Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-sem.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-sem!ron
From: ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: automatic processing?
Message-ID: <431@brl-sem.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 23:46:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-sem.431
Posted: Tue Oct 15 23:46:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 20:29:47 EDT
References: <11900002@uicsl> <734@sfmag.UUCP> <421@harvard.ARPA>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 21

> For the price, I think that Kodak can't be beat (assuming we are
> talking about Kodak film) for processing. I send all of my color
> material to them. The only thing that I don't like is that I get my
> negatives cut up into two and three frame pieces which are hard to
> handle, and don't always fit neatly into my negative pages.
> -- 
Don't kid yourself if you think that Kodak doesn't use the same automatic
processing for the run of the mill color prints.  We've gotten some cute
double exposed prints from them which could only have happened from auto-
matic processors without a whole lot of human quality control.  Even, the
custom printing from Kodak entails an automatic exposure/color balance device
that has come up with some really bizarre color corrections with respect
to the original automatically produced prints.  At least with the Kodak
prints, you can keep sending them back until they get the color/cropping
etc correct.

I'm still waiting for the day when their stupid "Processed by Kodak"
brand that they expose into my negatives/transparencies accidentally
shows up in an image.

-Ron