DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Film vs digital camera pros and cons
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
Micheal, sounds about right, given you would have probably shot bracketed medium format of the formals, and taken extra shots to be sure with the rest of it. With digital, I shoot and know I have it, including enlarging the image to make sure a select shot has no closed eyes in the formal groups.
Mike, I didn't just all off the turnip truck. Before going digital I shot weddings with film, and occassionally still do. The labs are the ones staffed with $6 an hour kids these days. Granted, some are still quite good, but not as consistant and obedient to your instructions as you imply. And the mail? It's not the US mail you'd trust with irreplacable wedding film I hope. Mail house labs? After the last 220 roll was devoured by the machine due to improper loading, that was it for me. And this was a very top notch pro lab. They gave me the rest of my processing free. Big whoop! The roll they destroyed was of the procession! Try to explain to a bride that her and her dad coming down the aisle is history. Previous to that, another lab processed my negs in tranparency soup. Good for a Halloween party, but not a wedding.
Those lab mistakes cost me more than all the CF cards I ever bought.
CF card down loads: High speed read/write CFs, Firewire reader loading directly to 120 gig HD mounted to my desktop via firewire. (Now using some USB2 downloading which is also fast as hell). Mac G5 dual processor with 4 gigs of RAM. Formal CF cards loaded via a G3 laptop at the same time the other 5 cards are downloading to the G5. Total 1/2 hour max.
But hey, Dirk makes a point, professional demands are different than a hobby. I also shoot for myself. I use my 1950s technology Leica Ms and film...which I now scan and process on the computer as I also have little time to work in the darkroom (which I still have set up).
BTW, not one of my clients (many of whom are art-directors and designers) has objected to Ink-Jets, nor can I see any white dots even with a loop. What kind of equipment are you referring to that does that? My Epson 2200 prints 370 dpi images @ 2800 dpi resolution. The color is spectacular as is the B&W which with this printer shows little or no color shift like previous Ink-Jets.
Mike, I didn't just all off the turnip truck. Before going digital I shot weddings with film, and occassionally still do. The labs are the ones staffed with $6 an hour kids these days. Granted, some are still quite good, but not as consistant and obedient to your instructions as you imply. And the mail? It's not the US mail you'd trust with irreplacable wedding film I hope. Mail house labs? After the last 220 roll was devoured by the machine due to improper loading, that was it for me. And this was a very top notch pro lab. They gave me the rest of my processing free. Big whoop! The roll they destroyed was of the procession! Try to explain to a bride that her and her dad coming down the aisle is history. Previous to that, another lab processed my negs in tranparency soup. Good for a Halloween party, but not a wedding.
Those lab mistakes cost me more than all the CF cards I ever bought.
CF card down loads: High speed read/write CFs, Firewire reader loading directly to 120 gig HD mounted to my desktop via firewire. (Now using some USB2 downloading which is also fast as hell). Mac G5 dual processor with 4 gigs of RAM. Formal CF cards loaded via a G3 laptop at the same time the other 5 cards are downloading to the G5. Total 1/2 hour max.
But hey, Dirk makes a point, professional demands are different than a hobby. I also shoot for myself. I use my 1950s technology Leica Ms and film...which I now scan and process on the computer as I also have little time to work in the darkroom (which I still have set up).
BTW, not one of my clients (many of whom are art-directors and designers) has objected to Ink-Jets, nor can I see any white dots even with a loop. What kind of equipment are you referring to that does that? My Epson 2200 prints 370 dpi images @ 2800 dpi resolution. The color is spectacular as is the B&W which with this printer shows little or no color shift like previous Ink-Jets.
M
mikel
Dirk,
Amen to all that
And just wanted to correct my earlier post (Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 9:21 pm
.
The price for double-prints of 36-frame roll is incorrect. The price that I mentioned was actually for A&I pre-paid mailer processing (although I didn't specifically mention it in that post), and it's actually $11.95 for the mailer (single prints) and extra $7 for the second set of prints. Although you definitely can get it done for $16 in labs that are less famous than A&I.
