bernhard

Short question:

 

I'm looking for a lab that does

 

*** CONSISTENT TOP NOTCH PROFESSIONAL QUALITY E6 PROCESSING ***

 

preferably in Northern Bavaria, but mail in would also be fine, as long as the

quality is top notch.

 

 

 

Long question:

 

Hi folks,

 

While I was in the US I was spoiled by a professional lab (Chromacolor, San

Diego) that consistently met and exceeded my expectations. Where I live now

(Erlangen, Germany) there is one lab (Frankenlabor) that is used by most nearby

professional labs, but their E6 processing quality has plummeted to

unprecedented low levels of quality (same extent as G. W. Bush's popularity to

give a clue of how low their level now is).

 

Now I'm looking for a new lab, and while I'm inclined to give Wolf in nearby

Fürth a try, I thought I might as well tap Photo.net's swarm intelligence and

ask for your experience:

 

Where would YOU bring/send your E6 rolls if you would want the best processing

quality available in Germany?

 

Thanks a lot

 

Bernhard

Phil,

 

I want George back, please bring him back to front page.

 

Bernhard

"Excel opens Comma Separated Variable Variable files fine. Are you sure you are not trying to import it as text?"

 

 

Sure it does.

 

But it regards EVERY comma as a field delimiter no matter if it is part of the field content or introduced during CSV file generation from the database tables between the fields. That's the problem.

Hi guys, Hi Brian,

 

Just tried to download the CSV file with my portfolio information, just to find

out that the field content isn't enclosed in quotation marks so that commas

inside the text totally screw up the column layout when importing into Excel.

 

Would it be possible to enclose the field content in quotation marks (so that I

can replace "," with an unambiguous field delimiter or offer a file for download

with an altenative field delimiter such as colon or tab?

 

 

Thanks guys.

I wonder if someone, looking deep inside the guts OSX and Boot Camp, will figure out how to make OSX run on ANY Intel machine. THAT will be really interesting for Wintel machine users as this would spark some nice competition.

I'm afraid the colors are spot on, the weather REALLY IS THAT BAD in The Netherlands :)

1. Even the flimsiest tripod is better than none

 

2. Don't buy a tripod that is so heavy, complicated, ... that you end up not using it.

TMX has a repuation of low density (low Dmax) and this may be true if you develop it in certain developers like D76 according to KODAK specs. But this material is capable of a lot more as you can see from the attached characteristic curve from Kodak showing a straight line to a Dmax of 3.

 

I personally like TMX exposed at ISO64 and souping it in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes @ 20ﾰC with 3 gentle agitations every 3 minutes.

 

If you have troubles scanning slides stay away from this.

 

If you tend to blow out highlights when exposing slide film and rely on soft rolling highlight shoulders of print films to do the highlight job for you, stand clear.

 

If you don't like TMX's straight line tonality or don't know how to use photoshop curves to make the tonality bend to your will, stay ... you get my drift.

 

Otherwise you have a material that (for me) is a lot like slide film, good density range, fine grain and smooth tonality but B&W and negative and hence much better highlight separation.

 

And sometimes a PITA to scan if you exposed or developed a touch to much.

 

Developed in your college dark room vanilla brew and scanned with cheapo scanners and bundled one-click scanning software it's a waste of time.

 

So in a nutshell a film for guys with balls to use with a developer with balls but without grain like balls. :)

Yaron said: "all I want is to see the text posted on the forums."

 

How about trying the RSS feeds for the forums with a Newsfeed reader?

 

To Brian:

We all understand why you can't support every oddball browser on the planet, but is it really necessary that you come across so unfriendly? After all photo.net puts the bread on your family's table doesn't it?

Scott,

 

How about paper choice?

 

Wouldn't Kodak metallic or the equivalent Fuji stuff help to get prints that look more saturated?

The EXIF data in the file uploaded says it was shot with a Canon Power Shot S70.

 

My guess is that this is a JPEG issue.

 

Is this image a JPEG created in-camera and if yes with what setting?

 

 

As the S70 can save raw files, I'd get myself Camera Raw (it's free @ the Adobe site) install it in your PS Elements 4.0 and see what you can milk from the raw files.

I think of photo.net as a kind of nursery school.

 

Lots of photographers come here after they started or resumed photography. In the beginning you learn a lot from the site and the elder kids in kindergarden and it's great.

 

Once you start finding your own way around in the technical and artistic maze of photography you just outgrow photo.net. In particular you just don't need so much ego boosting. And once you start to persue you own photographic vision the gallery loses much of its attraction because you want to find your very own pictures not someone else's. And frankly the comments you get on non-mainstream pics are really not so much of a help.

