Saturated colours....

[hm1912]

What's going on here? I got back a roll of colour film I had developed at Jessops (the only game in town, alas) and like when I used Fuji, too many pictures came back with over-saturated colours. This time I used Kodak Professional 200. It is that Jessops just can't develop good photographs? I don't understand. To make matters more confusing, I also got a roll developed that was taken on with an old Pentax, and it's pictures seem more natural. This may sound crazy -- and it seems a bit over the top to me -- but do you think that Jessops always enhances the colour by default because most camera lenses don't get the bright colours that the Leica lens can get? I don't know. Am I doing something wrong? Is the film I'm using the problem... Whatever it is, it's very annoying. I'm really wanting to get a small Pana-Leica for colour and stick to my R9 for Black and White. That way I can avoid Jessops completely.

[stunsworth]

Ilan, it's not uncommon for the 1 hr labs to increase the saturation and contrast and also sharpen the images so they look 'better' to the average punter. It's one of the reasons I bought a scanner many years ago.

If you take a digital image in you can tell the machine not to apply any processing to the image, it might be worthwhile having a word with them next time you take a film in.

[hm1912]

Thanks Steve. It's totally infuriating.

[Jimothy]

Don't use Jessops.

Take a look at transfer to peak-imaging.com instead.

[earleygallery]

Taking photo's with a Leica and then using Jessops to print your results is akin to buying an audiophile hi-fi and listening through a pair of £5 earphones.

[leica_mage]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

Taking photo's with a Leica and then using Jessops to print your results is akin to buying an audiophile hi-fi and listening through a pair of £5 earphones.

James, quite. Jessop's shouldn't even exist. It is, alas, the blind who keep that enterprise going...

[hm1912]

I went in to the store today and spoke with some of the employees. I also looked at the scans I asked them to do. My conclusion is that they developed the negatives allright, it's in the actual printing/enlarging that they mess up. The whole thing is a huge mess for me. As soon as I can afford it, I'm getting a pana-leica for colour shots, and keep to black and white in my R9.

[stunsworth]

Unless there's a problem with the machine you shouldn't ever have problems with the negatives - it's a standard process for all C41 films as far as I'm aware.

The prints are being made to look 'punchy'. As I say I was gobsmacked when I bought a scanner and saw all the detail that had been lost in the printing process.

If I use a colour film I just have the film developed without any prints and scan the resulting negatives, costs a couple of quid.

[hm1912]

Steve: that is probably the best way to go, but I don't have a scanner. Come October or thereabouts I'm hoping to get a digital. I really liked the idea of the Panasonic LX1 but I'm a bit surprised by its low sensor size, and now that they're being replaced by the LX2 I doubt any sale LX1s will be left come October. A perfect and shoot digital for me would be the LX1 but with a 1/2.5". Oh well.

[vic vic]

ya, te c41 process is the same, and should be ok (otherwise he shop doesnt change the camicals or doesnt clean their machines).
the problem must be with scans or prints made there. this is not a big issue - the most importangt is that your negative is ok, cause negative is your original.

about scanning or little digital.

i love the d-lux-2 (this is like the panasonic u talk ?!) for fast concepts, design stuff, even movies. it is a tiny camera which lets yuo work photographically (but without the viewfinder of course). it is great camera, and i suppose the new one will be even better, but it is not a serious camera i have to admit. far from r or m.

other solution is that u will have your own scanner. personally, i have my own epson perfection 4990photo. iti s very good, and i use it as "proofs", collections, and even many works. only for really serrious prints i make scans with high end scanner.
the epson (or something like this ) is about 500$ as far as i remember. add to it silverfast scanning application - the Ai which is about 150$, and u have proffessional results. without silverfast there is no point to use those grade scanners. so - about 650$ and u can get on your own, with really good results (pro level) after u will go through some learning curve.

[hm1912]

Thanks Victor, yes the D-lux 2is the LX1 (same camera, different badge). US$ 500 is a bit much for me right now, and buying a scanner makes no sense since I will probably be moving (possibly continents) in a year. I just put a bit on Ebay for an LX1 (at good price, so let's hope that nobody outbids me and that I'm actually getting a legit product!). I'll know in about 5 hours. I really like the idea of an R9 (there's a long story here about how I got it and became a LEica user, but that is for another day) and the small pana-Leica. Should give me the best of both worlds.

