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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>> >> > === 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
