Marnie, you'll get a lot of responses on this. You've described the fundamental flaw of color print film: there is a subjective amount of decision making the printer (person or machine) must make when making your print, which is precisely the reason slide film gets so much use amongst people who enjoy photography: there is no intermediate step between the taking of the picture and the viewing of the resutls (other than development). From my relatively limited experience, the choices are:
1) Find a lab and/or printer that gives you results you like. Stick with them until the end of time. Be prepared to ask for redo's from time to time. 2) Switch to slide film and deal with the narrower exposure latitude and the issues that arise when you want prints from your slides. 3) Do your own color prints. Lots of work, but ultimately educational and you've got no one but yourself to blame. 4) Scan your negs and become proficient in the science and art of the "digital" darkroom. 5) Switch to Black & White and forget about color altogether. I'm sure others will have more ideas for you. I struggle with the print film issue myself, but I ultimately prefer prints to slides: I can easily share the prints with others, my wife can use them for scrapbooks when she wants, and I've got several labs that produce prints that I'm satisfied with. I end up spending about 2x over slide processing, but I feel that I have more choices in the end. That aside, I'm not a "pro" and my livelihood doesn't depend on my photography, so I can be somewhat flexible in my choices. Your avocation may call for a different set of priorities. And, I have to admit, there isn't anything that compares to viewing one's medium format slide work on a light table. They're like little jewels! t On 1/3/03 11:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, here's another dumb newbie q. I've been trying to figure out how to word > this q for some time and still haven't gotten it right. And it is a multi-part > q, some parts esoteric and some not. I am also sure it has been asked before. > > Feel free to answer any part of this q that you want. > > 1. What color ARE color negatives? (color print film) > > My experience: > > I started wondering about this when I had some 4x6s blown up to 5x7s. I took > two negatives to the place I usually have my prints done (a local drugstore). > I did NOT take along the original 4x6 prints. When the 5x7s came back, the > color was completely washed out. So I figured, "Okay, it's just a drugstore. > I'll try a real photo lab." > > Did the same thing with the photo lab, took in the negatives without the 4x6 > prints. This time the 5x7s did not come out washed out, but there was a major > color shift. For instance, pink clouds came out yellow. > > So I complained to the photo lab guy. He said to bring in the original 4x6s so > they could them as a guide and they would redo them. They did and the 5x7s > came out much better. > > I asked they guy why they needed the 4x6s as guides. He said that the first > time the film is run through the machine, when it is developed and printed, > the machine tends to get it right because it can look at the whole role to set > the color standard. But when one or two negatives are reprinted, it can make > errors on the color standard because it is looking at a smaller set. This > answer seemed rather disingenuous to me. (It must be noted that it turned out > this lab does not have digital processing to turn a color slide into a color > print, so he was not defending the color loss than occur when using > internegatives -- I asked about that too. I.E. He actually recommended PRINT > film as being more color accurate.) > > I also asked him some other things, but things I realized were rather > esoteric, so I ask them here instead. > > 2. Who's to say the original 4x6 prints are right? (Right in the sense that > they show the color the camera recorded at the time?) > > I had some photos I felt real proud of -- dry grass covered hills that came > out very yellow. I felt that *I* had had something to do with the resultant > print color. The time of the day I took the shots; the aperture setting I > used. > > 3. But if one lab can develop color prints a different color than another lab > can develop them, how can I ever tell if *I* had ANYTHING to do with the color > they come out? > > (Maybe one lab simply printed them too colorful -- not the color the camera > recorded.) > > 4. What color is actually there? How come any machine cannot look at color > negatives and arrive at the same color in the prints? > > 5. This is why people use slide film isn't it? Because the developing process > doesn't change the color? And because the photographer can see what color the > pictures really came out? > > 6. *Is* the developing of color slide film accurate? (i.e. Do slides come out > the color the camera recorded? > > Color is very important to me. > > So inquiring minds want to know. > > TIA, Doe aka Marnie ;-) >
