"Dropping off the film"

[Al Evans]

I've seen a number of people here longing for the "good old days" when, after a day's shoot, you just dropped off the rolls of film at the local pro lab and were done.

With digital, there's a certain amount of "required post-processing" that must be done before you can show proofs to a client. This "required post-processing" includes raw conversion plus basic exposure and color correction, then putting the photographs into a format where the client can see them.

In the old days, this format was a proof sheet or a small print (I even remember, long ago, when portrait proofs were done on unfixed printing-out paper!). Now, I suppose it's usually a CD, DVD, or even a web site.

My question is this:

Suppose there were a service where you could drop off your camera cards like a roll of film, and pick up a CD or DVD the next day and, at your option, show the pictures to your client on the web.

Assuming it gave results as good as those of an old-time film pro lab, would you use it? What would you expect to pay?

Thanks in advance for any discussion!

--Al Evans

 

[Ken Burns]

Suppose there were a service where you could drop off your camera
cards like a roll of film, and pick up a CD or DVD the next day
and, at your option, show the pictures to your client on the web.

There is. Around here you can do that at the local camera shop, Winn Dixie store, or about any other lab that's gone digital. As a matter of fact, you don't even have to drop it off at some of them. Just FTP it to them.

 

[Al Evans]

There is. Around here you can do that at the local camera shop,
Winn Dixie store, or about any other lab that's gone digital. As a
matter of fact, you don't even have to drop it off at some of them.
Just FTP it to them.

Good point. Why do people complain about post-processing time, then?

I 'm wondering because most of my own photographic work is small numbers of images, shot to my own layouts and intended for printed material -- advertising, CD artwork, and such. I expect to spend a couple of hours processing each selected photo. So I haven't shot a thousand frames in the last year, let alone in the last weekend! Even in the "old days", I did all of my own lab work.

--Al Evans

 

[Ron Gee]

I always hated doing lab work. I do miss the days of drop off and pick-up a couple of hours later...but...now that I do my own "processing" i bill for it as well. When I first went digital I sold digital on the fact that there would be no film costs or processing costs. A couple hundred rolls of 36ex film processed can be quite a savings to the client...well that happened ONCE! I spent hours on the computer converting NEFS and tweaking in PS. Now I charge for Digital Processing, with a good workflow it can really ad to your bottom line...and no chemicals to mix!

 

[Iusefilm]

I've seen a number of people here longing for the "good old days"
when, after a day's shoot, you just dropped off the rolls of film
at the local pro lab and were done.

With digital, there's a certain amount of "required
post-processing" that must be done before you can show proofs to a
client. This "required post-processing" includes raw conversion
plus basic exposure and color correction, then putting the
photographs into a format where the client can see them.

In the old days, this format was a proof sheet or a small print (I
even remember, long ago, when portrait proofs were done on unfixed
printing-out paper!). Now, I suppose it's usually a CD, DVD, or
even a web site.

My question is this:

Suppose there were a service where you could drop off your camera
cards like a roll of film, and pick up a CD or DVD the next day
and, at your option, show the pictures to your client on the web.

Assuming it gave results as good as those of an old-time film pro
lab, would you use it? What would you expect to pay?

Thanks in advance for any discussion!

--Al Evans

--

There are the "same" issues to consider... who would decide the amount of corrections that maybe necessary for the files. Could you live with canned contrast and sharpenning settings along with an auto Level or Color adjustments that artificially introduce a red channel shift??
Tony K

 

[ENB]

Just curious...for those who answer this thread, what "type" of pictures are you talking about (i.e wedding, portrait work,etc..) ?
ENB

I've seen a number of people here longing for the "good old days"
when, after a day's shoot, you just dropped off the rolls of film
at the local pro lab and were done.

With digital, there's a certain amount of "required
post-processing" that must be done before you can show proofs to a
client. This "required post-processing" includes raw conversion
plus basic exposure and color correction, then putting the
photographs into a format where the client can see them.

