Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Tech Talk Forum
 

Tech Talk Forum Photography & Technical Related Only!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
File under -- \"I Should Have Known Better\" (n)
Old 10-22-2003, 07:47 AM   #1 (permalink)
Free Member

 
eselby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35236
Location: Ball Ground
Posts: 360
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to eselby Send a message via Yahoo to eselby

eselby is offline IP: 63.84.113.195
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Get ready to have a good belly laugh at my expense. I deserve it...

Over the weekend, I had 2 shoots. One with a brand new model (Pam) and one with a young lady I have worked with before (Ashley). My intention for both shoots was to exercise my studio skills. I had researched and read and memorized a number of lighting patterns and set-ups in preparation for the shoot, and had even planned out what I intended to do way before my shoots with Pam and Ashley.

Unfortunately, I am scraping the proverbial pennies from the under the sofa cushions to fund these two shoots. My photography budget is blown for the month so I bought cheap film instead of my normal Kodak NC160. My justification, I really just wanted to make sure highlights and shadows were in the right place.

Pam came over Saturday and we did a shoot outside utilizing open shade and a reflector (note: holding a reflector in one hand while trying to hold the camera in the hand with a broken elbow is painful and extremely difficult). Then, due to the outfits she brought with her, moved into the studio. Taking the advice of many of y'all, I used plain old white seamless, two lights set 1 stop over my main on the background (even flagged them to control spread), main in a Halo (read: softbox/umbrella) set at f5.6, model 8 feet or so from background. Though it was Pam's first experience modeling, she had done some, errr..."dancing" before and is a long and lean woman. Her figure and fitness were making for some good images.

Sunday was Ashley's turn. We'd done a Naiads shoot together a few months ago (image below is her from that shoot), and were both anxious to work together again. She had some great ideas and wanted to do a "pin up" shoot. Again, I researched, looked at old-style pin-ups, read about some lighting techniques, and set everything up. I had a full size matress with a tiger stripe top and a leopard print pillow set 8 feet in front of white seamless. I set one background light behind the mattress and set it to f8. I had two lights at f5.6 at 90 degrees mattress right and left high and pointing down onto Ashley for an even light. She was in an sexily innocent black baby-doll and had brought and old-fashioned looking phone. The set-up was perfect. The shoot was great. She was seductively innocent and sexy.

I was pleased with what I saw thru the viewfinder with both ladies and couldn't wait to see the results. Like I said above, however, my funds are dry, and I couldn't afford to take the 6 rolls we shot to my regular and reliable pro-lab (at $15/roll that would have been $90!!). Instead, and since I really just wanted to make sure the lighting patterns were right - I could get reprints done of the *really good ones* - I took my film to BJs Warehouse (just like Sam's or Costco).

********** BIG MISTAKE!!!! **********

Proof #1 - some of the negatives have roller marks down the middle of them - minute ones, but they are there just the same. The "lab" tried to blame it on my camera, but I insisted that since the scratches aren't on every roll and don't exist on ANY of the b+w work I process myself shot with the same camera that their equipment is filthy and needs to be serviced.

Proof #2 and a 101 lesson in mini-labs - those machines are set to print an "average" exposure. Let's say "average" is a factor of 3 on a scale of 0 - 5 with 0 being paper white and 5 being darkroom black. Your scene is a red house (3) against a bright blue sky (2) in a green field (3). Your average is 2.666666, pretty damn close to average and will make a good print. Now, what I shot was 2/3 of a scene bright white (the white seamless) at a value of 0 and 0 and other third the model - call it an average on her of 3. That makes my negative's AVERAGE tonal value 1, and the damn print machine won't automatically read the negative to make corrections. It just prints as if the scene were 3 -- making my subject 2 stops or so under-exposed! I know it is the lab's fault because other images, such as tight in head-shots, are exposed correctly with no changes on my shutter speed, aperature, or light output.

Saving Grace - the negatives that are not scratched look to be exposed properly. I can also tell from the underexposed prints that there are some really good shots there. All I have to do is have them re-printed by a lab that knows what the fark its doing.


Lesson learned? Damn right. I won't be taking ANY film to BJs ever again. In fact, I'll just have to learn to wait to process my film until the money is there to have it done properly. Or I could start getting paid for doing this.....

  View Public Profile Send a private message to eselby Visit eselby's homepage! Find More Posts by eselby
 
Re: File under -- \"I Should Have Known Better\" (n)
Old 10-22-2003, 07:52 AM   #2 (permalink)
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 165.95.207.169
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Yup.

If you only knew how many "pro" labs do a less than stellar job....you would be amazed.

