• Re: C-41 Labs

    From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Nov 10 01:05:57 2024
    Abandoned Trolley <[email protected]> wrote:

    I would ask "the editor" to name a couple of photographers that he is
    not pissed off with, and ask them where they get their films processed ?

    They all shoot digitally. I am the only guy left that shoots for any of
    the audio magazines who still shoots film.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 7 23:43:25 2024
    Not really a darkroom thing but I don't see a better newsgroup. Can anyone recommend a good C-41 lab that will do a develop and scan and return film within a day or two, which actually does test strips and will let me see
    one, and which doesn't have a dust problem?

    Our local lab has a real dust issue and I don't like spotting. Dwayne's
    Photo does good work but has been taking longer and longer as time has gone
    by, and at this point I just missed a magazine deadline because they can't
    get film back to me after a month. I won't get paid for photos, won't
    get reimbursed for travel, and my editor is pissed off at me.

    All I want is simple and develop and scan on commodity C-41 materials, and
    I am not particularly worried about the cost. I just need it to be good
    and reasonably fast.

    Any recommendations? All the big commercial labs of my youth are gone.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Abandoned Trolley@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Fri Nov 8 08:58:37 2024
    On 07/11/2024 23:43, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    Not really a darkroom thing but I don't see a better newsgroup. Can anyone recommend a good C-41 lab that will do a develop and scan and return film within a day or two, which actually does test strips and will let me see
    one, and which doesn't have a dust problem?

    Our local lab has a real dust issue and I don't like spotting. Dwayne's Photo does good work but has been taking longer and longer as time has gone by, and at this point I just missed a magazine deadline because they can't get film back to me after a month. I won't get paid for photos, won't
    get reimbursed for travel, and my editor is pissed off at me.

    All I want is simple and develop and scan on commodity C-41 materials, and
    I am not particularly worried about the cost. I just need it to be good
    and reasonably fast.

    Any recommendations? All the big commercial labs of my youth are gone. --scott



    I would ask "the editor" to name a couple of photographers that he is
    not pissed off with, and ask them where they get their films processed ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimitris Tzortzakakis@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 12 15:43:31 2024
    Στις 8/11/2024 1:43 π.μ., ο/η Scott Dorsey έγραψε:
    Not really a darkroom thing but I don't see a better newsgroup. Can anyone recommend a good C-41 lab that will do a develop and scan and return film within a day or two, which actually does test strips and will let me see
    one, and which doesn't have a dust problem?

    Our local lab has a real dust issue and I don't like spotting. Dwayne's Photo does good work but has been taking longer and longer as time has gone by, and at this point I just missed a magazine deadline because they can't get film back to me after a month. I won't get paid for photos, won't
    get reimbursed for travel, and my editor is pissed off at me.

    All I want is simple and develop and scan on commodity C-41 materials, and
    I am not particularly worried about the cost. I just need it to be good
    and reasonably fast.

    Any recommendations? All the big commercial labs of my youth are gone. --scott
    I have my films developed within a week, and I print them myself, with
    the traditional, Ra 4 process, but it will be of little use to you, as I
    am in Crete, south Greece.I am an amatheur, and I'm the last one on the
    alpine club that still shoots film. There is a last remaining lab for
    whole of Crete, here in Iraklion, and one for slides, in Athens. Maybe
    you should think of developing your films yourself? You'll have them
    processed on the night of the shooting, and C-41 is not that much more difficult than B&W. Not to mention that you'll be sure of using fresh chemicals. The only thing you'll need is a good thermometer. C-41 is
    colour developer, stop, bleach-fix wash and stabiliser.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Abandoned Trolley@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 12 20:51:10 2024

    Any recommendations?  All the big commercial labs of my youth are gone.
    --scott
    I have my films developed within a week, and I print them myself, with
    the traditional, Ra 4 process, but it will be of little use to you, as I
    am in Crete, south Greece.I am an amatheur, and I'm the last one on the alpine club that still shoots film.  There is a last remaining lab for
    whole of Crete, here in Iraklion, and one for slides, in Athens. Maybe
    you should think of developing your films yourself? You'll have them processed on the night of the shooting, and C-41 is not that much more difficult than B&W. Not to mention that you'll be sure of using fresh chemicals. The only thing you'll need is a good thermometer. C-41 is
    colour developer, stop, bleach-fix wash and stabiliser.

