Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Might I suggest looking into doing your own scanning and printing
> digitally? You'll lose any issues with framing and neg film (Slide
> mounts are still an issue unless you don't get the slides mounted).
I've been thinking of that for some time but haven't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> they could not print what I saw in the viewfinder.
>>>
>>> IIRC, they weren't as bad as wherever K-Mart sent film out
>>> to, where they cut somebody's face in half on a group
>>> photo then tried to tell me it was my mistake ev
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > they could not print what I saw in the viewfinder.
> >
> > IIRC, they weren't as bad as wherever K-Mart sent film out
> > to, where they cut somebody's face in half on a group
> > photo then tried to tell me it was my mistake even when
> > I showed them t
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing
>
>
they
> could not print what I saw in the viewfinder.
>
> IIRC, they weren't as bad as wherever K-Mart sent film out
> to, where they cut somebody's face in
[dropping in mid-thread 'cause I'm months behind]
Igor Roshchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of all the non-specialized labs, I like Wal-Mart's one-hour service.
> It looks like its relatively consistent acceptable quality.
> They usually don't mind redoing the prints if you don't like the
> col
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
> Glen,
> YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE!
> What a sorry excuse for human being you are.
> I'll be happy to block your posts now.
> Get out of our neighborhood!
P
Wow. I wondered why this thread was so long. We should probably change
the subject line or abandon this as futile. I suggest the latter.
>>> Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10/11/2007 7:32 AM >>>
Glen Tortorella wrote:
>In my last post, I forgot to add this link:
>
>http://www.revisionisthist
We really didn't need a character assessment...
Cotty wrote:
> On 10/10/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>
>> Christian <-- sorry 'bout the name...
>>
>
> Not as sorry as I am.
>
>
--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Glen Tortorella wrote:
>In my last post, I forgot to add this link:
>
>http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
>
>This should also help.
Indeed it does.
Probably not in the way you intended, though...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/
>
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/11 Thu AM 07:02:30 GMT
> To: "pentax list"
> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>
> On 10/10/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I suspect Cotty was making a subtle l
>
> From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/11 Thu AM 01:47:25 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>
> In my last post, I forgot to add this link:
>
> http://www.revisionisthistory.org/
On 10/10/07, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I suspect Cotty was making a subtle little pun...
I wasn't making no pun. Just get off me bleedin Juniper bush!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
___
On 10/10/07, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Christian <-- sorry 'bout the name...
Not as sorry as I am.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
A bit delayed, but maybe it is helpful.
Of all the non-specialized labs, I like Wal-Mart's one-hour service.
It looks like its relatively consistent acceptable quality.
They usually don't mind redoing the prints if you don't like the
colors, they do matte finish, and by doing it locally there
In a message dated 10/10/2007 8:43:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Glen,
YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE!
What a sorry excuse for human being you are.
I'll be happy to block your posts now.
Get out of our neighborhood!
Bob S.
===
Ditto. The ultimate in spam. Now blocked.
Glen,
YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE!
What a sorry excuse for human being you are.
I'll be happy to block your posts now.
Get out of our neighborhood!
Bob S.
On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my last post, I forgot to add this link:
>
> http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtrut
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
> Walmart Legal here.
>
> We respectfully request, that since this thread will be archived, for
> perpetuity, that our name be removed from it's subject line. Thank
Let's put it this way. If a person of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Protestant,
agnostic, athiest, whatever faith thought, "You know, I'm not going to give
Glen any help on his photographic questions because he's a Catholic, and I
don't want to support a Catholic because I disagree with them and the
Potential, terrorists, but then all Christians are potential bank robbers...
David Savage wrote:
> At 09:47 AM 11/10/2007, you wrote:
>
>> You seem to be painting all Jewish people with the same broad brush.
>>
>
> Probably thinks all Muslims are terrorists too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
I am sorely tempted to respond to this thread (the religious half of it,
anyway, as I left the Religion of Film last summer after being molested by
too many lab techs), but as an atheist, I doubt my arguments will be met
with open minds by those involved in the discussion.
I instead request tha
You slandered a people and a faith. You preached anti-Semitic
nonsense. You're worse than pigheaded. By the way, some of our most
valued members are Jewish, so if you practice what you preach, you
would have nothing to do with us. Perhaps you should go now?
Paul
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:10 PM, G
Were you Brad Dobo in another life?
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Glen Tortorella wrote:
> More slander here, too, I see.
