Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Lab ruined last frame
Old 01-10-2017   #1
bufo
Registered User
 
bufo is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3
Lab ruined last frame

I just got 3 rolls of 120 film back from Precision Camera. The last frame in each roll got exposed. I used a Mamiya 7 and have shot many rolls with it and have shot with other MF cameras. This is the first time I've seen this.

The lab said the exposure was from development. I asked them what we can do to prevent it from happening, and they just said to not take anything important in the first or last exposure. If I do that, then I only have 8 shots per roll. Anyone else experienced this?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 75060001.jpg (186.3 KB, 42 views)
File Type: jpg 75080001.jpg (166.2 KB, 39 views)
File Type: jpg 75070001.jpg (171.1 KB, 34 views)
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #2
tarullifoto
Registered User
 
tarullifoto is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 98
That's just lazy, sloppy lab work. To me, it looks like the roll was not opened in total darkness before it was ultimately transferred to the tank spool for development.

If you can avoid using them, you should. There is no reason whatsoever that the first or last frame of a roll should be wasted.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #3
p.giannakis
Registered User
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 1,497
Has happened to me before. I had to go and bo***ck them. From that point on i switched to home developing film.

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #4
kb244
Registered User
 
kb244's Avatar
 
kb244 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Grand Rapids, Mi
Age: 36
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.giannakis View Post
Has happened to me before. I had to go and bo***ck them. From that point on i switched to home developing film.
If I had gotten one like that in person, I probably would have been verbally "What the Actual F.." in front of them.

It's not like they use a machine for cutting. So they had to have seen it as they did it.

While it's been a while, last mishap I had like that was when the lab didn't clean their cutter, so you had lines of scratches streaked down the whole length of the negative as they pulled it thru the cutter.
__________________
Karl Blessing
Film (Working RF): Canon 7, Fed-2A, Argus C3, Mercury II
Digital: Olympus E-M5, E-P3
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #5
tarullifoto
Registered User
 
tarullifoto is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 98
Caning would not be too heavy a punishment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #6
Michel154
Registered User
 
Michel154's Avatar
 
Michel154 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 73
that is un acceptable !
there is a specific way of loading the 120 film in the machine if they do not know the correct steps they should not have your business I have 10 perfect exposures of 6X7 every time from my lab and i never but never got :dont take anything important in the first or last exposure switch labs is my advice
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #7
p.giannakis
Registered User
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb244 View Post

It's not like they use a machine for cutting. So they had to have seen it as they did it.
Actually they did - they were using a guillotine. Here is what he told me. He placed the negatives inside the negative sleeves and apparently what was left out was cut by the guillotine.

I couldn't believe what i was hearing. I asked him if he ever had a mental health assessment....
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #8
bufo
Registered User
 
bufo is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3
The funny thing is that this lab, Precision Camera, is a sponsor of RFF. I get a pretty nice deal for processing when I mention I'm a RFF member. I just got a more thorough explanation in an email. This is what they said:

Quote:
The first few cm of your film will be exposed during the developing process so if you record an image there, it will be light struck. This occurs when you shoot past the recommended number of exposures. For instance, if you shoot 6x7 format, expect 8 frames per roll and if you shoot the 9th it will likely be light struck when developed. Whether or not you can squeak that extra frame in also depends upon how you load and advance it initially and even what type of back you’re loading into, since each manufacturer is a little different. So your mileage may vary but I hope that helps answer your question.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #9
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
What a bunch of utter F~[#wits. Precision Camera? I'll remember that.
I don't endorse the work of exposurefilmlab either. They pushed me back to digital with their quite unbelievably poor work.
If I shoot colour film again it'll go through my Pakon. Otherwise it'll be B+W film home developed, and digital.
Quite honestly, my blood boils with the state of the film labs in the UK. You'd think they'd be trying to be the last business to survive. Evidently not.
Pete
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #10
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 41
Posts: 3,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.giannakis View Post
Actually they did - they were using a guillotine. Here is what he told me. He placed the negatives inside the negative sleeves and apparently what was left out was cut by the guillotine.

I couldn't believe what i was hearing. I asked him if he ever had a mental health assessment....
I've worked in photo labs for years and have never seen a cut from either automated or hand "guillotine" that un-perpendicular to the film. There is almost no way to do that. And once the film is sleeved it's hard to get the film near the blade for cutting. I'd bet dollars to donuts that was done with a pair of scissors. Go back and gut them. Or at least yelp them mercilessly.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #11
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.giannakis View Post
Has happened to me before. I had to go and bo***ck them. From that point on i switched to home developing film.

