jjjjjj_robertson

Hi Larry, I just somehow saw your suggestion about using new fixer to dissolve old fixer! I missed it the first time around. I think as a last resort I will definitely try this. Thanks!

In one bottle in particular, the chemical residue is pretty gunked on there and I'm still having a hard time cleaning it. Vinegar didn't work for it and potentially dangerous chemicals are probably out of the question...

 

I had a thought which was - what if I just fill it up to the gunky level with actual fixer and maybe the new chemical will slowly dissolve the old? The gunk level is not too high, it would only be a small waste of fixer I suppose.

 

Also about the glass - wouldn't a plastic gallon bottle also have a lot of air space? I also read in several places that plastic is more permeable to oxygen than glass (if glass is at all). If it's thinner plastic, like with those cheap plastic gallon jugs, maybe you could squeeze a little air out of it but then it would seem the oxygen permeability would be greater than with a thicker plastic bottle. I'm pretty careful and have been using 3 other glass jugs for developing chemicals and I pour in a large plastic sink so the risk of dropping it is not as high as it would be, say with a bunch of students in a shared darkroom. I'm just trying to shave a few dollars off my budget here and there as I am already spending so much outfitting this darkroom. Any more cleaning suggestions would be great, thank you!

I will try both of these options to see if either works...

 

Also having a really hard time finding replacement bottle caps or lid liners for retail, I only see a lot of wholesale options... it looks like the type of cap I need is a 38-430 bottle cap (38mm) but it has to be a little taller than some of the search results that show up. If anyone knows where to buy just a few of these at a retail price, please let me know.

I've been trying to research this independently but have had a hard time, so I'm trying this forum.

 

I inherited a few amber 1-gallon glass jars from the University's old B&W photography program but am having trouble getting rid of tough residual stains on some of them. Unfortunately some of them weren't marked or were marked ambiguously (i.e. "Developer" but not specifying whether it's for film or paper), but I know one is probably residual B&W developer and the other two contain fixer residue (the fixer residue flakes off but not all of it comes off).

 

Tried soaking them in plain water (hot and cold), then soapy water, for days and actually one I soaked for a month. Got a good deal out but still seeing some major gunk. I don't want to use any old cleaner in case there is a chemical reaction. I read some recommendations about vinegar but am hesitant to try it. Most of the cleaning advice involves using scrub brushes on easy to clean items like tanks and reels, but the gallon jugs are difficult to get anything into, the openings are too narrow for bottle brushes (which are too gentle and don't

scrub hard enough) and I've been jerry-rigging all kinds of cleaning devices in vain.

 

Does anyone have experience with this?

 

+One more quick thing - does anyone sell replacement bottle caps for these bottles? One of the caps broke, and

the others are either very stained or the paper part is deteriorating on the inside. This is the type of bottle I have, but a couple lack handles and the caps are black: http://www.yankeecontainers.com/c/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/glass-pharm-jug-with-cap-1024x768.jpg

I browsed that website but I want to be pretty sure I'm buying the right caps, also they are wholesale and I only need maybe 5 so not sure where to get them retail.

 

Thank you.

- J.

Hi,

 

Sorry I rarely check this site (and forgot my login for a long time) but have been having questions recently so I've finally returned to some of my old questions and would like to update this one in case anyone else in Hawaii is curious about this, too.

 

Nutshell: It basically did not turn out. The box was indeed rejected. I did not try again, went back to B&W chems. Though I know chemicals are probably more obtainable on Oahu via stores and probably for more money...which has always driven me crazy.

 

If anyone has any idea how to get E-6 chemicals over here, on the Big Island, PLEASE let me know!

<p>Hi all, </p>

 

<p>I am just shopping around for a sturdy tripod for my Nikon F4 and need recommendations. Budget is at $75-$100

with room for exceptions if necessary. I don't use zoom lenses, so the weight of the camera is always about 3 lbs

(I have an MB-20 battery pack). And I don't know much about reputable tripod brands!

 

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/864117-REG/oben_ac_1321_ba_106_ac_1321_aluminum_tripod_with.html">I am looking at this Oben tripod on B&H</a> ...but it has no reviews!