>
> In regard to the substance of your comments, I note: you choose to
> buy the bill of goods sold to you by media knaves, politicians, and
> textbooks. In America, and in ma
At 10:08 AM 11/10/2007, Christian wrote:
>David Savage wrote:
> > At 09:47 AM 11/10/2007, you wrote:
> >> You seem to be painting all Jewish people with the same broad brush.
> >
> > Probably thinks all Muslims are terrorists too.
> >
>
>You mean they aren't? GUNS! ABORTION! HITLER! ATHEISM!
I
David Savage wrote:
> At 09:47 AM 11/10/2007, you wrote:
>> You seem to be painting all Jewish people with the same broad brush.
>
> Probably thinks all Muslims are terrorists too.
>
You mean they aren't? GUNS! ABORTION! HITLER! ATHEISM!
Ok, this thread should be cooked now. :-)
Christian <
I would highly suggest not basing your decisions off the ravings of one
of the world's more notorious Holocaust deniers.
-Adam
Glen Tortorella wrote:
> In my last post, I forgot to add this link:
>
> http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
>
> This should also help.
>
> Glen
>
>
You seem to be painting all Jewish people with the same broad brush.
Tom C.
>From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21
At 09:47 AM 11/10/2007, you wrote:
>You seem to be painting all Jewish people with the same broad brush.
Probably thinks all Muslims are terrorists too.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, ple
In my last post, I forgot to add this link:
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html
This should also help.
Glen
On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:13 PM, David Savage wrote:
> On 10/11/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scatt
I have already expressed my waning interest in continuing this
discussion, as no one has shown any knowledge of, or familiarity
with, the matter in question. These will be my final remarks on the
matter. Perhaps they will help to clarify the issue.
Suppose that someone wrote a book that de
Marnie aka Doe
-
Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored.
** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_p
On 10/11/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth,
> and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their
> doctrines or deeds.
Your digging yourself into a bigger & bigger hole and reinforcing my
opinions
en Tortorella
>> Sent: 10 October 2007 23:41
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>>
>> Reading what has been written already, I knew this smear
>> would come.
>> Can any of you who have responde
t;> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >> Behalf Of Glen Tortorella
> >> Sent: 10 October 2007 22:41
> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
> >>
> >> I do not wish to
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mark Roberts
> Sent: 10 October 2007 23:50
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>
> Cotty wrote:
>
>
I don't think I'm the one being absurd here.
Tom C.
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:42:55 -0400
I see you employ
r next emails in Aramaic for us?
> >
> >--
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > Behalf Of Glen Tortorella
> > > Sent: 10 October 2007 22:41
> > > To:
Cotty wrote:
>On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>and "Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall
>> be rooted up" (Mt 15:13).
>
>Does that include Juniper bushes?
Wouldn't bother me, but I'm not much of a gin drinker.
>Er, sorry.
Too late :)
--
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:37:00 -0400
I apologize for the typos. This post should read:
Where are you getting this? I never said tha
x27;Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
>Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:05:09 +0100
>
>Awesome! Keep it coming! It's like being on a long flight with Mel
>Gibson. Could you not write your next emails in Aramaic for us?
>
What if they were on the way to a synagogue?
> If there house were on fire, would you warn them?
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>> From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: Wal-Ma
gt;
>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote:
>>
>> > I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not
>> > even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible.
>> >
>> > “
>> > He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the goo
Where are you getting this? When did I say that you are
blaspheming? You are the one that censured my post, and asked for
"protection from people" like me. What kind of meaning is present
here, Bob S.? Who are "people like [me]"? Hmm...sounds like a
bigoted remark.
Glen
On Oct 10, 20
bson. Could you not write your next emails in Aramaic for us?
>
> --
> Bob
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Glen Tortorella
>> Sent: 10 October 2007 22:41
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail
Wal-Mart' as well as just about
> every retail establishment in this country is supporting a godless
> Red China - yet you no doubt support their economy through your
> purchases.
>
> Tom C.
>
>> From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To:
Glen,
Nobody is slandering anybody here or blaspheming. See my post again.
It is a simple comment and a wish for recognition of my rights to hold
a different opinion than yours without holy war.
Regards, Bob S.
On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More slander here, too, I s
On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella, discombobulated, unleashed:
>and "Every plant
>which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (Mt
>15:13).
Does that include Juniper bushes?
Er, sorry.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http
ss Red China - yet you no
doubt support their economy through your purchases.
