Likely my fault!! Jack
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wnew! We finally got that straightened out. Okay, I agree :-). > Paul > > Jul 1, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > === 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
