[Alliecat]

Hi all,
I know that different photo labs' chemicals/machinery/printer/paper lead to different colour casts in prints, but I've never had problems with contrast before. I dealt for years with a lab that did a pretty good job & got to know me & gave personalized service. They have gone bust.
I am now down to 2 options within 2.5 hours' travel (one way) for developing. Neither are great, but for the last batch of film I had done, there was only one option as the cheaper place's machine was broken (again). So, this camera store claims they charge more (appallingly more!) because of their marvellous "premium" quality processing ("we do the best job possible").
Every batch of film I've had done there, makes me wonder a) what's wrong with my camera & b) what's wrong with ME. "How could I miss 8 shots in a row? I don't miss 8 shots in a row..." etc.
Now that I have a scanner & can see what's really on the negatives, I am reassured that it's not me or the camera -- their "premium" printing is terrible!! I always ask to have things printed 'as is' without colour or density adjustments. However, this lab's contrast seems to be dialed through the roof. The light areas are blown right out to blinding white; the shadows are blocked-up black blobs. And, there's a reddish-yellow cast I've never seen from any other lab. (The actual reds are eye-hurting.)
When I scan & look at the negatives, the colours are normal, & there is nothing wrong with the shadows & highlights -- detail in both.
So, I suppose it makes sense for different labs to have different results; I've just never seen this with contrast. Should I let them have their machine make adjustments after all (maybe it would adjust itself?). I want to tell them how awful their fabulous printing is, but am afraid I may end up having to get all my film done there if the other place decides to quit fixing its machine. They don't know me well & are likely to be annoyed at some nobody coming in off the street & expostulating on how bad their contrast is. They do my enlargements now, & it must be a different printer, because those have been ok. So I don't want to screw things up, dealing with them for that.
Just wondered if anyone has an idea what might be wrong with the printing process, or what I could suggest to them? And, for those who know about printing from digital cameras, is it somehow possible that their printer is optimized to do something with the contrast for that, that it doesn't need to do for film? Different settings?
So, yes, I will have to scan & reprint things. I could have them just process the film & not print, but then I have to spend ages scanning, & our little printer is not really that great for photos. Or try an online service, & you're back to not knowing what you might get, quality wise. First one I tried was not so hot.
Thanks for any suggestions.

[Steinback]

Now that I have access to a flatbed scanner with a transparency unit I've stopped getting prints and scans from the developer. All of the labs near me print from scans and only one of them does a decent job (most of the time). Even the "pro" labs do a worse job than the drugstore that used to develop most of my film before their lab closed.

Eventually I decided that if the files are being printed from scans anyways I might as well do the work to get the scans right and then run the files through photoshop to clean up colours, contrast and dust before paying to print them.

Back in the '90s I got better prints from one hour labs than I do from the places that are currently developing and printing with one week services near me. For your purposes it wouldn't hurt to show the lab the difference between your scans and theirs. If the technician is knowledgeable they may be willing to take a look at how their scanning and printing processes are calibrated. As a point of interest, I've had dramatically better prints from stores using Noritsu scanners and printers than those using Fuji equipment, regardless of how much they charge for processing.

My local camera store does a decent job of printing if I give them digital files that have been processed to my liking and tell them to print the files as is. From the store's point of view the jpegs they get from my film scans are printed the same way as the jpegs coming from my DSLR.

[Wheatfield]

The lab has it's contrast set too high to compensate for the crappy contrastless lenses on P&S cameras.
Ask them to rescan your negs (all printing is done by scanning now, I'd be very surprised if they are still printing optically) at a lower contrast.
If they are still printing optically, they are stuck with what they are giving you.

[stevebrot]

It was frustration with mini-lab scans that drove me to buy my scanner. The lab scans could be broadly characterized as:

• Oversharpened
• Poor resolution despite huge files
• Poor color balance
• Poor contrast/exposure
• Full of artifact

I was going to have my local pro lab do the scans, but they confessed that they are a purely analog shop and take all but custom scans to the drugstore around the corner. Custom scans they send out.

An EPSON 4990 or V500 is far superior to what you would get from the mini-lab.


Steve

[Alliecat]

Next time I have to go in, I will ask about printing optically vs. scans. I'll also take a couple of their worst prints and an "as is" print out of our little printer. For the enlargements I order, I have already scanned them with my V700 & tweaked etc. as Steinback mentioned.
Re cheapie drugstore processing -- yeah, I have had better results from 1-hour $7 processing at 2 different Superstores in Halifax & Toronto, than I get for the $16 "premium" camera-store job.
I should tell them that too...
If the same tech guy is there, he might be willing to talk about it. He spent a whole morning with me when I first took my enlargement business there, trying to get their printer to match what was on the computer screen from my scans.