Mike.
Amen to all that
And just wanted to correct my earlier post (Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 9:21 pm
The price for double-prints of 36-frame roll is incorrect. The price that I mentioned was actually for A&I pre-paid mailer processing (although I didn't specifically mention it in that post), and it's actually $11.95 for the mailer (single prints) and extra $7 for the second set of prints. Although you definitely can get it done for $16 in labs that are less famous than A&I.
Mike.
D
djg
I guess it takes all kinds! I for my part, am happy I don't have to torture people with a slide show anymore, and instead point them to my web site where they can view and download to their hearts content, or not, as they wish. Granted it's not as panoramic, but I feel it's a more practical and effective sharing of the images, and you reach a much greater number of people.
Mike, you mention CRTs and other aspects of digital as requiring constant calibration - I guess I never had the proficiency you have with your darkroom with my Jobo ATL-3 and Omega D5500, as I noticed some variability due to environmental and film / paper / chemical batch variations at least on a par with what you mention, not to mention different film / paper characteristics which make you constantly wonder, what did my eyes really see? Add to that the commercial photo printer's interpretation of your negatives.
But as they say, to each his own. For me the ultimate objective of photography is to enjoy myself and share that enjoyment with my friends. Film or digital
.
Cheers,
DJ
Mike, you mention CRTs and other aspects of digital as requiring constant calibration - I guess I never had the proficiency you have with your darkroom with my Jobo ATL-3 and Omega D5500, as I noticed some variability due to environmental and film / paper / chemical batch variations at least on a par with what you mention, not to mention different film / paper characteristics which make you constantly wonder, what did my eyes really see? Add to that the commercial photo printer's interpretation of your negatives.
But as they say, to each his own. For me the ultimate objective of photography is to enjoy myself and share that enjoyment with my friends. Film or digital
. Cheers,
DJ
erichard44
Active Member
> I have to say that for once this is an interesting and thoughtful digital vs. film discussion. I shoot film, but of course my processing is partly digital because I scan and then manipulate and print the images digitally. (Did I say manipulate?)
The digital part that I don't use is actual camera, because I am very happy with the equipment that I have (G2, Fuji GA645, and Mamiya 7II).
What I read in these posts is that different end applications and different motivations presently allow for both image capture systems to be used, to provide satisfaction to the users, and even though there are opposing points of view, there are arguments to be made for both systems.
It is interesting that both low end consumer applications (point and shoot for 4x6 prints) and at least two types of professional work (weddings and news) are clearly well served by digital image capture. What isn't well served, so far, seems to be the thoughtful and careful hobbyist and fine art professionals. But the problem is, I guess, just how big are those two markets?
I have never believed that Contax is aiming for the professional photographer as its market, but rather at the well-off amateur. Contax might relish the endorsement of professionals, and certainly the 645 is a professional camera, but is that where the market and the money is?
When I scan my medium format images on an Epson 2450, I get detail with virtually no grain, just like a digital camera. I like the G2 for its beautiful colors and small size, and a Canon 4000 scanner works well with the slides/negatives. I like the idea of the permanent real images on film. I worry about the permanence and utility of proprietary digital image storage systems, as well as the media issues.
I can't bring myself to purchase an interim Canon digital slr for $1,000 or $1,500, and I have no intention of spending $10,000 for a 1DS. I can wait.
And I think film will be produced for a long time, because it has its virtues.
Horses for courses anyone?
>
The digital part that I don't use is actual camera, because I am very happy with the equipment that I have (G2, Fuji GA645, and Mamiya 7II).
What I read in these posts is that different end applications and different motivations presently allow for both image capture systems to be used, to provide satisfaction to the users, and even though there are opposing points of view, there are arguments to be made for both systems.
