At 2:53 AM +0000 8/28/02, olympus-digest [John Lind] wrote:
>Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:47:25 -0500
>From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Bad processing of film driving people to digital?
>
>At 20:37 8/27/02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> >Kate (my SO) has used Qualex with far better luck, although it's expensive
> >(or perhaps the photo store is expensive). Her favorite is Stone Photo in
> >Boston. Apparently, they do all C-41 processing in house, and do it
> >right, but they are a bit remote for me.
> >
> >I think I'll look into Qualex. Even if turnaround is a week.
>
>If you use Qualex for transparency, they will automatically mount all E-6
>(Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc.) in plastic mounts now. However, for
>whatever bizarre reason they still mount all K-14 (Kodachrome) in
>cardboard, *unless* you check the "special request" box and ask for plastic
>mounts. Why the difference in policy for the two is beyond my
>comprehension. The *only* reason might be a backlash from enough
>Kodachrome users that dismount the transparency chips and remount
>them.
More likely, the Kodachrome processing machine is old, and being old happens to
use or work best with cardboard mounts.
> I *don't* recommend trying to have Qualex sleeve a roll of
>35mm transparency though (just as medium format is sleeved as one
>continuous strip, rolled up and shipped in a cardboard can). It's an
>unusual request and they don't handle unusual requests well.
Those machines aren't flexible either.
> >How bad was the color balance? This is another adjustment issue, albeit
> >less serious than gross overexposure.
>
>Sometimes excellent and sometimes noticeably off. Too variable in results;
>it's a coin toss. One roll shot at a reception had everyone looking
>jaundiced, although print density has always been very good as has their
>enlarger focusing. The pro lab I now use is always dead on, even if I've
>done something weird (e.g. shooting Fuji Press 1600 under a gallery's
>incandescent overhead lights and halogen accent spots).
It still takes a human to get it right.
> >What happened when Qualex got hold of your 120/220 film?
>
>They fogged it when they broke the seal to unspool it for processing. This
>happened several times in succession shortly after I bought the medium
>format rig. Qualex claimed each time it was worn film inserts that were
>wrapping the film on the spool too loose. Fogging from the edges inward
>are classic symptoms of that. However they're also classic symptoms of
>breaking the tape seal and starting to unspool it before putting it under
>complete darkness. I was ready to send three film inserts to Mamiya for
>overhaul at considerable cost. Then, perchance, I had a mix of 120 and 220
>done by the pro lab I now use in Indianapolis. As if by magic, the fogging
>cured itself. I've run dozens of rolls through all the inserts since then
>without further incident. Amazing!
One can tell by inspection if the film is spooled too loosely, so if the camera
were the cause, you would be able to see that the film wasn't spooled correctly
when you took the film out of the camera. It has to be pretty loose to cause
significant fogging.
>Oh, yes, almost forgot. There was
>also the roll of E-6 that got lost for several months, then was magically
>found, and then they destroyed it in processing. Something was wrong with
>their chemistry and it left ugly brown stains running through the entire
>film strip; as if someone had spilled coffee all over it.
Perhaps the actual sequence of events is that they screwed the developing up,
and then "lost" the film while trying to remedy the problem, and "found" it
when hope was lost?
Or, does the film smell of coffee when wetted?
Joe Gwinn
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|