biotime_biotime

Wow Ken you really know your minilabs. Mostly I was trying to give the seemingly unpopular Eos Rules the feedback he requested about the Targets. Of course everyone knows that all these labs/operators are extremely inconsistent, duh. I never said it was the machines fault. The operators around here don't even know the brand of the machine they are working on! My local Targets are all on very new digital Gretags not the old ones. The Rite Aids have those. Really the operators give it their best shot right after they get back from smoking dope. The colors look so much better you know. I based my overexpose/too light on these new digital Gretags from various stores and they were definitely were typically washed out.

 

The Polaroid I happened to test was Agfa by the way not 3m so take a breather on that one too.

 

For some reason my Fuji brand film prints consistently were the worst even on the Frontiers and Kodak brand film prints have been better on all the local machines even on the Frontiers. Just an observation, I am sure you know why. Of course it is not a native Frontier problem or why would I get such great prints back from pro labs running frontiers, who would be so stupid as to assume so?

 

Most of the time the lab prints are usually just a by product because I scan my film myself. I can take my neg film to a pro lab for 6 dollars for process only or pay the same 6 dollars and get a set of prints with it, sometimes great, often crap because of the operators. I don't blame the operators as the stores don't train them really and they earn Wal-Mart wages, how much can one expect? When I want nice prints and don't want to pay pro prices I go to a Savon with a Noritsu 3011 if a certain operator I know happens to be working that day and I thank her dearly for adjusting each frame for me.

 

No, I was not asking for my scans to match my lab prints because I have never ordered a cd from any of these places as the file sizes and quality are inadequate and I do all my own scanning. What I was looking for was a neg film that would scan well on MY scanner and give me a level of digital quality I would find acceptable. The only neg film I worked with that came close was Kodak 400 UC.

 

I work in commercial offset printing with Creo CTP installation for 6 color 40" Heidleberg press and do not need a lesson in file types, thanks all the same. By the way .jpg and .tif have little to do with color or resolution it is just that jpgs are compressed when saved with resultant loss of quality.

 

Of course you can substitute dpi for dimension that's why we talk in terms of file size. Any PhotoShop user knows this.

 

Maybe you should learn more about digital imaging before you spill over from your mini lab world.

I forgot to mention Nikon D70 with camera raw and Nikon nef plugins installed. Windows XP

When using the built in browse feature in PhotoShop CS browsing

unmodified nefs and jpgs either on the card or copied to my HD, I

notice that NEFS provide all the iso, shutter, apeture, lens, and a

couple of other EXIF paramenters while the jpgs (large-fine)are

missing these important them. Anyone know why?

 

Hudson

This film (the Portra version) has been such a radical success in scanning over every neg film I tried that I am looking at F5's instead of digital. There seems to be some obvious grain in shaded flesh tones (face)as someone mentioned about HD400. The scan looks almost identical to the Noritsu print except I lost a slight amount of tonal range over the print. There is no other print film I scanned that came close to this quality. I don't know Kodak did but I wish they would do it to an 800 speed. Do you folks know of any other neg film of any speed that scans like this?

Hudson<div></div>

I am a new and rather estatic convert to Portra 400 UC. I called Samy's camera here in LA and they said they have had UC 400 for a month but still have stocks of Portra UC with no more being received. Price is 4.99 for the new version, .38 more for old. Salesman claimed it is identical emulsion. Have to share an image from my first roll of Portra 400UC. Nikon 50mm 1.8 with 81A.

Hudson<div></div>

I have been doggedly staving off going digital by switching to neg from chrome and Portra UC 400 was the saving grace with scanning on my Minolta and printing also on a Noritsu 3011 on Royal Paper. Really I am stunned by what I am getting both ways. I believe it blows most digital away. It is hard to match the beauty of the Noritsu prints but many of my 400UC scans do. I even have my Minolta preview window, Photoshop window, and the Noritsu print all matching! I had one Savon drug run a roll through at all zeroes and the results of the prints were mostly too light. The next time she reviewed each frame and made exposure and color shifts on the Noritsu monitor with fabulous results and this was from an operator who did not even know what brand of lab she was running! I also tried Portra 800 rated at 800 and 640 and tho better than most films I tried it did not match the UC at 400. If you haven't tried a new Noritsu please do. Insist that the operator check each frame. 36 prints rivaling many pro labs for $10.00!

 

My only remaining problem is I want faster iso and cheaper film. I don't think I can meet either criteria and hit the quality I have finally acheived. Please let me know if you have any ideas.

 

Thanks,

Hudson

I have only run a few rolls through two different 3011s with Kodak HD400 and Portra VC and I was actually excited by the results espicially in terms of resolution/sharpness. I have been getting mostly Frontier 370 prints back on the matte finish Fuji Crystal Archive using various Fuji and Kodak films, pro and consumer, and have always felt the sharpness was in question. The Noritsu 3011 really stands out. Thinking of my results from various printing machines it is still Noritsu 3011 I will focus on for now.