In the old days, this format was a proof sheet or a small print (I
even remember, long ago, when portrait proofs were done on unfixed
printing-out paper!). Now, I suppose it's usually a CD, DVD, or
even a web site.

My question is this:

Suppose there were a service where you could drop off your camera
cards like a roll of film, and pick up a CD or DVD the next day
and, at your option, show the pictures to your client on the web.

Assuming it gave results as good as those of an old-time film pro
lab, would you use it? What would you expect to pay?

Thanks in advance for any discussion!

--Al Evans

 

[Donny233835]

Interesting thread...

There are some higher end labs that offer this sort of service, but you pay a premium for it (when I first started a few years ago, some labs charged PER image! That is qute costly when you have, say, 200+ images.) In my experience, however, to maximize my image's quality more sophisticated (and slightly lengthier) techniques need to be employed. Things like using adjustment layers and adjusting levels, curves, color balance, etc. take a bit more time to apply to each image and the results are far better than traditional "auto" this and "auto" that.

An alternative to "dropping off to the lab" is to hire folks looking for experience to process your images. There are lots of individuals who are eager to polish their skills in photoshop who, through careful mentoring, can save you many hours of processing time. I suppose you could consider it an "internship." In the end, critique their work, have them perfect any you have issues with, and compensate them for their time. I am experimenting with this currently and find that it is working quite well.

What are your thoughts?

Donny

--
http://www.HeavenlyPortraits.com

 

[Christopher Crawford]

Interesting thread...

There are some higher end labs that offer this sort of service, but
you pay a premium for it (when I first started a few years ago,
some labs charged PER image! That is qute costly when you have,
say, 200+ images.) In my experience, however, to maximize my
image's quality more sophisticated (and slightly lengthier)
techniques need to be employed. Things like using adjustment
layers and adjusting levels, curves, color balance, etc. take a bit
more time to apply to each image and the results are far better
than traditional "auto" this and "auto" that.

An alternative to "dropping off to the lab" is to hire folks
looking for experience to process your images. There are lots of
individuals who are eager to polish their skills in photoshop who,
through careful mentoring, can save you many hours of processing
time. I suppose you could consider it an "internship." In the
end, critique their work, have them perfect any you have issues
with, and compensate them for their time. I am experimenting with
this currently and find that it is working quite well.

What are your thoughts?

Donny

--
http://www.HeavenlyPortraits.com

sounds like a good idea. No different really than the old practice of hiring an assistant to hold lights, set up backgrounds, load film, etc. Many assistants are/were young people looking for experience
--
Chris Crawford

http://www.crawfordandkline.com
Featured in the November, 2003 issue
Popular Photography

 

[Al Evans]

Interesting thread...

There are some higher end labs that offer this sort of service, but
you pay a premium for it (when I first started a few years ago,
some labs charged PER image! That is qute costly when you have,
say, 200+ images.) In my experience, however, to maximize my
image's quality more sophisticated (and slightly lengthier)
techniques need to be employed. Things like using adjustment
layers and adjusting levels, curves, color balance, etc. take a bit
more time to apply to each image and the results are far better
than traditional "auto" this and "auto" that.

Isn't that "the same as it ever was", though? When I've used a lab for processing and proofs, I didn't expect the prints to be anything but auto-corrected for exposure and color. This is as easy to do digitally as it is with an automated printer, paper, and a processor. It wasn't a problem for me, because I was planning to make the final prints myself.

Have expectations increased? If so, I guess there is no substitute for hand-processing each frame, or at least each setup.

An alternative to "dropping off to the lab" is to hire folks
looking for experience to process your images. There are lots of
individuals who are eager to polish their skills in photoshop who,
through careful mentoring, can save you many hours of processing
time. I suppose you could consider it an "internship." In the
end, critique their work, have them perfect any you have issues
with, and compensate them for their time. I am experimenting with
this currently and find that it is working quite well.

