PDA

View Full Version : Processing Lab Recommendations



David Solow
4-Sep-2011, 10:23
Hi All,

I have been searching the site for this information but have been unable to find it, even though I know the answers are here somewhere.

I am looking for a lab in the US to send my color 4x5 sheet film to be processed, both chromes and negatives. It doesn't matter where. I'm located in North Carolina, but FedEx can take my film as easily to New York as Atlanta or anywhere in the US.

I had a lab I used to use for film processing. They did wonderful work. Now, seven years later, I started using them again. I have used them only twice, but both times they messed up my film. The first time the chemistry was dirty, so there were dark spots all over the film, that couldn't be cleaned. They offered to scan and remove all the spots off the chromes at their own cost, which I thought was very nice. The next time I brought them film, all the chromes came back badly scratched, and two sheet of film were stuck together. This time they took 40% off the B&W film processing for me, as a way of apologizing. They are really nice folks. They used to do excellent work in all their processing and still do with B&W processing. Since they no longer process color negative sheet film, I thought I would find a lab to do both chromes and color negatives. I would be grateful for recommendations, if they are current and for a lab you've had extensive experience with.

Thanks,
David

Frank Petronio
4-Sep-2011, 11:26
www.4photolab.com (http://www.4photolab.com/) Edgar Praus is the best all around mail order lab and he does it all.

Nathan Potter
4-Sep-2011, 11:48
I agree with Petronio; so far for my work, Praus is impeccable.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Mark Woods
4-Sep-2011, 12:36
A & I Hollywood, California is another option.

Leigh
4-Sep-2011, 13:23
Dodge Chrome in Silver Spring, Maryland, does excellent work with B&W, E-6, and C-41. They handle sheet film up to 8x10.

http://www.dodgechrome.com/photofilm/wetlab.html

These are great folks to work with, totally committed to quality. I just picked up a batch of 4x5 and 8x10 from them last week.

- Leigh

mitomac
4-Sep-2011, 14:36
I've had good luck with Samy's Camera Santa Barbara. I'm in the NC triangle and will send film to Samy's on Monday and have it back by Saturday. 4x5 E6 is only a $1.70 for dip and dunk. The downside is that their lab home page is no longer available... PM me if you want a pdf of their order form. I believe they still do the volume to ensure the quick turn around. I've tried other places and it might take a week for them to process while they are waiting for other orders. They also do C41 at a similar price.

Cheers,

mitomac

IanMazursky
5-Sep-2011, 00:08
LTI (http://www.ltiny.com) in NYC is an amazing lab. I use them for all of my E6, C41 and B&W.
Everything is clean and fast. All in D&D Refremas. Their traditional printers are fantastic, my contacts look great.
The employees are a great bunch of guys to work with, very knowledgeable and helpful.
Definitely worth a try.

Stephen Benskin
5-Sep-2011, 00:48
All labs are not created equal especially when it comes to b&w processing. E-6 and C-41 processing are very well defined and all a lab is required to do is keep the processing clean and in control, but b&w doesn't have a defined standard for processing. I ran a test through a number of professional custom labs in Los Angeles (attached). The film was TXP 120 and the instructions were to run it normal.

The results show two labs at the lower end of normal and two at the higher end. The fifth lab was way outside anything that could be considered normal. In another test with TX 125, the fifth lab was even further off. This showed that not only was their process too contrasty, they weren't even consistent from film type to film type.

This was sometime ago and most of the labs no longer exist, but I think it is a good lesson that no matter how good the lab's reputation, you should always test. Trust but verify.

Zaitz
5-Sep-2011, 04:34
Burne Photo (http://www.burne.com/) has been awesome for me. Great quality and pretty quick turnaround and prices are very good I think.

bob carnie
5-Sep-2011, 06:47
Run Normal????

unless you know what their chemistry line is and what they call normal you would be just to blame for inconsistent development as they may seem.

Running good film requires some effort at both ends.

All labs are not created equal especially when it comes to b&w processing. E-6 and C-41 processing are very well defined and all a lab is required to do is keep the processing clean and in control, but b&w doesn't have a defined standard for processing. I ran a test through a number of professional custom labs in Los Angeles (attached). The film was TXP 120 and the instructions were to run it normal.

The results show two labs at the lower end of normal and two at the higher end. The fifth lab was way outside anything that could be considered normal. In another test with TX 125, the fifth lab was even further off. This showed that not only was their process too contrasty, they weren't even consistent from film type to film type.

This was sometime ago and most of the labs no longer exist, but I think it is a good lesson that no matter how good the lab's reputation, you should always test. Trust but verify.