Tom C.
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0400
ss Red China - yet you no
doubt support their economy through your purchases.
Tom C.
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0400
You don't know?
It's one where people clearly see through religion that does not practice
what it preaches.
Tom C.
>From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film process
I am "pigheaded"? I have used no such derogatory language. All I
did was respond to a post, and state my position. I put forth no ad
hominem attacks, but you clearly have. What kind of country (and
world) are we living in these days?
Glen
On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] w
More slander here, too, I see.
In regard to the substance of your comments, I note: you choose to
buy the bill of goods sold to you by media knaves, politicians, and
textbooks. In America, and in many other nations, this is your your
right. I choose to investigate the facts for myself, and
rella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0400
I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has
arisen only because someone had menti
2:41
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>
> I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has
> arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to
> patronize B&H. Likewise, I should not h
“
> He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain
> on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45).
>
> To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>> From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 4:10 PM -0400 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella wrote:
>Is it at all difficult to select and print only those negatives that
>you find acceptable?
>
No.
--
Steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>This is probably the most inane, pigheaded post I've ever seen on this
forum.
>The people who run B&H are some of the most honest businessmen I've ever
>encountered. I don't subscribe fully to any god, but if there is such an
>entity,
Glen Tortorella wrote:
> Thank you for the comment...
>
> The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-gloss. It is
> also rather expensive at $9.00 for 40 sheets. This amounts to nearly
> the same number of prints as a roll of film (36 vs. 40)--and that is
> just for paper, wi
This is probably the most inane, pigheaded post I've ever seen on this forum.
The people who run B&H are some of the most honest businessmen I've ever
encountered. I don't subscribe fully to any god, but if there is such an
entity,
I'm sure she frowns upon anyone who would discriminate against
Glen,
Your position is rather extreem.
God protect me from people like you who know the 'right'.
So much war and persecution can be blamed on this.
Regards, Bob S
On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the
> subj
next person.
Tom C.
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:36:03 -0600
I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God
not a way of making friends.
Tom C.
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400
I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you hav
Is it at all difficult to select and print only those negatives that
you find acceptable?
Glen
On Oct 10, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote:
> At 1:10 PM -0400 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella wrote:
>> Thank you for the comment...
>>
>> The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-glos
I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the
subject, I will explain my position with regard to B&H.
I am familiar with B&H's reputation for customer service. My
avoidance of B&H et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming
from a stereotypical opinion of large
The staples store near here stocks the epson premium glossy 4x6 papaer
in stacks of 100 for about $0.20 a piece. I use it for testing mostly.
Dave
On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thank you for the comment...
>
> The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-glo
At 1:10 PM -0400 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella wrote:
>Thank you for the comment...
>
>The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-gloss. It is
>also rather expensive at $9.00 for 40 sheets. This amounts to nearly
>the same number of prints as a roll of film (36 vs. 40)--and that is
>j
Epson Ultra Premium Luster is similar in texture and gloss to what mini labs
pass off as matte paper. It's a very high quality sheet and prints beautifully.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I see. Would a semi-gloss paper be
Yes. I'm fond of Epson Premium Luster myself for colour printing, but that's a
little glossier than the semi-matte minilabs call matte.
-Adam
Glen Tortorella wrote:
> I see. Would a semi-gloss paper be a better choice (and be similar
> to the semi-matte of minilabs)?
>
> Glen
>
> On Oct 10,
It will(although not ideally, it's intended for pigment printers), but note
it's a true Matte paper, not the semi-matte or pearl that minilabs pass off as
matte paper. Matte papers are not really ideal for colour work unless you want
a watercolour look to the print. You may want to look at Moab?
sage -
From: "Scott Loveless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
> Glen Tortorella wrote:
>> Thank you, Adam...
>>
>> Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want
>> to make sure of
I see. Would a semi-gloss paper be a better choice (and be similar
to the semi-matte of minilabs)?
Glen
On Oct 10, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> It will(although not ideally, it's intended for pigment printers),
> but note it's a true Matte paper, not the semi-matte or pearl that
>
Glen Tortorella wrote:
> Thank you, Adam...
>
> Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want
> to make sure of this.
>
> Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on
> the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is
> probab
Thank you, Adam...
Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want
to make sure of this.
Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on
the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is
probably available (at a good price, too) at
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Glen Tortorella"
> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>
>
>
>> In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner?