 

<p>I don't know if that's considered mid-grade but that's about what I can afford. I see that this tripod's load

capacity is 6.6 lbs, but there is a more expensive 11-lb load capacity tripod. I'm just wondering if I should

feel confident enough in this model or go for the 11-lb load capacity model, though it seems like overkill. <b>I

am only nervous about this because my F4 has fallen once from a much less equipped tripod.</b> Luckily it was an

F4 and it only jammed my polarizing filter slightly. Also I tend to take more vertical shots than horizontal, so

I don't want to feel any nervousness with the F4 on a sideways tilt! I want a sturdy Herculean tripod and all

those fancy tricks (upside-down, the "splits", etc.) wouldn't hurt.

 

<p>Thank you for your help.

Thanks, Diego, I read through the responses on your post. I suppose I could sacrifice one or two crappy negatives anyway to gentle experimentation. I will try a distilled water bath and a tiny amount of wetting agent, and I'll let everyone know what transpires. I don't think I could afford to clean them all via a pro film lab.

Hi everyone,

 

I have a large collection of 35mm color negatives that I'm having a hard time storing mostly because of the

volume. I have always used Printfile archival film sleeves, which are then placed in binders, in a cooler with

Damprid and other dessicants, stored in a dark, cool area of the house. I'm realizing that I'm probably putting

too many per binder, however, it appears that the negatives are not allowed enough space to "breathe". To get an

idea, maybe 25-50 sheets and 15 1"-binders. I plan to get more binders, another cooler, and space out the

negatives so that, hopefully, this doesn't have to occur.

 

—The problem is that many of the older negatives are stuck to the plastic sleeve itself. LUCKILY, they are not

permanently stuck. Wiggle them around and they unstick. I can remove them just fine from the sleeve but then

there is a noticeable moisture mark where it has gotten stuck to the plastic. This usually happens on the glossy side, not the emulsion side, though I HAVE noticed on SOME negatives, this has happened on the emulsion side. I've been browsing other forums but

most people ask for help with very badly water-damaged negatives and I don't think my case is as bad. I've read

up on a cold, distilled water wash and Photoflo or other wetting agent. I just know chemical compositions mary

vary per manufacturer and I don't want to damage the emulsion (often it is never explicitly stated what type of

negatives people in forums are trying to salvage, though I assume they're color negatives). I do also have color

slides that are experiencing the same issue. Would a distilled water wash and Photoflo work for both color

negatives and slides? Some people also say to use very cold, iced water so that the emulsion doesn't "melt". Any advice?

 

The main problem is I live on an island, in an ocean-side town, so the humidity is ridiculous. I adopted the

cooler method after consulting with a friend who's a photographer and has to deal with it, too. I stored them in

an air-conditioned storage unit for 6 months but that was just too expensive after a while. Any advice from

others living in humid zones is appreciated.

 

A lot of the negatives are old, taken when I was first getting into film photography almost a decade ago so

they're not exactly precious but they ARE memories (I'm sure you understand) some of which I should probably try

harder to preserve. I plan to scan them all but I have to deal with this moisture issue first.

 

PS I am considering purchasing an Eva-Dry E-333 Mini Dehumidifier — has anyone had any experience with this?

 

Thanks,

JNN

Wow.

 

Well, Marc, I do really appreciate the pictures. I sometimes try a DIY fix...up to a certain point. I'm not equipped to work with all those little parts. All those tiny screws make me nervous...

 

As per customer service, you're absolutely right to be cynical. Just for the rest of the world to know, Nikon USA has NOT CONTACTED ME BACK AT ALL. I left a very clear phone message, etc. Could not send email because the link wasn't working on their website. And I even went so far as to do a pseudo-repair report to see if I could get any kind of response back. I don't know if I should try again...it seems my best bet is to just get a new, clean body and sell this one to someone who would love to do the repair himself and have a more perfectly working camera afterwards.

 

I did send in the DP-20 to fix a loose contact once and they did it well, but sometimes the repair's just not worth it as a new DP-20 itself probably would've cost the same or even less.

 

I really do appreciate all the advice and help on this forum, though. I'm more certain it's probably a problem with the F4 body now...

 

- JNN

Hey guys, thanks for all the thoughtful responses. They've been really helpful. Reading them, I'm starting to agree that it is probably a corroded contact problem because yes, it has laid unused for a few months. Pretty high chance as I live in HAWAII, where the humidity just kills equipment (I do buy DampRid, etc. like everyone else and keep my equipment in coolers in the coolest areas of the house in an attempt to combat it, but I probably should have cleaned my gear in the past few months anyway).