    And in terms of space requirements and equipment costs, colour neg
    processing is a lot less aggravation than RA4 printing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimitris Tzortzakakis@21:1/5 to All on Sat Nov 16 13:57:16 2024
    Στις 12/11/2024 10:51 μ.μ., ο/η Abandoned Trolley έγραψε:


    Any recommendations?  All the big commercial labs of my youth are gone. >>> --scott
    I have my films developed within a week, and I print them myself, with
    the traditional, Ra 4 process, but it will be of little use to you, as
    I am in Crete, south Greece.I am an amatheur, and I'm the last one on
    the alpine club that still shoots film.  There is a last remaining lab
    for whole of Crete, here in Iraklion, and one for slides, in Athens.
    Maybe you should think of developing your films yourself? You'll have
    them processed on the night of the shooting, and C-41 is not that much
    more difficult than B&W. Not to mention that you'll be sure of using
    fresh chemicals. The only thing you'll need is a good thermometer.
    C-41 is colour developer, stop, bleach-fix wash and stabiliser.

    And in terms of space requirements and equipment costs, colour neg
    processing is a lot less aggravation than RA4 printing.

    yes, but it's easier, if ypu orint your films yourself to get the best
    possible results, according to your own taste. And it's easier to scan afterwards with a simple flatbed scanner. I have a Rollei film scanner
    (DF-S 290 HD-it can also scan slides and B&W) but the resullts are like
    a shot in the dark-sometimes they're good, sometimes they're mediocre
    and sometimes they're bad. The difficult thing about RA4 printing is to
    get the colour enlarger, and the print drum. I got them from secondhanddarkroom, in Britain. I get the chemicals from Germany, macodirect-and the paper from Britain, again.morco.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Abandoned Trolley@21:1/5 to Dimitris Tzortzakakis on Wed Nov 20 10:03:08 2024
    On 16/11/2024 11:57, Dimitris Tzortzakakis wrote:
    Στις 12/11/2024 10:51 μ.μ., ο/η Abandoned Trolley έγραψε:


    Any recommendations?  All the big commercial labs of my youth are gone. >>>> --scott
    I have my films developed within a week, and I print them myself,
    with the traditional, Ra 4 process, but it will be of little use to
    you, as I am in Crete, south Greece.I am an amatheur, and I'm the
    last one on the alpine club that still shoots film.  There is a last
    remaining lab for whole of Crete, here in Iraklion, and one for
    slides, in Athens. Maybe you should think of developing your films
    yourself? You'll have them processed on the night of the shooting,
    and C-41 is not that much more difficult than B&W. Not to mention
    that you'll be sure of using fresh chemicals. The only thing you'll
    need is a good thermometer. C-41 is colour developer, stop, bleach-
    fix wash and stabiliser.

    And in terms of space requirements and equipment costs, colour neg
    processing is a lot less aggravation than RA4 printing.

    yes, but it's easier, if ypu orint your films yourself to get the best possible results, according to your own taste. And it's easier to scan afterwards with a simple flatbed scanner. I have a Rollei film scanner
    (DF-S 290 HD-it can also scan slides and B&W) but the resullts are like
    a shot in the dark-sometimes they're good, sometimes they're mediocre
    and sometimes they're bad. The difficult thing about RA4 printing is to
    get the colour enlarger, and the print drum. I got them from secondhanddarkroom, in Britain. I get the chemicals from Germany, macodirect-and the paper from Britain, again.morco.


    That might not be the point. If the end product is going to be scanned
    so that it can be printed in a magazine then all thats needed is the
    negative.