That sounds like a good approach.

What I'm really wondering about, though, is the workflow BEFORE prints are ordered -- raw conversion, gross exposure/color adjustment, and putting the pictures in some format where they can be conveniently reviewed for print-ordering (or whatever use is to be made of them).

If results with digital comparable to those obtained from the averagely competent one-hour lab are useful, they should be as easy to obtain for the same cost, or less. After all, the expensive part of processing is the labor. The actual tools I use today are substantially less costly than back in the darkroom days.

--Al Evans

 

[centralcoastmagazine]

The whole idea of digital is that you get to do the post processing
to get exactly what you want out of the image. There is a lot of
dodging and burning, cloning and color correction let along masking
out imperfections.

The idea of making digital the same cost as film defeats the whole
purpose. If they were the same cost, I would stick with film for more
dynamic range and less expensive cameras that don't have to be upgraded
every two years.

We have a post processing nightmare with an typical week being 800
pictures to process. Do I have a life? Nope... do we have a good income,
yup.

However, only because of the control and results, digital is at least part
of our work flow. Yes, we still use film but it is becoming more of a
backup to the digital. It was the other way around a couple of years ago.

Lastly, no one else could do the post processing for weddings or portraits
simply because they do not know the look and style we achieve by doing
that ourselves and the detail put into the work.

 

[Al Evans]

The whole idea of digital is that you get to do the post processing
to get exactly what you want out of the image. There is a lot of
dodging and burning, cloning and color correction let along masking
out imperfections.

The idea of making digital the same cost as film defeats the whole
purpose. If they were the same cost, I would stick with film for more
dynamic range and less expensive cameras that don't have to be
upgraded
every two years.

I agree completely. Especially when it comes to the "cloning and color correction" and the "look and style" you mentioned later on. The amount of retouching that we more or less take for granted with digital photos nowadays would be REALLY expensive for film!

We have a post processing nightmare with an typical week being 800
pictures to process.

Do you actually do full processing on that many? As I said earlier, I don't do high-volume work, but at my usual shooting ratios, that would mean somewhere around 5000-10000 total exposures!

I'm thinking that there are some steps between the time the image is recorded to the card and the time you and the client select an image for the "full treatment" that are tedious and should be automated. They're not worth the time and attention of a highly skilled human.

For example, with film, very few people process their own slides. We find a lab with a well-maintained E6 processor, drop them off, and pick them up later. The 20 cents a slide (or whatever it costs nowadays) is a lot cheaper than our time.

Again, thank you all for the discussion!

--Al Evans

 

[hunter]

....... which in my case, includes a lot of Photoshop and Painter 8 work. All included in the price for the job. I actually make more now from post processing than from shooting.
hunter

 

[BobTrips]

Interesting thread...

There are some higher end labs that offer this sort of service, but
you pay a premium for it (when I first started a few years ago,
some labs charged PER image! That is qute costly when you have,
say, 200+ images.) In my experience, however, to maximize my
image's quality more sophisticated (and slightly lengthier)
techniques need to be employed. Things like using adjustment
layers and adjusting levels, curves, color balance, etc. take a bit
more time to apply to each image and the results are far better
than traditional "auto" this and "auto" that.

Isn't that "the same as it ever was", though? When I've used a lab
for processing and proofs, I didn't expect the prints to be
anything but auto-corrected for exposure and color. This is as easy
to do digitally as it is with an automated printer, paper, and a
processor. It wasn't a problem for me, because I was planning to
make the final prints myself.

Have expectations increased? If so, I guess there is no substitute
for hand-processing each frame, or at least each setup.

I think you've identified a critical change that has occured. The film 'shoot and drop' photographers did the best job they could (or what they felt they could get away with - depends ;o), dropped off the film and accepted the results (if they were within acceptable limits).

Now that they have the ability to do a better job than the lab normally did there is probably a self imposed requirement to produce a better product than what they previously delivered.