Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Lesson learned: Never low bid. If you have to low bid to get the job, the hassles you are going to have with your customer makes you better off if you didn't get that job in the first place. and Aaron said: Has anyone else noticed that the clientele seem to get cheaper as the price gets cheaper? This is so true. The more I raise my prices, the more people are willing to spend, and the less they hassle and haggle. Another odd thing I've noticed...rich people, in general, are cheap. Guess that's why they're rich... tv - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Yep! Rule one for business, any business, if you are cheap you get cheap customers. For years I tried to be a photographer that people could afford. No matter how cheap I priced myself, my customers said I was too expensive and were never satisfied with my work. Then I came into one of those Polaroid ID Machines. Someone told me I could make money with it. I wasn't much interested so I priced my work at $100/hr (actually $75, but I underestimated the production per hour). What did my customers say about paying $100/hr + rental on the ID Machine + Supplies at 150% of cost? That's reasonable. Remember, thas was 20 years ago, and I could teach anyone to make ID bages with ID-2 in a half hour. Lesson learned: Never low bid. If you have to low bid to get the job, the hassles you are going to have with your customer makes you better off if you didn't get that job in the first place. Ciao, graywolf Aaron Reynolds wrote: Has anyone else noticed that the clientele seem to get cheaper as the price gets cheaper? - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/5/01 11:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yup, and my Kiosk made over 100,000 dollars profit for the company that you are so proudly a shareholder of. Something to think about when you denigrate the work of others, is they are paying dividends to thankless jerks. William Robb Wal~Mart 3077 _ The only thing related to film I use at Walmart is the one-hour when I need to see or provide proofs for the day and it is past noon, when the local pro labs stop taking work of that kind. I tried Walmart a few times, shareholders profits strongly in mind. But no Walmart is discriminating enough to handle one ISO 400 or 800 film from another. What local Walmarts (we have 5 (five!) SUPER CENTERS within 32 miles of where I live) have done to some of my KODAK PORTRA and KODAK SUPRA film is criminal. No more, not even for the sake of profit sharing. And you want me to beileve you and your Walmart are the exception? **While you and I have had differences, whenever you spoke of lab before, I thought pro printer in a pro lab. No more. The illusion is complete, the magician... Anon. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/5/01 11:49:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But you were complaining that Joe sixpack can't get his digital processed cheaply... Now I think you're just being argumentative. I've since learned that Joe can take his dinky digitals to Walmart. say that digital can't be processed inexpensivley, and then you say that a cheap place isn't a real lab so it doesn't count. As a long time (13 years and about five stock splits later) shareholder, Walmart pays for a lot of my personal indulgences. Thanks a lot and I mean that from the bottom of my avaricious heart. go to the local pro lab, he's going to go to Walmart, Walgreens, or any number of other cheap places where he can get his digital stuff printed cheaply. That is Joe's prerogative. But cheap in now way means or infers good, better or most importantly for~my~ paying clients, best; or consistency. consumer weather they drop off film or digital files, the end result is the same. They have prints to hand out and show Grandma, and it doesn't have to cost any more. That summation you describe is altogether different from those inferring that somehow cheap equates to quality. At least it doesn't here in the DC area, as well as most other urban areas in the US. Isaac Of course I most often speak as a professional, not a Joe. It is the insistence of Digital's supporters that small format digital somehow represents the same quality of digital taking and output of medium or large format digital that is most disingenuous. I am literally blown away by the digital work I see in visits to my pro lab. But sorry, the digital I ofttimes see is medium/large format. **Truthfully? Medium format digital shoots have the same disdain for 35mm or smaller digital that medium format film shooters have for 35mm film. I'm further blown away when I see what my lab can do with my 6x7 negs. Digitizing them, cleaning them up, printing them to specs impossible to achieve in the darkroom. But those instances of my film to digital to digital output are rare. I can do my own 24x30 prints. **My framing in the camera style means there's damn little I can't achieve over an easel. ***Thankfully I get my props from the work I do and my style. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/6/01 1:07:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: I think Mafud does have a point here. There's a difference between taking your digital camera into a department store and getting their run-of-the-mill prints back, and taking it to a pro-lab. Same with film. True, but that wasn't what the post was about. Mafud had said earlier that getting a lab to make prints from digital files was a lot more expensive than from film. Let me clarify: I use real pro labs, not Walmart. Had the original statement mentioned Walmart anyplace or as the source lab, I would not have commented. I asked him to name a lab that charged more for digital to see if he really place that charged an insane amount more, and he avoided the question completely by going into an irrelevant rant about Wal~Mart. Why would I answer the then and now pointless question in that we don't live in the