>
> I happen to like the scanners that are attached to the
Glen Tortorella wrote:
> I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too).
Here you go:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Epson-Perfection-Printer-3170-Photo-Scanner_W0QQitemZ270173612528QQihZ017QQcategoryZ11205QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://tinyurl.com/3aogtf
--
Scott Loveless
htt
The send out is cheaper too.
Scott Loveless wrote:
> Glen Tortorella wrote:
>> Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print
>> processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good B&W
>> print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish
>> tint disa
Thank you for the comment...
The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-gloss. It is
also rather expensive at $9.00 for 40 sheets. This amounts to nearly
the same number of prints as a roll of film (36 vs. 40)--and that is
just for paper, without ink and shipping on the paper
The 4490 is likely a better choice to start than the 4990, unless you're
already shooting Large Format. You'll also want to pick up some 35mm ANR
inserts from betterscanning.com, they massively improve 35mm scans from
flatbeds. You'll want 2 for the 4490. Note Epson.com has refurbs right now for
>Don't let anyone tell you that you can't open a jpeg and work on it and
>resave it without losing quality.
>You can, just save as a tiff or psd.
>
>William Robb
>
Nitpicking... you likely won't lose anything over and above the original
lossy compression inherent in the .jpg if you do it this way
At 9:02 AM -0400 10/10/07, Scott Loveless wrote:
>Steve Sharpe wrote:
>>>
>>> Bottom line, Wally World send out goes to Dwayne's. 36 exposure 35mm
>>> (E-6 and Kodachrome), 120 or 220 E-6 is $4.88 per roll, and it usually
>>> takes 7 to 10 days. I'm a happy camper.
>>
>> I wonder what Wal-mar
- Original Message -
From: "Glen Tortorella"
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
>
> In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner?
I happen to like the scanners that are attached to the printers at minilabs.
Let someone else do the donkey work
At 11:20 AM -0400 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella wrote:
>I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do
>not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my
>prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because
>this is clearly the most popular prin
Scott, thanks so much for this information. I just shot several rolls
of Velvia on Sunday and I was at a loss as to where to develop them
for good quality and a good price. I guess I'll be dropping mine of
at Walmart :) Thanks!!
rg2
On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I a
I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do
not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my
prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because
this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is also the
only one (at leas
I've had inconsistent results with Wal-Mart's in house processing.
Thus, everything goes into their send-out bin, even the C-41 stuff. It
seems that quality is variable by store and by staff. Fuji is much more
consistent. Basically, if you put your film in one of their 1-hour
envelopes they'
Glen Tortorella wrote:
>
> Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print
> processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good B&W
> print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish
> tint disappointed me. Perhaps print B&W C-41 is just too strang
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Sharpe"
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I wonder what Wal-mart in Canada is like? The reason I'm asking is
that I've got a couple of rolls of Kodachrome that I bought when I
still lived in the USA and there
No, Scott, thank you for posting this information--I very much
appreciate it. As I have no current plans to digitize, this is
valuable information. My wife and I have been using the Wal-Mart in
Winchester for most of our processing. The "pro" shops in toward DC
charge about four times as
Steve, i was just going to ask that.
We have a Wally world here in town now, and never thought they might
be able to do that for us.
The only other person i know to do E-6 in this area ~was~ in the east
end of Oshawa, but i'm not sure he is still in business.
Dave
On 10/10/07, Steve Sharpe <[EM
Steve Sharpe wrote:
>>
>> Bottom line, Wally World send out goes to Dwayne's. 36 exposure 35mm
>> (E-6 and Kodachrome), 120 or 220 E-6 is $4.88 per roll, and it usually
>> takes 7 to 10 days. I'm a happy camper.
>
> I wonder what Wal-mart in Canada is like? The reason I'm asking is
> that I've
>
>
>Bottom line, Wally World send out goes to Dwayne's. 36 exposure 35mm
>(E-6 and Kodachrome), 120 or 220 E-6 is $4.88 per roll, and it usually
>takes 7 to 10 days. I'm a happy camper.
I wonder what Wal-mart in Canada is like? The reason I'm asking is
that I've got a couple of rolls of Kodach
Since we've been tossing around the Wal-Mart name a bit, and since I've
been doing some scanning recently, this has been on my mind and I
thought I'd share (with the other 2 of you who are still shooting film).
When I was working in Hagerstown, MD I brought my E-6 to a little
independent shop c
91 matches
Mail list logo
