E-6/Quickload processing problem,rollfilm question

I'm new to 4 x 5 and before I started to put my system together I decided to check that I would be able to get 4 x 5 E-6 processing in my area at a reasonable price and with reasonable convenience. Otherwise I would use a roll-film back since 120 film E-6 processing would not be a problem. I found two labs that fit the bill. After putting my system together I shot some slides (Quick Loads) and brought them to lab #1, where I was told in advance that processing would be $2 a sheet with two day turn around. When I finally picked up the slides ten days later I was told the original quote was in error and that the cost would be $3.75 a sheet. Although the job was well done (forgetting the eight day discrepancy) at $3.75 a sheet I can't afford to shoot except only once in a blue moon.

<p>

I shot more film and went to lab #2 who promised $1.75 a sheet and one to two hour turn around. After picking up the first batch of slides I found first that the clear plastic slide covers were scratched and in some places, creased. The slides were also scratched. As a beginner I decided to give the lab the benefit of the doubt. I unloaded some new Quick Load envelopes straight from the box, went to my back yard to make some test exposures, then delivered them to the lab a couple of days later. Same problem.

<p>

I've been gearing up for my first out of state trip with my 4 x 5 and not having a lab I can trust with my exposed film makes me uneasy. I was hoping somebody could offer some me some input:

<p>

1. Can anybody account for the scratches on the slides? I have a hard time believing that the scratches were due to poor handling of the Quick Load envelopes on my part since I have always handled them very carefully, never pinching or bending the envelopes and keeping them in a box at the top of my pack.

2. Would there be any problem with shooting 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 with my 4 x 5 lenses? I really prefer 4 x 5, plus I've selected my lens focal lengths based on 4 x 5 use. Having already spent a princely sum on my equipment a roll film back for this trip is out of the question, but perhaps a future consideration since ultimately the camera movements are my top priority.

3. Anybody know of a good lab in the western suburban Chicago area that can handle 4 x 5 slides?

<p>

Thanks in advance for any responses and my apologies for the lengthy post!

Why not try process by mail? I'd recommend hollandphoto.com, $1.95 a

sheet, 10 days turn around, good job, there is a shipping charge

though.

Andy, I have shot hundreds of Quickloads, never had a scratch. It is virtually impossible to occur while exposing

(unless you drop them in sand or some silly maneuvre). Change lab. Send your films to a lab who processes for

professionals. Otherwise you get an intermediate, and therefore, more handling (scratches) and increased prices.

Shooting on rollfilm is definitely a good option, unless each of your shots is a prize winner! I use more rollfilms than

4x5.

To show some examples, I posted 4 contact print scan at

www.photocritique.net(architecture)

Andy, don't feel bad, everyone goes through the "school of hard

knocks" when getting started. Most likely the lab scratched your

film... as for low cost processing...I use Pro Lab in Portland, at

$1.50 per 4x5 its worth the postage! Vicki, the owner does all the

E6 herself and does a magnificient job. The best lab I have ever

dealt with, and I have tried at least 15 of them. Of course if you

only shoot 2 shots, you may find a lab that is local... as for Roll

film backs, my opinion is that you loose a lot of film area vs. 4x5,

so you loose some of the benefits of 4x5...and more importantly, as

Sal has educated me, there is no roll film holders on the market that

will not leave a bit of a buckle in the film exposure area due to the

film travel path being forced to go over a roller prior to being in

the exposure area. It takes only a small film buckle when in the

exposure area to really cause sharpness issues, mainly noticeable

when enlargements get greater than say 4x. I personaly have not

experienced this since I use my RFH very little...but after Sal

explained this to me, I examined my RFH and can see the potential of

this occuring. So this may be something you should consider. And

yes, all LF lenses are good for sheet film and / or roll film...

best of luck...

To follow up on the previous post, I've exposed well over a thousand

color slides using a roll film back and have never had a softness

problem due to film flatness problems. I typically enlarge my

initial proofs of good shots to about 5x and have done enlargements

up to 30" x 40".

To expand a bit on what I told Bill, film flatness becomes a

significant problem when using short focal length lenses, large

apertures and significant enlargement. One's personal criterion for

an acceptable circle of confusion, as well as the type of shooting

being done (e.g. movements may permit placing the plane of focus in a

position where not much depth of focus is required), combine to

determine how much roll film can deviate from flat before a

lack of print sharpness becomes evident. Everyone should perform

their own tests before concluding this issue is or is not important to

them. Apparently, in Howard's work, all parameters are coming

together the way he wants them to.

I will second Howards comments... roll film backs generally do a fine

job at film flatness. With reverse curl backs like Horseman and

Wista, I will burn one frame if the film has been sitting for more

than an hour. On the other hand, when advancing frames to bracket,

for example, there is no need to waste frames. The film has to sit on

the roller for a while to acquire a kink. Linhof Rapid Rolex, Sinar,

and Toyo backs have a much less severe bend before the film gate, and

are less susceptible to film flatness problems, although they have

their other excentricities.

<p>

That said, there is no reason for Andy to abandon QuickLoads. Image

quality and cropability of 4x5 are still superior, and he has chosen

lenses based on that format.

<p>

Roll film backs are more prone to scratching than QL. In the field, a

single grain of silt on a roller can leave a scratch down the entire

length of the roll. I have yet to have a scratch on QL. Sounds like

the two labs Andy tried are sloppy. There should be a plethora of

first rate professional E6 labs in a commercial market the size of

Chicago, but the won't likely be in the western suburbs. Either drive

to the commercial district to use a first rate lab, or send them out.

Many professional labs have reasonable priced courier services as

well.

<p>

By the way, professional E6 labs won't necessarily be expensive. In

Denver, Houston and San Antonio, I pay an average of $1.90 a sheet

for 4x5 E6. $3.75 a sheet is highway robbery.