Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Everything to do with colour negative shooting, developing and printing
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3572
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:40 pm

I won't re-post the entire thing here, but have a look at this.

Some labs are frankly incompetent. No it's not put me off of shooting film, it's just made my life harder to try and find a place that does a decent job.


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=31457283

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:21 pm

I see your point, Barry. I encountered that here in our labs very long ago. :(
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby Dusty » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:03 pm

So far in all my years of film I've only had 2 incidents of negatives being ruined. I consider myself very lucky, but then again, for the last 15 years I've dealt almost exclusively with pro shops. One of my problems was with K-Mart in the '70s, the other with a 1 hour processor in the mid '80s.

Dusty

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5632
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby bakubo » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:31 pm

That is really tough. In 2001 my wife and I backpacked through Europe (Greece, Italy, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France, England) for 4 months and, of course, I was shooting film. Along the way I got some of the film developed from time to time. Quite a few of my negatives were doggie-doo though -- watermarks, poor developing (maybe old, dirty chemicals), scratches, etc. Very disappointing. While I have nothing against film and I used it since I first got into photography in the early 1970s I don't miss it at all these days. Not saying digital is ideal or better than film in all ways, just that for *me* I am much happier with digital.

User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby Dusty » Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:17 pm

When living in Brazil (early 80's) I never had film developed there. I always sent it back to the States with someone to get developed. I didn't trust the one local lab in a medium sized city on the Amazon to get things right every time. It's always the question - do I send it home and risk losing it, or do it here and risk poor quality?

Dusty

User avatar
themeron
Acolyte
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby themeron » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:51 pm

I don't know why, Dusty, cause here in Brazil we have the same equipment like you. Some American, Chinese and Japanese equipment. The paper is the same, imported from that countries. You just lose money, I guess...
<<SONY ALPHA 200>>

User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2309
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby Dusty » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:08 am

themeron wrote:I don't know why, Dusty, cause here in Brazil we have the same equipment like you. Some American, Chinese and Japanese equipment. The paper is the same, imported from that countries. You just lose money, I guess...


If I had been in Rio, Brasilia, Manaus or Curitiba, maybe. But Santarem in the early 80's was a one-horse town with one TV station, one film processor and electric that went out every day. What I saw from the shop were inconsistent results and over-used chemicals. I'm not sure the equipment they were using was modern, and paper was not too likely to be properly stored. The store wasn't climate controlled, and just the fact that humidity can go from 50% to 99% in an hour made local processing chancy.

I love Brasil, and may be headed back there with my family for a few years, but the Amazon region was and largely remains a frontier. People skrimp on the equipment they use and how they do things to be more economical. I did it too. If the local guy would have installed a good AC system, dumped used chemicals when needed and run his shop like a first rate lab, he would have gone broke, because there wasn't that large of a shutterbug community in town. A lot of the work was from guys taking pictures in the gold mining areas of those who struck it big, then high-tailing it back to get prints made before the guy ended up dead in a gun fight! I know one of the guys who did this.

Up-river in the mining towns it was like the Old West (US). Twice a day boats came down-river, and nearly every day one - sometimes both - would be carrying the body of a guy who got shot over a claim, knifed in a drunken fight by his "best friend" over a hooker, etc. Such things are typical of anyone poor who suddenly makes it rich, and not to be considered a slam on meus amigos brasileros.

Dusty

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: Reasons NOT to shoot negative film part I

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:19 am

Dusty, nice to have you back with us. :D
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr


Return to “Colour Negative”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest