You are reading a single comment by @hoefla and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I'm assuming that modern day machinery automatically pushes underexposed images to make them nice - is that likely or would you need to push the entire film?
You can't push a single frame in development - the whole roll goes in the chemicals for the same length of time and temperature. In the last 20 years there have been some "improvements" in film composition/chemistry, so if you are using different films that might make a difference. 20 years ago there were also a lot of somewhat mediocrely run minilabs in the back of chemists, with chemicals not changed enough etc. But I imagine the improvements in scanning process with automatic adjusting probably make the most difference.
hoefla
What level of automated "improvement" occurs in modern-day film processing?
Back in the 90's when I used to send my films off to Jessop (GB) or HL Markt (D) I'd expect about 20% failure rate . nowadays everything I send to Snaps photo services is bang-on.
I'm a bit more sober these days but even so, the majority is still sunny 16-guesswork on battered old cameras so I can't be that much improved over my 15 year digital hiatus (2000-15), particularly in view of my deteriorating eyesight...
I'm assuming that modern day machinery automatically pushes underexposed images to make them nice - is that likely or would you need to push the entire film?
Maybe it's just the scanners that improve everything - the metadata tells me it's a Fuji SP-3000, presumably that's where the magic takes place.... Anyway, I sent 5 films off last week and there's barely a shot that'd merit a condescending jessops sticker* across the middle of the print.
*can't quite remember what they said but they were little oval stickers that read something along the lines of "oh dear, we're a bit shit aren't we" and were stuck on over/under exposed or poorly focussed images