It is interesting that both low end consumer applications (point and shoot for 4x6 prints) and at least two types of professional work (weddings and news) are clearly well served by digital image capture. What isn't well served, so far, seems to be the thoughtful and careful hobbyist and fine art professionals. But the problem is, I guess, just how big are those two markets?
I have never believed that Contax is aiming for the professional photographer as its market, but rather at the well-off amateur. Contax might relish the endorsement of professionals, and certainly the 645 is a professional camera, but is that where the market and the money is?
When I scan my medium format images on an Epson 2450, I get detail with virtually no grain, just like a digital camera. I like the G2 for its beautiful colors and small size, and a Canon 4000 scanner works well with the slides/negatives. I like the idea of the permanent real images on film. I worry about the permanence and utility of proprietary digital image storage systems, as well as the media issues.
I can't bring myself to purchase an interim Canon digital slr for $1,000 or $1,500, and I have no intention of spending $10,000 for a 1DS. I can wait.
And I think film will be produced for a long time, because it has its virtues.
Horses for courses anyone?
>
W
writing4me
Richard, I really appreciated your post. All very well said. On a side note, you are shooting two cameras (your GA645 and Mamiya 7II) that I have have been fascinated by in theory, but have no personal experience with. Would you email me privately your thoughts about these two cameras? I hate to tie up the Contaxinfo site with something that off topic. You can reach me at Lynn@turnkeydesign.net Thank you! -Lynn
M
mikel
Marc,
> Mike, I didn't just all off the turnip truck. > >Before going digital I
I know, that's why I said - it all depends on purpose.
> shot weddings with film, and occassionally still do. The labs are the
> ones staffed with $6 an hour kids these days.
You mean the Walgreens-we-process-and-print-your-film-while-you're-chewing-gum kind of places? Because pro labs aren't doing it.
> Granted, some are still
> quite good, but not as consistant and obedient to your instructions as
> you imply. And the mail? It's not the US mail you'd trust with
> irreplacable wedding film I hope.
Well, never had a single problem with US mail, but it anyway so happens that when I have something to develop - I have 3-4 rolls. So I simply send them with FedEx. Cheap, fast and reliable.
As about irreplaceable. And what will happen if by some bad coincidence, on your way home, you will pass some street where some broadcasting channel temporary set up their dish or other equipment, which generates such a powerful magnetic field will erase or damage images on your CF cards?
Or even easier than that - some mechanical damage. It's the same thing in this case. But, once your film is developed, scratch on it won't result in a total loss. Not so if all you have is a DVD-burned copy and DVD gets really serious scratch making it unreadable.
> Mail house labs? After the last 220
> roll was devoured by the machine due to improper loading, that was it
> for me. And this was a very top notch pro lab.
Well, perhaps you should let us know which one, so that we don't use it
> They gave me the rest
> of my processing free. Big whoop! The roll they destroyed was of the
> procession! Try to explain to a bride that her and her dad coming down
> the aisle is history. Previous to that, another lab processed my negs
> in tranparency soup. Good for a Halloween party, but not a wedding.
> Those lab mistakes cost me more than all the CF cards I ever bought.
See my comment above regarding CFs. They don't do a better job in preserving the images in case things go really wrong.
> CF card down loads: High speed read/write CFs, Firewire reader loading
> directly to 120 gig HD mounted to my desktop via firewire. (Now using
> some USB2 downloading which is also fast as hell). Mac G5 dual
> processor with 4 gigs of RAM. Formal CF cards loaded via a G3 laptop
> at the same time the other 5 cards are downloading to the G5. Total
> 1/2 hour max.
And the pricetag is? And the pricetag in three years when you upgrade?
> But hey, Dirk makes a point, professional > demands are different than a hobby
SOME professional demands are different than are hobby. Others are not. It all depends on the purpose and who is paying the bill and for what.
> BTW, not one of my clients (many of whom are art-directors and
> designers) has objected to Ink-Jets, nor can I see any white dots even
> with a loop. What kind of equipment are you referring to that does
> that? My Epson 2200 prints 370 dpi images @ 2800 dpi resolution. The
> color is spectacular as is the B&W which with this printer shows
> little or no color shift like previous Ink-Jets.
