|
8th-samurai posted:Uh what? Seriously if they didn't give you the negatives back you got hosed. I would insist to speak to a manager. Those are your property they can't just loving keep them or whatever. If they lost or destroyed your negatives you are entitled to at least a roll of film in recompense. I did a quick search on Google and starting around July of this year it's their new policy to give you lovely scans and lovely prints with no negs. 
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
Jesus christ, that's awful. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't give negs back, what do they want with them? Unless their lovely print service destroys the negative 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Jesus christ, that's awful. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't give negs back, what do they want with them? Unless their lovely print service destroys the negative The rumor I read was instead of having their labs mail the processed film back they send the scans to the store to be burned onto a disk and printed on the store's photo printer. Saves about a buck on shipping and handling and totally ruins my day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Huh, I hadn't heard about that new policy. When I suggested using a local lab instead of Walgreens, I was largely basing that on my not wanting prints of my [most likely] lovely snapshots. That and also the occasional hosed-up scan that's half-and-half, but I figured that was an anomaly. But do they really mail out their film? Most of the Walgreens I've been to do the whole 2-hr processing thing. Holding your negatives hostage is a massive dick move, but I'm guessing that most of the film they get is from disposable cameras, where you'd probably not think to get the negatives back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Who is that service even aimed at? People too old to switch to digital who figure they'll die before they need reprints?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Zenostein posted:Huh, I hadn't heard about that new policy. When I suggested using a local lab instead of Walgreens, I was largely basing that on my not wanting prints of my [most likely] lovely snapshots. That and also the occasional hosed-up scan that's half-and-half, but I figured that was an anomaly. From what I'm hearing from my friends, some of the local Walgreens still process locally, but I think as the developing machines fail they're switching over to mailing film out.  Click for Big I made a half assed attempt to salvage the .jpgs I got from them but there's a lot of lost information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Yeah, that's rough. Also really makes me wonder what the negs looked like. Figures, eh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Did you go and talk to the manager? Even if their printed policy is to steal your property, its still not legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Did you go and talk to the manager? Even if their printed policy is to steal your property, its still not legal. I haven't been back there yet. I was going to swing by tomorrow and see if I could at least get a refund for having my negs destroyed. I'm glad I figured this out with my test roll instead of photos I really wanted to keep. On a somewhat unrelated note, cramming 35mm film in my Yashica Mat-124g seems rather easy. wheres my beer fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
It could just be a local thing, but when I ran my test roll through at my local walgreens I just asked to have the negatives back, no scans or prints at all. It only took half an hour. If you got it developed on the same day, I'd imagine they don't mail out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Nothing on the Walgreens website says anything about negatives being destroyed is you have the processing done at a non one-hour place. I know that film is cheapish but destroying negatives, especially without informing you of that policy, is destroying your property. You didn't agree to that, pitch a loving fit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Well, gently caress. I bought a Hewes set of 135 reels and the little tank, and it arrived today. So I loaded a couple of rolls in and developed them. But I badly hosed up loading the reels, so the negatives are pretty much borked. Goddamit, I was having a pretty good day up until now. Too much tension, I guess.  I hate it when my own incompetence catches up to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Well, gently caress. I bought a Hewes set of 135 reels and the little tank, and it arrived today. So I loaded a couple of rolls in and developed them. But I badly hosed up loading the reels, so the negatives are pretty much borked. Goddamit, I was having a pretty good day up until now. I know how that feels, man. Just recently I "loaded" a roll of 120 for development, but the adhesive was a bit weirdly placed so I loaded and developed the backing paper instead. A simple feeling up of the spool would have prevented this, and I usually do this - but I guess it got cocky and paid for it. At least I managed to re-shoot most of the shots that I had on that roll. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Enter Char posted:It could just be a local thing, but when I ran my test roll through at my local walgreens I just asked to have the negatives back, no scans or prints at all. It only took half an hour. If you got it developed on the same day, I'd imagine they don't mail out. I knew they were being mailed out but the turn around was something like a week and a half so I didn't think anything was wrong until I opened my print bag when I got back to work. I plan on handing out managerial abuse tomorrow during my lunch break. (Pacific Northwest Passive Aggressive Abuse) I also plan on giving the small lab near my parents that screwed me on two different sets of prints a shot again since they're supposed decent film guys. Maybe they just have a horrendous digital workflow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:I knew they were being mailed out but the turn around was something like a week and a half so I didn't think anything was wrong until I opened my print bag when I got back to work. I plan on handing out managerial abuse tomorrow during my lunch break. (Pacific Northwest Passive Aggressive Abuse) Either that or just accept you need to mail stuff out. Don't you live in Pierce county? I imagine there is at least one lab in Tacoma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 05:35
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Either that or just accept you need to mail stuff out. Don't you live in Pierce county? I imagine there is at least one lab in Tacoma. wheres my beer fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Aug 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:The Costco in Puyallup still develops film, and I'm going to give the lab that cocked up my my last two orders of prints another try. My friends are also telling me there's a tiny lab in the Hilltop area of Tacoma that is just awesome but I really don't want to get mugged for my 3 canisters of ProfotoXL. Oh Hilltop shouldn't be too bad for a TFR poster  . Costco is hella cheap I hear, like $4 a roll if you have a membership that might be your best bet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Oh Hilltop shouldn't be too bad for a TFR poster Hah. Hilltop has actually cleaned up pretty well over the past 6 years. It's slipped a bit since the economy went to poo but it's not super sketchy like Spanaway. I just loaded up my Yashica 124-G with a roll of ProfotoXL 100. How likely is a lab going to screw up the odd frame size I'm running?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:Hah. Hilltop has actually cleaned up pretty well over the past 6 years. It's slipped a bit since the economy went to poo but it's not super sketchy like Spanaway. Hilltop has nothing on Pacific ave for sketch factor. I work dispatch for the local ambulance company and our south east unit is constantly running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:I just loaded up my Yashica 124-G with a roll of ProfotoXL 100. How likely is a lab going to screw up the odd frame size I'm running? Play it safe: Ask for negatives only, rolled not cut.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Hilltop has nothing on Pacific ave for sketch factor. I work dispatch for the local ambulance company and our south east unit is constantly running. Well Pacific Ave does run through Parkland and Spanaway which are extremely sketchy. nielsm posted:Play it safe: Ask for negatives only, rolled not cut. I think it's time for me to get a scanner!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
The second hand Canon EOS 500 I bought on eBay just died completely, the shutter locked up. And it's the day before I got to a big music festival 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
I know I should know this, and I think I probably do, but let's say you wanted to take a shot like this, (courtesy of Steve McCurry): All you had with you was a hand-held meter. Wouldn't it be best to try to locate middle gray and expose for that? Or take a few guesses, for instance, measure the light at the window and estimate the rest of the scene to be about 3 stops darker? I could see most in-camera center weighted meters and even matrix meters not calculating a scene like this correctly, or in the way that it was exposed here. Edit: If I were to take this shot I would measure against the back of the barn, which appears to be faintly lit by the moon, to be roughly middle gray and base my exposure on the reading I get from that. Or measure the window light and take a couple of guesses. I would probably end up taking 3 or 4 shots of this scene to really make sure I got it right. (And by then the phone call would be over and the cowboy would be gone). Mannequin fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I know I should know this, and I think I probably do, but let's say you wanted to take a shot like this, (courtesy of Steve McCurry): Or, just meter the cowboy's face, because that's the only thing that you can't afford to blow, and just hope everything else falls into place nicely?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
You would spotmeter the brightest part of the scene and set that for 3 or 4 stops above middle gray (less if slide film). Then let the shadows fall as they may. Dude has decades of experience so he knows what works and what doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
If you see something you know is going to make a good photograph and you don't have a sure way of metering, make some guesses and just take as many shots as you can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
