No one said it's a barometer for anything., Bill asked a question about the area and I replied.
We're all a bunch of pot smokin' vegetarian liberals who don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the country <LOL> Look, digital is on the march ... San Francisco will be the last bastion on earth that uses film in any quantity. OK ... we'll at some point have to go digital. We will ultimately embrace it and learn to like and accept it. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 6/22/2005 4:03:18 AM > Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? > > I'm pleased to here that film thrives in the bay area, but you have to > remember that San Francisco is unique in so many ways. It boasts a > broad arts-based culture that has spawned a group of serious > photographers who aren't anywhere near as profit motivated as those in > other cities. I've seen some evidence of that myself and have heard it > repeatedly from reps who work for pros across the country. SF is a > microcosm that can't serve as a barometer of what is happening in the > rest of the country or, for that matter, the world. But it's certainly > a nice place to be for anyone involved in the arts. > Paul > On Jun 22, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Hi Bill ... > > > > Film seems to be doing just fine here. There's a nice-sized B&W only > > lab > > that's always busy with custom developing and printing - they don't > > donk > > around with digital, at least that was the case the last time I talked > > with > > the owner, a few labs that process and print film as well as work with > > digi > > and offer custom scanning services, Rob Reiter's LightRoom which does > > a big > > business in high-end scanning and giclee, and a couple of camera shops > > that > > are always busy selling film and accessories. And that's just in a > > radius > > of about a mile or so. > > > > Mo was telling me that a lot of her customers who were shooting digital > > have switched back to film - Kevin, who does the custom scanning, is > > always > > busy - can't recall a day I've been there when he's not been hard at > > work > > scanning somebody's film. Was just a couple-three weeks ago I was > > watching > > a photographer photograph the owner of the biggest local produce > > market in > > Berkeley for a magazine cover - shooting 6x6 with his 'blad. A client > > of > > mine who owns a commercial agency in San Francisco shoots nothing but > > med-format and large format film, and San Francisco has quite a few > > shops > > that specialize in custom printing for photogs like my client. > > > > One of the camera shops I visit is selling "Film is Not Dead" T-shirts > > ;-)) > > I think I grabbed a snap of the sample shirt hung on the wall just > > below > > the Moose head <LOL> > > > > Digi shooters may need high quality printing of their images, at least > > based on the results I've seen from the local Costco and Ritz camera. > > Well, maybe not from a custom lab, but certainly from a competent one. > > Chris, the top printer in the lab I use, has supposedly tweaked his > > Frontier to allow for finer adjustments, and he's got a great eye for > > color. I think those are important - certainly worthwhile - > > considerations. Plus, this lab provides their own profiles which are > > updated regularly. When I ask for proof prints, they're made with > > different profiles so I can see if one may be preferable to another. > > Usually the one I've used at home works great, but every now and then > > printing with a different profile provides nicer results. This was > > especially valuable this last time because I was having some trouble > > with > > their Frontier profile on my system here. > > > > I wish the less expansive labs produced better quality and more > > consistent > > results, and had people to talk with when there are problems or > > concerns. > > But they don't .... so the custom and pro labs are the way to go. The > > 10x15 proof prints I last got cost $12.00 apiece, and they looked quite > > good. I was able to clearly see where I needed to make improvements, > > and > > they were of excellent quality. > > > > My only complaint with one of the labs is that one guy is a little > > careless > > with the dip and dunk machine, so he doesn't do my film any more. He's > > been reprimanded, and is probably going to be out the door sometime > > soon, > > but for now I get a different processor guy. > > > > Shel > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Date: 6/21/2005 3:37:14 PM > >> Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Shel Belinkoff" > >> Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? > >> > >> > >>> Hi Bill, > >>> > >>> As said in an earlier message, a copied photo is pretty obvious. But > >>> I > > was > >>> talking about film, scanned images on CD, and those images on memory > >>> cards. > >> > >> Therin lies the problem for us. > >> It's pretty easy too scan a picture, twonk it around in Photoshop > >> (even > > the > >> junior imaging programs will do well enough) for a while until it > >> looks > >> good, and plonk it onto a CD or memory card. > >> If you've done a scan from a neg or slide, you can provide the > >> original > > as > >> proof of ownership, but this is often more difficult to prove with > > digital > >> only work. > >>> > >>> I mention corporate mentality - and maybe that was not the best > >>> descriptive > >>> choice of words - but the big operations are the ones with the deep > >>> pockets > >>> and the ones, as has been mentioned here, that are most open to > > lawsuits. > >>> In addition, at least here, the Wal-Marts and the Ritz and the Wolf > > camera > >>> places have, for the most part, no real personal relationship with > >>> their > >>> customers, and, from what I've been able to ascertain, no amateur > >>> who is > >>> serious about his/her work, and certainly no professionals that I > >>> know, > >>> would use these shops, in part because the staff changes frequently > >>> and > >>> the > >>> quality and service is very poor. And, of course, there's no such > > thing > >>> as > >>> custom processing and printing, or making of large prints, or getting > >>> custom printing or scanning services. So the only people these > >>> places do > >>> work for are the home snapshooter and , imo, the low-end amateurs. > >> > >> Sadly for my market area, the last of the custom labs closed shop last > > fall, > >> and I now know of only one pro photographer in this area still running > > his > >> own lab/darkroom for his own work, and it looks like he is shutting > >> down > >> that end of his operation in the near future. > >> > >> I presume the film market is still healthy where you are? > >> I really don't think the digital shooter needs a high end custom photo > > lab > >> like the old days. > >> I can take a file from my camera, do what needs to be done to it at > >> home, > >> and submit a finished file to the lab, all ready to go. > >> It's plug and play printing. > >> As long as the lab can provide fairly consistent colour balancing from > > day > >> to day, it doesn't even matter if the operators know how to print. > >> > >> I try to have a good relationship with my customer base, and it pays > >> off > > for > >> me. I've taught my better customers how to get better pictures by > > profiling > >> their equipment to match mine and by making intelligent image > >> settings. > >> OTOH, I seem to be the only tech in the place that actually has a > >> client > >> base. > >> > >> William Robb > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The places I use know their customers and, perhaps, their customers > > don't > >>> try copying the work of others. I'll ask Mo about this today or > > tomorrow, > >>> when I next see her. I'd like to know what, if any, policy her lab > >>> has. > >> > >> > > > >
