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: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> I don't quite understand why new 35mm bodies are being made > at > >> >>>> all. > >> >>>>> Two > >> >>>>>> film makers (that I know of) have stopped making 35mm film > and > >> >> the > >> >>>>> sales > >> >>>>>> of digital cameras keeps climbing -- and the prices keep > >> coming > >> >>>>> down. > >> >>>>>> Will good high res film continue to be available? If so I > >> think > >> >> I > >> >>>>> ought > >> >>>>>> to get the Wild/Leica Microscope camera out of the cupboard > -- > >> >>>> where > >> >>>>> I > >> >>>>>> put it when the *ist D arrived. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Don > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Bob Shell wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> This little guy's been around for a year or two. From > the > >> few > >> >>>>> reviews > >> >>>>>>>> I've read about it, it seems to be mechanically very > similar > >> >> (if > >> >>>>> not > >> >>>>>>>> identical) to the K-mount bodies offered by Phoenix, > >> Vivitar, > >> >>>>>>>> Promaster, etc. However, the last time I picked up a > === 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