same cities, so any prices I might give would be meaningless where you live? I live in a metro area of under 700,000 people. You might live in a larger or smaller metro. You might live in a metro with higer/lower wages, higher/lower retail rents, or a place where there are dozens of graphics/pro labs/printers or just a few. But you and others have been disingenuous by flatly asserting that a lab (even here we have differences about what a lab is) can or would print digitals as cheaply as film. Maybe Walmart can and does. *Though they are a retail giant whose sales (up 13% year to year since Thanksgiving), they sure as hoot aren't labs, not in the sense a professional classifies labs. **As a Walmart spouse, when I need regular film processing done, I sure as hoot don't go to Walmart. Nope, I go across the road to SAMs Club. Interestingly, the same processing that would cost you and me $4.99 at Walmart will cost us only $2.99 at Sam's. When I learned the same firm processed both Walmart and Sam's, I choose to save money at Sam's. **Even with my 10% spousal discount, sometimes Walmart costs to darn much! accuses people of saying stuff that they didn't say. :) Remember this: I'm under ~no~ obligation to answer pointed, Do you still beat your wife and other otherwise senseless, gratuitous questions. As to who said what: it's all mean spirited conversation or questions that as I have noted, don't deserve a direct answer. what lab he had in mind because he probably just made that bit of info up on the spot. :) chris A minilab sitting in the middle of a Walmart is ~NOT~ a photo lab but a photo processor. Calling one of them a lab is a needless and meaningless gilding of the Lily. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
My house is paid for, I have food on the table, my dogs love me and I get laid on a regular basis. I have no complaints. William Robb That's exactly what I've been aspiring to for years! Can I come and visit? 8-] Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 11:36 PM, Chris Brogden wrote: You still haven't answered the question, Mafud. Since several of us have already mentioned a variety of labs--both pro and non-pro--that charge the same for digital and chemical prints, I'm curious as to which lab has that outrageous discrepancy between the two prices where you live. Can you actually name a lab like that, or will you actually admit to just making it up? By the way, just a clairification, since this seems to be causing some confusion: The pro labs do not charge the same as Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's price does not change if the print is from a neg or from a file, in other words, an 8x10 always costs the same, regardless of media. The two pro lab's prices do not change either, regardless of media. The pro lab's price is undoubtably higher than the Wal-Mart price. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 12:48 AM, aimcompute wrote: I think Mafud does have a point here. There's a difference between taking your digital camera into a department store and getting their run-of-the-mill prints back, and taking it to a pro-lab. Same with film. I haven't priced this... but I would guess there is a price difference, a quality difference, and a capability difference. I don't take my regular film to a Wal-Mart (no offense Bill). If it's family snapshots, yes I do. I usually shoot transparency, so I take it to the best pro lab in town I know of, Media Specialties. Mafud was arguing that there is an outrageous price discrepancy between printing from digital vs. printing from negs, making it unsuitable for granny. In response, we listed two pro labs and Wal-Mart as pricing their digital and chemical the same -- not the same as each other, mind you. I truly doubt that Wal-Mart charges as much as I do for a chemical print. Just that Wal-Mart charges one price, regardless of media, and that the pro labs listed also charge one price regardless of media. No one on this list (aside from Mafud) ever said that Wal-Mart was a pro lab, or that Wal-Mart's prices were comparable to those of a pro lab. Mafud has, however, six times now evaded the question of pricing at his lab of choice (though he took great pains to explain how expensive they are). We can only be forced to assume that he was making it up, and that there is, in fact, not a great price discrepancy between chemical and digital prints there. How are the prices at Media Specialties when you compare digital to chemical? -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 01:13 AM, William Robb wrote: In the work place, one of the things one needs to realize is the limitations placed on him or her by his employer. Wal~Mart is not interested in being a pro lab, the same way they are not interested in selling Armani suits. We are what we are, if that isn't what you want. go elsewhere. My favourite snappy answer from an employee of mine: CUSTOMER: I can get that cheaper at Wal-Mart. EMPLOYEE: So why are you here? The piece of work in question was an estimate on restoration, which, by the way, was a mere $40 including the print, the lowest price we ever quote for restoration. The customer agreed to the price in the end, and then groused about it again when it came time to pick up the work. I asked her to confirm that it was her signature beside the estimate, and she said yes, so I promptly rung it into the till. Sometimes I feel like murdering people. :) -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
