Sending film in for developing.

[Ric Trexell]

I have been using my local Wal-Mart over the years to get my film developed
and it has been super cheap. I could get a roll of 35mm print film done for
about $2-$3.00. Now it is the same price as the one hour places and they
take a week. It used to take two days. It is strange that 120 film
developed there is still only something like $2.00 a roll for 10 exposures,
but it does take two weeks. I know they send it to Fuji in my state. I sent
my last roll to York. It used to be that York had about 10 labs and I could
send it to Chicago or somewhere around there. Now I have to send it to
Maryland, which I guess is their only lab. I have heard they are owned by
the same company as Clark and a few others. (York is cheaper though.) I
can get my film developed (both formats) at my local camera store, but again
it is around $6.00. I don't do enough to do my own. I was wondering if any
one knows of a place to send film that is not going to cost an arm and a
leg? I'm in Wisconsin. Thanks.

[Jim Bianchi]

Post by Ric Trexell
I have been using my local Wal-Mart over the years to get my film
developed and it has been super cheap. I could get a roll of 35mm print
film done for about $2-$3.00. Now it is the same price as the one hour
places and they take a week. It used to take two days. It is strange
that 120 film developed there is still only something like $2.00 a roll
for 10 exposures, but it does take two weeks. I know they send it to Fuji
in my state. I sent my last roll to York. It used to be that York had
about 10 labs and I could send it to Chicago or somewhere around there.
Now I have to send it to Maryland, which I guess is their only lab. I
have heard they are owned by the same company as Clark and a few others.
(York is cheaper though.) I can get my film developed (both formats) at my
local camera store, but again it is around $6.00. I don't do enough to do
my own. I was wondering if any one knows of a place to send film that is
not going to cost an arm and a leg? I'm in Wisconsin. Thanks.

I've just started (after about 35 years) using 120 film again. Plus
I'm in northern Calif (Santa Rosa), but heyyy. You may wish to try these
folks:

Keeble & Shuchat Photography – 290 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: [phone] FAX: : [phone]
KSP PhotoFinale Web Site: www.photofinale.com/kspphoto/
KSP Web Site: www.kspphoto.com

Develop and Proof Sheet (B&W):
120mm ........................................... 12.00
220mm ........................................... 16.00

They also handle 35mm (color and B&W) and 120/220 color, plus all
sorts of enlarging. I just bo't some 120 B&W film (5 rolls), UPS took about
a day and a half (I'm at the end of the UPS drivers route). I'm fairly sure
they do this work in house. Here we have a Walgreens store close by that has
all the 35mm color print eveloping/printing machinery right there behind the
counter. Unfortunately, the guy there didn't even know there WAS any kind of
film besides 35mm color!

[K W Hart]

Post by Jim Bianchi

Post by Ric Trexell
I have been using my local Wal-Mart over the years to get my film
developed and it has been super cheap. I could get a roll of 35mm print
film done for about $2-$3.00.

snip>

Post by Jim Bianchi
I've just started (after about 35 years) using 120 film again. Plus
I'm in northern Calif (Santa Rosa), but heyyy. You may wish to try these
Keeble & Shuchat Photography â?" 290 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: [phone] FAX: : [phone]
KSP PhotoFinale Web Site: www.photofinale.com/kspphoto/
KSP Web Site: www.kspphoto.com
120mm ........................................... 12.00
220mm ........................................... 16.00
They also handle 35mm (color and B&W) and 120/220 color, plus all
sorts of enlarging. I just bo't some 120 B&W film (5 rolls), UPS took about
a day and a half (I'm at the end of the UPS drivers route). I'm fairly sure
they do this work in house. Here we have a Walgreens store close by that has
all the 35mm color print eveloping/printing machinery right there behind the
counter. Unfortunately, the guy there didn't even know there WAS any kind of
film besides 35mm color!
--
Proud owner of a Mamiya RB-67.

