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: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