 

I have cleaned the circular flat metal contacts on the hotshoe to the best of my ability; they do look much better but the flash still won't fire. I also did clean the contacts for the DP-20 and on the F4. Is it possible that the seemingly-minor corrosion did so much damage in that period of time that no flash can work on the hotshoe? Also, Joe I would love to clean the rest of the hotshoe but am not sure how to get in there or take it apart....any advice?

 

I'm wondering whether I should just buy a new DP-20 instead of sending it in for repairs. Although this is probably a good finder otherwise, I would hate 'wasting' it. But what if it's not the DP-20? I realize it's hard to procure cost estimates since the problem is a little iffy and the solution could range from a simple cleaning to a replacement of a part, but do you guys have any ballpark estimates for cleaning?

 

Sorry about all the questions but I have tried to contact NIKON USA in the last few days and have had extremely frustrating results. I finally left a message with them after trying to stay on hold for over an hour thinking I could get through; I tried to send an email to the Service & Support but kept getting an "Unknown Error" message on the page so that failed. They have not yet contacted me back and I realize they are a huge corporation with possibly millions of customers but what the heck is the wait time for a call back these days?

 

Thanks again everyone!

I brought it to a friend today and we tried another flash with a sync cord. At first it wouldn't work for the first say, 10 shutter clicks, but then it worked a couple of times. Afterwards, we put the SB-28 back onto the camera (directly, without sync cord) and it actually did fire a couple of times, but only say 3/10 times. So now it seems more obviously like a contact issue. He wiggled the SB-28 a bit and it would work or not work, on and off.

 

So today I came home and cleaned the contacts on the hotshoe and on the flash, and even on the DP-20, with alcohol and a swab and did the best I could - but it still won't fire! I'm wiggling the SB-28 and locking and unlocking it to see if it'll fire but after about 100 shutter depressions, still nothing.

 

What is the average cost of sending in just the DP-20 finder to Nikon (or any other highly-recommended Nikon repair service?) to fix? I have sent in my entire camera before for cleaning and to fix a contact, it was costly but if you guys think it's most likely the DP-20 it might be less debilitating.

 

Thanks for the replies.

I'll try to make this quick, I scoured the web for any resources for troubleshooting help on this issue but

couldn't find any.

 

I have an SB-28 flash and Nikon F4, and have used them together quite successfully before. I hadn't used my SB-28

in a long time, left it in an air-conditioned storage unit for 6 months (with dessicants in the bin anyway). I'm

trying to use it again but the flash won't fire when I press the shutter. YET the test flash fires just fine and

the F4 appears to be in working order and so does the SB-28 — I usually use the F4 in Manual mode, and when I

rotate the aperture ring, I can see it changes in the SB-28 screen so it doesn't appear that there are any

communication problems between the DP-20 finder and the flash. I have it on X, and I tried it on 1/250 and tried

all the settings on the SB-28. (And the standby indicator is NOT on.)

 

I find it hard to isolate the problem because separately, the F4 and the SB-28 appear to be working just fine!

But the flash won't fire when I press the shutter.

 

The contacts on the SB-28 look great. The contacts on the DP-20 hotshoe look mostly OK, only some minor corrosion

but maybe this is what is causing it? Can I sand it gently with extra fine grit sandpaper or is that not

recommended? How can I clean it without damaging it? One thing is that the contacts on the SB-28 has been

incising lines (every time I place or remove it) into the hotshoe plastic around the metal contacts since I've been using

it; never paid this much mind as the flash always worked but had a feeling this probably shouldn't be happening.

It's as if the hotshoe is too tight or something for the SB-28, but I thought it couldn't be since the SB-28 and

F4 are commonly used in combination with each other.

 

And what could be wrong?? I'm starting to second-guess myself, maybe I have forgotten one crucial step but I

don't remember using the flash ever being this hard. I actually hope it's just an error on my end otherwise I'll

have to lose a couple hundred on repairs.

 

If anyone has any technical knowledge on what could be wrong, I would appreciate it greatly.

- JNN

 

+ I have an AF Nikkor 35mm lens on the camera, I usually use a AF 20mm but I tested it with the 20mm just in case

and it still doesn't work.