Some of those machines are designed for only 35mm film. Even if it will
handle 120 size, if they only run 35mm, you don't want to have them process
your 120 size. The 35mm film will eventually wear a path in the rollers, and
that can put marks on your 120 film.
Typically, the person running those machines was last week working in
housewares, and the week before was in automotive. So it's not suprizing
that he isn't familiar with different film types. Frequently, they don't
even check to see if it's C41 process- hand them a roll of Ektachrome and
watch the fun begin! The roll will unbalance the chems, and affect every
roll after that until the chems are dumped.
Also, the negatives are scanned rather than optically printed, so while your
camera may create a quality image on the film, the final print will look
just like a low quality digital image.
Home/hobbyist processing of color print film is not difficult or expensive
once you learn how to do it.

[Jim Bianchi]

Post by K W Hart
Some of those machines are designed for only 35mm film. Even if it will
handle 120 size, if they only run 35mm, you don't want to have them process
your 120 size. The 35mm film will eventually wear a path in the rollers, and
that can put marks on your 120 film.

Heh. Well, as far as I know, these machines will handle 35mm color
film ONLY (as I said, the guy apparantly didn't even know there was any
other kind of film beside 35mm color).

Post by K W Hart
Typically, the person running those machines was last week working in
housewares, and the week before was in automotive. So it's not suprizing
that he isn't familiar with different film types. Frequently, they don't
even check to see if it's C41 process- hand them a roll of Ektachrome and
watch the fun begin! The roll will unbalance the chems, and affect every
roll after that until the chems are dumped.
Also, the negatives are scanned rather than optically printed, so while your
camera may create a quality image on the film, the final print will look
just like a low quality digital image.

Hmmm, din't know this. I've taken in only about 5 rolls of 35mm
color to them over the last 24 years. They DO offer pic-to-jpeg (individual)
and pixs-to-CD (multiple) so I guess it makes sense.

Post by K W Hart
Home/hobbyist processing of color print film is not difficult or expensive
once you learn how to do it.

Not for me, unfortunately. Age and arthritis makes for considerable
difficulty just taking the pix -- processing and printing B&W or color is
not even on my list. I'd rather send it off to a proper lab.

[Ric Trexell]

Post by K W Hart
Home/hobbyist processing of color print film is not difficult or expensive
once you learn how to do it.

********************************************************************
Thanks to all that replied. As for processing color film, it may be easy
enough but the chemicals have a time limit and then you are throwing out
expensive chemicals. I can get 120 film developed at Wal-Mart for only a
few bucks, but have to wait 2 weeks. Right now I'm waiting on a roll that I
sent to York (35mm) and I sent it in Nov.1. I assume they got it by the 5or
6th and I'm still waiting on the 17th. It might come today or tomorrow.
The home developing is starting to look better all the time. With the
switch to digital that may be about the only option. The Walgreens here
does developing and the pics are printed on their Fuji printer. My local
camera store does them for the same price and uses an Afga developer which I
think does the pictures optically. I guess it is coming down to wait 3
weeks or more for cheap developing or pay $6 for instant printing. Thanks
to all for your help. Ric.

[K W Hart]

Post by Ric Trexell

Post by K W Hart
Home/hobbyist processing of color print film is not difficult or expensive
once you learn how to do it.

********************************************************************
Thanks to all that replied. As for processing color film, it may be easy
enough but the chemicals have a time limit and then you are throwing out
expensive chemicals. I can get 120 film developed at Wal-Mart for only a
few bucks, but have to wait 2 weeks. Right now I'm waiting on a roll that I
sent to York (35mm) and I sent it in Nov.1. I assume they got it by the 5or
6th and I'm still waiting on the 17th. It might come today or tomorrow.
The home developing is starting to look better all the time. With the
switch to digital that may be about the only option. The Walgreens here
does developing and the pics are printed on their Fuji printer. My local
camera store does them for the same price and uses an Afga developer which I
think does the pictures optically. I guess it is coming down to wait 3
weeks or more for cheap developing or pay $6 for instant printing. Thanks
to all for your help. Ric.

There are very few optical printers still kicking around- I had a Hope
minilab built in 1984 that I was using until two years ago. I could easily
be mistaken, but I doubt that your camera store's Agfa printer is optical.
Obviously, I can't say definitely.

