.
-Original Message-
From: "P. J. Alling"
Sent: Aug 24, 2018 1:41 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: The death of film is...
I used to like Kodachrome, only used it on special occasions, which
probably contributed to it's demise, and I've used a number of film
filters for Pho
On 8/22/2018 19:39, P. J. Alling wrote:
Depending on how you look at it. Just received this from B photo. Seems
someone has decided to start making Poloriod OneSteps again.
https://tinyurl.com/y9bzj756
Now if only Kodak's successor would bring back Kodachrome.
They've brought back
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: The death of film is...
Depending on how you look at it. Just received this from B photo.
Seems someone has decided to start making Poloriod OneSteps again.
https://t
Now if only Kodak's successor would bring back Kodachrome.
Why? For the added cost? The wait for processing ? And other things I don't
miss with film?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject:
Yes, and mint green is only 5 times the original selling price, which
with inflation is almost a bargain.
On 8/22/2018 8:21 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
Interesting...and the price is different depending on whether you bet
black, white or mint green. I might have one of the originals hanging
Interesting...and the price is different depending on whether you bet
black, white or mint green. I might have one of the originals hanging
around somewhere. :-)
-p
On 8/22/2018 6:39 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Depending on how you look at it. Just received this from B photo.
Seems someone
Depending on how you look at it. Just received this from B photo.
Seems someone has decided to start making Poloriod OneSteps again.
https://tinyurl.com/y9bzj756
Now if only Kodak's successor would bring back Kodachrome.
--
America wasn't founded so that we could all be better.
America was
I have saved a roll or two and gave them to Erin.
Why do I want these, she said.
I said, when the Antique road show comes to town in 40-50 years, take
the rolls to the show and see if they can figure out what they are.;-)
She can also take my old bag cell phone. That should confuse the F^k
out
Well, not all of it, but most of what was left of mine, anyway.
Some years ago, we renovated our house, putting a second floor onto our
bungalow. Part of this reno moved the deep freeze to the main floor, so we
bought a smaller deep freeze and cleaned out the beheamoth in the basement,
which
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
I have been using Future Shop labs here in Toronto and the prints from my
D2h and istD are
very
good. Just wondering what it looks like
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/10/05 Wed PM 05:00:56 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Quite honestly, I have more trouble with digital print quality
than
On 4 Oct 2005 at 23:09, Tom C wrote:
I take it this would not be the case were you to receive 'RAW' files vs.
.jpg? Or is the processing totally geared towards .jpgs?
This is one big reason why it would be great if DNG (or some similar scheme)
was adopted as a de facto digital film by all
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, William Robb wrote:
The customer is responsible for the resolution being great enough, the white
balance being correct, the image compression not being too great, and the
exposure being close to correct.
Quite honestly, I have more trouble with digital print quality than
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Film to print has a lot more variables controled by the lab. We can process
the film well, or poorly. We can scratch the film, or otherwise mar the
image in a great variety of ways.
We can print it well, or poorly as well.
Digital files are mostly finished
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Quite honestly, I have more trouble with digital print quality than with
film print quality because of customer misintervention of the process.
Yet another reason not to be bothered
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Quite honestly, I have more trouble with digital print quality than with
film print quality because of customer misintervention of the process
On Oct 5, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Quite honestly, I have more trouble with digital print quality
than with film print quality because of customer misintervention
of the process.
Yet another reason not to be bothered with digital, while still
possible.
Lets not
people are lazy and ignorant... film at 11.
mishka
On 10/5/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have a fine attitude for a snapshot consumer. I understand Bill's
frustrations well ... I get the same attitude from the
'professionals' regards their (allegedly broken) computer
Bill.
Doing some catch up here on pdml, but, what do the digital print fiqures look
like.
I have been using Future Shop labs here in Toronto and the prints from my D2h
and istD are
very
good. Just wondering what it looks like at your end
Dave
It's
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Bill.
