Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where do you guys go for film processing -- somewhere locally, or do you send it away to one of the national labs I often see ads for in the photography magazines? Just curious. I have a Canon EOS III that I used just a handful of times. Might be worth getting out and playing with now and then.
Where do you guys go for film processing -- somewhere locally, or do you send it away to one of the national labs I often see ads for in the photography magazines? Just curious. I have a Canon EOS III that I used just a handful of times. Might be worth getting out and playing with now and then.
I use a local lab for developing and scanning, though I actually haven't shot film in a couple of months (or more). Developing and scanning a roll of 36 exposures is around $7 there.
I use a local lab for developing and scanning, though I actually haven't shot film in a couple of months (or more). Developing and scanning a roll of 36 exposures is around $7 there.
The biggest problem I've encountered with local scanning is that it's a clerk doing it a lot of the time instead of a photo tech. That and some give low res scans and won't even consider a high res because it takes longer. I finally bought my own film scanner for that very reason. A few years back while taking a college digital photo class we could shoot film and have it scanned and the prof made the arrangements for us to get hi res scans. Getting a local scan to render as our eyes see it is questionable in my thinking. I used to think that film and processing was high but doing the math you pay for film and processing up front with the price a high quality digital. Our digitals will wear out. The shutter will stop working one day. I've got an idea for a way to test if I'm getting what my eyes are seeing. I have a 13" printer that can run from a car outlet. I can shoot and test settings on the digital on the spot. This thread has made me think. Thanks Summering.
Provia is so very real and alive...the color is bright and gorgeous.
So very nice Lamplight...
There is a Pro photographer here in FL that will hop a flight to Bora Bora just to shoot sunsets and Provia is his film of choice. Time of day is perfect for it. I've seen his work hanging before my eyes and it makes me a little green with envy. He cuts 8x10 sheets in half and shoots 4x10 panoramas.
The biggest problem I've encountered with local scanning is that it's a clerk doing it a lot of the time instead of a photo tech. That and some give low res scans and won't even consider a high res because it takes longer. I finally bought my own film scanner for that very reason. A few years back while taking a college digital photo class we could shoot film and have it scanned and the prof made the arrangements for us to get hi res scans. Getting a local scan to render as our eyes see it is questionable in my thinking. I used to think that film and processing was high but doing the math you pay for film and processing up front with the price a high quality digital. Our digitals will wear out. The shutter will stop working one day. I've got an idea for a way to test if I'm getting what my eyes are seeing. I have a 13" printer that can run from a car outlet. I can shoot and test settings on the digital on the spot. This thread has made me think. Thanks Summering.
My local lab has four employees. One handles all things Photoshop, one does the actual darkroom stuff, another mostly handles sales, and one does the color developing (via machine) and the slide and negative scanning. As far as I know the scanner they use is nothing special, and the scanned images are roughly 3000 pixels wide. But like I said, the scans always look sort of pale; washed out. Sometimes it's worse than others. When I first started having negatives scanned there I didn't notice. I just assumed the look was due to the film. But when I got prints, they looked MUCH better, so once I realized that I started adjusting the levels of my scanned negatives and slides so they'd have more contrast like the prints. I actually posted a lot of film shots on this board before I started adjusting them.
Note: I may have upped the contrast a little too much on this one, but it definitely shows the difference!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
