John, this is a scan of the negative. And I'm not really blaming the techs at the lab, they did their best trying to help me get a decent scan of this image way back when. But like you say, those machines are not made for manual use.
After I quit my last newspaper job I did a small stint at a Walgreens one hour lab. I managed to figure out how to do quite a bit of stuff with their machines, but not nearly enough. Walter, the issue with WalMart is when you take your negative to them for printing. The machine automatically makes the adjustments it thinks will result in the best print. The problem is just that it assumes most photographers don't know what they are doing. I have never had an issue with WalMart "correcting" a file I sent them to print. If I sent them this photo it would print exactly as I have it toned (assuming the color calibration on my monitor is true). So in other words, a printer of your own is not absolutely necessary. On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mark Roberts <m...@robertstech.com> wrote: > Walter Gilbert wrote: > >> Great. Looks like I'm staring down the barrel of another expense to >>go along with my newly acquired pursuit of film photography: good >>printer, ink, and paper. > > Welcome aboard. That's how I started years ago... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- ~Nick David Wright http://www.nickdavidwright.net/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