The piece of work in question was an estimate on restoration, which, by the way, was a mere $40 including the print, the lowest price we ever quote for restoration. The customer agreed to the price in the end, and then groused about it again when it came time to pick up the work. I asked her to confirm that it was her signature beside the estimate, and she said yes, so I promptly rung it into the till. Sometimes I feel like murdering people. :) -Aaron I know the feeling well. Like the customer I recently had who, on examining her next day prints, culled three or four perfectly good (well, average minilab prints) and stated she didn't know why she took them and didn't want to pay for them at 22 cents per print. Or those that examine their 3 day prints, which cost a measly $4.00 for processing and printing, even 36 exp rolls, and want a credit for those which they don't like. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 4:45 AM Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers In a message dated 12/4/01 10:42:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree 1000%. Until I can do everything with digital I can with film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it. Let's see... I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release. Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs. Yes, but the expense is outrageously unreasonable for just a few prints. always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras? Precisely because you don't need the above to see prints. You don't even need a computer: go to the drugstore-etc., open package and look. And why do digital advocates always assume that Granny has a computer or some other means to see their ofttimes shabby product? See Mafud? This is what we are talking about, prints for Granny. Do you think Joe Sixpack goes to the local pro lab to get these done? Go to a Wla-Mart, get your prints from digital media (at the same price as film) and then send them to Granny. good minilab into the purchase of your film camera? That's a Shibboleth. If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab and let them do it...just like film. Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for prints from digital files as from film. This isn't a rant against you, Tom, but against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems with home printing. Another good reason to shoot film: ~you~ only need a camera and eyes to shoot and Granny only need eyes to view them, the way it's been for more than a one-hundred years. What did ~you~ do before you had a digital? In that regard, the digital is equal to or better than film argument falls squarely on its expensive face. Those who argue the convenience of small format digital, without considering the cost to an individual, disregard one fundamental fact: small format digital owners pay, in terms of replacing or upgrading equipment, ink-etc., huge sums of money to get what are essentially dinky home printed images. Small format digital printing is expensive and for the most part, SUX. I really wish you'd preface these sorts of comments with, In my experience. That way, when we say that things have changed, you could just say that you haven't seen it yet, instead of trying to prove us wrong. The facts of the matter are that for my customers that shoot a couple of rolls a week, a $399 digital camera is saving them lots of money, and they haven't noticed a drop off in quality for their 4x6 prints. Many do not do any printing at all at home, we do it all for them. Cost of printing and ease of printing are not (at least here) arguments against using digital cameras for regular snapshooters... Isaac - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/6/01 8:48:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mafud has, however, six times now evaded the question of pricing at his lab of choice (though he took great pains to explain how expensive they are). We can only be forced to assume that he was making it up, and that there is, in fact, not a great price discrepancy between chemical and digital prints there. We don't live in the same town or even same region of the country, making comparisons of pro lab, maybe even Walmart lab prices, utterly meaningless. How are the prices at Media Specialties when you compare digital to chemical? If that is a question for me, I'm pleased at how elegantly you make my point. We don't ~have~ a Media Specialties where I live. How then could you (we) possibly compare Media Specialties prices with (any) pro lab I might name where ~I~ live? I see the trap: you pick a dinky, low priced so-called pro lab and I pick the pro lab I most often use. We then compare prices. You win. **But we could, using a disinterested intermediary, send our most frequented lab's catalog (your lab does have a catalog, yes?) to them. Let ~them~ make the comparison. Remember this: you're not my appointed inquisitor, nor instructor, nor, heavens forbid, boss, thus your question(s) are as meaningless as they are superfluous, as would be any comparison between pro lab prices. I, nor anyone, am not obligated to answer what more than likely would be, in the end, a rhetorical question. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/6/01 9:20:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: . Or those that examine their 3 day prints, which cost a measly $4.00 for processing and printing, even 36 exp rolls, and want a credit for those which they don't like. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] They've been spoiled by Walmart and SAM'S. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/6/01 8:48:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mafud has, however, six times now evaded the question of pricing at his lab of choice (though he took great pains to explain how expensive they are). We can only be forced to assume that he was making it up, and that there is, in fact, not a great price discrepancy between chemical and digital prints there. We don't live in the same town or even same region of the country, making comparisons of pro lab, maybe even Walmart lab prices, utterly meaningless. Evaded again. Remember this: you're not my appointed inquisitor, nor instructor, nor, heavens forbid, boss, thus your question(s) are as meaningless as they are superfluous, as would be any comparison between pro lab prices. I, nor anyone, am not obligated to answer what more than likely would be, in the end, a rhetorical question. Yes, but now we'll think anything of you and your knowledge that we wish. The question put to you was simple, normal. Folks here don't hang on your every word (or anyone's word) as though you (they) were some authority. If ANYONE makes a claim that another disputes, it's normal (and responsible) to ask the claimant to provide evidence of the claim. It is entirely unfair to require the person questioning or disputing the claim to prove it for themselves. Others have investigated to the ability that they could and found your claim to be empty so far as they can see. You claim you are or have been a PJ. I'll not dispute this. (Basically because I don't care.) So, I assume that you know that all journalists accept that it is there responsibility to back up claims of fact that they make. Regards, Bob... Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.' It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event. - Samuel Adams, 1771 - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/6/01 12:49:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, I assume that you know that all journalists accept that it is there responsibility to back up claims of fact that they make. Regards, Bob... The questions were disingenuous Bob, meant to elicit ~any~ kind of response, for which they would ask another or in some way find fault with my actual answer. **I'm disappointed that you too overlooked my response as to how I would resolve their question? Or have you too only fastened on what they ~said~ I said? I gave a specific respnose/challenge and not one of those buggers have addressed the challenge. Which lets me know they don't ~WANT~ an answer. And if you want to know, find my own proposal on how to settle the issue of digital Vs. film price(s). If and when you do, I'll think you want too know. If you can't find my challenge, then the fault will lay with them and perhaps you. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
RE: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
That's the *joy* of dealing with the public for you! I don't process or print any of my own film (lack of time and space - I'm sure I'm missing out), but I know the deal I want and how much I want to spend, depending on what film I've used and what the subject material is. $4 for processing and printing a 36 exp roll is great value for the many photos and follow on reprints at that sort of price you send to family of the children growing up etc. You can't get picky at this price. For something you want a little care taken over, use someone you trust and you build an understanding of what you are looking for. Someone at some time will let you down and for my part, I often have to say the person who took the photos has alot to answer for :-) Malcolm, G0DPT -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens Sent: 06 December 2001 14:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers The piece of work in question was an estimate on restoration, which, by the way, was a mere $40 including the print, the lowest price we ever quote for restoration. The customer agreed to the price in the end, and then groused about it again when it came time to pick up the work. I asked her to confirm that it was her signature beside the estimate, and she said yes, so I promptly rung it into the till. Sometimes I feel like murdering people. :) -Aaron I know the feeling well. Like the customer I recently had who, on examining her next day prints, culled three or four perfectly good (well, average minilab prints) and stated she didn't know why she took them and didn't want to pay for them at 22 cents per print. Or those that examine their 3 day prints, which cost a measly $4.00 for processing and printing, even 36 exp rolls, and want a credit for those which they don't like. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 . - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Hmmm, my isp doesn't seem to want to cooperate with message rule 8. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers And right about here you're gong to tell me how you and ~your~ Walmart lab ~do~ have the facilities and that ~you~, Mr. Robb, can and do individual proccessing requests by dialing in their desired KODAK processing channel. You'll probably also say you can and do discriminate between PORTRA and GOLD and FUJI emulsions and that your Walmart can print on any paper and nearly any size I choose, even if it's on KODAK SUPRAll @ 11 x 14. Go ahead, tell me. Since I have already asked you once to address me with a modicum of respect, I will presume that it is just your nature to be an abuser. I can live with this. That you are offensively infantile is your problem and not mine. Now, to answer your question: The Noritsu 2102 printers that I use read the discrete DX code off the film edge and sets the film channel accordingly. The film is then scanned by a high density CCD camera and the negatives are projected onto a monitor. Colour and density correction is then manually applied to each and every negative on the roll. So, yes, we do discriminate between manufactuere and type of film. And yes, we print every negaitive on an individual basis. I have stated in the past that a large prints and custom cropping are outside the purvue of a Wal~Mart photo lab (but you knew that, right?) We work within the limitations that are given to us, in terms of size of print and cropping options, and paper type. We have no choice in this. When we have to send someone to a custom lab we are quite willing to. It is just good customer service to make every attempt to enable a customer into the product they want. We do not compromise quality in areas we can control. We run C-41 and RA-4 process controll strips at the beginning of every day, we balance all paper widths and surfaces to a common colour point daily. We pre judge print every single negative that goes through our printers, and we inspect every single print for defects, and redo the ones that fall outside our acceptable limits. Our limits, because we are an amateur photofinishing minilab are not quite as tight as a pro lab should be, but we don't send out anything we wouldn't buy ourselves. It is easier to do the job correctly the first time. This is the work ethic that is part of the entire Wal~Mart culture in Canada, and really, is the work ethic of Canadians in general. I hope this answers your question. Now, wouldn't the world be a better place if we all were willing to back up our claims with facts? Any journalist worth his salt knows this. William Robb - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