Preston
5-Sep-2011, 07:07
I've used A&I and Samy's. Both are excellent in terms of service and quality. I am now using Samy's due to their lower per sheet price.

--P

Stephen Benskin
5-Sep-2011, 08:27
Run Normal????
unless you know what their chemistry line is and what they call normal you would be just to blame for inconsistent development as they may seem.


How so? If you mean ask questions of the lab and test their line to determine if their processing matches your conditions, then I agree any blame for unsatisfactory results can be equally shared. Now, except for the fifth lab, I made no judgements. I simply was pointing out that results can vary from lab to lab and that I recommend first testing the lab you plan on using.

As for what is defined as Normal. Normal is defined as the average gradient that produces an aim negative density range as defined under statistically average conditions - luminance range 2.2, flare 0.30 to 0.40. The only assumption would be what they considered to be the aim negative density range. That is usually based on the type of enlargers being using on a grade 2 paper, but believe me, this usually isn't what labs do. Most labs, whether they know it or not, process for diffusion enlarger numbers regardless of the type of enlarger used.

Sadly, ask most labs what they consider to be Normal processing and the response will most likely have something to do with film speed. Hopefully, these are the labs that have gone out of business.

The reason why I said two labs are processing to low normal is because they have CIs of 0.56. That would mean NDR 1.05, LSLR 2.20, flare 0.34. These are the numbers Kodak used to use. Later they increased the flare value to reflect the change from the majority of photographers using large format to the majority using 35mm. This created a Normal CI of 0.58. One of the two with the higher normal is basing it on a NDR 1.10, LSLR 2.20, and flare 0.40.

The fifth lab has no excuse. They were running a line of replenished D-76 and it was out of control.

So, except for the fifth outlier lab there are no judgements. A lab might just have a different normal than what meets your requirements, so testing a lab in order to define what they are doing and what your needs are is just good policy.

For the record, this was a test for a client who was having printing problems (they were using the fifth lab). I had worked for two of the labs involved in the test. I introduced sensitometric testing to both of them. One of the people I trained went to work for another lab and took what he knew with him (the two lower CIs). At the second lab I worked at, I decided to use a higher Normal for a few reasons. At the time of the test, I was no longer working there and they seem to have let the line slide slightly. The other lab that was close to the higher normal was just a coincidence. I know this because I've talked with the people there and they aren't aware of sensitometric principles. The fifth lab later hired me to redo their line.

Years ago, Kodak did a lab survey where they sent two rolls each of five different film types asking each lab to process one roll normal and the other +2. I got a hold of the results. The test from the LA labs was more consistent than the results from most of the labs in the survey. That said, many labs today use Xtol which comes with a set of very nice processing times. Back then, Kodak had a tendency not to give processing times for non-Kodak films.

The point of my original post in this thread? Test whatever lab you plan on using.

bob carnie
5-Sep-2011, 09:25
All labs I worked at and now own ask the client a few questions about their work, what kind of prints they want to make , and so on.
Things have got pretty lax lately due to lack of photographers shooting film.

Just sending in a roll to lab A , B or C is pointless unless the operator is understanding the photographers work .

We make negs for condensor or diffusion, just have to talk to us a bit and become a regular client that gives us the opportunity get to know the work.
re: processes varying from lab to lab ,, no shit
My biggest beef is other labs dip and dunk crap process. We refuse to print work that is processed in other labs. Since I have to put the negatives in the enlarger at some point and make prints, I want to be responsible for the negatives.
If you ask 100 photographers about film processing , the number one wish is for low cost processing. right /wrong?? ** this is why you have replenished systems, and today with lack of film you probably had your film dunked in totally inadequate chems.
You get what you pay for and our lab has lost a lot of business over the years because we did not run a dip and dunk , replenished line... for many , many reasons too long to explain here.

We run one shot rotary and do not replenish, as well we let the client tell us the Process type, time.
So my point is that we make our photographers work.

If you sent in multiple ring around rolls to each lab evaluated their work in a ring around style and made prints from each lab to compare , I would then think you have a more comprehensive idea of what each lab is doing. Back in the day that is exactly what a smart photogapher would do with his printer /processor. But sadly your first impressions of each lab will probably be the same these days and your test was probably pretty accurate.

Another pet peeve: photographers buying cheap outdated film and then send to us for process, give me a break, the film is so tightly wound on the core or dried out it takes Houdini to put the film on the reels.

whew I feel better now.

Stephen Benskin
5-Sep-2011, 10:47
It sounds like you agree that testing a lab is a good idea. That's all I was saying.

