13.12.2012 Views

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

Reader's Comments - Index of - Free

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Recommended Labs<br />

Seattle FilmWorks has a bad history, from which they have been trying to escape with a name change to<br />

"PhotoWorks". Their original sin was pushing respooled movie film onto consumers. Movie film is<br />

lower quality than photographic film and it is also non-archival. Family memories on movie film fade<br />

very quickly unless processed negatives are stored in the kinds <strong>of</strong> freezers used by movie studios. With<br />

the advent <strong>of</strong> the consumer Internet age, Seattle PhotoWorks went in for spamming.<br />

Duggal is a big lab in Manhattan with a reasonably clean E6 line. However, they ruined some <strong>of</strong> my best<br />

C41 with their dirty neg developing and enlarged contact production areas. At $40/roll, one would<br />

expect better. I had a bunch <strong>of</strong> PhotoCD scans done there and they were also remarkably dusty. Double<br />

the price <strong>of</strong> Boston Photo and then you get to spend a few weeks in PhotoShop repairing the dust and<br />

neg damage.<br />

For my notes on Boston's Colortek, see below.<br />

In the Boston area<br />

Boston Photo Imaging on Newbury Street is good choice for a full service lab, with comprehensive<br />

traditional and digital facilities.<br />

ZONA, 561 Windsor Street, Somerville, MA 02143, (617) 628-2545 is our best-known local Ilfochrome<br />

printer. They also have a dip-and-dunk black and white line.<br />

Colortek is known to many local pros as "Colorwreck". I once gave them ten rolls <strong>of</strong> 120 film. They lost<br />

one. They returned two rolls <strong>of</strong> B&W so underdeveloped that even the frame numbers were barely<br />

visible. When I complained, they said "it is obviously an exposure problem". I pointed out that my E6 <strong>of</strong><br />

the same subject was perfectly exposed. They were unconvinced. I asked them how likely they thought<br />

it was that Ilford (with the frame numbers) and I both had exposure problems on the same rolls. They<br />

were unconvinced.<br />

The rest <strong>of</strong> the world<br />

Use the full text search engine or browse by categories in the photo.net Neighbor to Neighbor service,<br />

which contains recommendations from all over the Internet <strong>of</strong> various labs.<br />

[ top ]<br />

<strong>Reader's</strong> <strong>Comments</strong><br />

Took some family photos at Christmas and went with WalMart's special on prints and Photo CD. The<br />

digital images were scanned at approximately 1800x1200--less than a 3MP camera--and cost $8.80 for<br />

24 exposure roll. I didn't find this a particularly useful service.<br />

http://www.photo.net/photo/labs (9 <strong>of</strong> 10)7/3/2005 2:24:23 AM

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!