Do highstreet labs process 35mm film with digital equipment?

[FellaRoad]

I got some 35mm fujifilm film developed at Boots in London, UK the other day. The pictures that came back looked very much like the digital pictures I've been processing in the last few years. When I look at old family snaps on film from the early 90s the quality of the processing looks so much better. Are highstreet processors now using digital equipment to process 35mm film? and has this lowered the quality? Any suggestions on where I can go?

Thanks!

 

[POAH]

yes they use a machine to process the colour film and they would have used a machine in the 90s also. the processing and printing has got better over the years so maybe you used a different lab before

 

[TheBigYin]

In the Nineties, they'd have very probably been using a wet printing minilab - when they were set up well, and properly calibrated to the film that was being processed they were good. When they were a little out of adjustment, the chemicals were on their way out, or if you took in a film that wasn't in the operators repetoire when it came to processing settings (for which read colouur corrections) then they could be horrible. I've entire boxes of family photo's where they were a fetching shade of magenta straight from the processing labs (my mother insisted on using Truprint, as you got a "free" film with the processing, despite the HORRIBLE quality of the actual processing)

I think that most modern minilab setups do a hybrid approach - develop the film, then scan it and print the photo's using either inkjet or dyesub technology. This at least opens the door for you to get a CD of the images at the same time as your prints, and also allows the machine/operator to do a little colour correction if needed. I know for example, before I started processing/scanning my own C41 film I took a roll of XP2 to my local boots, and mentioned to the operator that it was a Chromagenic Black and White film, so not to be surprised if the prints were a little "iffy" - He just said "Ahhh XP2, i've got a setting for that on the machine... Would you like Black and White or Sepia toned prints?"

As an aside, I've also scanned the negatives of some of the horrible magenta shots mentioned above, and with a little time and the odd tweak in CS5, I've been able to rescue pretty much all of them!

I'd be surprised if Boots are using old machines, or running them on expired chemicals, they've always tended to go for the upper end of the high street processing market (though as with anything - it does depend on the person operating the kit). So I'd expect their machines to be working well. Comparing a well calibrated and operated wet minilab from the 90's with a modern hybrid minilab, I'd expect that the differences would be negligeable to be honest - certainly on 6"x4" prints.

 

[snappingsam]

Film minilabs reached their high point 10 years ago. As digital capture took bigger slices of the market minilabs replaced their printers with digital ones

An old film minilab was a bit like an enlarger - light passed through the film, and the image was projected onto light sensitive paper.

Your film is still processed in chemistry - usually in a machine seperate to the printer.

Digital labs scan the negative and create a jpeg file which is then manipulated to get the best colour, density and contrast - the the resultant data is imaged by one of three ways:
lazer (or led) onto light sensitive paper which is processed in chemistry
inkjet - much like your home printer
dye-sub

Now it's a bit like the argument about good hi-fi - with the correct equipment and a skilled operator - the sound from 12" records sounds better than off CD, and CD sounds better than most downloads - but for the vast majority of people, the convenience of digital music outways the quality of records.

Its the same for minilabs - the current equipment will give a result that for most people is far superior than the old equipment could do with the average operator. Now, an old optical printer with a skilled operator could surpass is many ways what you can achive with an average operator on new kit.

Take a skilled operator on the new kit, and a skilled operator on the old stuff and theres little in it - and as 90% of whats printed now is digital capture you can't compare.

I was looking at some prints I made 20 years ago, shot with hasselblad and printed on a hand enlarger - and was comparing it with current work, shot on a D3 and printed on a Frontier lab - and the new outshines - particulary in noise or grain.

In the high street, the limiting factor is often the operators skill - it's a bit like handing the same camera to 10 different people - owning a great camera does not impart skill or ability. Much like people buying Jamie Oliver cookware - and them thinking they can cook as well as he can!

On a practical point - the main reason why prints look "digital" is the oversharpening of edges - reduce this and the results look more like film...