This question brings to mind a conversation with one of my dear friends, who was rebuilding his lab. He spent some six thousand dollars on his 8X10 enlarger; and all the while that we worked on that installation took his color work to a local lab. I was working in a portrait studio where we had our own 'mini lab' or closed system color processor; and I'll tell you it's no different than having to print color with an enlarger. The cost for a used 'auto processor' was one third of the cost of his 8X10 enlarger. Today, there are pleanty of these printers avaliable at around two thousand dollars. Take one home and keep your dead animals, cupons, frustrations and instead print you own. One weekend, as a bonus, my boss gave me the key and helped set up a wallet size, 5X7 and 8X10; I bought my own paper and worked two days by myself and made 1,900 prints from 31 rolls of 35mm film. (a one week family memorial across the states) Tons of fun and my net cost was $275.00 Mini lab: Buy one for $2,000 REVOLT! S. Shapiro ----- Original Message ----- From: "ADavidhazy" <andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:22 AM Subject: Re: Are we to take C41 dev for granted? > Kostas, > > > how reliable are minilab stores in providing proper C-41 development? > > I think that minilabs, if properly operated, are probably more reliable than > manual procedures. Like with anything else improper operation causes problems. > > > is always getting 100% correct development, but logically it cannot happen in > > this world...there is still operator error and depleted chemicals & stuff > > lurking, aren't there? > > yes > > > the reason i am bringing this up, is that i believe I had a case of a film > > developed improperly (less dev) since it excibits more than expected grain... > > Underdevelopment typically would cause less grain is the rule of thumb I > believe. On the other hand, trying to "save" images that are not very dense due > to underexposure by underexposing during the printing stage would exhibit more > grain I think. Maybe someone will add to this or correct the logic. > > > and the dreadfull thing was that the operator was not the usual one and while > > there he was filling up liquids while the minilab was still printing, which > > seems not a good at all...(indicated a careless operator taht leeft their > > machines unattended?) > > Replenishment while the machine is in operation is not in itself a sign of > carelessness in my opinion. One would expect that the lab have quality control > procedures in effect and that they might even share their control charts with > the customers. > > > so, how can one know for sure if his film were developed properly? by feel? > > by indicators on the film itself? > > I would think that if this is of long term concern to you that you could set-up > a check on the lab by exposing some short length films under identical > conditions - like expose three - four rolls at the same time to the same > subject and under, normal and overexpose the frames. Then have one roll > processed while keeping the rest in a freezer. A week later have another roll > processed, etc. and then compare the rolls by placing them alongside each > other. Do they look almost the same? If so then the lab at least is consistent. > Major variations in density indicate a problem probably. > > andy > > > > ahh! kostas > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ > http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail. > http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ìå ÁóöáëÝò Controlpanel áðü 6 Euro êáé äþñï ôï domain óáò! > >
