What specific chemicals are you referring to when you speak of "ambient temperature monochemicals"?
The RA-4 chemicals found in the "small" kits (I use JOBO/ Tetenal) are made to high standards of uniformity; one does not have the luxury - or burden - of modifying chemical composition from the resuts of "control strips". I'm not really familar with the operation of "mini-labs", but I would be willing to bet that the process is less tolerant of random variables.
Then again, what does the process look like? With Tetenal it is simply: Color Developer, One minute; Shortstop, 15 seconds; Bleach-fix, 45 seconds, and wash and dry.
Hmm... "better" ... I'm not so sure of that ... I know I have done color work with the JOBO that has "blown the doors off" some of the work of a well-respected nearby commercal color lab. I have the luxury of being able to make a *bunch* of prints to "get it right", without my local "boss" going into orbit over the expense ... but that added effort clouds the comparison of the two systems.