Re: Another casualty on the digital highway

"Noons" <wizofoz2k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:463bfae8-67f0-4d72-ac31-c45f66b63e53@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 16, 7:17 am, "Dudley Hanks" <hanks.dud...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Noons" <wizofo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:b0f775a6-1e32-4132-9882-c4fd5dc5f5e3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 3:58 pm, "Mr. Strat" <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <42c67fb7-7d8f-4092-a5d1-be4abdaff...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>
>> >> Noons <wizofo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> > Fuji is happilly making instant film...
>>
>> >> Does it suck as bad as their regular film?
>>
>> > dunno.  I think suckage is what kodak users do.
>> > fuji ones just take photos.  and they come out good.
>>
>> I've used both films, and others, and I found that whatever film I used

>> it
>> was difficult to find a commercial processor that did a good job.
>>
>> That's why I went out and bought a processor, enlarger, etc.  Once my
>> darkroom was set up, I got good results from just about everything. 
(Of
>> course, it took time working out all the exposure and filter
settings...)
>>
>
>
> I must admit I've had a better experience.  Back in the early
> 80s,  inconsistent results were certainly the case.
> But nowadays I take all my film with exception of b&w
> to a commercial lab and the results are consistent
> and very satisfactory.

Have you checked the results against a colour chart?

If not, try taking a picture of a colour chart that depicts a wide range
of 
colours.  Then, after picking up your pics, compare the chart to your 
commercially developed print.  Maybe I'm a bit behind the times with 
commercial processsors, but don't be surprised if the end product doesn't 
match exactly with the original chart.

For the sake of precision, check the colour match in the original lighting

setting, ie. sunlight, flourescent, tungston, etc.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has done this recently.

Take Care,
Dudley