"For your protection ..." (Rant)

[Norm Dresner]

What some people/organizations won't do to protect me is remarkable.

I've been going thru a pile of old print rolls to scan the negatives and
came across a few rolls that were submitted at the "local" supermarket for
"Kodak" processing. I have no doubt that Kodak really did the processing,
but what they did to the negatives is truly remarkable.

Not only are the negatives cut into segments of four, each one has a paper
strip laminated to the edge so that you can handle the strip without
touching the negatives. That's cool, though a pain to remove for scanning.

But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic sheet, I
guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this, I
guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to order
reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of the
strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.

Boy do I feel protected!

TIA

Norm

 

[Guillaume Dargaud]

Not only are the negatives cut into segments of four, each one has a paper

strip laminated to the edge so that you can handle the strip without
touching the negatives. That's cool, though a pain to remove for
scanning.

There's a way to remove those with a swift tearing motion. Took me a while
to get it right.

But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic sheet,
I
guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this, I
guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
order
reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of the
strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.

Never seen such an idiotic protection. How much sharpness do you loose ?
What if there's some hair caught under it ?

 

[Norm Dresner]

Responses in-line
Norm
in message |> Not only are the negatives cut into segments of four, each one has a
paper
| > strip laminated to the edge so that you can handle the strip without
| > touching the negatives. That's cool, though a pain to remove for
| > scanning.
| There's a way to remove those with a swift tearing motion. Took me a while
| to get it right.

Yeah, but I still haven't mastered it and occassionally leave a thin
section along the edge that has to be scraped off, thereby greatly
increasing the chance for damaging the negative

|
| > But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
| > strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic
sheet,
| > I
| > guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this,
I
| > guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
| > probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
| > order
| > reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of
the
| > strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.
|
| Never seen such an idiotic protection. How much sharpness do you loose ?
| What if there's some hair caught under it ?

Sharpness is definitely lost, but there's an even worse thing:
distortion caused by the applied layers not laying perfectly flat and
puckering. YUCK!

| --
| Guillaume Dargaud
| http://www.gdargaud.net/
|
|

 

[Happy Traveler]

The Joe I-know-what-I-am-doing will never have his negatives 'processed' at
a grocery store. Unless you really want those cheap 4x6 prints, send it to a
pro lab, with instructions to leave the negative strip uncut and intact.
It's worth the trouble. You will be able to select the scanning resolution
and some other parameters. There won't be anything glued or attached and
there won't be any scratches or fingerprints either. And when you are done
post-processing your scans and find your gems, they will take your files and
print from them too.

to remove for scanning.

 

[Norm Dresner]

Even though the processing was via a "grocery store", it was genuine,
one-week turnaround Kodak processing.

There were two rolls out of hundreds that were processed that way because of
expediency and that was about 6 years ago. We've had the envelope with the
prints and negatives sitting in cartons since then and we're just getting
around to going through them and scanning negatives so I can reprint/enlarge
desirable pictures. I've learned and in the last few years I get negatives
developed at only known reputable outlets. But I wanted to warn anyone who
might be seduced into doing something like this what the dangers were.

Norm

| The Joe I-know-what-I-am-doing will never have his negatives 'processed'
at
| a grocery store. Unless you really want those cheap 4x6 prints, send it to
a
| pro lab, with instructions to leave the negative strip uncut and intact.
| It's worth the trouble. You will be able to select the scanning resolution
| and some other parameters. There won't be anything glued or attached and
| there won't be any scratches or fingerprints either. And when you are done
| post-processing your scans and find your gems, they will take your files
and
| print from them too.
|
| | to remove for scanning.
| >
| > But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
| > strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic
sheet,
| > I
| > guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this,
I
| > guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
| > probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
| > order
| > reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of
the
| > strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.
|
|

 

[Barry Watzman]

I think that the negative is to be removed from those for actual use.

 

[Talker]

Even though the processing was via a "grocery store", it was genuine,
one-week turnaround Kodak processing.

There were two rolls out of hundreds that were processed that way because of
expediency and that was about 6 years ago. We've had the envelope with the
prints and negatives sitting in cartons since then and we're just getting
around to going through them and scanning negatives so I can reprint/enlarge
desirable pictures. I've learned and in the last few years I get negatives
developed at only known reputable outlets. But I wanted to warn anyone who
might be seduced into doing something like this what the dangers were.

Norm

I've had friends give me negatives to scan where they had that
done to them. I had no trouble removing the clear plastic laminate,
so it must have been the way they were stored, if you had trouble
getting the laminate off.
I agree, getting the film developed at a reputable lab is always
the best way, but for friends or relatives who don't know any better,
their going to use the cheapest method possible. That's just in the
average person's nature. They don't think it's any big deal to have
film developed, so they don't care where it's developed. They'll pick
the cheapest place possible to save a buck.

Talker

 

[Happy Traveler]

For what it's worth, several years ago a developing machine at a 'quick
turnaround' mini-lab chewed up a roll that I shot on a trip overseas and
returned a crumpled mess. I was offered a new roll of whatever negative film
they had in store at the moment as compensation...
Once this happens, you learn the true cost of cheap processing.

Of course, this is the digital age, and who shoots negatives anyway? I only
wish the dynamic range of my DSLR was anywhere near the combination of Fuji
PRO160 and my Nikon LS5000. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to shoot five
times, checking the histogram after each shot and re-adjusting exposure,
keeping my fingers crossed that there is still something left in the shadows
before the blob of pure white in the middle of the sky finally turns blue?
It may happen one day...

----- Original Message -----

 

[Norm Dresner]

| For what it's worth, several years ago a developing machine at a 'quick
| turnaround' mini-lab chewed up a roll that I shot on a trip overseas and
| returned a crumpled mess. I was offered a new roll of whatever negative
film
| they had in store at the moment as compensation...
| Once this happens, you learn the true cost of cheap processing.

Alas, expensive doesn't always guarantee that there are no slip-ups and
I've had the very reputable camera shop I've used for decades screw up two
rolls of film because of equipment failure.
Conversely, while the prints are rarely the finest, I've never had a
mini-lab screw up anything. Luck or ... ?

Norm