Doing some catch up here on pdml, but, what do the digital print fiqures
look like.
I haven't done a hard breakdown, but it looks like digital printing is about
10% of my print
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Digital print quality has more to do with the customer than with the lab.
Results vary based on the customer.
Please explain. I think I have an idea... the digital file received may be
of any resolution or size vs. a standard negative... Thank you.
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Digital print quality has more to do with the customer than with the lab.
Results vary based on the customer.
Please explain. I think I have an idea... the digital file received may
be of any
I take it this would not be the case were you to receive 'RAW' files vs.
.jpg? Or is the processing totally geared towards .jpgs?
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Date
William Robb wrote:
Film to print has a lot more variables controled by the lab. We can process
the film well, or poorly. We can scratch the film, or otherwise mar the
image in a great variety of ways.
We can print it well, or poorly as well.
You are the Outer Limits buddy.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
I take it this would not be the case were you to receive 'RAW' files vs.
.jpg? Or is the processing totally geared towards .jpgs?
RAW files are something the photographer gets to deal
it's not just Kodak. Fuji's film business is declining within a couple of
points of Kodak's rate.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film
It's like watching a good friend slowly succumb.
I ran volume numbers yesterday for the past three summer seasons (July and
Auguat).
Without knowing our actual numbers, I guestimate we'd probably come up with
very similar results. On the up side, however, we're printing a TON of
digital
William Robb wrote:
It's like watching a good friend slowly succumb.
I ran volume numbers yesterday for the past three summer seasons (July
and Auguat).
The highest film processing volume my lab has done was 2003, and I
still had access to those numbers as well as 2004/2005.
I will treat
- Original Message -
From: John Celio
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Without knowing our actual numbers, I guestimate we'd probably come up
with very similar results. On the up side, however, we're printing a TON
of digital stuff. How are you guys doing
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
It would be at least mildly interesting to have the numbers of the years
leading up to 2003, too, though. What I mean to say is that if 2003 was a
particularly good year for film processing
.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: John Celio
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Without knowing our actual numbers, I guestimate we'd probably come
up
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Well, the point I would like to make is that despite the influx of digital
you are still doing more than 1/2 the film processing business you were
doing before digital. Since today
It would be at least mildly interesting to have the numbers of the
years leading up to 2003, too, though. What I mean to say is that if
2003 was a particularly good year for film processing, then obviously
you might have expected the volume to drop a bit in 2004 and 2005
even without
At 02:18 AM 10/2/2005, John Celio wrote:
Without knowing our actual numbers, I guestimate we'd probably come up
with very similar results. On the up side, however, we're printing a TON
of digital stuff. How are you guys doing in that arena?
For what it's worth, I've been having at least as
that 90% of the film processing in Boone is done by the local
Wal-Mart.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: graywolf
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
Well
I do not think the profitability of a given facility has much to do with
Kodaks decision to close it. Personally I think Kodak is being raided.
Goodby Kodak.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Toralf Lund wrote:
Yes, but
- Original Message -
From: graywolf
Subject: Re: The slow and painful death of film.
I do not think the profitability of a given facility has much to do with
Kodaks decision to close it. Personally I think Kodak is being raided.
Goodby Kodak.
Kodak is seeing it's traditional
Kodak has been taken over by MBA's they're doomed.
graywolf wrote:
I do not think the profitability of a given facility has much to do
with Kodaks decision to close it. Personally I think Kodak is being
raided. Goodby Kodak.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
It's like watching a good friend slowly succumb.
I ran volume numbers yesterday for the past three summer seasons (July and
Auguat).
The highest film processing volume my lab has done was 2003, and I still had
access to those numbers as well as 2004/2005.
I will treat 2003 as my baseline.
This isn't surprising. I think most consumers just want to be able to
take pictures with as little inconvenience as possible. Your numbers
certainly suggest that to be the case. I'm guessing a significant
chunk of your printing business is from digital files. My wife
received almost 200 prints
40 matches
Mail list logo