    Long ago and far away, pro photographers started using slide film
    because that was what the scanners were set up for - I suspect that it
    may not have been a matter of choice.

    I understand all the arguments about superior colour rendering / grain perfomance / contrast etc etc but at the end of the day, if you want to
    get paid for your work then you need to deliver the product that the
    client has asked for.

    It also explains the popularity of the 6x7 format with magazine
    photographers - more meat / pixels on the film + better aspect ratio =
    happy printer

    I would also suggest that the overwhelming majority of digital pictures
    taken on "proper" cameras are never going to be printed anyway.

    Finally... if you are going to get serious about RA4 printing, then a
    major step on the road might be to get a roller transport processor.
    That will stabilise all the temperatures and give consistent and
    repeatable process times - print drums are a bit of a faff and limited
    in size.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimitris Tzortzakakis@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 21 17:37:25 2024
    Στις 20/11/2024 12:03 μ.μ., ο/η Abandoned Trolley έγραψε:
    On 16/11/2024 11:57, Dimitris Tzortzakakis wrote:
    Στις 12/11/2024 10:51 μ.μ., ο/η Abandoned Trolley έγραψε:


    Any recommendations?  All the big commercial labs of my youth are
    gone.
    --scott
    I have my films developed within a week, and I print them myself,
    with the traditional, Ra 4 process, but it will be of little use to
    you, as I am in Crete, south Greece.I am an amatheur, and I'm the
    last one on the alpine club that still shoots film.  There is a last
    remaining lab for whole of Crete, here in Iraklion, and one for
    slides, in Athens. Maybe you should think of developing your films
    yourself? You'll have them processed on the night of the shooting,
    and C-41 is not that much more difficult than B&W. Not to mention
    that you'll be sure of using fresh chemicals. The only thing you'll
    need is a good thermometer. C-41 is colour developer, stop, bleach-
    fix wash and stabiliser.

    And in terms of space requirements and equipment costs, colour neg
    processing is a lot less aggravation than RA4 printing.

    yes, but it's easier, if ypu orint your films yourself to get the best
    possible results, according to your own taste. And it's easier to scan
    afterwards with a simple flatbed scanner. I have a Rollei film scanner
    (DF-S 290 HD-it can also scan slides and B&W) but the resullts are
    like a shot in the dark-sometimes they're good, sometimes they're
    mediocre and sometimes they're bad. The difficult thing about RA4
    printing is to get the colour enlarger, and the print drum. I got them
    from secondhanddarkroom, in Britain. I get the chemicals from Germany,
    macodirect-and the paper from Britain, again.morco.


    That might not be the point. If the end product is going to be scanned
    so that it can be printed in a magazine then all thats needed is the negative.

    Then you might as well shoot digital, that's what I would do had I been
    a pro. There are problems converting a negative into digital format,
    because of its orange mask, and because it was designed to be printed
    with RA4 onto paper, obviously long before digital existed.
    Long ago and far away, pro photographers started using slide film
    because that was what the scanners were set up for - I suspect that it
    may not have been a matter of choice.

    It was easier because the separations were easier and you would skip the printing stage. Back in the day there was a lab, here, (Drossos) that
    would process slide film, in 135, 120 or 4*5" format within a day. Now
    it's only in Athens at takes 10 days.
    I understand all the arguments about superior colour rendering / grain perfomance / contrast etc etc but at the end of the day, if you want to
    get paid for your work then you need to deliver the product that the
    client has asked for.
    Of course, but I'm *not* a photographer, I am an electrical engineer in
    fact. Photography is my hobby,and I'm in just for the fun of it

    It also explains the popularity of the 6x7 format with magazine
    photographers - more meat / pixels on the film + better aspect ratio =
    happy printer

    No, more resolving power->better enlargements-> better quality offset
    print in magazines etc. Remember, film was long before any digital was
    even thought of. It seems a bit Orwellian...
    I would also suggest that the overwhelming majority of digital pictures
    taken on "proper" cameras are never going to be printed anyway.