For which company do these bunch of 4$$holes work?
Pete
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #12
p.giannakis
Registered User
 
p.giannakis's Avatar
 
p.giannakis is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Stafford - UK
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete B View Post
For which company do these bunch of 4$$holes work?
Pete
A big supermarket in Stafford area.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #13
jbielikowski
call me Jan
 
jbielikowski's Avatar
 
jbielikowski is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by bufo View Post
The funny thing is that this lab, Precision Camera, is a sponsor of RFF. I get a pretty nice deal for processing when I mention I'm a RFF member. I just got a more thorough explanation in an email. This is what they said:


Quote:
The first few cm of your film will be exposed during the developing process so if you record an image there, it will be light struck. This occurs when you shoot past the recommended number of exposures. For instance, if you shoot 6x7 format, expect 8 frames per roll and if you shoot the 9th it will likely be light struck when developed. Whether or not you can squeak that extra frame in also depends upon how you load and advance it initially and even what type of back you’re loading into, since each manufacturer is a little different. So your mileage may vary but I hope that helps answer your question.
If they have troubles counting to 10 that's not a good sign...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #14
bufo
Registered User
 
bufo is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3
I emailed Precision back about how 6x7 should yield 10 exposures. I also showed them a roll that they processed a few months ago that had no issues. They admitted their problem and will avoid it next time. I also got a refund.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #15
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by bufo View Post
I emailed Precision back about how 6x7 should yield 10 exposures. I also showed them a roll that they processed a few months ago that had no issues. They admitted their problem and will avoid it next time. I also got a refund.
Yup, for them to claim 8 is messed up. I get 8 exposures per roll shooting 6x9 in my Fuji GW690. And it even says so on the camera that I would get 8!

This is why I use labs like thefindlab or northcoastphoto.
No BS, only quality work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #16
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by bufo View Post
I emailed Precision back about how 6x7 should yield 10 exposures. I also showed them a roll that they processed a few months ago that had no issues. They admitted their problem and will avoid it next time. I also got a refund.
It was nice that they admitted their problem only after you confronting them with proof, and AFTER they gave you a long spiel about how you would only get 8. How do they now explain their bogus explanation?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #17
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,985
I'm using AgX Imaging in Michigan. No problems so far.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #18
Pistach
Dilettante artist
 
Pistach's Avatar
 
Pistach is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 342
It happened some years ago to me the same thing as Giannakis plus stains and scratches all over, from a self dubbed PRO LAB in Rome.
It was then that I switched to digital
Paolo
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-10-2017   #19
grouchos_tash
Registered User
 
grouchos_tash's Avatar
 
grouchos_tash is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NE England
Posts: 438
When I was at Uni the photography technician used to allow me to use the C41 developer for a £1 a roll (some massive Fuji thing). I hadn't got a clue what I was doing and never managed to mess it up like this.
__________________
Gary

flickr

www.garyharding.website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #20
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,454
I used to get this from a dumpy lab in Toronto as well. West Camera, one to avoid. They have issues with exposing the first frame of your 120 roll as well. Usually my 35mm came with scores down the length of the film as well as fingerprints all over. Pretty bad lab and warrants me to pay the extra cash to go to Toronto Image Works.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #21
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by grouchos_tash View Post
When I was at Uni the photography technician used to allow me to use the C41 developer for a £1 a roll (some massive Fuji thing). I hadn't got a clue what I was doing and never managed to mess it up like this.
It's not always bad skill but bad attitude ruins things.
__________________
tumblr

flickr

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-11-2017   #22
Dwig
Registered User
 
Dwig's Avatar
 
Dwig is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Key West, FL, USA
Posts: 1,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
I used to get this from a dumpy lab in Toronto as well. West Camera, one to avoid. They have issues with exposing the first frame of your 120 roll as well. Usually my 35mm came with scores down the length of the film as well as fingerprints all over. Pretty bad lab and warrants me to pay the extra cash to go to Toronto Image Works.
This is a common problem with daylight load mini-lab film processors. With these the film is transferred, in a darkbox or darkroom, to a special cassette resembling an oversized 35mm reloadable cassette or a 70mm cassette. A leader card is taped to the end of the film and the card is set against the felt lip when the cassette is closed. This will fog 3-4mm of film when the cassette is brought into the light and loaded into the processor.

Done correctly, this will rarely damage an image, but a little lack of care can result in the card pulling a bit of the film out of the cassette, often fogging part of the first image. Also, when the film is removed from the paper the tape needs to be peeled off or trimmed off. Trimming it in the dark is hard to do accurately and a small error leaves the first image too close to the end where it will be taped to the leader card.
__________________
----------
Dwig
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:27.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.