No! My point was (if I remember back that far) that it WOULDN'T be easier for me. IOW, I took issue with his point. Reason: I would only allow the lab to do the film processing (developing) and, knowing myself, I'd be compelled to do all other "processing" up to the point of determining the need for a "professional" scan and the making of a large (larger than 8x10) print.
Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, sounds good. But I'm curious as to why this is easier than > digital? I thought that was the point of the thread?? > Paul > On Jul 1, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Sorry my writing is so muddled. > > Actually I only use a mini-lab for print film. More often than not > > (these days) I ask for a CD only. (and yes, I want the negatives > back. > > BG) > > I review the CD images, together with selected negs., on a light > box. > > Any that I feel compelled to pursue for possible enlargement I have > > professionally scanned. I then process in PS and burn a 'final' > version > > (maybe 'til the next time I open it) for storage pending > circumstances > > requiring an enlargement. > > The occasional roll of slides, has been going to Kodak. In this > small > > town (50,000 +/-) Kodak only picks up from chain locations and only > > once a week. Can take two weeks to get them back. If several rolls > > involved, they're taken to a Sacramento lab for processing. > > Slides are totally reviewed on a light box and professionally > scanned, > > reviewed and re-burned by me if deemed worthy. > > By my choice, my image production level is nothing resembling what > it > > once was. True of many aspects of my life. > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > --- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hello Jack, > >> > >> So what do you do with the processed film? Are we talking slides > or > >> negatives? > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Bruce > >> > >> > >> Saturday, July 1, 2006, 2:00:42 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> JD> What I want from a mini-lab is ONLY the film processing. > Nothing > >> else. > >> > >> JD> Jack > >> > >> JD> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>> I don't understand our answer. You say that you want others to > >>>> process > >>>> your images. But you can't imagine turning over a card full of > >> images > >>>> > >>>> to a lab. You can't have it both ways. > >>>> Paul > >>>> On Jul 1, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Mini-lab prints from film are, for me, only proofs. Often I > only > >>>> ask > >>>>> for a CD. > >>>>> My weakness is the fact that I have a version of Photoshop and > >>>> minimal > >>>>> resistance when it comes to allowing another to "process" my > >>>> images. > >>>>> Can't imagine turning over a card full of images to a mini-lab. > >>>> Maybe > >>>>> at an in-law birthday party and lawn sale, but nothing else. > >>>>> Point #3 IS valid for me. IOW, I know myself. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jack > >>>>> > >>>>> --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Point 3 isn't valid either. If lab processing is the way you > >> want > >>>> to > >>>>>> go, you can drop off a memory card at any halfway decent lab > >> and > >>>> pick > >>>>>> > >>>>>> up your prints in a couple of hours. The minilab that used to > >>>> process > >>>>>> > >>>>>> my color neg film claims they can produce even nicer prints > >> from > >>>> best > >>>>>> > >>>>>> quality jpegs. I haven't had any reason to try them, but I > >> might. > >>>> But > >>>>>> > >>>>>> even when I was shooting color film, I regarded those prints > as > >>>>>> nothing > >>>>>> more than proofs. I would then scan the best frames and make > my > >>>> own > >>>>>> prints. I never found a lab that did a better job at a > >> reasonable > >>>>>> price. > >>>>>> Paul > >>>>>> On Jul 1, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jens, > >>>>>>> Actually, your point #3 is the only one that has true > >> application > >>>>>> if > >>>>>>> one considers digital in general. > >>>>>>> All are valid if specific brands are considered. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jack > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1st > >>>>>>>> Speed, is one thing. 2,5 fps and 36 shots in a row. > >>>>>>>> No Pentax DSLR can do that. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2nd > >>>>>>>> Annother thing is that there's NO crop factor. Meaning more > >> wide > >>>>>>>> angle for > >>>>>>>> the buck. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 3rd > >>>>>>>> It's so easy to shoot a film, give it to the lab and then > >> pick > >>>> up > >>>>>>>> nice > >>>>>>>> photographs. No hazzle with editing in the computer, > >> cropping, > >>>>>>>> resizing, > >>>>>>>> printing etc. > >>>>>>>> When the last shot is finished, your work is already done! > >>>> Digital > >>>>>>>> photography is for people that are either rather uncritical > >> or > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>> lot of > >>>>>>>> time on their hands. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That three very good reason to shoot film. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jens Bladt > >>>>>>>> http://www.jensbladt.dk > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > >>>>>>>> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> vegne > >>>>>> af > >>>>>>>> Jack > >>>>>>>> Davis > >>>>>>>> Sendt: 1. juli 2006 18:18 > >>>>>>>> Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>>>>>> Emne: Re: Coming Soon - A new K-mount Film Camera > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Adam, > >>>>>>>> I'd be interested in knowing what it is that you "want" that > >>>> film > >>>>>>>> alone > >>>>>>>> satisfies. > >>>>>>>> I'm not doubting your word, just mulling the digital switch. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jack > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --- Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> People are still buying them. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In fact some of us are quite happily shooting film, and > >> intend > >>>> to > >>>>>>>>> shoot > >>>>>>>>> film as long as it's available. Digital is nice, but it > >> doesn't > >>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>> everything I want. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Adam > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Don Williams wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