I suppose, this is a somewhat good example of what I'm saying:

 

 

As you can see, the sky is not "correctly-exposed" and the sunlight kind of blows out the mountains in the middle, but I didn't really care for it to be. I think if I would've shot that more "correctly", certain details in the foreground might be underexposed. As well, the colors are desaturated and milky, and slightly lavender (which I know, certain nit-picky people would hate because it screams 'magenta cast'...more of a scanner thing, obviously, since I have a flatbed, specifically an Epson Perfection 4490, if that helps anyone help me.) So...I understand it's tricky.

 

This is a slide, from the same roll, that was more correctly exposed for the sky, etc. Honestly, though, I find the exposure qualities—colors, contrast, etc.—significantly more 'bleh': http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w101/almostthesea/-drivingaround110x6.jpg (Not to mention, I didn't have a slim polarizing filter at the time, so those vignettes are super annoying.) I wouldn't mind sacrificing details in highlights (in the clouds, the light-colored rocks) for a slightly more dramatic effect. There is a rather perceivable difference in mood and atmosphere between the two photos; of course, they were taken at different times in the day, but I feel that the latter could've been exposed differently and the photo given more feeling, a certain mood, something more than a tourist shot or a mere statement of "I was here, in 2010." Does anyone understand what I'm getting at or is this all lost?

 

I suppose it's also very worth asking how much of an impact putting a polarizing filter on the lens would have when you're overexposing...because I'm thinking doing something like that might cancel it out, or maybe it would actually yield interesting, less predictable results. Anyone have experience regarding this question?

 

Thanks!

<p>Thanks Roman for the photos! I prefer the +0.5 EV photos; what I like about them is the slightly heightened contrast yet slightly desaturated, increasingly pastel colors. In other words, BINGO! (For me.)</p>

 

<p>If anyone else has photo examples, please keep sharing!</p>

 

<p>Thanks to all the other responses so far! I feel I have clear up a few things, though, and better explain what I essentially want by doing deliberate overexposures and why. I understand that slide film is less forgiving, but I can't necessarily afford to experiment right now by bracketing every picture (but I will take everyone's advice and bracket the shot by at least TWO different exposures). Anyway, I'm doing a series of portraits as my current project, and though I normally appreciate a "correctly-exposed" sky or detailed background when doing non-portrait shots, my aim is not to get the sky right, but to actually <i>reduce</i> details in the background, subjugate them in favor of the human subject. So, in other words, I don't mind a blown-out sky or washed out background—and would, in fact, prefer them—so long as I don't blow-out my actual subjects. So, essentially, getting the exposure right for the background is not the point. Of course I would like to keep enough background detail to keep the photo interesting, which is why I'm trying to decide between 1/3, 2/3, or a full stop when overexposing.</p>

 

<p>Keep 'em coming, thanks again.</p>

The thing is I'm too used to negative film and I know about overexposure/underexposure, etc. when it comes to that. Slide film is more expensive for me to develop, so I don't have much experience with it. I've been browsing around photo.net and reading what people say--there seems to be a general consensus regarding slide film and scanning. Some people prefer to underexpose, but I also know from experience that with scanning underexposed slide film, shadow details are harder to recover than when you're just projecting them. A lot of people say overexpose at least +1/3 of a stop when you're planning on scanning slide film. From my experience, a "correct exposure" is TECHNICALLY correct, but mostly aesthetically boring and even plain. Just wanted something else, a different mood that's set by an overall lighter, softer picture. That's all it is.

 

Thanks, please keep posting more help comments!

 

PS

I use a Nikon F4, and a Canon AE-1. The F4 was recently refurbished and is in tip-top shape. I used it once or twice in Auto mode, which I hate but thought I'd try to check out, and it yielded pretty BLEH results with slide film, and also generally with negative film. Because of this, I'm a manual-settings kind of person. Still, slide film photos are the slightest bit dark; they are probably technically correct but not ideal for the mood I have in mind, or for scanning with a flatbed scanner, which is unfortunately, all I can afford right now.

Hi,

 

Just curious if anyone has ever rated slide film that is 100ASA (in particular Astia 100F) to 50ASA.

 

I always seem to underexpose a tad with slide film (by that I mean, using auto camera settings in ample daylight

has never yielded me satisfying results), and also even if it is exposed correctly, I'd rather have it

overexposed just a little bit so that the colors desaturate a little and the blacks aren't as deep but a little

hazy or filmy, washed just a tiny bit. I've accidentally overexposed slide film before, and the images were blown

out to an unsatisfying degree. I would actually LIKE to overexpose 100ASA slide film, but is one whole stop too

much? Maybe I should rate it a tiny bit less? I know it's risky, and tricky. Just wondering if anyone on this

website has ever experimented with it already; I'm having lots of trouble finding examples online, so pictures

would be greatly appreciated. (General examples of overexposed 100ASA slide film @ different stops welcome, too!)