[vic vic]

good luck with the camera - ya u can use it confidently. it is really cool with surprisingly good results especially if u use the RAW mode. and u will have no roblems of moving continents or even take this little camera everywhere in your pocket:-)))

[tobey bilek]

Find a pro lab that prints on profesional portrait paper. All the consumer places use a high contrast paper that makes Leica stuff look terrible.

Digi will not solve your problem as it is the printing.

You can try scanning your own and lowering the contrast and color in PS and then sent the low contrast file in to be printed. I have had some sucess with this, but the pro lab and portrait paper is the real answer.

[grober]

Spotty photo finishing is the primary reason why I've ordered an M8. Most of the young folks working in labs today, despite their most earnest intentions, have NO idea at all of the fragility of a negative. Routinely we see them slamming feet of film still warm from the film dryer through the printer because they think we only want rapid turnaround on our processing. Trying to talk to the average lab worker about the importance of quality is like trying to evangelize a White Sox fan into rooting for the Cubs.

I am also not looking forward to the necessary upgrades that I'll need to purchased for my dedicated photo computer plus all the data integrity and data assurance issues I'll face in the coming months after I go more digital. Hours of creative energy with a "traditional" Leica camera in my hands will now need to be supplemented with many MORE hours of unpleasant, hunched-shoulder tedium over the keyboard of my photo computer.

I need to recruit a computer geek that can be chained to the computer to do the necessary digital grunt work, eh?

[lincoln_m]

I know what you mean but for me it is the darkening and contrast boost that Jessops do that is a little anoying, but skin tones seem natural. The real answer is to use slide film so that there is not printing step. A Leica projector can be bought for £160. The very few slides worth printing can then be done by Pro Labs like Peak Imaging if you do not have a scanner. I was lucky to buy the Minolta scanners while they were around. There are some now with 7200dpi which may suit B&W film more than Slide because slide has a wide DMAX range that can't be matched by the 7200dpi scanner for £300.

Sometimes I need to use print film when prints are needed such as a family wedding but this is very rare nowadays.

If you do not like saturated look avoid Fuji Velvia 50. Fuji Provia is more natural but the new Velvia 100 DL is OK too. Kodachrome 64 and a Leica are a very good match for natural colours and very sharp even if a little grainy compared with Velvia/ Provia. Kodak E100G is a possible Kodachrome replacement.

You have not seen your Leica at it's best until you have mastered slide film and projected it 2m wide.

Regards, Lincoln

[hm1912]

Thanks for that info Lincoln. I guess one of these days, when I've got access to a good slide projector, I'll try that. I've thought of using colour slide film one of these days, but I have been having too much fun with black and white.

[lincoln_m]

llan,
Your R9 is a perfect camera for getting slides exposed exactly, probably better than my MP as you have highly variable shutter speeds and I need to bracket incase (it helps me spin through film quickly though). Try some Fuji Provia and send it to Fuji Lab in Coventry you should get it back within the week. You'll be amazed at the detail on slide film when compared to print film. It is ideal for landscapes but if your main subject is documentary / street /people subjects then B&W may have the artistic advantage.

Do try slide film you won't regret it, honest.

Regards, Lincoln

[hm1912]

I may do that come September. But I don't have a projector, so it seems a bit silly since I won't be able to view the photographs. If not then, however, I'll remember what you say and when a slide projector becomes available (or I can afford one)....

And thanks a lot for the suggestion and the advice.

[albertwang]

I love lots of contrast. Unnatural look is just beautiful with deep colors. Very spiritual.

[Micheal]

The over saturation is consumer driven just as the digital market. The idea about slides/ transparencies is what do you do with them? Little slide shows? Being print driven I would suggest doing your own printing (typeC) or use a scanner & put the saturation where you intend it to be.

I admit to allways have been print driven.

Michael

www.stardustgrafik.com