Wow, big change! Last I had seen of dye sub was that it wasn't quite as good as wet chemical prints and the archival life was much less. Maybe nobody cares anymore that gets prints done at the labs.
Actually, my wife had some prints done recently from her camera to give out to friends. The pictures had their children in them. Several of the moms asked if they could get the digital image - didn't really need/want the print. I have seen this coming for awhile. My last bunch of weddings the couple has really only wanted the digital images. This is starting to look like the Kindle/book thing. I feel like cost will be the driving factor. Printing, publishing, etc all cost more than looking on a screen. I rarely print anything anymore and I rarely have anyone ask to see a print anymore. With computers and handheld devices and digital camera screens, the print is a dying breed. Maybe that is more where Kodak is headed. The dye sub is probably cheaper in small quantities. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 11:59:21 AM, you wrote: WR> Well, perhaps that's a little dramatic, but.. WR> Our local Wal-Mart got Supersized, and with it, a brand new photolab. I WR> stopped in for a visit a couple of nights ago and got a small tour. WR> They still have a film processor, a little siongle lane thing that is about WR> the same size as a large suitcase. Apparently it will do 15 rolls of film WR> per hour. WR> What really galled me was the "printer". WR> Kodak has gone to a dry print process, the new machine is more or less a box WR> with a rack of dye sub printers in it. WR> As with every "improvement" we have seen in the photographic industry over WR> thepast century, the quality has gone downhill yet again. WR> I'm very happy that I gave up photofinishing for 2x4s. WR> William Robb -- 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.