Hm. I'm talking about lightjet prints, that's where I can see the white dots (same applies to Frontier). Inkjet is slightly different story and I don't like the palette of the prints and the general look. Just don't like it. Doesn't look very natual to me.
And hey, I'm no art director. I don't know what they need/want and who pays their bills. All I know is, from all the all-digital prints I have seen - I didn't like any. A lot of demand for all-digital stuff is simply "hip". It's like stereo headphones, video camcorders and personal CD players years ago. The "hip" thing about them came and went.
By the way, about resolution of your inkjet. It's not really 2800dpi. Actually, it's REALLY not 2800dpi. I hope you understand that and know why it's not the case, since explaining it will take too long
Anyway, my whole point was (and still is) - it all depends. Digital doesn't replace film. Film is not universally better than digital either.
Mike.
> Mike, I didn't just all off the turnip truck. > >Before going digital I
I know, that's why I said - it all depends on purpose.
> shot weddings with film, and occassionally still do. The labs are the
> ones staffed with $6 an hour kids these days.
You mean the Walgreens-we-process-and-print-your-film-while-you're-chewing-gum kind of places? Because pro labs aren't doing it.
> Granted, some are still
> quite good, but not as consistant and obedient to your instructions as
> you imply. And the mail? It's not the US mail you'd trust with
> irreplacable wedding film I hope.
Well, never had a single problem with US mail, but it anyway so happens that when I have something to develop - I have 3-4 rolls. So I simply send them with FedEx. Cheap, fast and reliable.
As about irreplaceable. And what will happen if by some bad coincidence, on your way home, you will pass some street where some broadcasting channel temporary set up their dish or other equipment, which generates such a powerful magnetic field will erase or damage images on your CF cards?
> Mail house labs? After the last 220
> roll was devoured by the machine due to improper loading, that was it
> for me. And this was a very top notch pro lab.
Well, perhaps you should let us know which one, so that we don't use it
> They gave me the rest
> of my processing free. Big whoop! The roll they destroyed was of the
> procession! Try to explain to a bride that her and her dad coming down
> the aisle is history. Previous to that, another lab processed my negs
> in tranparency soup. Good for a Halloween party, but not a wedding.
> Those lab mistakes cost me more than all the CF cards I ever bought.
See my comment above regarding CFs. They don't do a better job in preserving the images in case things go really wrong.
> CF card down loads: High speed read/write CFs, Firewire reader loading
> directly to 120 gig HD mounted to my desktop via firewire. (Now using
> some USB2 downloading which is also fast as hell). Mac G5 dual
> processor with 4 gigs of RAM. Formal CF cards loaded via a G3 laptop
> at the same time the other 5 cards are downloading to the G5. Total
> 1/2 hour max.
And the pricetag is? And the pricetag in three years when you upgrade?
> But hey, Dirk makes a point, professional > demands are different than a hobby
SOME professional demands are different than are hobby. Others are not. It all depends on the purpose and who is paying the bill and for what.
> BTW, not one of my clients (many of whom are art-directors and
> designers) has objected to Ink-Jets, nor can I see any white dots even
> with a loop. What kind of equipment are you referring to that does
> that? My Epson 2200 prints 370 dpi images @ 2800 dpi resolution. The
> color is spectacular as is the B&W which with this printer shows
> little or no color shift like previous Ink-Jets.
Hm. I'm talking about lightjet prints, that's where I can see the white dots (same applies to Frontier). Inkjet is slightly different story and I don't like the palette of the prints and the general look. Just don't like it. Doesn't look very natual to me.
And hey, I'm no art director. I don't know what they need/want and who pays their bills. All I know is, from all the all-digital prints I have seen - I didn't like any. A lot of demand for all-digital stuff is simply "hip". It's like stereo headphones, video camcorders and personal CD players years ago. The "hip" thing about them came and went.
