SNAPFISH film processing quality. NOTE: i have already read existing discussions.

before anyone jumps, i have already read all prior discussions on snapfish.

that being said:

 

the situation:

 

two rolls of in-date kodak max 400. first roll developed at a pro lab, with

medium-res scans (3000x2000). second roll developed at snapfish, with web-

quality scans (around 600x400), as well as 5x7 prints.

 

the problem:

 

the LAB's results were excellent. although i did not get prints, judging by

the scans, the images were sharp, clean, had a wide tonal range that matched

the scenes shot, and had a vibrancy of colors beyond what i expected.

 

SNAPFISH's results were disappointing, not just in comparison, but even by any

objective standard. i understand i should not judge web-quality scans. but

the 5x7 prints, which i expected to be a representation of processing and print

quality, were flat, lacked sharpness, were a bit hazy, many seemed slightly

under- or over-exposed, and there was simply no punch to the colors overall.

 

my question:

 

is this an expected quality difference in negative processing between a pro lab

and snapfish? i thought c-41 lab processing is straightforward no matter

where, with little or no variation. how wrong am i?

 

MORE IMPORTANTLY, how can i truly and accurately compare these sets of

negatives? i want to isolate whether the problem really is with poorly-

processed negatives, or whether i am being fooled by low-quality snapfish

prints.

 

in short, how can i compare the negatives themselves? just get a few prints

from each set made from a single lab? get medium-res scans of the snapfish

negatives?

 

thank you very much - vikram.

c-41 as a proscess is c-41. A pro lab may or may not have machines which work by dunking your film instead of using a leader card and belts to minimize scratches. The difference is in the printing, not just the machine but the tech who runs the machine.

Sure, send the Snapfish negatives off to the LAB for printing. It's pretty hard for a high volume lab to badly screw up negative processing. Snapfish being owned by a reliable old-line company like Hewlett-Packard probably means that they won't try and "cheat" the C-41 processing. But do check the negatives for dirt and scratches.

 

But, HP is certainly VERY profit conscious these days, and the printing is probably done by computer software with no human intervention. That can work on photos of average subjects with accurate exposures. With odd colored subjects, high-contrast subjects, or bad exposures, software can make bad mistakes. For instance, computer software will do a terrible job printing negatives of a marshmallow roast at dusk!

c-41 is c-41 is c-41.

 

All C-41 processes are created equal, but some are more equal than others (apologies to George Orwell).

 

A cheap lab may be less conscientious about changing the chemicals or cleaning the machines than a pro lab will be. Stretching the chemistry too far, or letting crud build up in the machine can have all sorts of bad effects on the film.

 

Paul Noble

Vikram, to compare the negatives it would be less expensive and more reliable to examine them thru a loupe on a light table, than to print.

Check for scratches, dust spots, density, and color. I'd wager the

difference is in scanning, not C-41 processing.

 

What was this PRO lab? How much did they charge per roll for 3000x2000

scans? I'd like to try them.

bill - as luck would have it, i did just what you suggested last evening, before reading your note, i.e., compared them on a lighttable under a loupe.

 

i must say i do not know enough about judging color negatives to notice or appreciate any differences that might have been there. i work mostly with b&w, in which such comparisons are easier i think.

 

** what should i be looking for to ascertain differences in the quality of the negative? **

 

the lab i use is "the color house new york" (www.thecolorhouseny.com). i recall paying $12 for process and 3000x2000 scans. they're new, located at 216 lafayette st, a few blocks south of prince st, in manhattan. those premises used to belong to a well-respected establishment called "soho b&w". excellent service, very friendly, and the quality is, i'd like to believe, professional. i am only an advanced amateur, so their higher cost prevents me from using them all the time. this is why i posed this question in the first place - to see if i am losing quality by going with snapfish, at least for c-41 processing.

 

thanks for any advice on judging negatives under a loupe. - vikram.

I too have a Snapfish account, but seldom use it as the quality seems inconsistent.

 

The first time I used them, about two-or-so years ago, my prints were terrific and they even offered Kodak's "Royal" paper for an additional five cents per print.

 

By last summer, however, they had switched to an HP branded paper and were no longer offering Royal at all. The paper seemed thinner than even the old standard Kodak stuff and the prints were somewhat less "punchy." In fact, the last bunch of film prints I had done by them were not spectacular, plus, it looked like there had been some scratching of the negatives.

 

I later decided to order some reprints, on a whim, and these were printed from the scans they had made from my negs for the website. The funny thing is that the prints turned out much better than the initial ones. Brighter, seemingly sharper, more pleasing colour, etc... Even the scratches were gone, probably erased digitally.

 

I don't know what this all means, but I do know that I wouldn't call them consistent at all.

 

I do give them credit, however, for responding personally to my inquiry about the disappearance of the Royal paper stock. It was simply no longer a part of their new business plan to use such expensive materials, if I recall.

"What should I look for to ascertain differences in the quality of negatives?"

 

Mostly dust spots and scratches. The best thing would be to shoot

a Macbeth chart, and other controlled tests, at the same EI with the

same camera but on two different rolls of film. Send one to each lab.

Then you'll be able to compare scientifically. It's hard to compare

random photographic images at unknown exposures.

The key thing to remember about a high volume lab such as Snapfish use is that it will all be highly mechanised/computerised. Even a large/busy minilab is going to offer minimal technician intervention, simply because if you are printing 6 000 prints in an 8 hour day(which I do in a minilab) with the best will in the world that would give you less than 5 seconds per print if you spent the whole time looking at and ajusting prints, ignoring developing films, paper changes, lab maintenance etc. So in reality the experience/skill of the tech doesn't come into it as he/she will simply feed the film leader into the scanner press start and let the lab do the rest.

 

In a high volume lab rather than a minilab the films won't even be developed individually like in a minilab but will be spliced end to end to form a roll of many tens of films before being developed. That is why you may see that your negatives come back with a small part of another film still taped to the first/last negative.

 

Far more important is that the equipment is kept in good condition, maintained and calibrated and control strips performed regularly.