Re: bad experience with Kodak lab
Ramesh: It's hard to say whether the damage to the slide film occurred in-camera or at the lab. I had a camera that did scratch film, but thank goodness, it leaves the scratch near the sprockets and not in the imaged area. The print film is suspect. The green areas sound to me like areas which did not come into proper contact with the processing chemicals ---the folding of the film would explain this --- and typically film is not returned uncut unless you request it that way. I can't imagine how they managed to return the film cassette to you. I have used Kodak or Kodak monitored processing in the past and none have returned film to me in this condition and manner. It could be false advertising (non-Kodak processing sold as Kodak processing). In any case, didn't Kodak get out of the film processing business years ago? Look for a lab that says they do dip-and-dunk processing. These labs use a machine where the entire strip of film is suspended above a bathtub and gets dunked into the chemicals. Since it's not touched by rollers or other parts, the film is unlikely to get scratched during processing. Also run a roll of film through your camera and then pull it out of the film cassette to examine if you see any scratches. If your camera consistently scratches film, you should be able to observe it this way. --jc On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 03:06 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote: Hi I had bad experience with Kodak. ... Slide film One roll of slide had horiztoal scratch on each film. ... Print film This seems to be severly damaged. There are holes. Film is diogonally folded as if a large weight was kept on it. Along these folds color is green. Film was delivered without cutting it and was rolled and kept in film cassette.
Re: bad experience with Kodak lab
- Original Message - From: Juey Chong Ong Subject: Re: bad experience with Kodak lab Look for a lab that says they do dip-and-dunk processing. These labs use a machine where the entire strip of film is suspended above a bathtub and gets dunked into the chemicals. Since it's not touched by rollers or other parts, the film is unlikely to get scratched during processing. Dip and dunk has problems of it's own which can be just as ruinous to the images. William Robb
Re: bad experience with Kodak lab
What are the problems that can happen with dip and dunk? I've not heard of any from a good lab, but then I've never tried this more expensive method. William Robb wrote: Dip and dunk has problems of it's own which can be just as ruinous to the images.
Re: bad experience with Kodak lab
- Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: bad experience with Kodak lab What are the problems that can happen with dip and dunk? I've not heard of any from a good lab, but then I've never tried this more expensive method. In a dip and dunk process, the film is suspended on a hanger, and a weight is attached to the bottom. The hanger is put onto a suspension which moves the hanger up and then down into the first tank. The process continues, with the hanger being lifted, moved forwards and lowered into the rest of the processing tanks. It is possible for a clip to let go and drop the film, or for a weight to let go, and allow the film to float, though neither is likely. Agitation in DD processors is via nitrogen burst. Nitrogen is released from a tank and directed to the bottom of the tank where it rises to the surface. This agitates the chemistry. Nitrogen bubbles can cling to the emulsion and cause underdevelopment, in much the same way that air bells cause underdevelopment in small tank processing. Fuji RVP is particularly susceptible to this, but all Fuji films are prone to it. As the film is lifted from the tank, chemistry flows from top to bottom, and flow marks can result from this action. DD processed films are often slightly overdeveloped on the low end, as the film is dropped quickly into the developer, but raised somewhat slower, and is suspended over the tank to drain for several seconds. Finally, since there is no squeegee action for removing surface chemistry, DD processed films are prone to uneven drying, and can exhibit amoeba like flaws in the emulsion from droplets of final rinse draining down onto partially or completely dry emulsion. In my own limited experience, I think that rotary tank processing is the safest, and most even method of film developing, followed by a well maintained ciné processor, then dip and dunk and properly maintained leader transport processors. The worst method, in my opinion, is roller transport processing. HTH William Robb
Re: bad experience with Kodak lab
Thank you, Mr. Robb. This one gets saved and printed. One of these days I may try processing my own C-41 stuff. Until then, I'm a mini-lab kind of guy who loves to curse the dust and scratches they tend to create. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: bad experience with Kodak lab What are the problems that can happen with dip and dunk? I've not heard of any from a good lab, but then I've never tried this more expensive method. In a dip and dunk process, the film is suspended on a hanger, and a weight is attached to the bottom. The hanger is put onto a suspension which moves the hanger up and then down into the first tank. The process continues, with the hanger being lifted, moved forwards and lowered into the rest of the processing tanks. It is possible for a clip to let go and drop the film, or for a weight to let go, and allow the film to float, though neither is likely. Agitation in DD processors is via nitrogen burst. Nitrogen is released from a tank and directed to the bottom of the tank where it rises to the surface. This agitates the chemistry. Nitrogen bubbles can cling to the emulsion and cause underdevelopment, in much the same way that air bells cause underdevelopment in small tank processing. Fuji RVP is particularly susceptible to this, but all Fuji films are prone to it. As the film is lifted from the tank, chemistry flows from top to bottom, and flow marks can result from this action. DD processed films are often slightly overdeveloped on the low end, as the film is dropped quickly into the developer, but raised somewhat slower, and is suspended over the tank to drain for several seconds. Finally, since there is no squeegee action for removing surface chemistry, DD processed films are prone to uneven drying, and can exhibit amoeba like flaws in the emulsion from droplets of final rinse draining down onto partially or completely dry emulsion. In my own limited experience, I think that rotary tank processing is the safest, and most even method of film developing, followed by a well maintained ciné processor, then dip and dunk and properly maintained leader transport processors. The worst method, in my opinion, is roller transport processing. HTH William Robb
bad experience with Kodak lab
Hi I had bad experience with Kodak. I got back 3 (2 slides + 1 print) rolls processed from Kodak. My local camera shop uses Kodak lab for developing; slides are marked as developed by Kodak. Slide film One roll of slide had horiztoal scratch on each film. Scratch ran parallel to longer edge. There is no scratch on the initial 3 black films of the roll, which get exposed during loading. Scratch seems to have the color of the background scene. *Could this scratch have happened before exposure or before exposure? *Could it have caused inside the camera? *At processing stage? This is the first time it happened to me. I had shot another roll of slide and that is fine. Print film This seems to be severly damaged. There are holes. Film is diogonally folded as if a large weight was kept on it. Along these folds color is green. Film was delivered without cutting it and was rolled and kept in film cassette. *Does the green color could be due water seeping in to camera? I shot few shots in slight drizzle. *Is it possible, film was damaged before loading to camera? *At processing stage? I use ZX-5n Thanks Ramesh __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