Chemical shelf life is an issue, but I've switched to Trebla chems from
CPAC. They have small packaging available, and have instructions for mixing
small quantities, like a liter or so. Syringes (each one marked and only
used for a specific chemical) make measuring easier.

[Ric Trexell]

"Right now I'm waiting on a roll that

I
sent to York (35mm) and I sent it in Nov.1. Thanks
to all for your help. Ric.

**************************************************************
The York film came back yesterday. To KW Hart, the York prints I got sure
look like optically printed photos. I will check into what my local camera
store uses. That makes me wonder about the long term storage of these
prints and what a little humidity will do to them verses a real photo paper
photograph. Thanks again for your input. Ric.

[K W Hart]

Post by Ric Trexell
"Right now I'm waiting on a roll that

I
sent to York (35mm) and I sent it in Nov.1. Thanks
to all for your help. Ric.

**************************************************************
The York film came back yesterday. To KW Hart, the York prints I got sure
look like optically printed photos. I will check into what my local camera
store uses. That makes me wonder about the long term storage of these
prints and what a little humidity will do to them verses a real photo paper
photograph. Thanks again for your input. Ric.

I don't know whether York uses an optical printing system or scans negs and
prints them with a lightjet system. Generally, scanning and lightjet is
faster that optical- the image can be displayed on a color monitor and the
operator can make adjustments. Does York offer an index print or "enhanced"
prints: text/graphics added to the image? If so, they are very likely
scanned and lightjet printed.

An RA4 print is an RA4 print, whether it was printed optically or lightjet.
Kodak Endura paper (RA4) is rated for 200 years in the dark or 100 years in
average light. The theory there is that many people display a photo for a
time (light) then put it away in an album or closet (dark). Display it for
50 years and you've used half the photo's life. Put it away in the dark, and
it will still be around in 100 years, the other half of it's life in the
dark.

In my opinion, and I don't have any factual data on this at hand, the more
critical issue is the processing. My RA4 processor is a wash type system:
the print goes through three wash baths before it is dried. Some processors
are "washless" systems. To my mind, this leaves chemicals on/in the paper
that can affect it's life. RA4 can be either a wash or washless system. I'm
more comfortable with washed photos. Obviously, running a wash system at 1-2
gallons per minute for an eight hour day is more expensive than no wash at
all.

As to the humidity issue, generally if you are comfortable in the room (not
too hot or humid), than the photos will be comfortable.

[Ric Trexell]

Post by K W Hart
I don't know whether York uses an optical printing system or scans negs and
prints them with a lightjet system. Generally, scanning and lightjet is
faster that optical- the image can be displayed on a color monitor and the
operator can make adjustments. Does York offer an index print or "enhanced"
prints: text/graphics added to the image? If so, they are very likely
scanned and lightjet printed.

***********************************************************
K.W.H.: You answered many questions that I just asked the gals at my local
Walgreen's. I asked if the pictures were printed optically or digitally
like a printer. They said they have two systems and the one they have to
add chemicals so that was definately optical. I then asked if it was
printed by a scanning laser or like an enlarger. She didn't know and I told
her I really didn't know either. You have explained that. Now the question
is will a lightjet print better than if it is done the old fashion way with
an enlarger? Also I will have to ask about the wash cycle. That is
something I didn't know about. They use Fuji equipment and the Walgreens is
$2.00 higher on both the 24 and 36 exposures than the grocery store across
the street. I still want to ask the camera store about their system.
Thanks for the education. Ric.

[K W Hart]

Post by K W Hart

Post by K W Hart
I don't know whether York uses an optical printing system or scans negs

and

Post by K W Hart
prints them with a lightjet system. Generally, scanning and lightjet is
faster that optical- the image can be displayed on a color monitor and the
operator can make adjustments. Does York offer an index print or

"enhanced"

Post by K W Hart
prints: text/graphics added to the image? If so, they are very likely
scanned and lightjet printed.

***********************************************************
K.W.H.: You answered many questions that I just asked the gals at my local
Walgreen's. I asked if the pictures were printed optically or digitally
like a printer.

