Might be a winner for 120 dev?

seems quite a good price, E6 is little bit more pricey however.
 
Well I sent two films off in a very small jiffy bag but the Post office are cunning, the weight wasn't the problem but it was thick, so it cost me £1.07. Just got the films back with my cheque because they have been flooded out and can't do them...wtf.
 
God I hate send-outs.

I've never sent any out, there is a lab in Leeds, expensive but miles better than send outs.

Wait....I sent my first ever rolls of B/W for development to...........







































New York


:LOL:
 
It never fails to amaze me how folks leap at the chance to save money getting film processed then complain like hell because the results are rubbish. If you've some numpty slinging film into cheap chemicals on a knackered old second hand processor you get crap results.... Is your photography that bad?
 
apochromatic said:
It never fails to amaze me how folks leap at the chance to save money getting film processed then complain like hell because the results are rubbish. If you've some numpty slinging film into cheap chemicals on a knackered old second hand processor you get crap results.... Is your photography that bad?
Click to expand...

My photgraphy is undoubtedly, truely aweful

No question......

Ujjwal
 
apochromatic said:
It never fails to amaze me how folks leap at the chance to save money getting film processed then complain like hell because the results are rubbish. If you've some numpty slinging film into cheap chemicals on a knackered old second hand processor you get crap results.... Is your photography that bad?
Click to expand...

There's quite a few people on here shooting with Holga's - they tend to go out of their way to get wierd processing effects as it's "part of the experience". While I'm not too keen on that kind of thing myself, they seem to enjoy it, and if we can share information that may work for them, then it's all good imho.

Personally, on the rare occasions I actually shoot MF film, it's because I want a chance of it being a high quality shot - so it'll be processed myself for BnW or sent to a proper lab if its Velvia. That way, the weak link in the chain is my lack of ability in taking a photo.

I appreciate you're new here apochromatic, but it's normally a friendly place here - your posting tone is not exactly going to win you many friends! Oh - and before you start questioning peoples photographic skill on here, have a good look in the great big film shots thread. Better still - post some there yourself...:LOL:
 
apochromatic said:
It never fails to amaze me how folks leap at the chance to save money getting film processed then complain like hell because the results are rubbish. If you've some numpty slinging film into cheap chemicals on a knackered old second hand processor you get crap results.... Is your photography that bad?
Click to expand...


So you have dealt with this place and you know they use cheap chemicals on a knackered old second hand processor and the results are crap?
 
Hey guys - don't get me wrong! It's just that I've read so many posts complaining about results from labs that I was just trying to head someone off at the pass. No offence intended though I can see that I should have been a bit more tactful:(
But yes - cheap means the lab is cutting quality to the bone because presumably they are running the business to make a profit and have to cut costs somewhere. There was a time, when we were all shooting film, that huge throughput of work kept prices low. Kodak's B-labs used to make their profit from the silver they recovered from film & print. Those days are long gone: most labs struggle to keep their silver based work going because it's an expensive process. I suppose you get what you pay for: same same.

On a happier note :) Holgas are great and can give truly wacky results so in a perverse sort of way then the cheapest lab could be best.

And I should post up some pics eh? Look into that later...

Cheers all
 
apochromatic said:
But yes - cheap means the lab is cutting quality to the bone because presumably they are running the business to make a profit and have to cut costs somewhere. There was a time, when we were all shooting film, that huge throughput of work kept prices low.
Click to expand...

I remember many moons ago when I used colour (35mm), I always found even using the same high street lab could produce very different results. In my case, I often took them into Boots and they certainly weren't cheap at the time. Sometimes the prints were great - nice, rich saturated colours; other times the colours were weak and washed-out. I guess it depends if you picked a day when the chemistry was fresh.

I recall also Max Spielman had a number of stores in the 1980s, but I've never used them.

It's because of these hit-and-miss quality issues that I decided to learn how to process films myself. I have to say though, once I started working in black & white, I very rarely ventured into colour again.
 
This happens to me in my Tesco-next-door.