 

+ Oh, I should mention I'm trying to expose the slides for SCANNING. I'm aware that there's a huge difference between projecting and scanning slides, but I just need to know exactly how much overexposure is OK/ideal for scanning.

 

Thanks!

D.B. Cooper - perfect answer! I will probably get a 77mm CIR-PL now. I had doubts about whether even the 72mm would've worked, but I'd rather not risk it. Thanks a bunch.

Bob -

I already know the step-up ring is causing a lot of the vignetting. I can literally see it in the frame when I look through the viewfinder, plus the blacker vignetting that is the actual filter's fault. That is why I am looking for a much bigger filter; if it's big enough and completely out of the way, it should eliminate even the vignetting that would normally be caused by a step-up ring, and it is also a cheaper alternative than buying a thin filter or anything else. Thanks.

Hey, guys,

 

Thanks for the responses. I live in Hawaii, and not on Oahu, so everything here is often way more expensive, if not simply hard to find. One of the setbacks of living in paradise, I guess. Anyway, I'm pretty much eBaying a new filter, so I couldn't "check" to see the effect with bigger filters - I'd just have to know, and order one. I also originally wanted a SUPER CIR-PL for its thinness, but its average price and rarity on eBay is silly to me, so I would rather just buy a normal cheaper one, sooner. Also, I don't even have a hood for this lens. The filter is just for contrast/saturation control (sometimes I want it high, but sometimes I want it low, so an ND filter would not be ideal), and I'm not super technical about it, so an uneven sky wouldn't bother me too much. It's just the vignetting.

 

Thanks again.

<br>Hi,</br>

<br>

<br>Here it is, in simplest terms: </br>

<br>

<br>I like Circular Polarizers.</br>

I want one on my 20mm Wide-Angle lens (it is an AF Nikkor f2.8, if that helps you help me).

The filter size is 62mm.

A 62mm CIR-PL causes vignetting, and I hate that.

I recently bought a 67mm CIR-PL and an accompany 62-67mm step-up adapter ring - the vignetting was WORSE, because

of the double (kind of triple) stacking.

<br>

<br><b>So...SHOULD I GET A <i>72mm</i> circular polarizer OR A <i>77mm</i> (with accompanying step-up ring, keep that in mind)?</b></br>

<br>

<br>Obviously, I screwed up TWICE trying to get rid of these hellish vignettes (used to like 'em, but not anymore),

and I don't want to screw up a third time by getting a 72mm and adapter and realizing the vignetting is STILL

THERE. If there's anyone out there who had a similar experience and knows which size filter+step-up ring

<i>completely</i> eliminates vignetting, please help! I've been frustrated about this for the last few months!

I even had a beautiful Hoya 77mm CIR-PL at one point, but I sold it after I got this new lens, before I realized

the vignetting would be worse on a really wide-angle (see, the widest I ever had was a 24mm Canon FD lens, and that worked fine with a 55mm CIR-PL and 52-55mm step-up ring, so I had originally based my calculations on that, which was totally the wrong thing to do since the Nikkor 20mm lens is considerably larger.)</br>

<br>

<br>THANKS FOR ANYONE WITH THE ANSWER.</br>

<br>

<br>PS I'm trying to sell these two polarizing filters on eBay, by the way, for only $30 each (the 62mm & the 67mm)

since I have no use for them anymore - I don't know if we're allowed to say that on these posts, I'm not familiar

with the rules, but I thought I'd throw that in because I've had trouble selling them even though they're both in

*MINT* condition [message me if you're interested and I'll send you the link(s)]. If I'm not allowed to say that,

tell me and I'll remove this paragraph - SORRY.</br>

<p>Thanks everyone. I had a bulky bounce flash, but again - it was bulky and often times, there wasn't a white ceiling available. I realized if I get a weaker flash, then people up-close will look too sweaty - and that's a trade-off I'd rather not go through with. Thanks for all the responses, though!</p>