Post by K W Hart

Post by Ric Trexell
They said they have two systems and the one they have to

add chemicals so that was definately optical. <<<<<<<<<<<<<
I then asked if it was
printed by a scanning laser or like an enlarger. She didn't know and I told
her I really didn't know either. You have explained that. Now the question
is will a lightjet print better than if it is done the old fashion way with
an enlarger? Also I will have to ask about the wash cycle. That is
something I didn't know about. They use Fuji equipment and the Walgreens is
$2.00 higher on both the 24 and 36 exposures than the grocery store across
the street. I still want to ask the camera store about their system.
Thanks for the education. Ric.

In response to your sentence between >>>>....<<<<<: Just because they add
chems, doesn't mean it's an optical printing system, just that It's likely
to be an RA4 system. There are two parts to making a photo on an RA4 system:
(1) exposing the photographic paper and (2) developing it. The paper can be
exposed optically using a photo enlarger or digitally using a lightjet type
system- imagine an inkjet printer except instead of three (or 4) ink
cartridges, it has three colored lasers. After exposing the paper, it is
immersed in developer, then bleach-fix, then (maybe washed and) dried.
In my darkroom, I have a photo enlarger over here, and an RA4 processor over
there. I could also have a lightjet type printer over yonder. Both the
enlarger and the lightjet printer put out an exposed piece of photo paper,
which has to be fed into the RA4 processor. The processor doesn't care which
one exposed the paper.

A quality photo enlarger prints every single 'grain' of the negative onto
the photo paper. (Technically, there is no 'grain' on a color neg, as the
silver particles are removed in processing leaving only the associated dye
'cloud'. But there is one dye cloud for each grain, so it's a difference
without a distinction.) I don't have a scientific cite for this, but I've
read from various sources that a 35mm negative on a medium speed film has
about 36,000,000 'grains' (12,000,000 per color layer). The individual
grains compose the final image, just as pixels do. The more grains (pixels),
the more detail the film is capable of recording, assuming the camera can
keep up with the quality. Obviously, a disposal camera falls short compared
to a top 'o' line Canon/Nikon/Leica.

A lightjet system requires a digital image. Whether that digital image came
from a digital camera, downloaded from your favorite porn site, or a scanned
negative, the lightjet doesn't care- it will still print at (IIRC) around
200 dots per inch, slightly better than the weekend supplement in your local
newspaper ("Parade", "USA Weekend", etc). Very high quality scanners usually
"wet-scan" the negative: the negative is covered with an oil and mounted on
the scanner glass so that it 'becomes' a part of the scanner. The scanner
glass is usually curved and the scanning 'eye' rotates, scanning the
negative in lines. Such a scan can take several minutes to an hour. Such a
scanner is not likely to be in your local Walgreens or a part of a Fuji
system.
So the lightjet workflow falls short in two areas: the quality of the source
scan of the negative, and the quality of the lightjet printing system.

If you want to see a digital system fail, take a photo of a light, solid
color subject, such as a clear blue sky; include some trees in the
foreground for detail. Get an enlargement of 8x10 or larger printed both
optically and lightjet. The difference should be obvious.

[Ric Trexell]

Post by K W Hart
A lightjet system requires a digital image. Whether that digital image came
from a digital camera, downloaded from your favorite porn site, or a scanned
negative, the lightjet doesn't care... Very high quality scanners usually

******************************************************************
Well, I don't have a favorite porn site, actually I don't know any porn
site. As to printing pictures, I'm learning a lot from your answers. I'm
familar with the drum scanner process a little bit, but couldn't explain it
if my life depended on it. This information would make for a good article
in a photography magazine. Ofcourse if they did explain a lot of this,
people would be dropping digital cameras and going back to film. Thanks
again. Ric.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Ric Trexell
I'm
familar with the drum scanner process a little bit, but couldn't explain it
if my life depended on it.

Maybe this will help:

Take a picture and and make a tube out of it. Take bright flashlight and shine
it at a spot on the tube. Look at that spot with a magnifying glass. Now rotate
the tube a little bit and look again. Keep doing that until you've looked at
every spot around the tube. Then move the light and magnifying glass a little
to the side and start all over again.

