On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 11:33 AM, Alexander Wilson wrote:
> On return from the processor, the whole film was found to be grossly > underexposed. I sent it back to the processor for analysis and he said > that > it appears to have been properly developed but around 3 stops > underexposed. I think you may have found the down side of some processors, they will never admit the tech or equipment malfunctioned. Two times I have received some film that went from good to bad halfway through the roll. I had kept records of speed /aperture and although there was not much difference in the settings there was a significant change in the slides. Sometimes it's not easy finding a reliable, consistent lab. Bob Sisson * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
