Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> > I feel the need to defend my honor! :)
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, Aaron.
Twas sort of a joke, Shel. Thus, mister smiley --> :)
> Tell me, Aaron, do you hand process? If you do, will you
> agitate the film exactly the same way I do? Will you fill and
> empty the tanks in the same manner that I do?
That's what the $20 a roll buys you: hand processing to spec.
Otherwise, the $6 way is rotary in a Jobo.
> Is your timer and
> thermometer calibrated to mine?
To be fair, Shel, if your clock works right and your thermometer is any
good, yes. If you have a cheap thermometer (or one that's been banged
about and abused), or your clock batteries are dying, then ours likely
won't match yours.
> All reasons not to use a lab to process B&W film if you can do
> it yourself.
If you are shooting to a calibrated, repeatable method of processing,
yes. Part of what you are buying at a lab (in theory) is processing
that is exactly the same every time. It's not like a lab processes your
film in a different way every time you come in. At least, they don't if
they want to keep customers coming back. The trick is to find a lab
whose processing you like.
> I don't care a fig about the cost for an important roll of
> film. I'm only interested in the results. Does this guy do his
> own Technidol processing, or do you do all of it for him? If
> he doesn't do it himself, he has no point of comparison.
He does his own. We follow his specs. After the first roll we shaved
thirty seconds off of the processing time to more closely match his
results. We're both very happy with the final result.
Your example about the beakers is a very good one, and obviously we
would not be accounting for it if we didn't know about it. Water also
makes a difference, as silly as it seems.
> If I were to want to continue having a lab do my B&W processing,
> I'd be willing to burn a few rolls of film to get them dialed in
> to my preferences. But frankly, that's too much of a hassle and
> takes far too much time. Next time, I'll just freeze the film.
I'd say working with a lab is like working with a new developer: it is
unreasonable to expect your very first roll through to look exactly like
the last roll you did in the old developer.
I think that writing off all labs because of a single bad experience
with a single lab is a little rash, tho'. Out of curiosity, what were
they using that made Tri-X look so very yucky?
Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