I have to disagree about dip and dunks. I had Refrema custom build an Olympic. The development tank held 70 gallons and had two forms of agitation - the nitrogen burst, and a physical "jumper" that moved the rack in the tank during processing. It has an acid stop, cascading fix tanks, and multiple wash tanks among other things. Very clean. Some of the innovations became standard on future Refremas.

As for the replenished developer, it is slightly less potent as fresh, but inadequate? I used a calibrated sensitometer, so I had an accurate record of contrast to film speed.

I would also customize processing to what ever the client wanted. It's just there needs to be a standard. Most photographers would just come in and just drop off the film saying they wanted normal processing. Most of them thought pushing film was for increasing speed. I once tried to implement a policy to obtain more information from them, but there was too much blow back suspicious of why we wanted to know.

The biggest philosophical difference toward processing that I found between LA and NY labs was that the labs in Los Angeles believed in science and the labs in New York believed in magic.:) I remember MV Photo Labs self published a book on film processing. What a load of gibberish. I've heard of a lab in NY that wouldn't process the film unless they had a lighting diagram from the shoot and they wouldn't tell you what they processed in. Of course, there were and are great labs outside LA and NY.

My philosophy is to define and systematize. I processed each film type to a set contrast index for a given processing indication. Anyone who says that some films are inherently contrastier than others in a given chemistry indicates to me that they don't know what they are taking about.

I've attached a copy of an internal Contrast Index chart used at Kodak. It uses a fix flare model, which while easy to work with, I find problematic. My approach to processing was similar. I first established a developmental model (like the Kodak chart). I then made a family of curves test usually consisting of 9 test wedges. After reading and plotting them, I would find the processing time based on the CI determined from the developmental model for minus to plus using a Time / CI curve.

I'd be very interest to hear how you define the processing at Elevator Pro Photo Labs. Personally, I'm almost desperate to have an intelligent conversation about photographic theory, and I'm sure it would prove educational to those thinking about approaching a lab.

bob carnie
5-Sep-2011, 11:19
There are some here that say I would be incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

I am leaving in an hour for a couple of days away from the internet ,so I need to get my stuff together, when I get back I would be happy to describe our methods and approach to film development. How we started, and how we changed to small batch runs in a jobo and now we are considering another method.

Btw ,, I use to work a Refrema in a few labs, they are great machines, in the right hands with tight control well maybe even fantastic. but as you well know we are in a different world right now , fast and cheap and no film being exposed.

Stephen Benskin
5-Sep-2011, 11:47
Looking forward to it.

Jim Becia
6-Sep-2011, 14:47
Burne Photo (http://www.burne.com/) has been awesome for me. Great quality and pretty quick turnaround and prices are very good I think.

I can second Burne Photo. I have had them run hundreds of sheets of film (everything from 4x5, 5x7, 4x10, and 8x10) with perfect results. Jim

Thom Bennett
6-Sep-2011, 15:09
another vote for Praus. Edgar has been extremely helpful to me. I like talking to the guy who runs the place and he obviously takes a great deal of pride in his work.

Stephen Benskin
6-Sep-2011, 16:44
Saw this on Burne Photo Imaging website, "Film Adjustment - Film speed adjustment is available." Think they know it doesn't work that way? It's a red flag in my book.

Frank Petronio
6-Sep-2011, 21:46
Pros have been pushing and pulling E-6 since the get go. It's not a sign of bad lab, you're just applying your Zone System B&W nomenclature to a different process and not understanding the vernacular language ;-p

What people would do is shoot several sheets (of chromes, not B&W) and run one test, then either push or pull 1/3 or 1/2 stop as needed. This was standard operating practice, especially for fashion and people when you can't bracket expressions.

Then people moved to color negative and then digital but some people may still want to work that way.

Stephen Benskin
6-Sep-2011, 23:52
I'm just bring up a few questions to consider. It is a common misconception that pushing film has to do with speed adjustment (especially with B&W). The question then becomes is the lab perpetuating a misconception for the sake of the customers or do they believe it themselves? It's not necessarily a sign of a bad lab and I'm not saying this should eliminate any lab from consideration, but I would want to discuss the topic with them in order to better understand their perspective on processing especially if I was considering processing b&w film with them. Talk to the lab about their processing philosophy. Get to know how they think, and do a test of their processing.

Basically, don't just take anybody's recommendation of a lab on faith. Don't assume that the lab knows any more about processing than you do. When I took charge of b&w processing for a major lab, the attached processing chart was what they they were using. I've also attached a page from a Kodak lab survey done years ago. Joe's Basement was at one time considered a top lab. Their results are fairly representative of the survey. Kodak gave the labs two rolls each of a number of different film types asking them to process one Normal and one plus two. Normal can be considered to fall somewhere between CI 0.56 to 0.61 and plus 2 between CI 0.75 and 0.85 for a diffusion enlarger and depending on other considerations.

