pro labs and printing

[amy_c1]

hi everyone,

 

i recently posted a request for color 35mm film recommendations for natural

light children's portraits and got some good responses. i now have several films

to test out (i.e. kodak portra UC/VC, fuji pro H, fuji reala...) and was trying

to look into where i should get the film processed and printed. i am used to

taking b&w photos and processing/printing myself so i have been trying to read

up on processing color film. in reading posts on labs and processing, i got a

bit overwhelmed because there were so many factors to consider when selecting a

lab.

 

so...here is my question: does anyone have recommendations for a specific lab in

the NYC/upstate area? or do you recommend mail-in labs? i read a lot of posts

that talked about the adjustments the labs make on your prints -- do the pro

labs do this as well or just minilabs -- should i ask that they print them

unadjusted so that i can see the prints without alteration? as for related

questions, how do you all feel about analog printing versus scanning/digital

(i.e. the frontier system)? kodak vs. fuji?

 

thanks so much in advance!

amy

[Jochen_S]

Any pro lab should do some color filtering too. Otherwise you 'd have your color temperature metered, adjustet with a bunch of warm / cool filter and so on. AFAIK filtering is also needed to adjust a process for different film brands. Today it's probably done automatically. I never did color in a wet darkroom myself.

 

Where would a unfiltered print lead to? - With digital you see it on your more or less calibrated screen at home where is the aequivalent with film?

 

Personally I feel fine about analog printing if the neg needs no dodging & burning. There's nothing like a lossless scan. Conventional moderate sized prints shouldn't reveal pixels under a loupe. - I'd prefer a semidigital workflow as soon as my main result would need a file, means web publishing or mass printing, which looks awful when done the conventional way with process camera by rookies.

[amy_c1]

hi jochen,

 

thanks for your response. i understand what you are saying about color filtering. that is ok with me but i would not want them to do any exposure compensation. do you know if they would automatically adjust for under/overexposure?

 

i see what you are saying about digital and needing a file -- how do most people get thier prints online? scanning film or prints?

 

since i am new to the digital terms, can you explain this a little?

"There's nothing like a lossless scan. Conventional moderate sized prints shouldn't reveal pixels under a loupe."

 

thanks!

[craig_shearman1]

Amy, you can't NOT get color and exposure correction when printing from a negative. The person doing the printing didn't see the original scene and has to use his or her best judgment as to what the colors and exposure should look like. There is theoretically a standard starting point filter pack and exposure recommended by the manufacturer, but even that varies with each batch of paper and chemicals and negatives to be printed. In digital, color and exposure are affected by the calibration of the monitor. The only way you truly see the changes of exposure and filtration you makein the camea is to shoot slide film. In that case, the processing is standardized and the developed film is a final product that can be looked at on a light box with no further manipulation. (Even then you have tomake sure your light box is the proper color and light level.) The best way for comparison with negative film is to get a contact sheet,where all the negatives get the sameexposure and you can tell which one is lighter/dark or different colors compared to the others. This needs to be a standard old fashioned optical contact where the negs get placed on the paper literally in contact with it.

[amy_c1]

craig,

 

thank you so much, this helps a lot! it sounds like you are saying that they will adjust exposure for the batch as a whole? what i was hoping that they do not correct exposure for each negative individually, so that images that were purposely "underexposed" would be printed that way. i believe it would be printed ok based on your response. thanks!