Keith, Your welcome to try my lab. The owner has offered a free 11X14 or 8X10 for the cost of shipping to PDML members that want to see what it can do. They use Agfa D-Labs.
That being said, one thing to keep in mind is that the paper has less latitude than the film does. So you are always in a battle to figure out what to represent on the paper. I suspect good labs make intelligent choices that best represent the negative and poor labs, don't care and just let the print fall where it may. Bruce Saturday, November 9, 2002, 4:35:27 AM, you wrote: KW> Something that's been bouncing around in my mind for some time now... KW> Now that you've brought it up, I'll mention it. KW> I started with shooting slides in my Retina I back in about 1939, plus KW> or minus...too long ago to zero in on it more precisely. KW> I still have a still life slide (Kodachrome 25 or 50?) of a rose KW> blossom, against a darker background, that will blow your socks off! KW> And yes, taken back then! <g> KW> If I were only shooting for myself, I'd only be shooting slide film KW> today ~ exclusively. KW> But, I do not use my cameras professionally in any way. I shoot KW> primarily for recording where I've been, and what I see there, and KW> sharing my personal enjoyment of that experience with others. KW> And that does not mean dragging my slide projector with me everytime I KW> want to show off my photos! KW> If I had a fool proof and proven to me way of getting really decent KW> prints from slide film, I'd do it in a heartbeat! KW> Well, maybe not... I think the cost would be prohibitive, truth be known. KW> That's one reason I bought a decent digital camera. Most of the folks KW> with whom I want to share my photos are online and can view them that KW> way. Still, it has it's limitations. KW> On occasion, you want to share with those who will never get online. KW> Then, it's prints. KW> I have yet to find a suitable printer, who will print what I see when KW> I take the shot. KW> I get prints back from the printer, look at the prints, then glass the KW> negatives and see _far_ more detail than is on paper. Subtle shadow KW> detail lost in the mud. KW> For the most part, the film I'm using doesn't matter all that much. KW> Yes, some films reproduce shadow detail better than others, but KW> ignoring that fine point for the moment, I really hesitate to go to ta KW> custom lab and pay very high prices just for getting a decent print KW> from my negatives! KW> Exactly as Bruce says. KW> Maybe I'm not approaching it right...or I need to find a proper KW> digital lab? KW> Anyone know of one in L.A.? KW> keith whaley KW> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> Cory, >> >> The most frustrating thing about slides is trying to get great prints >> at a reasonable price from them. You look at the slide and go WOW! >> Then you try to get a print made and get disappointed, or you pay a >> princely sum. About the only really good way to do it is to have a >> good scanner for slides and a good printer or Digital Lab service >> available. For me, I have the Digital Lab available but no scanner >> that does the slide justice. >> >> Prepare for some wonderful surprises as you gaze at those slides on a >> light table with a loupe. >> >> Bruce >> >> Friday, November 8, 2002, 7:51:02 PM, you wrote: >> >> C> I bought a roll of slide film the other day...never done that before. It >> C> was just hanging there next to the rest of the film looking lonely. I had >> C> to save it. >> C> I've not finished the roll in either camera yet so I guess it's going to >> C> have to wait a few days. Wonder how I'll get it developed. >> >> C> Cory Waters