I finally realised that there is 1 great, one average and one ***** operator. I aksed the guy who is the best one, if the quality has anything to do with used chemicals etc; his view was its just down to the operator in their case.

I found out their rota; and life was good for a while; then the rota changed; and it was back to random again.
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
This happens to me in my Tesco-next-door.

I finally realised that there is 1 great, one average and one ***** operator. I aksed the guy who is the best one, if the quality has anything to do with used chemicals etc; his view was its just down to the operator in their case.

I found out their rota; and life was good for a while; then the rota changed; and it was back to random again.
Click to expand...

Well I can't work out how they get hairs on the CD shots, surely when the negs are placed in the machine for scanning there should be some dust blowing device.
e.g. Helios 44m kodak gold
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo16_15-1.jpg
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
I finally realised that there is 1 great, one average and one ***** operator. I aksed the guy who is the best one, if the quality has anything to do with used chemicals etc; his view was its just down to the operator in their case.
Click to expand...

Not that I know much about these 1-hour mini labs, but certainly the operators themselves play a part in how a print turns out. Going back to my previous examples at Boots, I recall one instance having a roll developed and printed and being very pleased with the results. I went back a day or so after to order some reprints, and the results were totally different - all under-exposed. When I showed them the original sets of prints, they offered to reprint them for me.
 
Dawson Strange in Cobham, Shades in Old Woking and PRC in Liphook (past seven years) are the only labs i've trusted my medium format stuff with. I do agree with apochromatic to a degree.

When I worked in retail the amount of people that came into our shop thinking their camera was faulty wanting to buy a new camera as their prints were awful.

I think the processing of films is pretty consistant these days as the machines have "developed" really well our the years it's more down to printing that issues seem to occur.
 
Well I had 45mins to spare, so I thought I'd give the MTL3 and Super tak 35mm f3.5 a workout with Fuji 800asa at the airforce museum at Colindale anyway later called into Morrisons and the girl at the photo counter looked bored and was glad to develope the film in 30mins for £1...WTF the developing was ok but the neg look like it had been dragged across the floor with the amount of dust spots. Beats me why the machine can't dry the negs dust free.

for example:-spotty picture, tak 35mm, fuji 800asa
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/pentax35mm009.jpg

So I'm washing the negs again with soapy water and the first dried strip is much better, and btw I said to another person when I paid for the film..."Do you do many films? Nah I think they will close this machine down soon" erm well maybe they have lost all their customers because of spotty prints.
 
TheBigYin said:
certainly worth an extra rinse, I'd say from that!
Click to expand...


The only way as I could see the stuck dust spots on the non emulsion side with a torch and a huff and polish with a handkerchief didn't work.
 
could it be crystals of the dev. left on the film surface after heat-drying in the minilab rather than dust? (i.e. the rinse tank in the minilab machine was filthy)
 
TheBigYin said:
could it be crystals of the dev. left on the film surface after heat-drying in the minilab rather than dust? (i.e. the rinse tank in the minilab machine was filthy)
Click to expand...

You are probably right because it is quite rare to get spot free negs from other stores like Asda and Tesco using similar equipment ...but I don't normally mind a few spots (for a cheap price) as I'm not a pro, but this was too much.

But I sometimes get other surprises, well using old cameras maybe with bits of foam seals fallen off, ebay film and cheap developing.......so who do I blame for this? could be trapped dirt on cassette mouth? Well I blame Tesco naturally :shrug:
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Photo02_36.jpg
 
Anyone interested in the RAF museum, I would suggest lenses from 24-50mm to help framing your shots, a flash gun and tripod esp for the 2nd museum as for some reason there is no decent lighting...I just had the tak 35mm f3.5 with a small mickey mouse flashgun with wire to MTL3 socket and I couldn't get a decent pic even using Photoshop.
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/pentax35mm18.jpg

And depending on the brightness of the day 200, 400 or 800 asa film, I used 800asa on a cloudy day.

one more after washing the neg:-
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/pentax35mm12.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top