Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!mit-athena!jc
From: jc@mit-athena.UUCP (John Chambers)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: re: photo labs
Message-ID: <140@mit-athena.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Mar-85 12:34:55 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.140
Posted: Fri Mar 29 12:34:55 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Apr-85 23:49:21 EST
References: <3879@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 23

Yet another comment about my experiences with Kodak.  A couple
years ago I tried getting prints of a slide that had a few
bright objects (mushrooms & bracket molds) against a very dark
background (a mossy log).  The Kodak prints came back printed
so that the exposure was correct "on the average" across the
shole picture.  In other words, they overexposed it badly to
try to bring out the background, and the foreground came out
white.  I argued for a while, but the only answer I could get
was "That's the way we do it; your picture is underexposed."

In comparison, I sent the slide to an Agfa lab, and got back
several beautiful (if you like fungi on dead logs) prints that
were the proper shades of murky dark green with little white
and yellow things highlighted against the darkness.  Since 
then, I've had Agfa make more prints, and they have almost
always come out quite good.

They are more expensive than Kodak, though.
-- 

			John Chambers [...!decvax!mit-athena]

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the precipitate.