print film and differing results from SAME lab

I know that with print film (I use Portra 400UC) you leave a lot of

the color/contrast/etc. control up to the lab doing the printing,

and so far I've had good results at a pro lab printing 400UC on

Frontier machines. Just recently though I had to make reprints of a

whole roll that I had printed at that lab a week before. When I

looked at the reprints, the had a different color temperature, etc.

I asked the lab why the inconsistencies, and they said that each day

it depends on the chemicals, etc. and thus the pictures can print

differently.

 

I was under the impression that going from lab to lab I'd get

different results, but from the SAME lab? Don't/can't they calibrate

their Frontiers to print the same? Is my only solution to bring them

the previous pictures as a guide? That seems OK/doable for reprints,

but how about prints I get which I don't know if they could look

better or not? What if I just get 2-3 single prints from a roll on

Tuesday and they seem OK from memory of the event I shot or

subjective liking. I'd only know if they they can be better if I

reprint!

 

Is this how it is pretty much with print film?

 

I know I can use slide film, and with that I will have the color

reference right there, but I can't shoot 400 slide for general

purpose! The only 400 slide that seemed pretty good was Provia 400F

but I'm not sure I can use that for weddings, sports, outdoors,

everyday shooting. The 400UC seems more flexible. And it's not a

matter of metering correctly. I can expose correctly, but I print a

lot! Yes I can get slides scanned and printed, but the quality is

less than print film printed.

 

So is this how it is?

 

Alex

A partial answer is in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Uur">this thread</a>. The Frontier computer scans and analyzes a set of frames and will make adjustments based on more than just the frame being printed at the moment. This can result in differences between 1st time prints at the time of development and reprints.

<br><br>

You might also be dealing with operator variability. The operator has control over what the image looks like. From day to day, he might think a particular image might look better one way or another. IMO, I think this has more influence over day-to-day variability than the chemicals. In any case, a pro lab is *supposed* to keep their chemicals fresh and make frequent tests, so the chemicals shouldn't be an issue.

<br><br>

Yes, the only good solution is to bring in previous prints as guides. I think that might require a "color match" request, which might cost more. A cheaper way would be to simply ask for a re-do for a particular print, giving specific requests (more/less contrast, more/less warm/cold, etc.), and this should be free at a good lab.

Some more to add...

 

On Frontier, *everything* is scanned and printed -- negative or slide. Outside of differences inherent of the film, the quality between slide and negative should be no different.

 

Whether you think prints look good or not (1st time or whatever) is just something for which you develop an eye over time. Don't fret over the 1st time prints. Generally, they are considered proofs, anyway. They are a quick and dirty way to see what frames turned out well. Then you can fuss over the reprints and enlargements of the "keepers."

As Jeanie alluded to, the only chemicals used are during developing. Once the neg is a neg it's scanned and printed digitally. Also as mentioned, analysing just one neg may not be quite as accurate as when running a whole roll thru. Now it could be a new batch of paper, but that stuff is usually pretty consistant from batch to batch.

'As Jeanie alluded to, the only chemicals used are during developing. Once the neg is

a neg it's scanned and printed digitally'

 

Jeannie made no such allusion, because it's not the case. A Frontier print is

processed in traditional RA4 chemistry.

Another lazy lab alert.

Or, they could be buying cheap paper and not paying attention to lot codes on the bags.

Hmm. And I thought my lab was good. Scott's right in that they probably don't check the paper for consistency, etc.

 

I typically develop and scan. Then I choose what to print. Sounds like I should just get small proofs anyway, so that when I do make my choices for printing I can have a reference. A scan is not a good reference! I scan to send to friends.

 

Speaking of which, and I won't name the lab, what ARE some good pro labs in the Boston area? I know of Zona, Newtonville, and Boston Photo. Any others? None of the above have proven that good, with one just being bad!

 

Alex

Camera Company on Route 1 in Norwood does a nice job. They will print on either Kodack Royal glossy paper, or Portra E surface paper.

 

Also, Benner's Camera, on Main Street in Brockton does a good job with Fuji films. Tbeir paper choice is limited to two types of Crystal Archive. But, I've found they do an excellent job with Reala.