Ask a Lab Tech Anything

Is the pay worth it?

>>2882976
Does Fuji digital cameras truly have the best tonality and color reproduction? I will know if you're a Sony shill if you answer this question wrong.

>>2882979
That depends entirely on your situation.

To me, at this stage, it's worth it.

>>2882980
Well if you know me at all you would know I'm 100% a Fuji shill, but desu I don't think I've handled even one picture taken with a Fuji X series camera, besides the stuff I print for myself. The stuff I've printed has come out really nice.

tl;dr, Fuji is still very niche, most consumers who even go above a compact shoot rabals with kits.

>>2882986
>but desu I don't think I've handled even one picture taken with a Fuji X series camera, besides the stuff I print for myself
didn't you print some of isi's photos

>>2883039
I was counting that in the stuff I've printed for "myself" since it wasn't an actual customer.

Either way it really doesn't matter what camera the photos are taken with. I would care more about how those photos are edited before they came to me, since good color editing means I don't have do anything other than print.

>>2883045
you can just admit that your crush isi sucks at color work

Do you make and keep extra copies when you come across people's nude photos?

>>2883080
Honestly we don't get any "nudes" through here. Closest I've gotten so far was a roll of film from a dermatologist's office, which where photos of older women who'd had mastectomies. Needless to say I did not make copies.

>>2883082
Do you know where I can get some?

>>2883045
Why would you do that cunt any favors besides euthanasia?

>>2883096
I was bored and wanted something to print at work. It's been slow lately, I spend about 50% of my time goofing off on 4chan and various chat rooms.

>>2883091
Google?

Can you get your personal stuff developed/scanned/printed by the lab for free, or with a discount at least? Also, minilab scans from noritsu/frontier scanners get a bad rep, but I hear you can get pretty good results if you don't do everything in auto mode. Any experience with getting good scans from them?

File: FOTO7516.jpg (278KB, 900x617px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 900x617px

>>2883039
he didnt do a bad job, either

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

How come the typical labscan looks like a completely noisy mess of shit with terrible colors and exposure, yet I know there are machines that can make scans at least as good as DSLR scans?

>>2882980
>implying anyone could tell in a double blind test

Kind of like wine tasting.

>>2883114
Finally some relevant questions.
>Can you get your personal stuff developed/scanned/printed by the lab for free, or with a discount at least?

I get half off on services, though we really don't have any kind of monitoring or accountability system, so if it's just a few small prints or some film scanning I just do it when I don't have anything else to do and don't say anything. Anything big won't go unnoticed, so I usually just have a talk with the owner before I start on anything.

>Also, minilab scans from noritsu/frontier scanners get a bad rep, but I hear you can get pretty good results if you don't do everything in auto mode. Any experience with getting good scans from them?

The thing about these scanners is that they have a very strict "garbage in, garbage out" policy. If your film is from a crappy compact or a camera with a not so great lens, It's gonna look like shit, as the scanners themselves don't pull "amazing" detail from the negs. If you use crappy, old, expired Kodak Gold, it looks like shit. If everything is badly exposed, it looks like shit. And yes, the auto settings usually make things look like shit. When you're scanning 10-15 rolls at a time, you don't want to go through the editing process very often. What often makes it even worse is the fact that the whole thing runs on a PC running Windows 2000, on a "color corrected" crt monitor.

All of that being said, I have seen some really nice stuff come out of it, and it's usually from people who I know are shooting with good film gear, have exposed correctly, and are using good film. I will stop and edit a roll of great images, I want them to look as good as they can, because I know that there was effort put into it. If your roll is snaps with your finger over the lens in half of the shots, you get auto.

>>2883122
See >>2883127 for some explanation. Usually if you see a lot of noise it means that the operator compensated for under exposure, or upped the shadows a lot. There are also varying levels of scanners. Some of them are really just garbage, and sometimes operators have tweaked the auto settings in a bad way. If you're getting bad scans from a lab, and you used good equipment, it's generally because the operator just does not care, or doesn't know what they are doing.

Unfiltered for one thread.

Do you ever judge the rolls that come in for processing?
Say it's all street, landscapes, snapshits of their pets or their friends? How about rolls where exposure and focus is missed?

>>2883152
>unfiltered
Gee, thanks.

>judge
What do you mean? Like, do I have an opinion? From all the work that comes in, there's stuff I like and stuff I don't, though it's mostly the latter. As I said in the above posts, I put more effort into the negative scanning if I can tell there was effort put into the photos.

Also I should make it clear that film scanning is less than 20% of what I do. We do everything here, large format printing, canvases, framing, restorations, video transfers, and we even sell some photo supplies, but it's mostly junk. I do more print scanning than anything else.