I find them at Savon Drug in LA using Kodak Royal paper. The last roll was too unsaturated, the operator said they lighten them as it is a dark-skinned neighborhood. The numbers on the back were all zeroes however. If the are any 3011 operators out there I would like to know what to tell them to preserve all my neg values. I want full saturation not "darker".

Here a crop of the image<div></div>

Heres what happened with neat Image 4 on defaults. How do you think your product would have compared?

Heres a worse example from the same roll.<div></div>

Here are some crops of Provia 400 VC normally exposed with Nikon Matrix meter. These are with out Gem or anything else. The train was in sunny 16 conditions. I hope Portra UC will perform better, it is finer garained than VC. Please note the high rez inserts.<div></div>

I am aware of the Scanhancer but have not tried it. I have been working on a few images with Neat Image 4 vs Gem vs despeckle and smart/gaussian blur in PhotoShop on my Multi Pro. I would like to see some sort of comparison between these methods and your product.

 

On my initial tests letting Neat Image auto create a profile and letting it run on defaults I found I have to push GEM to 75% to equal the cleanliness of Neat Image. At 75% neat Image perserved sharpness better than Gem. Also I found Neat Image to perform better than what I could do with PhotoShop. I would welcome any comparisons and pro and cons of your product vs the above methods.

 

Hudson

 

On a couple

I did noy pay anything nor did he scan my film. I was just noticed the business and dropped in and ended up in conversation with the scanner operator who was very polite in taking time to show me around and scan some client's film. They do Lightjet, Duratrans, large format Novajet, Phase One Digital shots, full custom color, e6 etc. They even have a 5 color Heidleburg offset press. What they don't do is machine prints as in Frontier. Anyway I am not trying to pitch them it was just a nice shop to see. To answer your question about cost and looking at a price sheet it would look to be about 115 for a drum scan and a bit less for an Eversmart scan. Of course it is very expensive as expected and is why we struggle with our sub $3000 machines. I certaintly could not pay for such scans. The main benefit I got out of it is that it not negative film per se but how it reacts with our little scanners. I don't know if that is good or bad news. It does make me wonder if attempting to hang on to film by doing my own neg scans is rather pointless in the face of digial cameras. Or that I will be forced to stick with the limitations of chrome if I cannot find a neg film that works well for me. Actually I have got a few ok scans from particularly right exposures from Kodak HD 400 and Fuji s-400. Horrible results from NPZ and Fuji 800 extra. Really I want is the tonal range, faster speed preferably 800, and cheaper film. For you Multi Pro users the recent 1,1,4 version of the software has helped I believe. I did not find Vue Scan to be an advantage over the Minolta software in terms of this "grain alaising" if that a correct term I don't know. I have not delved into this issue but the look of it that I am talking about can be see on this link:

 

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

 

Hudson

Of course I would not assume all films react the same with any particular scanner. I am not at all just talking about color or color matching. What I am talking about is a super clean scan that could not be distinguished from a beautiful chrome scan as compared to junk that these desktop scanners produce with negs. Actually I can only speak regarding Epson 3200, Nikon CoolScan IV and Minolta Dimage Multi Pro.

If you could have seen how clean and artifact free including no visible shadow or highlight noise and how sommth the tonality you would see what I am talking about. He also showed me some BW neg scans that only showed valid film grain with out ANY of what people are calling grain aliasing. Just the film grain, no more, no less. My bw scans on my Minolta looked as though someone drove a truck over them they were so porus looking.

 

I have also worked with a $40000 (new) Screen Cezanne that had poor software that worked worse than my Multi Pro.

I did stick this at the end of another thread but wanted to share it

here. Today something rather amazing to me occured after all the

struggle I've put into attempting to get my Minolta Multi pro to

give good neg scans, trying many films brand and techniques etc. I

just came back from an hour with a scanner operator at Prolab in

Culver City area in So. CA. He was running a Scitex Eversmart

Supreme flatbed with Oxy something software. I asked him all the

questions I have asked you all in regards to neg scans, film brands

etc. and he said, "oh it does not matter, they all scan well"! Then

he scanned a 67 neg for me. I mean he just plalced it, previewed it

and there was this incredibly beautiful preview that was so clean

and beautiful with no evidence of grain aliasing or whatever. I mean

georgeous! All the grain, noise, artifacts were not there and this

is with no Gem, Ice etc. Perhaps many of you know this already but

for the rest the message is clear, neg film is not the problem, it

is our desktop scanners and or software! I am both pleased to find

my desired neg film can give me what I want beautifully and very

aggravated that my Multi Pro (and my Nikon CoolScan V)performes so

terribly. Folks, it's not your fault nor neg films fault, it is your

scanner. I should add that scanner originally was $60000. This info

doesn't solve our neg scan struggles but at least it let's us know

it is not something inherent in neg film itself.

Atten: Scott Eaton.

