Scott Loveless wrote: > Mark Roberts wrote: > > Scott Loveless wrote: > >> Today I discovered that it was the GFM film which went to Dwayne's. I > >> guess in a week or so I should have some interesting nature photos. Oops. > > > > This is why we shoot digital, Scott ;-) > > > > Seriously, one of the first, strongest incentives for me to start > > shooting digital was when a local lab ruined a roll of > > once-in-a-lifetime shots. > > > That's a pretty strong incentive. Since I don't normally shoot much > color film anymore and develop my own B&W, that sort of thing hasn't > been much of an issue. But Christie wouldn't let me bring the K100 to > GFM. Oh, well. The results should be different, at least.
Interesting to hear this. One of my first worries after my first digital enablement, approx one year ago, was: how do I make sure that I don't loose the digital photos. accidental cross-processing of E6 film happened to me once. one lab was able to get pretty reasonable prints from the resulting negatives, where others' results were rather miserable. I have no idea how easy it would be to deal with such 'negatives' with current processing software. Anybody knows? the only other film mis-processing (B&W) I did myself when I somehow succeeded to take already diluted (and used?) developer and thought it was the unused, undiluted stuff (writing this down really makes me wonder how I was able to do that), diluted the diluted stuff once more, and got almost transparent negatives with just the faintest memory of an image on them. I was able to chemically 'amplify' the image to the point that I was able to make (very soft) prints at least they showed the pictures. oh well. it has been a long time ago since I did any processing. Axel. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
