Development of films -v- digital photograph printing?

Addressing the traditional photographers, have you noticed, over this last couple of years, how that when you take a film for developing, there can be: (a) a "cast" over all the photographs,


(b) the colours are not "true" - example a blue sky can look turquoise, (c) the photograph has a 'flat appearance' (d) people can look like cardboard cutouts.





Can anyone recommend a film developer(s) which gives the authenticity of the traditionally developed photographs? I think UK film photographers generally should accumulate names of good film developing companies for passing on to others.

Development of films -v- digital photograph printing?
Unfortunately, I agree that the quality of development has gone down. But there are a couple of things you can do (from least to most drastic!):





1. Find a good local pro lab. It might cost more but it's worth it if they'll work with you, and ultimately you get the quality you want.





2. At least find somewhere that is "consistent". As awful as the filter comment sounded it is true! If you find a lab that is at least consistently "off", you can compensate yourself and get what you want. Often, some of the one hour photo labs are not quite what you want but some can be quite consistent (and with consistency you're 90% there).





3. Shoot slides. That's what a lot of pros still shooting film do. That way you eliminate any problems/inaccuracies in printing.





4. Develop only. Only pay to get your film developed, then use a scanner and photo printer, to colour correct and print the way you want. Works better with slides too.





5. Go digital. Yes, unfortunately, a lot of people have done this as it lets them control the entire process the way they want.
Reply:but film has better pixels in some areas. some people do perfer film for the more amout of pixels, but the pixels for film being better is absolutely not true in some circumstances. like comparing some digital camera to film isn't great depending on the model of the digital camera. some digital camera plain stinks, but if one wants to see the authntic between fake and real film, look for pixels,it might tell that one is fake.
Reply:definatly
Reply:just go digital, so much easier...the images are so more vertisile and saves you spending hours cleaning and scanning slides then more hours cleaning them on photoshop... I think 35mm is just about dead, if you are really determined to go on using manual cameras though then try using a hasselblad or bronika medium format camera, the quality is so much better.
Reply:The art of developing film has gone down hill because places that employ workers, call the lab work entry level. Which it is; One just loads the film unto a conveyor belt set up and unloads the film on the other side. You have to use filters if you want your pictures to turn out right, not depend on the lab. So stop blaming the labs for your ineptitudes and learn how to use your equipment.
Reply:Change your lab,trust me thats your only problem.Cast=dirty chemestry in the film processor.Flat= no density correction or a dirty lens on the printer or an old bulb(wich can also change the color of your fotos.)


Film is NOT entry level ,has nothing to do with that,it`s just a medium.If you want Pro results go to a pro lab .Most 1Hour foto labs are just not gonna cut it.Most importantly have fun @ what you do.