----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Take a Chill Pill, Dudes!
> In a message dated 12/6/01 8:24:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Okay, Mafud made a comment about how expensive digital prints are to
make.
> > This was in error.
>
> Not a true representation of what has transpired at all.
> Some disingenuous PDML members, proposing that such an event can happen
where
> ~they~ live, kept the harangue going, I merely responded. Turns out that
what
> I know as a "lab" is not what they (any of them) think of as a "lab."
What I
> meant by "lab" was a "pro lab" as opposed to what they meant, one of them
> equating his Walmart to my "pro lab."
> It appears I was correct in my assertions. No way would a "pro lab" (any)
do
> digital for the same price as film.
Wrong again. Our custom lab does all of their prints from slides
digitally (on a Lightjet 5000), and they are virtually (within a couple of
bucks) the same price as their Ilfochrome service. It is actually less
expensive printing directly from a digital file because there is no scanning
required. Perhaps your lab is not like this right now, but they will be, or
else they will disappear. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that
"No way would a "pro lab" (any) do digital for the price of film." How's
this, why would digital be more expensive? There is far less time involved,
fewer redos (if any at all), and potentially a much more streamlined
workflow at the lab. If any lab was "substantially" higher, I'd question
their pricing, and probably go to another lab.
>
> ". All our resident lab technicians have jumped all over him repeatedly
and
> made sure the rest of us know he's wrong."
>
> As we now know, your "resident lab technicians" are either mini(lab)
> technicians or they were referring to any place that develops film, ~not a
> "pro lab," as labs are generally known by professional photographers.
Since
> I'm a (retired) professional with 37 years in the craft, my definition is
far
> more suitable to the topic than theirs.
If you remember correctly, and you don't, you were initially railing
against digital photography because it cost so much to get prints done.
Well, it always costs to have stuff printed at a custom lab. But just like
in film, there are always alternatives, and for the vast majority of people
out there, these minilabs fit the bill. BTW, do you ever get 4x6 prints done
at your "pro lab"? Guess what kind of machines they use to print them...
> **No way does an in-store Walmart minilab equate to "lab" in my
professional
> terminology.
Just like your rather loose definition of civilian huh?
>
> "Is it really necessary to continue to taunt him about it? Let's let it
go,
> huh? You guys are like snapping dogs around a wounded bear."
>
As soon as he stops announcing that his experience trumps all other
actual realities, we'll stop.
> Hey Mike. You should have gone to...Walmart and done it yourself on their
> little do-it-yourself machine! You could have made yourself some beautiful
> wallet sized, 8 x 10 or any size you want and in far less time. ~That's~
> what Walmarts are for.
Often times, an image will not require fancy printing, and even basic
equipment can give very satisfactory results, why go to a pro lab unless the
image requires it?
Isaac
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