One of the big reasons photogs have jumped on the digital bandwagon, is to gain more control over the end product. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
 
 
Follow Up
Old 10-22-2003, 12:27 PM   #3 (permalink)
Free Member

 
eselby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35236
Location: Ball Ground
Posts: 360
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to eselby Send a message via Yahoo to eselby

eselby is offline IP: 63.84.113.195
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

The "lab" that processed my film is Qualex. After more than 45 minutes on hold with the Qualex customer no-service number trying to get a contact name and number for the Atlanta facility, I was finally told by a supervisor's supervisor's supervisor that a message would be sent to the Atlanta facility and the operations manager would be in contact with me personally.

I just got off the phone with the technical manager, Hector - the guy who actually has his hands in the chemicals - because the ops manager is out of town (lucky break for me!). To his credit, he agreed that talking with someone in New Jersey is not going to solve my issues in Atlanta (EXACTLY!). He said that the normal procedure is to send bad prints back to them for reprinting. I told him that I have little confidence that Qualex could do a satisfactory job after my experience with them in the past.

Hector said the he will personally supervise the reprints. I told him that I would give *him* the chance to make it right. So -- that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to give Hector at Qualex in Stone Mountain, GA the chance to fix the prints that come out of his lab.

Fingers crossed....
  View Public Profile Send a private message to eselby Visit eselby's homepage! Find More Posts by eselby
 
Re: Follow Up
Old 10-22-2003, 05:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
LivingINDaytona

 
JaysonFromMaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35280
Location: Daytona Beach. Fl.
Posts: 741
Comments: 0
Send a message via AIM to JaysonFromMaine Send a message via Yahoo to JaysonFromMaine

JaysonFromMaine is offline IP: 24.128.68.39
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

thay were our send out lab when i worked one hour at osco drug,,,((( shudder))) [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
  View Public Profile Send a private message to JaysonFromMaine Visit JaysonFromMaine's homepage! Find More Posts by JaysonFromMaine
 
An excellent argument for ...
Old 10-25-2003, 07:14 PM   #5 (permalink)
Free Member

 
R_Fredrick_Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 35872
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth Area
Posts: 3,660
Comments: 41

R_Fredrick_Smith is offline IP: 12.238.95.197
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Your story makes an excellent argument for going digital. I made the decision to go digital several years ago after a shoot where I exposed 15 rolls of film and ran up a $175 bill to get it processed and printed. Now with digital, I have no cost for processing and get to see the results and correct any problems only seconds after each shot. Here is an nice example using the Canon 10D:



Cheers,
rfs
  View Public Profile Send a private message to R_Fredrick_Smith Visit R_Fredrick_Smith's homepage! Find More Posts by R_Fredrick_Smith
 
Re: File under -- \"I Should Have Known Better\" (n)
Old 10-25-2003, 08:19 PM   #6 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Member GG#: 35803
Location: New York
Posts: 71
Comments: 0

photoknight is offline IP: 64.105.72.159
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

File under, Learned from experience...haha. I was a Navy photographer that shot, processed, mini-labbed, digitally retouched...etc. We had to do it all. I think I was a good printer and had a good, "bead" on how things should be run, making sure the maintenance on the machines was done well(holy shnikes, that's a lot of maintenance every week and it sucked.) So that's why you get subservice prints and processing at mini-lab places. If the employees are getting minimum wage to make sure this delicate process gets done right, what do you think will happen?

That's why I'll never take my film to a place other than a pro lab where printing and process is all they do. In NY they are plentiful, but I imagine in other cities where photography is not so rampant, it may be hard to find a place that is professional and knows what they're doing.

That being said, I still love film/chrome/processing my own black and whites, but I have gone digital due to sheer economics. Many of my shoots are, "tests" where I do not get paid, so why lose money on what you love.

If I get a job that's going to be in a national publication that needs chromes, I'll rent and bill'em...otherwise, I've enjoyed my S2 greatly.

Thank you for your story. It reminds me of me, 2 years ago, scraping to shoot what I love...and not shooting at all because I couldn't afford to...

James
  View Public Profile Send a private message to photoknight Visit photoknight's homepage! Find More Posts by photoknight
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
File Server mrjazz Tech Talk Forum 9 12-28-2006 08:32 PM
File extension woes BigTime Tech Talk Forum 4 09-28-2005 09:56 AM
New install of 10.4.1, PS flakes on file open methods... JonScott Tech Talk Forum 4 07-25-2005 10:34 AM
Have Photoshop 7.0 and wanna sell it? AGellert Tech Talk Forum 28 04-26-2005 09:34 PM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93