What to do if local Kodak lab closes?

[canon_eos_rules]

Today, I went to the local Target to drop off a roll of Kodak Gold 100 for one-hour

processing.

 

It just turned out their Gretag MasterLab broke down and they're having a hard time

with Kodak trying to service it (I decided to send out the film for standard 1-day

basic service). I think that they'll probably go to Noritsu sooner or later due to the fact

that Kodak runs Target's photo labs and Kodak has a big alliance with Noritsu.

 

However, since this particular lab has low volume, which brings about the

possibility of Kodak pulling the plug on this lab, what should I do if this lab shuts

down? I feel like I have three options:

 

1) Send out my film for Kodak Perfect Touch or standard Qualex developing.

 

2) Drive 10 miles each way to the next-closest Kodak 1-hour lab.

 

3) Switch to Fuji. (Both the local Wal-Mart and Walgreens use Fuji paper/chemistry.)

 

What should I do, even if this event doesn't happen?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

BTW, if you suggest Reala, I tried developing it at the local Wal-Mart and hated it.

Should I try Walgreens instead? (I don't use pro labs-they're way too expensive and

the nearest one is 20 miles away.)

[staticlag]

Drive 10 miles, my university is 10 miles away and I go there everyday.

[staticlag]

If your really concened about the commute, just mail the film to them, and include a SASE for the return trip.

[edgar_njari]

You don't need a kodak lab to process kodak film.

the results will be identical if you process the negative

in any c-41 machine.Unless something goes wrong.

The prints are what is going to be different.If you like

how your kodak gold turns out on Fuji papers,then go for it.

If not,then shoot 5 roles of film and then go processing it all together in the next nearest kodak lab (so you dont have to

go for every singe role of film)

[grain]

Switch to Fuji altogether. Shoot Reala100 and NPS160 and

discover Fuji CrystalArchive paper. You'll be glad of it. The

Gentleman is right also in that C-41 is the same wherever you

go. As long as the lab monitors the plots each morning you

should see little difference-unless the machine isn't cleaned

each night.

[r.t. dowling]

You got a digital SLR for Christmas. Why are you still shooting consumer film and having it developed at crappy labs?

[25asa]

Im not sure if I remember seeing the word budget in there somewhere. To make the switch to Fuji, there has to be some reason why you don't like the results you get from Kodak. I use both myself. I would just do the drive as I go to a lab 30km away from me just to drop off my 120 work. If it becomes a regular thing per week, then do some tests and see how Fuji works for you.

[canon_eos_rules]

R.T. Dowling, I think you brought up a point there. I guess I did waste over $300 on

trying different consumer films and crappy developing after all, only to bear no fruit.

 

Maybe I might go to a straight digital workflow thanks to your advice. Should I do it? I

already have a Digital Rebel and a highly capable, if not spectacular printer (Epson

CX6400). All I need now is a new computer (my iMac is 4 1/2 years old) and some

new lenses and I'll be ready to go! It'll save me money (which is a plus because I'm

going to college next year). It'll save me time. What's not to like?

 

Does this sound good?

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't see how switching to Fuji would help with anything, unless you want stuff to have a greenish cast every once in a while ...

[r.t. dowling]

I like film and I enjoy working with it... but it does get expensive, and the trips back and forth to/from the lab get tiresome and expensive as well. If I had a DSLR, I think my film cameras would be collecting a lot of dust. I'd be spending a lot more time taking pictures, and a lot less money on film.

 

Also, don't forget that you can put your digital files on CD and bring them to almost any lab these days and obtain great looking prints on real photo paper. You may not need to upgrade your printer. I hate to say it, but even Wal-Mart can make good looking prints from digital files. You can make adjustments to the file before you hand it over to them for printing, which gives you a ton of control. When you go to a lab and give them a roll of film, you pretty much have to hope and pray that they do a good job with it. It is a lot harder for them to screw up a digital file. No negatives to scratch or process in old, dirty chemistry... and you can tell them to print "with no color correction" and you'll most likely end up with a print that looks like what you saw on your computer screen.

 

You've got an Elan 7, right? My advice would be to sell it and spend that money on a lens, or a memory card, or something else to beef up your digital kit. That's what I plan on doing eventually. It'll be a while, 'cuz I have to save some serious cash for a DSLR body first. But I'm seriously looking forward to the day when I'm no longer held hostage by film.

[joeb]

If you go to a digital work flow you can pick and choose which images you print. I would still consider using the mini-labs for those shots you want printed. No need for expensive paper, ink, and printer. If you want your ink jet prints to last you need to go to a archival printer. My taste is different than yours. I was dissatisfied with a Kodak mini-lab the one time I tried it. Most of the local labs have Frontiers and the web based lab I print my larger images (up to 20x30) uses Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

 

The big advantage I see with a digital workflow is only printing the images you want to pay for.