By the way, about resolution of your inkjet. It's not really 2800dpi. Actually, it's REALLY not 2800dpi. I hope you understand that and know why it's not the case, since explaining it will take too long
Anyway, my whole point was (and still is) - it all depends. Digital doesn't replace film. Film is not universally better than digital either.
Mike.
Mike, many of the points you make are valid. As I mentioned, I still use film, especially B&W.
However, some of the points you make are hypothetical, like the loss of data from a CF card from some magnetic field . In three years of shooting digital, I've not experienced that problem nor have any of my fellow digital shooters. I have not read of that happening either. Besides, when shooting important work, I download the CF cards as I go to a portable HD. Which means I have 2 exact copies of the work while I'm still there. Something not possible with film.
I have not lost any images on CD-ROMs or DVDs due to scratches, but acknowledge that it could happen. That is why, for less than a dollar more, I burn a second one (one for the client's records and one for mine). The wonder of it is, duplicates of RAW or Tiff images are exact copies. I also have a 200 gig drive with often used images stored on it. But a HD should not be trusted as a sole form of storage.
On the other hand, my recent loss of images due to poor lab work is not hypothetical. It actually happened. The fact is that good labs are under stress due to a majority of commercial work going digital. For ex&le, mail house labs that once thrived on wedding orders are getting less and less from that source as that industry goes digital. And we have to remember that everything that ends up in printed form, which constitutes millions of printed images, is basically now all digitally processed (either scanned or digital in the first place). In addition, financial pressures from the economy are fueling the switch to digital. For ex&le, more and more automotive print is being done digitally, which I thought would be the last to switch. The situation was personally brought home to me recently when my favorite Pro Lab (in my area) stopped developing Tri-X. : -( And during a recent trip to Las Vegas I requested info from pros there as to where to get my film processed. The reply was that the main labs had shut down. Only one remained, and it's quality had slipped. Again, that info was from working pros from the area.
As to the price tag for a Mac G5 and attendant gear. As a business expense it is figured into my overhead and reflected in the rates I charge. In the end, it pays for itself...so in essence it is free. Again, it's the difference between professional services and a hobby. Like any business, you have to spend money to make money.
The rest, like liking or not liking Ink-Jets is personal preference and not something that can be empirically touted or dismissed except from a personal point of view. That my clients accept them, and many prefer them, is the only opinion that I need be concerned with.
Making great Ink-Jets or Dye-Sub prints is something of an art. Some are better at it than others...just like analog
printing. Personally, like you, I think a well made silver print, by a master printer, is still unmatched in the digital domain. But the gap is rapidly closing.
However, some of the points you make are hypothetical, like the loss of data from a CF card from some magnetic field . In three years of shooting digital, I've not experienced that problem nor have any of my fellow digital shooters. I have not read of that happening either. Besides, when shooting important work, I download the CF cards as I go to a portable HD. Which means I have 2 exact copies of the work while I'm still there. Something not possible with film.
I have not lost any images on CD-ROMs or DVDs due to scratches, but acknowledge that it could happen. That is why, for less than a dollar more, I burn a second one (one for the client's records and one for mine). The wonder of it is, duplicates of RAW or Tiff images are exact copies. I also have a 200 gig drive with often used images stored on it. But a HD should not be trusted as a sole form of storage.
On the other hand, my recent loss of images due to poor lab work is not hypothetical. It actually happened. The fact is that good labs are under stress due to a majority of commercial work going digital. For ex&le, mail house labs that once thrived on wedding orders are getting less and less from that source as that industry goes digital. And we have to remember that everything that ends up in printed form, which constitutes millions of printed images, is basically now all digitally processed (either scanned or digital in the first place). In addition, financial pressures from the economy are fueling the switch to digital. For ex&le, more and more automotive print is being done digitally, which I thought would be the last to switch. The situation was personally brought home to me recently when my favorite Pro Lab (in my area) stopped developing Tri-X. : -( And during a recent trip to Las Vegas I requested info from pros there as to where to get my film processed. The reply was that the main labs had shut down. Only one remained, and it's quality had slipped. Again, that info was from working pros from the area.