    Yep, they're stored somewhere on a hard dive and forgotten...It's much
    more expensive to print with an inkjet than traditional RA4,even this day.
    Finally... if you are going to get serious about RA4 printing, then a
    major step on the road might be to get a roller transport processor.
    That will stabilise all the temperatures and give consistent and
    repeatable process times - print drums are a bit of a faff and limited
    in size.

    My print drum can do up to 11*14" which I have done successfully which
    the second to the biggest one that's actually made, and I have
    consistent and repeatable results just fine. Modern RA4 chemicals and
    papers are very flexible. This processor would be very expensive and
    even more espensive to ship, I haven't got spare room where to put it,
    and it would be useless as I print when I feel like it and 6 to 12 8*10"
    prints in one session, until I run out of paper and/or chemicals.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Abandoned Trolley@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 22 11:18:52 2024

    That might not be the point. If the end product is going to be scanned
    so that it can be printed in a magazine then all thats needed is the
    negative.

    Then you might as well shoot digital, that's what I would do had I been
    a pro. There are problems converting a negative into digital format,
    because of its orange mask, and because it was designed to be printed
    with RA4 onto paper, obviously long before digital existed.
    Long ago and far away, pro photographers started using slide film
    because that was what the scanners were set up for - I suspect that it
    may not have been a matter of choice.


    What I meant by "long ago and far away" was that people like
    Linotype-Paul were scanning transparencies for magazine printers back in
    the 70s - at least 30 years before anybody got serious about DSLRs

    (and before the RA4 process was introduced)

    A sort of de-facto print "standard" of 2540 dpi was developed and I
    believe they eventually got round to scanning negatives as well.

    If 2540 dpi was the limit of resolution of the end product, then its
    possible that it was the weakest link in the chain - in which case there
    may have been little point in trying to improve any other link.


    Remember that back in the days before colour printing of newspapers,
    they were printed with tar on rubbish paper, so news photographers shot
    miles of Kodak Tri-X rated at 1600ASA (or more) because there was no
    point doing anything better.

    Horses for courses ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Nov 24 13:35:04 2024
    Abandoned Trolley <[email protected]> wrote:
    Remember that back in the days before colour printing of newspapers,
    they were printed with tar on rubbish paper, so news photographers shot
    miles of Kodak Tri-X rated at 1600ASA (or more) because there was no
    point doing anything better.

    Our local paper was still using their Speed Graphics into the mid-seventies because they figured there was a long-term aftermarket for the images
    and not just the immediate newspaper use this week. They still have a
    giant library of negatives.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Dec 24 19:25:00 2024
    Abandoned Trolley <[email protected]> wrote:

    That might not be the point. If the end product is going to be scanned
    so that it can be printed in a magazine then all thats needed is the >negative.

    Right. But good quality scanning is harder than C-41 processing. I wound
    up processing the last batch myself and sending negatives to the local
    lab.

    I understand all the arguments about superior colour rendering / grain >perfomance / contrast etc etc but at the end of the day, if you want to
    get paid for your work then you need to deliver the product that the
    client has asked for.

    Or at least deliver -something-. I have a lot of jobs where I would
    rather deliver a substandard product than nothing at all. Other projects
    aren the opposite.

    It also explains the popularity of the 6x7 format with magazine
    photographers - more meat / pixels on the film + better aspect ratio =
    happy printer

    Unfortunately standards have fallen enough that a lot of editors don't
    really care about the slight improvement going to medium format except
    for cover shots. I get looked at like an alien when I suggest 4x5 for
    covers.

    Finally... if you are going to get serious about RA4 printing, then a
    major step on the road might be to get a roller transport processor.
    That will stabilise all the temperatures and give consistent and
    repeatable process times - print drums are a bit of a faff and limited
    in size.