The "worst-case rule of thumb for how to make a photograph in dark conditions with literally no idea what exposure to use" is Tri-X/HP-5+ or Porta 400 at 1600 with a 3-shot bracket of the 2 absolute longest exposures you can give with respect to your aperture and your longest shutter speed. Follow the 1/35mm equivalent FL rule, and shoot as wide an aperture as your lens will permit, since you can't yield an image when you're either too slow or too wide open (given critical focus and camera shake). Shooting in ultra-dim conditions with a 50mm f/1.4 and a RF, shoot 1/30 and 1/60 f/1.4 and 1/30 f/2, and develop either pushed if critical or normally for P400, or for B+W do 2h at 1:100 Rodinal with agitation for 1m, plus 5s at 45m and 1:30m. If you are under most nighttime/winter fluorescent illumination, ISO400, 1/30, f/1.4 is a reasonable approximation. For B+W photos, if you use a non-hardening fixer you can redunk it in selenium toner which will intensify the shadows without blocking the highlights. You can go slower/wider with a fast 35mm or wider, at the expense of compositional flexibility. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
Miso Beno posted:I did a quick search on Google and starting around July of this year it's their new policy to give you lovely scans and lovely prints with no negs. A friend of mine went to film school in New York (early 90's) with a crazy Russian guy that never attended any classes or made any films. Instead of attending classes this guy would sleep all day and spend his nights climbing buildings and running around on rooftops. Apparently during one of his excursions he discovered a secured alleyway accessible from a nearby roof where a film store was dumping all the damaged and unwanted negatives into a dumpster. After about a year the crazy Russian had dozens and dozens of large cardboard boxes bursting with these negatives that he had been hauling back to his apartment. He and my friend would frequently spend time sifting through them and saving the interesting ones but the boxes would fill much faster then it was possible to sort through. He would apparently try and give away boxes to people he would meet. A pointless story but I have hope that he is still out there somewhere absconding with discarded negatives from a Walgreen's dumpster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:A pointless story but I have hope that he is still out there somewhere absconding with discarded negatives from a Walgreen's dumpster. Probably nowadays he can keep up with the amount of film with ease since everyone seems to be shooting digitally, provided he's still alive and doing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 14:05
|
|
|
just grabbed a V500. How long does it normally take you to scan 35mm positives??? My settings are 4800dpi 24 bit colour no corrections except for ICE. (should i be using the unsharp mask??) TIFF files. it took like 20 loving minutes. Is that normal? Are my settings a bit unreasonable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:just grabbed a V500. 4800dpi is way beyond what the V500 optics are actually capable of. Try 2400dpi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
I believe anything much past 1600dpi isn't actually going to resolve much more detail as it's getting beyond the practical optical resolution of the scanner. Unsharp mask off is good so you can do better sharpening on your own in lightroom and/or photoshop. But yeah, ICE makes it takes a long rear end time to scan. 20 minutes sounds about right for that resolution, I do 1600 dpi and it takes maybe 15 minutes for a set of 35mm. ICE off (only with B&W... ICE is pretty sweet) is much quicker, like 5 minutes or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Lower your resolution for sure, that scanner isn't really capable of 4800dpi. The 2400-3200 seems to be the range where you start getting into diminishing returns. Turning off ICE will cut down on time too, since it adds an extra pass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
cool, thanks. The scanner's specs say it can do 6400 optically, but looking at the size of these TIFF files, it does seem completely unnecessary. Do you guys turn off the colour control (in the configuration menu) like this guy does? http://www.lomography.com/magazine/tipster/2011/03/17/lets-do-our-own-scanning-epson-v500 When i turn it off it bugs out the histogram settings on all the previews and I'm sort of thinking that it isn't worth the trouble!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
I think the best way to do scans is to scan them at a lower resolution without ICE, pick out the shots you like and want to "keep", then re-scan those at the resolution you really want with ICE on. One day I will have an ICE scanner. My 3200 doesn't do it, and it means a lot of annoying editing in lightroom after the fact 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
the nice thing about the included negative mask is that the EPSON software actually separates the images in the previews and lets you choose which ones you want. Which is good, because I'm *really* used to digital cameras which are more ... forgiving ... when it comes to obtaining a decent exposure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:digital cameras which are more ... forgiving ... when it comes to obtaining a decent exposure. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Haha this is literally the same reaction I had 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:I'm *really* used to digital cameras which are more ... forgiving ... when it comes to obtaining a decent exposure. I... I don't understand... Are you shooting slide film?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
Print film has more exposure latitude than digital can ever dream of. What world are you in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 21:02
|
|