<p>I know this sounds a little backwards, but I've already got a couple of fancy hotshoe flashes, and both them usually end up blinding people (though they are very good at tolerating it). Sometimes, I just want to take a picture without doing so, and with a hotshoe flash that is way less bulky than the two I have. I notice some of the digital flashes people use aren't as blinding - where's the equivalent for film?<br /> <br /> I'm looking for something with a weaker flash, because I mostly take close-ups anyway, and sometimes the flash is too strong for the picture itself (even if I decrease aperture). I just don't really know where to begin looking/shopping for something like this on the internet. I probably want to make sure that it has a relatively quick or tolerable recycling time, but that is all. The camera I use is a Canon AE-1, if you need that for reference.<br /> <br /> On a side note, I also have a wide angle on my Nikon F4 that my fancy flashes can't seem to handle. By this, I mean that the gargatulan lens actually gets in the way and always leave a darker area at the bottom of the photo - I don't think this has anything to do with synchronization issues, since the camera is set to X like it should. I really think the size of the lens is just screwing it up, but I don't want to trade the lens, I want to find a better flash or figure out a way to get rid of this. I could leave an example picture for any of you who are confused. <br /> <br /> Thanks!<br /> - JN</p>

<p>(I meant Carl's Darkroom/Digi-Graphics in CO, not NM. By the way, does anybody want to share their experience with this lab, on a side note?)</p>

<p>- Never mind about that Fuji Frontier question, Justin, I've just read all about it. It sounds nice, hopeful enough - though of course, ideally, I'm not a big fan of automated machines doing all the work and all the fun for you - it's out of touch, lacking the painstaking human application that makes other forms of art, such as, of course, the darkroom process, so much more precious (just as a painting or a work of literature may take months or years, etc.) - it's a real shame I can't really find a place to play around here. However, I know that I've got to get with the times, especially since I'm stuck at a disadvantage living here, so I've got to at least try out some super high quality digital printing. <br /> <br /> Unless those are the same machines they use at Long's or Wal-Mart, I don't think I've ever seen one of those specific machines on this island. However, there definitely are "digital minilab" machines here, but I know from experience that I absolute ABHOR the prints they produce - either the machine sucks or the people behind it really don't know how to work it to its full potential. If this is some truly magic machine, however, that is not the same horrid robot that tries to dupe me into wasting my money on low-quality prints, then I'd like to give it a shot somewhere, but only if it's worth it, and again, I'm not too fond of automated function - I'd rather tweak and perfect the file myself or have another human being give careful attention that I would probably gladly pay good money for.<br /> <br /> Thanks for all the responses so far, I hope I've cleared up some questions myself.</p>

<p>Hi,<br /> Yes, I am a student at a university that doesn't give a crap about the traditional darkroom. It is not an art school. There are no color E-6 labs (that I've found in my 17 years living here) even on this island, they are on Oahu but they charge a hefty price (I've sent my last batch to Carl's Darkroom in NM). My school doesn't offer anything good in the way of color darkrooms, the black and white darkroom which I've familiarized myself with all semester is very ghetto, which is fine for me but it also shows me how much the school really doesn't care - there's an entire printmaking (intaglio, etc. not photographic) studio that is one of the best in the country or so I was told, but the darkroom classroom is shared with multiple other classes - painting, drawing, textile - and they don't always clean up well - charcoal powder, wet paint, dust, etc. - basically, we have limited resources for darkroom materials on this island. Everything is shipped and chemicals are a really touchy thing to mail here. I repeat, NO COLOR LABS ON THIS ISLAND AND DEFINITELY NO WET COLOR PRINTING AS FAR AS I KNOW, in the state (except for University of Manoa but I'd have to be a student there, and also a student actually taking the class, which is on an entirely different island).<br /> <br /> Basically, what I'm dealing with here is a DEARTH of resources, and I've researched and researched and don't want to ruin my eyes anymore, so I need some help.<br /> <br /> Justin: What exactly is Fuji Frontier? And even if those are wet processes, the question was WHAT LABS DO YOU RECOMMEND I SEND MY FILM TO FOR THIS KIND OF PRINTING?<br /> <br /> I also know that I should buy a good scanner, but I haven't got enough money so far - of course I want to buy the thousand dollar stuff, but my computer itself is a piece of crap (2000 XP) and I'd probably have to enhance my entire setup, which means more money out of my pocket. Even if I had a quality scanner, would one scan film at the highest resolution possible? How big of a file is that? And even if it was very high resolution, does that mean it will actually look good? Somehow I doubt it, and I know there must be more to know...</p>