 

Joe

[canon_eos_rules]

R.T., yes, I have an Elan 7E, and I just might take your advice.

 

I haven't tried Wal-Mart's 1-hour Frontier digital prints yet, but I have used their new

Kodak Picture Maker G3 kiosk (it uses a dye-sub printing technology). The prints are

fabulous AND nearly indestructable, too! The only downside is that the prints cost 12

cents more than those from the Frontier.

 

However, I've used Walgreens' Frontier for digital prints with mixed results. Some

pictures turn out great, while others turn out too dark. Operator error, perhaps?

 

BTW, Wal-Mart now offers a "4x6 Color Prints from your CD" service via the Fujicolor

outlabs. You just drop a burned CD with your images on it in a film developing

envelope and get prints back in 2 days. It probably is Frontier-based (what else would

Fuji use?). The prints cost 21 cents each (3 cents less per print than the one-hour

service). I just might try it soon.

[david_prouty]

If Target's lab is a Kodak run facility, then no matter what machine is used, you will get Kodak chemistry and papers that you are accustomed to. The machine itself has little to do with the quality of the prints. OPERATORS?! YES! That other stuff, NO! If the lab gives you good results with the Gretag machine, they will give you good results (maybe not right away, but give them some transition time to get used to the particulars of the machine) with the Noritsu. It's the quality of the people that will give you the quality in your prints, not the machinery! At least in the comparisons of the Gretag and Noritsu rigs.

[david_prouty]

Sorry, I kinda missed the point of your thread and I apologize for that. Your concern was over whether the lab will close. Being Target, I don't think it will close. Target wouldn't have a lab in the store at all if it wasn't profitable. They will most likely change machinery and keep on churning out work. A Kodak lab with whatever machinery is only as good as the people running it. If you are happy with the crew at Target, stick with them even if they change machines. I worked in a pro lab and we changed printers and papers and chemistry a lot, but we still put out high quality work! Trust the people! When the people consistently FAIL you is when you look to someone else.

 

Good luck!

[steven_zellner1]

I see nothing wrong with sending out your film for processing. If you go to the B&H or Adorama web sites (and I imagine the web sites of many other photo retailers as well), you will find kodak or in some cases A&I mailers available for sale. Why not give them a try?

 

I had some problems with Kodak lab processing back in the Autumn. however, these problems seem to have been cleared up, at least for me.

 

The only downside of processing-by-mail is the time waiting to receive my prints. Kodak takes about one week for a turnaround (from its Fairlawn, NJ lab to New York City).

[majid]

Keep in mind the USPS uses high energy scanners on mail since the Anthrax scares of 2001. They will zap your film. At the very least, put a mention "Unexposed film, do not X-Ray". I doubt that would do you much good if your package gets selected for the tender mercies of the USPS...

[r.t. dowling]

I've been sending unexposed film through the postal service for the past four years and haven't had any problems with x-rays. I don't think they scan *every* package. Perhaps just the ones that seem suspicious.

[the_macman]

No offense, but if you shoot Gold you don't really care about a specific

standardized service. Just go anywhere. You want to stick with Kodak when

you developped a consistent workflow using precisely tuned Portra or

something.

 

Sticking to one method for no particular reason is called fetishism. It leads you

nowhere. and Kodak Gold is one hell of a monumental "no reason". I shoot

Portra on Fuji paper for instance and love it better than Kodak/Kodak. I'm not

recomending you to go that way, I'm just saying: drop Gold, drop Kodak or do

both.

 

After all, photography is all about trial and error and I highly doubt you tried

that much if you ended up with Gold.

[25asa]

There's nothing wrong with Gold 100. The only problem with it is its grainy for its speed. Many agree with that film it must be printed on Kodak paper to look good. Ive seen Gold on Fuji paper, and it had a muddier look to it. Once I redid them on our Kodak paper- then the colors came out and looked correct. Yes there are finer grained films out there that look good. Portra 400UC/ UC400 is one such film. Reala is also good.

[jeremy_safran]

Regarding going digital - it depends on what you want to achieve. Digital is fine for snapshots or applications where small, low quality prints are ok. At the newspaper where I work, we take advantage of the fast turnaround for sports events. And for a newspaper, quality is not a big issue. however, for the magazine, an any app where quality and enlargements are critical, even the best of digital is *way* off the mark!

On one hand, no one can mess up a decent digital pic, but on the other hand, if you do get that great shot, no one can make a great print if the source material isn't there.