Opinion on Kodak "Perfect Touch" Processing

[eric_mejia]

Does anyone have any opinion on Kodak's "Perfect Touch" processing?

There is pleny of information about what it is and how it works, but

I am looking for opinons on how it looks. How is contrast and

saturation? Does it look artificial as some digitally corrected

photos do? Thanks.

[r.t. dowling]

I've heard nothing but bad things about it so far. People have said that it looks "pixely" and that the colors are way off.

[aguilabrava]

This is my opinion:

 

Three months ago I sent two rolls of Kodak Supra 100 and I chose "Kodak's Perfect Touch" on the envelope. At the time, I asked the clerk behind the counter at the Eckerd's Photo Dept. where I dropped the rolls off, she said that it was an improved version of their former "premium" processing service with better color corrections, but she never mentioned the word digital, I guess she didn't know.

When I picked the rolls up two days later I got very disappointed because the pictures showed a very artificial "digital" look, the colors were way too vivid/saturated, the dark areas on the pictures were way too balanced, and the most noticeable defect I found was in the out of focus and shadow areas that made the prints look terribly unnatural, they had a very strong "inkjet printer" look, specially on the edges.

I went back there and had them reprint all the prints using their regular "optical" service, and the pictures came out just great. After that, I decided not to use "Perfect Touch" anymore, it's more expensive, it takes a day longer, and the look of the prints is way too artificial/manipulated for my taste.

[eric_mejia]

Thanks. That's bad news. I'm waiting to get my photos back, when I do, I'll probably have a few reprinted using the traditional method and post them of side by side for comparison.

[leon_jeter]

Last winter, my wife and I switched to Perfect Touch for economic reasons, and generally we have been pleased. Our expectations have been kept low.

 

I have had approx. 50 rolls done so far. Mine are sent to the Elgin, Illinois, facility, where "optical" processing has been done for years, at rates of thousands of rolls per day. Thus, I always am prepared for the day that my negatives may become lost. That has never yet happened. Nor have any negatives ever been damaged in processing; that has happened only at my in-town shops. I am surprised that we have not seen damage from the film-scanning process.

 

I try to use low-contrast print film, e.g., Agfa XPS and Optima 400, as well as high-quality Reala.

 

For a contrasty film like Vista 400 or 800, the Perfect prints do look too contrasty for my taste. Aren't Perfect prints done on regular silver-dye paper, also of very high contrast? Gee, I hope that of assumption of mine is not dumb. To read the above posting that refers to prints as pixelly is surprising.

 

_Popular Photography_ has an article this month with side-by-side comparisons.

 

My local Wal-Marts do not yet have Frontier equipment, so I thought Kodak's Perfect was as good as I could get for the price. Thirty-six 5x7s for about $15 ($13.50 before tax).

 

I don't find the overall quality strange or "artificial" in any way. It has "rescued" some difficult-to-print negatives.

 

As far as color goes, I have had good results--better that my local pro lab's quick-service, high-end Agfa machine on contrasty Crystal Archive :(. HOWEVER, the Perfect software and the machine operators sometimes have difficulty with Agfa XPS, which is understandable, and even Reala, which is less excusable. As always, and with traditional processing, a difficult negative (less than ideal lighting) or an odd film will be hard to print.

 

My latest strategy is to try Portra "No Color" 400 with my f5.6 lenses and see whether the colors are generally better (more recognizable to Kodak's software, hardware, and humanware).

[peter_langfelder]

I have had mostly positive experiences, dropping film off at my local Costco (Long Island, NY - I have no idea where the actual lab is located). Much more consistent paper exposures, decent color (sometimes flesh tones look a bit plasticky or lifeless, but that may also be due to me using the low-contrast NPH), no blown highlights, good shadow detail and save for one roll no obvious pixelization (that one roll was x-ray damaged and it may have caused the apparent pixelization). All in all much much better than the conventional photos from (most likely) the same lab.

[sandler]

My experience was that the prints from the 3 rolls I had processed using so-called "Perfect Touch" looked terrible. And I wasn't expecting all that much.

 

I take my neg film to Costco for cheapo processing and 4x6 prints. I use these as proofs and, after also examining the negs, I select what I like, and have it printed at a better lab. Costco here sends two-day processing out to Quallex (sp?) where they do cheap, variably decent, optical printing. When I got a coupon to try this new fancy "Perfect Touch" (still through Quallex) I thought I'd give it a try. I won't do that again.

 

It looked as if they had taken very low-res digital scans of my negs and printed those. There were very bizarre digital-looking artifacts on many of the prints, especially on large areas of similar color (bright blue sky) and skin tones. I'm not sure how to describe them other than to say that they reminded me of what happens when negs are not properly washed, with a sort of strange streaky quality. Very obvious, and very unattractive.

 

At first I thought they had somehow messed up the developing, but I examined the negs closely and they were fine. Once I was satisfied the negs were ok, I was just going to pay and leave, figuring the prints didn't matter much as they were only going to be used as proofs anyway, but the Costco guy seemed concerned that I wasn't happy, so we sent the worst two of the three rolls back to be reprinted, this time requesting the standard service.

 

A couple of days later I went back to pick up my prints: One roll had been reprinted (optically)and looked much better. The artifacts were gone and everything looked much more natural. The other roll was returned without having been reprinted with a notice to the effect that they had examined the prints and found them to be within their standards! I found that quite amazing.

 

Needless to say, I found "Perfect Touch" to be quite a misnomer, and I will not be using them again.

[david_weiss1]

Under protest, I used my wife's little Kodak APS camera on a visit to Israel. She unknowingle ordered Perfect Touch processing. The pictures are absolutely stunning. Even panoramas of the ancient city of Jerusalem are extremely sharp with outstanding shadow detail. Other rolls from the same shoot were processed at chain stores and drug stores. Shadow detail is nonexistant, highlights are washed out, detail is fuzzy.

 

I am used to quality SLR work with near-professional equipment. If a simple non-zoom APS camera can do this kind of work, I may go for a zoom APS camera. Of course, I'll have to stick with Perfect Touch processing.

 

I just turned in five rolls for perfect touch. I'll let you know how they turned out.

[ahaohio]

I would replace the verbage "Pefect Touch" with "Kiss of Death".

 

I had one roll processed this way and all shots turned out off-color, and extremely "flat" in appearance. Then just for fun I scanned one of the negatives and made a straigh inkjet print with very minor corrections. The result was ten times better than the Perfect Touch print.

 

I believe that the settings used by Kodak is for "average" tourist type pictures. Whenever you shoot anything that is outside that envelope (like in my case low-light pictures with a high ISO film) the "Perfect Touch" software will crank out complete crap.