the other day my friend daniel gave me his old “rebel g” film camera to play with, and i’ve been running around with my 50mm lens taking pictures.
now, i’ve been playing with mat and i’s “diana mini” camera for a while and i’ve been procesing and printing the negatives out over at costco. cheap. decent. quick. i figured i’d just have my rebel g pics done there as well.
first batch i got was horrific. second batch i got was still pretty bad. lines everywhere, crappy cutting… now i think for my mini di pics, that wouldn’t be a huge deal because they’re already a little wonky and it would kind of add to their character. but i wanted to see how nice my rebel g pics would turn out, so this wasn’t going to work.
i took my negatives over to richard photo lab on la brea, after reading so many rave reviews about them, to see if i could get prints and compare their job to costco’s. trying to get 23 prints turned out to be crazy expensive, and even just getting them scanned would be too. the tech suggested just printing out a few of them now, and then bringing my next roll of film and having them develop and scan straight up, which would be more cost effective.
here are the results for you to judge. on the left is the costco scan, on the right is the rpl print that was then scanned by me at home. both have been color corrected, with the left one with my current “style” and the right one trying to match the rpl print i was given (not quite accurate, but close). i doubt my scanner’s up to par, but this should give you an idea.
i first noticed the warmth of the rpl print. i also noticed that they pushed my exposure, which was originally underexposed (yay! i’d hoped they would). i think this explains the graininess of the prints… so i’ll just have to make sure i expose properly for my next batch ;) need a light meter… anyway! what do you think?