    I absolutely do not want to get serious about RA4 printing. Color printing
    is a major pain in the neck and although I totally miss Cibachrome I do
    not miss processing Cibachromes one bit. The nice thing about digital technology is that I can deliver digital scans from negatives but ALSO
    use the digital scans as a high grade proof sheet. I very seldom get
    prints made, but when I do I am all prepared.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimitris Tzortzakakis@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 27 20:21:20 2024
    Στις 24/12/2024 9:25 μ.μ., ο/η Scott Dorsey έγραψε:
    Abandoned Trolley <[email protected]> wrote:

    That might not be the point. If the end product is going to be scanned
    so that it can be printed in a magazine then all thats needed is the
    negative.

    Right. But good quality scanning is harder than C-41 processing. I wound
    up processing the last batch myself and sending negatives to the local
    lab.

    I understand all the arguments about superior colour rendering / grain
    perfomance / contrast etc etc but at the end of the day, if you want to
    get paid for your work then you need to deliver the product that the
    client has asked for.

    Or at least deliver -something-. I have a lot of jobs where I would
    rather deliver a substandard product than nothing at all. Other projects aren the opposite.

    It also explains the popularity of the 6x7 format with magazine
    photographers - more meat / pixels on the film + better aspect ratio =
    happy printer

    Unfortunately standards have fallen enough that a lot of editors don't
    really care about the slight improvement going to medium format except
    for cover shots. I get looked at like an alien when I suggest 4x5 for covers.

    Finally... if you are going to get serious about RA4 printing, then a
    major step on the road might be to get a roller transport processor.
    That will stabilise all the temperatures and give consistent and
    repeatable process times - print drums are a bit of a faff and limited
    in size.

    I absolutely do not want to get serious about RA4 printing. Color printing is a major pain in the neck and although I totally miss Cibachrome I do
    not miss processing Cibachromes one bit. The nice thing about digital technology is that I can deliver digital scans from negatives but ALSO
    use the digital scans as a high grade proof sheet. I very seldom get
    prints made, but when I do I am all prepared.
    --scott
    I don't know-is it easy to find out "the source" that means the lab who
    has the actual machine that does the processing and all the rest
    outsource the processing to him? Here, in Crete, south Greece, there is
    just one, and I found out by pure luck (serendipity?) and, today, I had
    my film processed in less than half an hour after I shot the last shot
    of the film! When I handed it to the photographer I got my equipment
    from, it could take even 10 days!!! and it cost 5 euros. I'm an amateur,
    though (my day job is an electrician). RA4 printing is not very
    difficult, you need plenty of hot water, and consistency of course.
    Everyone else in Crete, be it in Chania, Rethimnon or Agios Nikolaos,
    sends their films to this very lab.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Fri Dec 27 23:37:34 2024
    Dimitris Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> wrote:
    I don't know-is it easy to find out "the source" that means the lab who
    has the actual machine that does the processing and all the rest
    outsource the processing to him? Here, in Crete, south Greece, there is
    just one, and I found out by pure luck (serendipity?) and, today, I had
    my film processed in less than half an hour after I shot the last shot
    of the film! When I handed it to the photographer I got my equipment
    from, it could take even 10 days!!! and it cost 5 euros. I'm an amateur, >though (my day job is an electrician). RA4 printing is not very
    difficult, you need plenty of hot water, and consistency of course.
    Everyone else in Crete, be it in Chania, Rethimnon or Agios Nikolaos,
    sends their films to this very lab.

    Around here we have a number of labs. There are two labs in the local
    city, Richmond, and everybody else either sends to them or sends out of
    town. Both will do custom work while you wait if you ask nicely, but
    neither one will let you into the darkroom while they print so you can
    point out what you want.

    But, both of them have more dust issues than I am willing to deal with,
    and both of them take two to three weeks for a simple soup and scan.