I once saw on of your posts where you had some neg scans on a website you said were good exapmles. Now I can't find it. I would like to see them. Could you please direct me to the web page..

Thanks

 

Hudson

If having any discussion about consumer minilabs is ridiclous why are there so many posts from people trying to deal with it and the myriad of related issues of film/printing machine/chemistry combinations and all the other processing/printing issues nobody can agree with? All you can do with these forums is to try and find some sort of general consensus on a given topic. Most of the time this is fruitless as opinion is all over the place. Should the discussion be limited to just pro labs while there are any left? WalMart and the rest may be all film users are left with as they try to get the last gasp out of film. The operators may or may not be dolts and the variables are difficult if not impossible to ever nail down as you say but minilabs are a fact of life for many. I would love to hand every roll to A&I or whomever but it's not going to happen. I'd have to drop film first. Fortunately for me the prints are not so important as the scanability but I would like to find a reasonably affordable and consistent combination of neg print and scan as many others are.

Apparently some of you are either to tired (yawn), or so professional you never had the need to try and stretch your funds. Or is it just rudeness? Well I have far more than two pro shops here in LA, I can pick from any number. Am I going to spend hundreds or thousands on them espicially for experimental or non-commercial work, no. Would I hand commercial printing to them, of course. My main effort is finding the best neg film for my particular scanner which anyone who has tried knows is not as easy as throwing some Provia on a scanner. In the course of this experimentation all this minilab discussion comes up. Obviously most of the non-pro operators cannot extract the best their machines are capable of but do you think it is of zero interest that the digital Gretags consistently overexpose my prints or that the Walmart Frontiers consistently do much better with Kodak and Agfa film than they do with Fuji films or that a Noritsu 3011 have given me far better results than either? Or that scanning negs as a positive has not worked well on my scanner. Possibly you have read my posts on these other issues but have I not received any valuable feedback from anyone. Or this is a case of Fuji blindness? If you have anything to offer people who are making a effort to address some of these issues it would be much more appreciated than your thoughtless answers.

I don't have your answer but I can add some local info for so cal. 1.

 

1.The Targets here have all gone to Gretag digital machines for their one hour work and

 

2.I was told that when they send a roll for Kodak picture perfect proessing it also gets done on Gretags. I don't know how accurate this part is.

 

My experience on the Gretags is they overexpose to an unacceptable degree. I asked one operator to make sure he "kept full color" and he said he understood but that printing looked poor also.

 

So I have been going to Walmart with a Frontier 370. My worost prints there are if I give them Fuji film. The best (and they agree) are if the run Kodak HD400. I also get quite good prints from Polaroid 800 (agfa).

 

My very best roll to date is with Kodak HD on Noritsu digital 3011 at Savon. I have only taken one rool there so far but plab to try them out further.

I would consider some faster films for handheld unless all you are doing is fairly static stuff. If you care about scenery or object quality bring a tripod and some slow slide films and tripod everything that does not move to get all the depth of field and sharpness. Don't forget a cable release or some sort of self timer for the tripod shots. Don't blow those beautiful late afternoon street, animal or any other unprdictable shots that constantly come up when traveling because you film is too slow .Some of the new 800 neg films have really pretty mellow grain. And whats a bit of grain compared to no depth of field and/or motion blur.

Using A Minolta Multi Pro soft V 1.1.4 I am not getting good results pos with invert. I also tried 16 linear with somewhat similar results. After inversion weather I auto level or manually adjust levels I get a flat greenish uncorrectable image. In particular neutral midtones are totally missing magenta ending up light jade. This is true amoung various neg films. I wonder however could there be an related issue as my Multi adds a significant magenta bias scanning chromes? Could this be robbing me of my midtone neutral magenta after inversion? The scanner recently came back from service with new lamps, cal, etc.

 

Do I need to do something different than just inverting and adjusting levels?

I usually get Frontier prints but happened to get some Kodak hd 400 run on the Noritsu. The results were better than Frontier in terms of clarity, sharpness, color saturation etc. I have found cheapo Polaroid (agfa) 800 from Walmart and Kodak HD 400 both print much better on a Frontier than fuji 400 or 800. I got great prints back form Polaroid 800hd and horrible ones from fuji 800 extra on the same day, same frontier. I think I will be switching away from Frontier to Noriitsu 3011 and away from Fuji films as well. The other big thing for me is the Kodak and Polaroid HD's scan well on my Minolta Multi Pro and Fuji films including npz, 400 and 800 extra scan as horribly as they print on the frontier.

By the way what do you think of the test results at the photozone site?

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

Wellthe afs question I was reserving as another thread and I have been trying to get a definite answer about f4 afs compatability (I keed reading confliction info)BUT if I cannot afford afs how about the original question of older pro Nikon vs pro Tokina autofocus speed?

I am trying to get this question ansewred also but my main parameter is autofocus speed. According to http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

only the nikkors have fast autofocus. True or false?