My lab is using Fuji Frontier exclusively because they aren't willing to expend resources maintaining their optical equipment. The Frontier is new and they get better contract support right now. I would guess that using the Frontier makes their life easier also??? For the most part I like the prints I get--good skin tones, etc. Occasionally I get prints in which overexposed background objects are "enhanced' digitally so as to look "fake" or pasted in. Hope this makes sense to a professional film processor/developer like yourself.
Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Film and Development > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jens Bladt" > Subject: Film and Development > > > > I need to make a withdrawal from the PDML wisdom bank, please. > > I am getting the impression, that is is getting harder to get > decent film > > development these days. Is this true? I know my digital images are > very > > sharp due to the smaller format/better DOF. But I also know that > film images > > can be extreemly sharp as well. But I'm getting bad films back from > my small > > dealers lab these days. > > Is this a common tendency? > > Labs are going digital. > This means your films are being scanned as part of the process. > Personally, I think scanned film prints look like crap compared to > optical prints. > Unfortunately, consumers are adopting digital cameras in droves, and > are pushing labs into digital. > The marketplace is never wrong. > Digital must be better. > > > > > Which films are the sharpest (200-1600 ASA) today (135 and 120) ? > > Do we have to send our films to pro labs to get decent result? > > You should probably find a lab (pro or amatuer doesn't matter) that > is still printing optically and try to keep it in business. > > William Robb > >
