Is there a difference between labs that use dip and dunk processors?

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've used many labs in NYC. They all use dip and dunk processors. Aside from the developer used, am I wasting time trying to find the perfect lab if they are all using dip and dunk? Will the results be pretty much the same? Any recommendations on the best/cheapest in NYC?<br>

Regards,</p>

 

<p>Since you posted this in the "C-41 Process B&W Film" category on the "B&W - Photo - Film & Processing" forum, I'll start with the assumption that that's exactly what kind of film you want to get processed, i.e., Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak BW400CN. These films are processed just like color negative films, with the C-41 process. This is a standardized process. Functionally, they don't use different developers. If the labs are using similar processing equipment, then it really comes down to how good they are about maintaining their chemistry (and maybe whether they're using shortcuts like blix instead of separate bleach and fix). At least at one time Kodak and Fuji offered certifications to labs that met certain quality standards, although I think this was mainly for color transparency (slide) film; Kodak called them Q labs and I forget the Fuji designation. That would maybe be the on point of differentiation I could think of that could be quickly determined.</p>

<p>If you really mean traditional B&W film instead of C-41 process B&W film, what developer(s) the lab uses could make a substantial difference. Traditional B&W developers show real variations, unlike developers for the C-41 process.</p>

 

<p>The differences between any lab is price, film handling and chemistry Quality Control. Pro labs can scratch and crease films just as easily as a mini lab, and both can mess up their chemistry.</p>

<p>"<em>Pro labs can scratch and crease films just as easily as a mini lab, and both can mess up their chemistry</em>."</p>

<p>What? Pro labs generally provide high quality and consistency demanded by their clientele. Mini labs are/were often the polar opposite. Now more than ever, pro labs can't afford to piss off their remaining customers. Mini labs in my area are history--thankfully.<br>

Chris, try to find the busiest lab that suits your needs. Tight film lines require <strong>volume</strong> to justify the time and money to keep them that way. Machines like the Refremas are demanding</p>

<p>I worked in a very highly regarded pro lab in Hollywood. Tons of mug shots and 8x10 glossies of actors of both genders were churned out by this firm. One time I leaned on the darkroom sink and almost broke the thing apart. The owners would not spend any extra time at all doing routine maintenance.<br>

I knew of one lab started by celebrity photogs who would steal some of your photos -- just clip them off the rolls after developing them -- if they were something they could sell to the magazines.<br>

The biggest problem with pro labs is they would do a real good job until they thought they "had" you as a permanent customer then would take shortcuts to be able to spend more time on the film of newer customers who they wanted to hook as well.<br>

It's like getting the right mechanic for your car. Some of these dudes will rip you off, some don't care about anything and some are keepers. If you care about your images you have to pay close attention to the service you are getting -- or not geting.</p>

<p>To clarify, I shoot B&W (non C41). I'm comparing negs from two different labs that used dip and dunk, same developer (xtol). I'm asking if it's even possible that the results (grain, contrast, sharpness) could be different under the same dip and dunk circumstances.</p>

<p>I'd assume there would be some slight differences, the agitation, time and replenishment rates are all variables in the processing cycle, and all will have an effect on the output. It's possible the labs you checked all follow the exact same processing protocol, but. . . . . . .</p>

 

<p>Sorry, Wayne, but this tale seems a bit wide of current reality on many levels.</p>

<blockquote><p>"To clarify, I shoot B&W (non C41). I'm comparing negs from two different labs that used dip and dunk, same developer (xtol). I'm asking if it's even possible that the results (grain, contrast, sharpness) could be different under the same dip and dunk circumstances."</blockquote><p>Negatives from B&W film - density, grain, etc. - are affected by choices of:</p>

<ul>

<li>Developer</li>

<li>Agitation</li>

<li>Time</li>

<li>Temperature</li>

</ul>

<p>The type of container holding the developer and film has relatively little effect compared with those four factors. Whether a tank/reel at home with hand inversion agitation, a roller system using continuous agitation or dip and dunk, those four factors will influence results more than anything else.</p>

<p>If you're seeing significant differences between two labs using dip and dunk processors to develop the same type of film, exposed the same way, using the same developer, the most likely reasons may be differences in temperature, time and developer strength if they do replenishing.</p>

<p>In my experience with most labs - even pro labs - is that they tend to adhere closely to manufacturer recommendations which generally result in over-development. If you're scanning negatives or using a condenser head (not a hybrid condenser/diffuser) enlarger, you'll get better results with slightly less development and a lower contrast index. Particularly with scanners this will deliver less grain and better highlights. Scanners already do a very good job with wringing out faint shadow detail, but may struggle with very dense negs.</p>

<p>I've run B&W lines at a number of high end labs in LA. Pro labs tend to have greater consistency but most have little idea about processing. When I started at each of the labs, their development chart was almost non-existent and none of them had any idea how to do a decent film test. Generally they determine their processing by tweaking the development time based off an averaging of what generally comes out. Generally they tend to over process and not consistently between film types. Some labs will process all 100 speed films at one time and all 400 speed films at another. Kodak did a lab survey in the 90s and the results were very discouraging. <br>

I once toured a "pro" lab that would make guesstimates with the processing time to compensate for differences in the temperature of the developer instead of attempting to stabilize the developer. Another lab I tested processed their Tri-X at +3 when asked for normal processing. It wasn't a choice. They didn't know how to measure the processing.<br>

My advice is to test any lab before letting them process anything important.</p>

 

<p>Stephen's point is a very good one, highlighting more of the potential pitfalls. I'm thinking that the sensible approach to B&W film is:<br>

* if you want to print optically (film on enlarger) and use traditional (non-C-41) B&W film, you need to either process it yourself (which is not that difficult, and can be done almost anywhere), or pay <em>a lot</em> of money to have it hand-processed at one of the specialty labs that will do it, and work with them to get good, consistent results;<br>

* if you want to print optically and use chromogenic (C-41) B&W film, just shoot XP2 Super (because it doesn't have the orange base that the Kodak does or at least did), and use a lab that does a good color negative processing;<br>

* if you want to scan, at least with most scanners, you're probably better off using chromogenic film instead of traditional B&W film.<br>

If you insist on using traditional B&W film but having a lab process it in a dip-and-dunk machine, you might want to try to find a film that comes out about right with the lab's normal processing.</p>

 

<p>Better yet, why not dictate to the lab what you want. Do a couple of tests, determine what works, and make that your normal. Refremas can process in 15 sec intervals. If they are a professional lab, they should accommodate you. Don't forget to ask questions to ascertain the extend of their knowledge. </p>

<p>I may have approached things differently, but if someone wanted to do a development test, I'd do it for free. If they wanted us to match the contrast they obtained using a different lab, chemistry, or at home, I'd expose a few sensitometric strips for them to test using the their old method and then match that and make it their normal.</p>

<p>It doesn't hurt to try. How they respond may tell you a lot about the type of business you're dealing with.</p>