Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. I jus' keep getting older, not richer...
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Mustarde wrote:
>Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of
>archiving your old photos.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, aimcompute wrote:
> Personally, if I had a large number that I wanted to archive I would
> take prints, negatives and slides to a lab and pay to get them scanned
> to some Photo CD or even regular CD. Time is money.
The only problem with this is that PhotoNet CD (the standa
> Dan Scott wrote:
> >
> > I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be
simplist
> > thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or
> > slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of
images.
> > A flatbed for prints? Still pretty
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:23:13 -0600, you wrote:
>I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist
>thing for most people in the same situation to do?
Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of
archiving your old photos.
Voila, you'll spend your ti
Not sure I agree with you about the no "media that came next" (that'll
happen in the future, not the past), but you're right about the
tapes. I'm old enough to remember wondering whether or not I should dump
my tapes and buy into this new-fangled CD technology. :)
chris
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, S
Hi ...
I'm far from an expert on these matters, having only used a scanner
twice. However, my "scanning mentor" pointed out that some of the Nikon
scanners, and other brands as well, allow for automatic scanning, and
have either attachments or accessories, or built-in features, that allow
them t
I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist
thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or
slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images.
A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quick
In a message dated 11/18/01 9:56:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't
> matter, even to the people who have taken them."
Exactly.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-D
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their
>> products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses)
>> regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted
>> Turner is the Guru of the genre
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread
> assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy
> the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage
> medium changes.
Huh? Go back and read
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not write, but I am used to being
misquoted:
>
>
> > How hard is it really to s
In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How hard is it really to spend a few
> hours (or even
> > an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years
> > transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
>
Can we say: "
Hi Mafud:
I'm probably not entirely serious about scanning everything!
However, I do have a collection of negatives and slides which I have been asked
to give to a web-based institute, as they are an almost unique record of a
particular place taken between 1967-69, and they number several hundre
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> > John Mustarde wrote:
> >
> >> Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred
> >> to 8-track tapes. So what's next?
> >>
> But John, that's a technological step backwards! You should be
> transferring those 78s to wax cylinders, which
> John Mustarde wrote:
>
>> Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred
>> to 8-track tapes. So what's next?
>>
But John, that's a technological step backwards! You should be
transferring those 78s to wax cylinders, which are easily listened to
with a pin and a piece of paper.
My gosh, Bob is at a loss for words.
HAR!
WW
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:59:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track
> tapes. So what's next?
>
Oh, let's see John: small format tape*t* Cassette, then CD.
*t* about 14 years ago (1987), I had all my fav
John Mustarde wrote:
> Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred
> to 8-track tapes. So what's next?
Clear a couple shelves in the garage (those boxes of slides
and negs can go ;^) and start hoarding 8-track players from
garage sales & thrift shops.
Ha ha hh...! (Like John Lennon)
Tom C
- Original Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:07:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Time to get scanning - only about 6000 negatives and slides to go, and I'll
> be
> up to date - if I stop shooting new stuff!
>
>
Hey John!
Are you going to scan ~each and every~ negative? And why?
John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost
>>> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make?
>>
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost
>> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make?
>>
>> I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be
I just did it a couple of months ago! At least where the neg was still
available, and therein lies the rub. It seems many people never kept the negs
once they had had enough prints done for everyone at the time.
I keep reminding my wife (when she whinges about how much space my files take
up)
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden"
Subject: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > I assume that important images will be transfered to the new
media
> > technology when necessary. And contrary to what I
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> I assume that important images will be transfered to the new media
> technology when necessary. And contrary to what I know someone is
> going to say about who will have the time, that transfer is easily
> automated.
Agreed. And the nice thing about
his drink.
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: Points of Order
> In a message dated 11/13/01 7:00:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Of c
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But...but: you overlook the simple truth: you ~can~ (CAN) ~actually~
> make new (if poor) photographs of those 100 year old photographs from
> those 100 year-old negatives.
> And I'd like to see someone in 20 years dig out a CD from
> under their be
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 06:23 PM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost
> infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make?
How often do you dig out the negs of 100 year old photographs of your
ancestors and mak
his drink.
- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: Points of Order
> >> I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are
> > hyping print
> >>
You should see what my cousin Irma looks like with a mustache and
chomping on a ceegar . Your post cracked me up.
Robert Soames Wetmore wrote:
>
> No, Shel - that was me rummaging around while you were sleeping. (Aaron was
> over the night before, though. And Mike Johnston was there over the w
>> I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are
> hyping print
>> longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that
> hasn't faded,
>> I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the
> years many
>> scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Reynolds"
Subject: Re: Points of Order
> I have properly stored colour prints from the 70s that have
faded rather
> severely in recent years. Good bye childhood!
For me, that is the old E-4 chromes that my father shot when I
was gr
Heavy on opinion, rather light on the research --- IMO.
Otis
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print
> longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded,
> I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the ye
Oh, so that was you rummaging through my family albums the other night
... glad you could stop by and view the prints .
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 05:11 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > All of our family's B&W prints are just fine - even those that are 100
> > ye
Hi ...
I don't see digital printing as a replacement for silver gelatin prints,
but I am concerned that, due to the contemporary business climate, over
time, less and less in the way of materials will be available for those
wishing to explore the process of a chemical darkroom. That said, my
com
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 05:11 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> All of our family's B&W prints are just fine - even those that are 100
> years old.
Actually, many of them display bronzing, as well as severe discoloration
of the base. They're viewable, but certainly not fine. Some of them
Hi,
it's a mistake for people to think of digital printing as being a
complete replacement of chemical printing. It's another way of getting
the picture off the film and onto some sort of paper (or paper-like
material such as cotton rag or plastic or whatever). Silver gelatin
prints are different
All of our family's B&W prints are just fine - even those that are 100
years old.
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:20 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> > And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded
> > in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hy
On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 03:20 PM, William Robb wrote:
> And I still have properly stored colour prints that have faded
> in less than 10 years. The marketing people are hyping print
> longevity because of Wilhelm, not in spite of him.
I have properly stored colour prints from the 70s t
Yes ... but hyping it they are. Just because some "technical guru" says
a thing is so does not, in fact, make it so. Time will tell, not
marketing mavens and technology wizards, regardless of their
credentials.
And, while we're on the subject, most of this discussion has centered
around color.
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Points of Order
> I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are
hyping print
> longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that
hasn't faded,
> I'll believe that they ha
I know about Wilhelm, and it's the marketing people who are hyping print
longevity. When I see a 50+ year old ink jet print that hasn't faded,
I'll believe that they have reasonable longevity. Over the years many
scientists, engineers, designers, and manufacturers have made
innumerable claims, a
>> Chris Brogden:
>> Ok, but the Optio 430 doesn't have an uncompressed mode either.
> Shel:
> I don't know what "uncompressed mode" is, but the 420 does have a .TIFF
> format - at least that's what I recall.
Nope. The Optio 430 has three resolutions and three compressions but doesn't
support .t
44 matches
Mail list logo