Frank Petronio
7-Sep-2011, 05:31
In terms of B&W, there are labs who work with a large variety of films and photographers - and who price their processing on a reasonable, competitive number for that. When they get a bunch of TXP, FP4, TMY, all from different photographers who expect "normal" what else would you expect them to do but to follow the data sheets for the film? It's not like E6 or C41 where it is a standardized, calibrated process.

Some, like Praus, will, if you request it, process your film in your choice of chemistry and specs for an extra charge but you have to communicate and have round of testing to get what you want.

There is also a higher level of custom lab work done - by people like Praus or many other fine-art photographers who do lab work - for higher level professions. They become collaborators with the artist and have a very close relationship. For instance, the lab guy for Annie Leibovitz mostly works only with her. A lot of well-off, successful or just plain rich photographers have similar arrangements. But you have to pay, craftspeople and artisans should make a decent living themselves - i.e. not $5 a roll in their laundry room.

What B&W I do with Edgar hasn't been specced as custom but his "normal" is always consistent and I adjust my film speed based on his processing. Is it optimal for an ex-Zone System nerd? Not exactly. But for the value it works fine for me and most of his other customers. My prints look like shit, I know ;-p

bob carnie
9-Sep-2011, 16:09
Hi Stephen

I am back and have had time to revisit this thread, First off I hope my post will not side track the OP original post , I don't think so.

First off there are two or more types of labs, I have worked at a few labs in my day. There are owners that set up and pay high priced technicians and do not print themselves. Then there are those that are set up to process film so the printers are happy and hopefully the photographer.
I fall into the latter , and I know MV Labs does as well so I am a bit surprised with your comments about his film processing blurb book. to be honest I have never read it so maybe its crap, but I do know that the owner is a respected printer.
I suspect the LA labs you refer to are the former. In the mid 90's I was offered to start up a Black White division in one major Lab in Hollywood, but frankly I like Ontario.

I am the only printer at my lab, and I accept clients with an initial meeting. Stephen with all due respect I do not know you but I have read your posts here and on APUG and it seems you have a very high degree of understanding of plotting film, much deeper than my knowledge, but I do have to ask, do you print for others? and if so do you have a long standing history of putting exhibitions on gallery and museum walls?
This is important to me as most of the questions I ask a photographer wanting to work with me are questions about, the look they are wanting to get in their prints as I am going to be the one printing, nobody else , I do not run a lab for quick process and walk away, You must be aware that there are dozens of different styles that a printer may be asked to produce... If this is not readily apparent to you then any thing I say may be of no value to you.
I believe in Normal Process for Normal Lighting Scenes, Expansion Process for Flat Lighting Scenes or specific print process **Lith** and Compaction process for Large Lighting Scenes, **Pyro process usually**
Once I know the look then we discuss the film type that will most help in getting to that look, then we discuss the developer needed to produce the look, then I make the decision on which enlarger is used to create the look.
Next step is to process a couple of runs with the client giving me a exposure bracket and then looking at the negs, then printing , then deciding what ISO for those conditions are required.
Next step is to start working with the photographer and keeping good track of the negs , looking at the negs and making sure we are consistently within a good printing range.
I am a Split Print Printer and I am not as concerned about a consistent Contrast Range on the negative as maybe you are.
I spent my whole adult life looking at negatives , and printing them, I can see immediately if things are going haywire.
We use consistent development and one shot chemistry, for each photographer and their specific projects.

This may be sound really stupid, its the oldest saying in the book, but I like a negative you can read through the highlights and has a low base density plus fog... unless of course it is a pyro or rodinal neg.
I have a Lambda unit here that we run film with and it needs to have 21 steps balanced before running, so I am Ok there.

But here is a question for you... would you rely on your eyes to see a colour shift , or would you rely on a plot.

Answer: when we run a 21 step on a lambda for paper , or even on inkjet, the densitometer will say you are in balance, but your eyes will perceive a slight cast
When we ran internegative film in the 80s we had three ways of plotting and getting to a certain point.. The final say was printing a graduated grey scale and visually
doing the final balance...... hmmmmmm any operator worth their weight would be able to tell you this little fact.
I am not knocking sensitometric readings as they are invaluable in getting you too the ball park, once you are there , you trust your eyes and experience..