    So I'd like to send simple work like soup and scans out to a bigger lab somewhere -else. But I want a lab that is faster rather than a lab that
    is slower. Used to be I could get one hour service on develop and scan
    jobs.
    --scott


    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimitris Tzortzakakis@21:1/5 to All on Sat Dec 28 19:33:53 2024
    Στις 28/12/2024 1:37 π.μ., ο/η Scott Dorsey έγραψε:
    Dimitris Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> wrote:
    I don't know-is it easy to find out "the source" that means the lab who
    has the actual machine that does the processing and all the rest
    outsource the processing to him? Here, in Crete, south Greece, there is
    just one, and I found out by pure luck (serendipity?) and, today, I had
    my film processed in less than half an hour after I shot the last shot
    of the film! When I handed it to the photographer I got my equipment
    from, it could take even 10 days!!! and it cost 5 euros. I'm an amateur,
    though (my day job is an electrician). RA4 printing is not very
    difficult, you need plenty of hot water, and consistency of course.
    Everyone else in Crete, be it in Chania, Rethimnon or Agios Nikolaos,
    sends their films to this very lab.

    Around here we have a number of labs. There are two labs in the local
    city, Richmond, and everybody else either sends to them or sends out of
    town. Both will do custom work while you wait if you ask nicely, but
    neither one will let you into the darkroom while they print so you can
    point out what you want.

    But, both of them have more dust issues than I am willing to deal with,
    and both of them take two to three weeks for a simple soup and scan.

    So I'd like to send simple work like soup and scans out to a bigger lab somewhere -else. But I want a lab that is faster rather than a lab that
    is slower. Used to be I could get one hour service on develop and scan
    jobs.
    --scott


    yep that was my problem too before I discovered the lab that has the
    actual machine that does the C41 developing-it's in my town and not a 20
    min walk from my home. Tetenal used to manufacture a C41 kit that was
    good for processing one colour negative film, but Tetenal has gone belly
    up, just like Agfa and Kodak. There are a number of C 41 kits in the
    market, if you want to process your films on your own. And about the
    dust issue and delay and not letting you control the results-for me it
    was a reason to do my own printing as the labs now scan and print
    negatives in a digital machine (that uses RA4 paper and chemicals
    though) and results are not always excellent, also in terms of resolving
    power, before digital they were optically enlarged and printed in RA4
    machines. Obviously now everything is optimised for digital;RA4 paper
    could be used either with sodium vapor or LED orange safelighting, now
    only total darkness. I always handled colour in total darkness anyway, I
    read about this safelighting in the excellent macodirect site.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sat Dec 28 19:23:50 2024
    Dimitris Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> wrote:

    yep that was my problem too before I discovered the lab that has the
    actual machine that does the C41 developing-it's in my town and not a 20
    min walk from my home.

    It's not like that here. ALL of the labs I mentioned are doing their own
    C41 processing in-house. Surplus minilab gear was available for the cost
    to haul it away for a decade.

    The problem is they are not doing their own C41 processing quickly or well. --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimitris Tzortzakakis@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 11 20:14:14 2025
    Στις 28/12/2024 9:23 μ.μ., ο/η Scott Dorsey έγραψε:
    Dimitris Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> wrote:

    yep that was my problem too before I discovered the lab that has the
    actual machine that does the C41 developing-it's in my town and not a 20
    min walk from my home.

    It's not like that here. ALL of the labs I mentioned are doing their own
    C41 processing in-house. Surplus minilab gear was available for the cost
    to haul it away for a decade.

    The problem is they are not doing their own C41 processing quickly or well. --scott

    are you sure about that? you should be a bit reserved, until you see the
    actual machine. it's expensive to keep such a machine in good shape,
    with fresh chemicals and running, heated to 38 C (or 100 F) waiting for
    the occassional film to be processed. because I thought the same for the
    labs here, until I found out the man with the actual machine, who is
    processing from all Crete. and even him lets sometimes the chemicals
    spoil, I have lost a couple of films due to gross underdevelopment. as I
    said before, as you're a pro, you should consider processing your own
    films, either manually or with a small processor. if that's not
    possible, you can find undercover who does the actual processing in your
    area ( a bit difficult though).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)