Eventually you've seen every spot on the tube, which happens to be every spot
of picture.

Now why is this better than a regular scanner? A regular scanner uses a
row of photocells. The resolution across is limited to how close the
photocells are placed. The smaller a photocell, the more noise it
produces (meaningless information), the more light it needs to see
and the higher the cost.

Since you are using a highly focused beam of light and a lens on the
photocell, a drum scanner can use a much more sensitive, but large cell
and still have a smaller spot. The number of spots across it can "see"
is determined by how narrow the beam is and how precise the postioning
mechanism is.

The postioning mechanism is basicly a screw on a stepper motor, so for any
given resolution it's cheaper than squeezing photcells together.

The spot size around the drum is determined by how far around it moves
during each scan cycle. More prescision can be obtained electricaly by
using faster photocells and analog to digital converters, or it can be
obtained by slowing down the drum.

Did that help?

Geoff.

[Ric Trexell]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Ric Trexell
I'm
familar with the drum scanner process a little bit, but couldn't explain it
if my life depended on it.

Take a picture and and make a tube out of it.
Did that help?
Geoff.

____________________________________________________________________________
_____
Geoff: Yes, now I understand the reason behind it. Now if they only could
make a good one cheaper than a Buick I might be able to afford one. That is
the other part about them that I don't understand, how can you take 45 lbs.
of metal and charge $20,000 for it? Thanks for the explanation. Ric.

[K W Hart]

Post by Ric Trexell

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Ric Trexell
I'm
familar with the drum scanner process a little bit, but couldn't
explain

it

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Ric Trexell
if my life depended on it.

Take a picture and and make a tube out of it.
Did that help?
Geoff.

____________________________________________________________________________
_____
Geoff: Yes, now I understand the reason behind it. Now if they only could
make a good one cheaper than a Buick I might be able to afford one. That is
the other part about them that I don't understand, how can you take 45 lbs.
of metal and charge $20,000 for it? Thanks for the explanation. Ric.

Some of that 45 pounds of metal is pretty precise!
As the scanning spot spins around, it must know exactly where it is so that
the scan info can match up with the previous revolution. And as the scanning
spot advances along the negative, it must advance a very small, very exact
amount.
I have seen them go for more reasonable prices on eBay, but I'd say it's a
definate case of "buyer beware". There are service companies that do scans
using these machines and sell you the digital file. If you need the
resolution, the price may be acceptable for you, depending on your purpose.
Of course, for $20,000, you could put together a pretty nice darkroom!

Ken Hart

[Ric Trexell]

"K W Hart" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ic4bbp$gdp$***@speranza.aioe.org...

Does York offer an index print or "enhanced"

Post by K W Hart
prints: text/graphics added to the image? If so, they are very likely
scanned and lightjet printed.

*************************************************************
I forgot to answer this question. I think they might offer an index print,
but that is about all they do I think. Reliable out of Chicago offers two
types of developing and I think they do that. Ric.

[K W Hart]

Post by K W Hart
Does York offer an index print or "enhanced"

Post by K W Hart
prints: text/graphics added to the image? If so, they are very likely
scanned and lightjet printed.

*************************************************************
I forgot to answer this question. I think they might offer an index print,
but that is about all they do I think. Reliable out of Chicago offers two
types of developing and I think they do that. Ric.

If is extremely difficult, nearly impossible to make an index print using an
optical photo enlarger. I could do it, but you don't want to know how much
I'd charge for it! If the index print has text, remove the "extremely
difficult" from the previous sentence. To print an index print with a photo
enlarger, I'd have to set up my enlarger to make a reduction print, line up
the photo paper (in total darkness) to print the first frame in the upper
right corner. Then, I'd have to set up the second neg frame, move the paper
over a bit to the left (in total darkness), and print the second frame. So
on for all 24 frames. Make one mistake- throw away the paper and start all
over again! I'd estimate it could take about two hours.
An index print is computer generated. After the roll of negatives has been
scanned, a computer chews on the images, adds frame numbers, an ad for
Walgreens, formats them into an attractive index print, and spits the
digital file into the lightjet printer.