As to the price tag for a Mac G5 and attendant gear. As a business expense it is figured into my overhead and reflected in the rates I charge. In the end, it pays for itself...so in essence it is free. Again, it's the difference between professional services and a hobby. Like any business, you have to spend money to make money.
The rest, like liking or not liking Ink-Jets is personal preference and not something that can be empirically touted or dismissed except from a personal point of view. That my clients accept them, and many prefer them, is the only opinion that I need be concerned with.
Making great Ink-Jets or Dye-Sub prints is something of an art. Some are better at it than others...just like analog
printing. Personally, like you, I think a well made silver print, by a master printer, is still unmatched in the digital domain. But the gap is rapidly closing.
If I shot weddings professionally, Marc's digital workflow would be my choice. I mostly shoot events (as an amateur) and choose equipment based on final output: SLR for prints, DSLR for the web.
Obviously, digital output can go to prints via Frontier, but my Canon gear (D30, consumer primes) offers limited enjoyment. I much prefer Contax C/Y for tactile pleasure and ergonomic controls. I can shunt the film workflow to digital output via film scanner, but the time penalty is too severe for bulk work.
Amateur report: I shot at a friend's wedding using the RTS III, TLA360, 800 ASA neg, P50 (40%), D28/2.8 (%40) and fisheye (%20). The venue was dark, candle-lit tables, glass ceiling three storeys up (no bouncing). The worst part was the no-flash ceremony, where I needed f/1.4, 1/15 sec: 25% keepers, and I'm still kicking myself for not bringing a tripod. Because of the poor lighting and fuzzy subjects (and to maintain the candid poses) I mostly zone-focussed. WA lenses at f/5.6 are pretty forgiving.
To stay (slightly) on-topic, AF speed is important at these social functions: decisive moments, as Marc says. Canon 1-class bodies and L lenses are mated by design to deliver the tightest CoC and lowest AF delay. If you must wait for Contax N to reach focus, or if you have to focus by hand, then you might as well stay with C/Y.
Obviously, digital output can go to prints via Frontier, but my Canon gear (D30, consumer primes) offers limited enjoyment. I much prefer Contax C/Y for tactile pleasure and ergonomic controls. I can shunt the film workflow to digital output via film scanner, but the time penalty is too severe for bulk work.
Amateur report: I shot at a friend's wedding using the RTS III, TLA360, 800 ASA neg, P50 (40%), D28/2.8 (%40) and fisheye (%20). The venue was dark, candle-lit tables, glass ceiling three storeys up (no bouncing). The worst part was the no-flash ceremony, where I needed f/1.4, 1/15 sec: 25% keepers, and I'm still kicking myself for not bringing a tripod. Because of the poor lighting and fuzzy subjects (and to maintain the candid poses) I mostly zone-focussed. WA lenses at f/5.6 are pretty forgiving.
To stay (slightly) on-topic, AF speed is important at these social functions: decisive moments, as Marc says. Canon 1-class bodies and L lenses are mated by design to deliver the tightest CoC and lowest AF delay. If you must wait for Contax N to reach focus, or if you have to focus by hand, then you might as well stay with C/Y.
W
writing4me
Marc, I must agree when you say traditional labs, both pro and non-pro are disappearing at an alarming rate. In the metro-Milwaukee area that is true as well. All of the big professional supply stores are gone as well. There is one pro-lab in Milwaukee now that I can think of, if there are more then I have missed it. I'm not entirely pleased with them either.