Bumping because I'm back at work and still bored.

>>2883115
>posting the loli shot
>TO FUCKING 4CHAN
>printing it
>BY SENDING THE FUL RES TO A STRANGER ON 4CHAN
>posting it again
>ever posting people on 4chan ever
Why?!?!

>>2883638
Because she's an adult female and doesn't have to worry about looking like a pedophile

>>2883649
I think they're more concerned with the sharing of "CP", and the possible ramifications of posting said images on a board like 4chan.

>>2883649
>a female

>>2883650
>girl in a bathing suit
>cp
you need to look at yourself long and hard in the mirror anon

>>2883673
why do you think I put quotes around it? I personally don't even think it's even that big of a deal. >>2883638 is the guy freaking out about "loli" pics

>>2883115
Borders around borders
You played yourself

What did you do with all the Advanced Photo System processing equipment? I have a few rolls left.

>>2883676
double classic chrome too
for that ultra classic look

>>2883683
Unfortunately my place doesn't even process in house anymore. We mail it off to a place nearby, they do APS, 35mm, and 120. However we do have a special carrier for the Noritsu that's for the APS cartridges, so we can scan them. Only ever used it once though.

>>2883115
those borders are all different sizes and they're all too fucking small that it looks awkward, like somebody fucked up the trimming

>>2882986
>Fuji shill
and running shit Kodak Noritsu and not superior Fuji Frontier.

that said the Noritsu is nice I just hate Kodak paper. I really miss the Agfa D-Lab, they were king. Minolta made the worst lab I ever ran.

>>2883080
nudes were a lot more common before digital, but still not all that common overall.

>>2883122
The Frontier I ran had a 4 or 5 MP scanner. good enough to print up to 8x12 but not as good as a coolscan or so. think of them as quick proofs really.

>>2883635
How long have you been at it?
Are you getting enough volume to keep your chemistry stable? (that's what killed my lab)
How many times have you been elbow deep in Dev or Blix?

>>2883127
I have a question on scanning again
Don't you think it's kinda fooling someone to just throw negs and scan them in auto when people are actually (usually) paying for it?
I mean sure some won't see a problem with the results ever, and it's not the job to the photolab to make your photo look good either, but they could atleast try a little bit, as you're even complaining of having too much free time

please tell me if I'm wrong

>>2883693
>kodak
We use Fuji Crystal Archive. I do wish we had a fuji lab though.

>How long have you been at it?

I haven't been here that long, they brought me in to take over for a guy who was leaving.

>Are you getting enough volume to keep your chemistry stable? (that's what killed my lab)

When I first came in, yes. We had all kinds of shit to do every day. This month has been horrible though, I spend most of my time twiddling my thumbs. The developer gets weak after a couple days, all my blacks run blue, I add more and do emulsion changes to get it back to normal. It's not that big of a deal but it gets tedious.

>How many times have you been elbow deep in Dev or Blix?

None yet so far. Right before the previous guy left we had a serious problem with the chems and he came in on a sunday and changed the whole thing, with rubberized aprons and elbow length gloves. Not looking forward to having to do that if things get worse.

>>2883697
I do my best to get the photos looking as good as they can. But there's a point where you can't take that much time, especially when you have a lot more rolls afterward to do. Right now things are slow, and if I get in a roll I'll probably take my time, but there's only so much you can do. I won't spend 30 mins trying to "perfect" some underexposed roll from a P&S, especially when the only tools I have are some basic sliders and CMY corrections.

My basic procedure for scanning is this:

>adjust CMY to correct colors
>adjust density to correct exposure
>adjust shadow/highlight if there is clipping

That's pretty much it. The adjustments are basic and step-based, so there isn't a whole lot of control to begin with. I'll take more time if I can tell that they actually tried, but a whole roll of pet snaps isn't gonna get special treatment.

hey OP as a fellow fujifag, if you wanted some deece large-format wall art printed from x100 jpgs, who would you take them to?

>>2883712
depends on how big, what kind of photos, what kind of medium you wanted and other factors. 12mp is enough for up to 16x20 with good detail, and of course you can print larger if they are not meant to be viewed up close. If I was going to print any of my shots that big, I'd just print them here, since we have a really nice Canon printer that does up to 44 inches wide.

>>2883697
you get what you pay for with scanning.

when you pay $5-10 for a roll of 36, you get auto and low res

when you pay $30 per scan, you get a good CCD desktop scanner scan by someone who kind of knows what they are doing.

when you pay $100-300 per scan, you get a proper wetmount drum scan by a technician