So, does "optical" printing mean using the film, vs. from scans where they're running the developed film through their scanner?
Maybe their scanner settings are off too?

[Wheatfield]

So, does "optical" printing mean using the film, vs. from scans where they're running the developed film through their scanner?
Maybe their scanner settings are off too?

Optical printing is direct printing to the photographic paper, IE: Shining a light through the negative and projecting the image via a lens onto the paper.
Digital printing is running the film through a scanner, creating a digital file and then outputting it to the paper, either via a dry print process (dye sub) or digital printing (tri colour laser).

[Nesster]

You'll pay and pay and pay for optical printing these days; and most places won't touch it, if they even understand the question

Minilab scans leave a lot to desire, it all depends on whether or not they have been adjusted by someone who cares - and the characteristics of the print part... It is true, unfortunately, that scanning the film yourself usually gives better results, even for a place such as Dwayne's.

[Wheatfield]

You'll pay and pay and pay for optical printing these days; and most places won't touch it, if they even understand the question

I'm pretty sure we still have one optical minilab in our area, but they are really rare nowadays. I was a long holdout with film, I insisted on printing my own stuff on the optical machine instead of the digital one.

[Alliecat]

Thanks for the explanations. I learned something
Does anyone happen to know of a good mail-order processing lab in Canada?

[lithos]

Normally when I got film developed at a lab, I just asked for them to either cut them into strips of six for me to scan.

I wouldn't mind paying for decent scans on the Frontier equipment, but the minilab's definition of "high resolution" is something like 800x600 at 72DPI.

Moot point, anyway: the last lab around here closed down.

[cscurrier]

I work in a drugstore photo lab, and as many of you have mentioned above, it could be the digital scan process. Very few retail outlets have optical printing and wetlabs, they are now switching to drylabs, with crappy digital scanners and auto adjustments which throw the contrast, saturation, and sharpening way overboard. And since most employees know nothing about photography, they just let the computer do the "thinking" and print. Fortunately for my customers, I tend to each and every photo as if it were my own.

Another possibility, which can work hand in hand with the crappy scanning and auto-adjust, is the chemistry of the film processor. My particular store has a Nortitsu capable of processing 30 rolls an hour... and to keep the chemistry properly balanced for as long as possible, we need to process at least 10 rolls per day. With the move to digital, we don't get many rolls of film in. We are lucky to get 10 rolls in a single week most of the time. Therefore, our chemistry slowly goes out of whack, until our technicians come in the store 2 weeks later, processing negatives that permanently come out with poor contrast or color.

I suggest asking for development only wherever you feel you get a good negative back, and scan yourself. (My store scans at 1500 x 1000 pixels, and thats it) Needless to say, I've been saving up for a decent scanner myself!

[Alliecat]

Thanks to some of the comments above, I had some clue what to talk about when I finally went into town yesterday & went to the photo lab.
Yes, they are printing from scans (NOT what the guy on the phone told me; "oh, it's all optical" ).
Yes, they've got some kind of super-contrast setting for crappy digicams.
So, I took some of the worst examples, theirs vs. a few that I scanned & printed with no adjustments from the negs.
I talked to 3 people, & they were all polite & receptive, which was a surprise. No one likes some nobody coming in off the street telling them their product is crap. But they listened, & explained pretty much what you guys said -- they have their contrast jacked up. "These should never have left the lab", said the general manager. They offered to redo them, but that would be at least half a dozen rolls. I'll settle for them doing a better job in future for the ridiculous price.
I always asked for my prints to be done "as is" -- straight from the negative, pretend it's a slide, don't "fix" it for me, if I messed up the exposure I want to see that. Apparently "as is" no longer works thanks to the equipment they have, & they will have to adjust for me, or turn the contrast setting off. The girl who runs the printer said she would look at each one & try to do a better job with them. Unfortunately their machine is "down" or glitched or something, so they couldn't do anything right away anyway & will have to mail me the films when they're done. After the tech comes to look at it.
I still don't like this lab as an option because of the price but at least maybe they'll do a bit better job!
Anyway, wanted to thank those who posted things that helped me understand what was going on with my films.