There is one big lab in Madison but they are hurting for business and let a lot of staff go last year. (again there might be more in Madison, but I don't know who they might be)
I am very fussy about quality slide processing. I have had slides are scratched, dusty, or have droplet marks from chemicals in some cases. I'm still playing the "test the lab" game of seeing who does the most consistently good job. So far the contenders are: Fuji direct has been the excellent in my recent testings, and strangely they are also the cheapest at $3.99 and reasonably fast at about 7 days door to door. But Fuji only offers 35mm services. A&I is nice, but my slides were VERY dusty and return rates varied between 6 days and 18 days, priced at $5.49 per roll. Locally, the brother of the owner of the biggest Frontier lab offers E6 processing done by hand the old fashioned way. He's good, but he's expensive at between $10-$13 per roll (can't remember exact price), nicely mounted in good plastic mounts (I think Gebe?) and placed in pages though.
I don't usually shoot negs much anymore, but last weekend I did, three rolls. One to an ever expanding portrait studio with 4 locations in nearby counties, and they are very fussy and quite good, still running as a Kodak lab. For $14 for processing and 4x6 proof prints I was given outstanding printing. The second roll I took to the biggest Frontier lab around who likes to pretend they are a pro lab (they aren't they just like the sound of that idea). They charged me $24 for processing, printing 4x6 and premium scan to disk. Outrageous fee in my opinion. Fortunately for them, the color balance and densitiy was extremely good - even though the low resolution of the frontier prints is somewhat suspect in my opinion. The owner admitted to me that they are effectively about 180dpi. Adequate only in my mind. Finally, the last roll will go to the local Walgreen's that does in-house processing - $6.99 for one hour + $3.99 for a CD. Of course, I haven't tested out A&I or Fuji for print film yet - but will do so in the coming months. Fuji charges around $5.49 and A&I gets $11.95.
I'm still hopeful for the future of film though. A&I was so sw&ed at the end of summer that they were off their usual turnaround times. They said it was all the wedding work they were processing and they didn't have enough machines to keep up with the volume. So, it seems they might be a favored new source among discerning wedding photographers?
-Lynn
There is one big lab in Madison but they are hurting for business and let a lot of staff go last year. (again there might be more in Madison, but I don't know who they might be)
I am very fussy about quality slide processing. I have had slides are scratched, dusty, or have droplet marks from chemicals in some cases. I'm still playing the "test the lab" game of seeing who does the most consistently good job. So far the contenders are: Fuji direct has been the excellent in my recent testings, and strangely they are also the cheapest at $3.99 and reasonably fast at about 7 days door to door. But Fuji only offers 35mm services. A&I is nice, but my slides were VERY dusty and return rates varied between 6 days and 18 days, priced at $5.49 per roll. Locally, the brother of the owner of the biggest Frontier lab offers E6 processing done by hand the old fashioned way. He's good, but he's expensive at between $10-$13 per roll (can't remember exact price), nicely mounted in good plastic mounts (I think Gebe?) and placed in pages though.
I don't usually shoot negs much anymore, but last weekend I did, three rolls. One to an ever expanding portrait studio with 4 locations in nearby counties, and they are very fussy and quite good, still running as a Kodak lab. For $14 for processing and 4x6 proof prints I was given outstanding printing. The second roll I took to the biggest Frontier lab around who likes to pretend they are a pro lab (they aren't they just like the sound of that idea). They charged me $24 for processing, printing 4x6 and premium scan to disk. Outrageous fee in my opinion. Fortunately for them, the color balance and densitiy was extremely good - even though the low resolution of the frontier prints is somewhat suspect in my opinion. The owner admitted to me that they are effectively about 180dpi. Adequate only in my mind. Finally, the last roll will go to the local Walgreen's that does in-house processing - $6.99 for one hour + $3.99 for a CD. Of course, I haven't tested out A&I or Fuji for print film yet - but will do so in the coming months. Fuji charges around $5.49 and A&I gets $11.95.
I'm still hopeful for the future of film though. A&I was so sw&ed at the end of summer that they were off their usual turnaround times. They said it was all the wedding work they were processing and they didn't have enough machines to keep up with the volume. So, it seems they might be a favored new source among discerning wedding photographers?
-Lynn