 

I just think photo.net doesn't have too much to offer for mature photographers and that's why I think mature photographers become less active or just leave photo.net after a while. They kind of graduate from photo.net.

 

Hey Brian, have you ever thought about starting a photo.net alumni association?

Hi,

 

I discovered this discussion just today by accident.

 

So where does the blue (sky, rocks) come from?

 

 

In a nutshell it's altitude + provia + skylight (that lighted the rocks).

 

NO filter (blue, grad, pola, UV, skylight) whatsoever.

 

NO global or partial color correction.

 

Just a simple straight exposure with a carefully determined exposure.

 

The sun is white because it is overexposed on purpose (to get more detail in the shadows).

 

The blue cast on the rocks is a due to the indirect lighting only by skylight and rather little exposure, partially corrected in photoshop. This was a scene with a cruel amount of contrast.

 

Essentially the slide was scanned (on an LS2000 at that time) with Nikon software followed by global levels adjustment. Then the shadows were lightened a bit (can't remember exactly how, probably using the dodge tool) and finally I applied some USM. That's all.

(Old) velvia 50 is not so well suited for portraits, but Velvia 100F treats skin tones quite well. The limiting thing is its high contrast, so under harsh light its really not my first choice. But for low contrast lighting such as overcast skies especially on rainy days it gives quite a 'pop' without slaughtering skin tones. For high contrast lighting use Astia 100F or Reala.

Guys, judge for yourself:

 

http://www.dougscottmountaineering.co.uk/categories.asp

Next time a mix a batch of Xtol I will stick a pH meter in it and post the results, but it may take a while, OK?

I can't get to your pics as well. Photo.net isn't really that bad, that you couldn't upload the pics if you want some feedback

This shots show a woman, and with respect to physical features face and skin are very important aspects of a woman. The skin tones are much smoother with the PanF, which does not only look better, but also enables you to show more skin imperfections (if you want to, e.g. last picture in the PanF set) which adds character.

 

Without taking the different lenses in to accounf :^) the PanF se looks therefore more convincing and the TriX comes out more vanilla, polished and bland, at least in the online JPEGs.

but as I got a vacuum pump on my bench, why not degas?

Wow guys, thanks a lot for all the suggestions. As everyone seems to agree that that getting rid of air to prevent ascorbate oxidation is key that's what I'll do.

 

Thanks a lot.

Hi guys,

 

I'm a big fan of Xtol, but use it only occasionally, so it usually

dies before I can use most of it.

 

Is there a way to make it live longer, except storing it in the dark

in an air free container, which I already do?

 

Is it more stable when the 2 components are dissolved separately and

only mixed right before use?

 

Is there anything I can add to preserve it?

 

I work in a chemistry lab, so I know how to handle chemicals, have

access to equipment like scales or pH-meter and can get additional

chemicals if needed.

 

I can also refrigerate or freeze (-20?C, -80?C and liquid nitrogen) it

but I don't know if this helps or rather hurts.

 

Any suggestions wellcome.

 

Thanks

I don't know of any lab that would do a 5 stop push on C41 film, labs that will agree on pushing 3 stops are rare enough. So here's the practical end to that little exercise in "film torture".

"Also, if anyone knows a good lab in NYC to do this kind of work, that would be helpful too"

 

What the others said

 

http://www.duggal.com/

"... I don't think discussing that subject makes me a more credible photographer while discussing the camera body makes me a dweeb. I can also talk about exposure, development, printing, and a host of other technical issues that will have a more profound impact on the final image than subtle lens differences--all that talk isn't what distinguishes a photographer from a dilettante."

 

I absolutely agree

It's not about superiority or inferiority.

 

It's about the simple fact that the glass affects the final photographic result to a much higher degree than the body, at least when you exclude view cameras.

 

And for photographers who are interested in producing pictures (as opposed to merely taking them) any factor that affects the final photographic outcome is a valid matter for discussion, and lenses are one of them.

 

While I think that todays's avaible gear is not the limiting factor for 99.99% of us, there are some lenses that have certain properties which help a lot to get a certain look. Not that one couldn't get good pictures without them, but for certain jobs they give you a little edge. And those lenses are not necessarily the most most expensive one's.

 

For example I often make a deliberate and concious choice between my Tessar 45/2.8, Planar 50/1.4 and Yashica DSB 55/2.0 and neither focal length nor maximum aperture is my main concern.