The second post is a bit about the different types of systems I have used to process film, I hope this post gives you insight into Elevator and our working methods. I certainly defer to your curve plotting skills and will look into your articles in the future. I am curious though about your responsiblity's in the labs you worked at in regards to printing?

bob carnie
9-Sep-2011, 16:10
Ok here is more stuff about processes , pros and cons.

Basic ways of processing film,

Basket Line
BW - film on reels and dropped into the soup as the time ticked down, each photographer would give times for each roll.
Pros- lots of film per day could be run, easy to calculate chemical balances
- dead simple to run and maintain.
Cons- hard to control, agitation is critical and hard to maintain good edge to edge density,
very dangerous in wrong hands.
-difficult position to find competent people, I mean who the hell wants to stand all day long in a small stinkin room processing film for others.
Colour - same as above , not as many times available in C41, temps harder to maintain, never did this with E6 but knew of labs that did.

Elevator started with this type of processing, but after successfully launching business found this method hard to keep up with good staff.

Refrema- E6 - High quality and High volume capabilities, need a first rate tech who understands sensitometry. (sounds like you Stephen]
These machines are hungry and need lots of film, plus minimum 5 control strips a day to balance the machine.
When mechanical problems occur these machines become your worst nightmare as you do lose film and photographers become tough.
I managed Colourgenics here in Toronto which constantly won Fuji control plot competitions,, you remember those days?? Basically in Toronto there were only two good E6 labs, Colourgenics and Steichanlab. Any photographer worth their salt would have their film run at either... Steichan was set up for Fashion and ran a warmer line, Colourgenics ran a more neutral line and was preferred by studio still life photographers.
In both labs the NORMAL was a push 1/3 with room to drop back dev and still lots of room to push the time.
The Refremas both were modified by an Indian dude, Terry , who would work on the nitrogen burst systems to give top to bottom side to side even agitation We would expose nuetral gray cards load them on a full rack and run them and the aim was to get equal density on all areas of the film, Terry's job was to make the density even and believe me he was a very busy man for years and made some decent coin.
THESE MACHINES NEED LOTS OF FILM AND ARE DIFFICULT TO CONTROL AND OPERATE WITHOUT A GOOD OPERATOR AND CONSISTENT WORK.

Then there were the rest of the dip and dunk labs that I hated, they did not give a crap about process control, if they ran a control strip a day it would be a good day. probably did not read them and if they did probably could not adjust.
These are the people who’s film I will not process.

Roller Transport- yes a lot of labs run roller transport, then with digital Ice get rid of the shit or scratches , make small prints and send it out... This was and is done with Black and White and colour and when I have tried to print this film on my condenser enlarger, every scratch, blotch, shows, a total failure.

Small Tank hand process... Actually I think this is probably the best method to do your own film, with practice great agitation, with practice good rhythm, and timing.
One shot process , cannot get any better.
Jobo , semi automatic processing is how Elevator does film now, but due to Jobo out of business this way will need some thinking.

Pros-, Consistent Temp, Agitation, Time control.
- operator can set up the run, start, then load more film and continue as well can do this work
in a more pleasing atmosphere.
-Many runs per day can be done with accuracy, film washing is done off Jobo.
Cons- finding parts and labour is getting difficult.


Tray Process- many here do this for their film, I have never done this so I have no opinion.

for large lambda beta testing purposes I am processing 20 inch x 40 inch sheets of film off my lambda in trays... works well but I will get a machine to make this much more easier.



Future- I am currently in the works of making a rotary machine that I can use for processing.
it will be semi automatic and able to use my existing reels and tanks.
I am also starting a basket line again for personal work , and will also be hand processing in small tank.

David Solow
11-Oct-2011, 18:06
Thanks for all the suggestions.

I gotten back some film from Praus Productions. The quality and service are excellent. It's worth the extra time. Even with the cost of getting the film to Rochester, I'm paying less than what I would locally.

David

Stephen Benskin
14-Oct-2011, 17:23
Bob,

Sounds like a very impressive set-up. As you said, not everyone is as conscientious as your lab. That's all I'm saying. Not everyone is the same, so it's a good idea to test any lab before sending them your work.

I printed in the first lab I worked at. I consider myself a photographer first and I consider printing to be my strongest suit. Even commercial printing takes some creative energy. I didn't want to waste my energy on other people's work. Lab work was just a day job. Processing B&W film allowed me to use the analytical part of my brain plus I was able to do research with other people's money. The research also made-up for the monotony of doing the actual processing.

Steve

datachrome
9-Jan-2012, 14:31
Data-chrome.com in Santa Ana California does great processing of all formats of E6.
Mail order form is on web site. Owner runs the film no employees.

datachrome
9-Jan-2012, 14:34
Data-chrome.com Mail order accepted.