The Noritsu 2102 printers that I use read the discrete DX code off the film edge and sets the film channel accordingly. The film is then scanned by a high density CCD camera and the negatives are projected onto a monitor. Colour and density correction is then manually applied to each and every negative on the roll. So, yes, we do discriminate between manufactuere and type of film. And yes, we print every negaitive on an individual basis. I have stated in the past that a large prints and custom cropping are outside the purvue of a Wal~Mart photo lab (but you knew that, right?) Wow, that must be nice to use. Our old Konica printer justs backlights the negative a la light table and we can't tell a damned thing about the print until it exits the printer. It does read the bar codes on the film, but our software is so out of date that most recent emulsions aren't included. - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 09:18 AM, Bill Owens wrote: I know the feeling well. Like the customer I recently had who, on examining her next day prints, culled three or four perfectly good (well, average minilab prints) and stated she didn't know why she took them and didn't want to pay for them at 22 cents per print. ...and I breathe another sigh of relief that I decided not to install any kind of minilab here. Has anyone else noticed that the clientele seem to get cheaper as the price gets cheaper? -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Mafud, I don't believe the Media Specialties reference was a trap. Aaron was asking me the prices, since I named it as the lab I use here in town. It may be dinky, but it's the only place that does what they do. Tom C. We don't ~have~ a Media Specialties where I live. How then could you (we) possibly compare Media Specialties prices with (any) pro lab I might name where ~I~ live? I see the trap: you pick a dinky, low priced so-called pro lab and I pick the pro lab I most often use. We then compare prices. You win. - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
- Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers I've visited our outlab a bunch of times (UAF/PhotoClick in Weston, ON), and have been quite impressed with the speed of the new Noritsus vs. the Frontiers they have. The Frontier seemed more flexible, but boy was it slow. Of course, both were faster than the old Noritsu I learned on, where one-hour photo ACTUALLY TOOK ONE FULL HOUR! ;) We can take a film in from the customer, and have packaged prints about 18 minutes later. Quite amazing how these minilabs have progressed from being a bad joke 20 years ago to todays machines that can turn out a roll of individually colour and density corrected prints in just over a quarter hour. Our digital lab (unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet) is not as fast, nor as high capacity, but, is capable of producing colour, density AND contrast corrected prints. It can also 100% custom crop up to a 12x18 inch print size. The print quality isn't quite there yet, but the machine will be upgraded as higher capacity scanners and finer resolution print heads become available. This really is where the future is heading, and it is quite exciting. This is as big a deal as the invention of the negative/positive printing process was in the 1850's , or the invention of the colour printing process in the 1950s. Oh yes, the prints are done on regular RA-4 colour paper, so granny just has to step outside if she really wants to look at her old pictures by the light of her house burning to the ground. William Robb - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/4/01 10:42:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree 1000%. Until I can do everything with digital I can with film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it. Let's see... I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release. Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs. Yes, but the expense is outrageously unreasonable for just a few prints. always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras? Precisely because you don't need the above to see prints. You don't even need a computer: go to the drugstore-etc., open package and look. And why do digital advocates always assume that Granny has a computer or some other means to see their ofttimes shabby product? good minilab into the purchase of your film camera? That's a Shibboleth. If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab and let them do it...just like film. Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for prints from digital files as from film. This isn't a rant against you, Tom, but against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems with home printing. Another good reason to shoot film: ~you~ only need a camera and eyes to shoot and Granny only need eyes to view them, the way it's been for more than a one-hundred years. What did ~you~ do before you had a digital? In that regard, the digital is equal to or better than film argument falls squarely on its expensive face. Those who argue the convenience of small format digital, without considering the cost to an individual, disregard one fundamental fact: small format digital owners pay, in terms of replacing or upgrading equipment, ink-etc., huge sums of money to get what are essentially dinky home printed images. Small format digital printing is expensive and for the most part, SUX. - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/4/01 11:30:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is just a matter of time, though, and after some more years pass I fully expect to see kick-ass quality digital come down to affordable levels That may be years before ~small format~ digital gets to be as inexpensive as that $14.96 35mm autofocus PS at Walmart. - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Small format digital printing is expensive and for the most part, SUX. SUX=Airport code for Sioux City, Iowa. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Single malt Scotch. Once you try it a few time, everything else tastes like Ripple. Chris Brogden wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: SHUT UP CHRIS! :-) :-) :-) But let me tell you one more thing... :) You drink RUM and Coke??? Step up to VO. You won't regret it! You mean vodka? I like that, too. I hate most alcohol, but I like vodka, run and gin if they're properly mixed. chris - 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 . -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://danmatyola.com Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399 - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 09:45 PM, William Robb wrote: The big difference is, he isn't buying film anymore. Know what's going to be the first casualty in the digital vs. film sales war? APS. 1) APS is a lousy format, comparatively. The neg is small, and for the most part the cameras are poor performers, accentuating the shortcomings of a smaller neg. Of course, cameras like the Nikon Pronea APS SLR took good pictures, but...uh, can you still get Proneas? 2) People who were drawn to APS will be drawn to digital. Look at the similarities: smaller camera, gadgety-ness, higher price tag than 35mm. The APS cartridge system is designed to seem high-tech, to appeal to cutting edge tech fans. 3) APS requires a separate set of masks and lenses to be printed at your local minilab, as well as a spooler/unspooler device to get the bloody film out of the cassettes and then back in again. Digital requires the appropriate card reader and some software for a modern minilab to make prints. APS is incompatible with older minilab machines (it's hard to get masks and lenses to fit machines from more than five years before APS was introduced), but more expensive to add on to a current machine than digital, unless the machine was factory-outfitted for APS. 4) APS has been a notorious sales flop. Kodak have done everything under the sun to try to up the numbers of APS film sales and processing. The local Shopper's Drug Mart only stocks Kodak single-use cameras that have APS film inside. What's the advantage to the consumer of an APS single-use camera? Nothing, unless you value bad pictures. What's the advantage to Kodak? Well, all those films have to be processed, boosting the figures for APS film sales and processing. Digital, on the other hand, appears to be thriving. Who wants to join my APS deadpool? Let's pick the date that Kodak announces it is no longer supporting the format. I pick 2005. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 04:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release. Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs. Yes, but the expense is outrageously unreasonable for just a few prints. Since you chopped that part of the message out of your reply, maybe you missed Chris pointing out that the cost of prints from digital and prints from negative at their lab is the same. It's also the same at mine. At the outlab we send to, it is cheaper to print from digital than from slides. What lab are you referring to, Mafud? Can you give us their pricing? What range is outrageously unreasonable? -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/5/01 7:22:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Small format digital printing is expensive and for the most part, SUX. SUX=Airport code for Sioux City, Iowa. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] Like I said: SUX :)) Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
VO. Seagrams VO. Canadian blended whiskey. I thought you were Canadian!? Tom C. You mean vodka? I like that, too. I hate most alcohol, but I like vodka, run and gin if they're properly mixed. chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 11:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are so assured that what fits your isolated situation and location is the norm, when I assure you your situation is ~not~ the benchmark for pricing or ease of procuring prints. So, put up or shut up. What lab are you pricing from, and where are they? And please list their digital vs. conventional prices for the same sizes. Bill is talking about WAL-MART for crying out loud. Are you telling us that Wal-Mart is not a common store? -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 11:36 AM, Robert Harris wrote: Gee, is APS still around? I thought it went the way of Apple. :) You mean APS ended up with the highest profit margin while the competition all floundered? ;P -Aaron remember, if highest market share was the same as best, well, Kodak Gold Max would be the best film ever. - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/5/01 11:19:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please make sure that you're better informed and more up-to-date before you embarrass yourself in arguments that you evidently know little about. I am no more obligated to buy an inkjet printer and paper to see my digital prints than you are to buy a good minilab to see your film ones. We can *both* get a lab to make prints for us, and we'd pay the exact same price in many places. What's so hard to understand about that? The great thing about digital is that, IF YOU CHOOSE, you can set up a home printing workstation for *much* less money than a good C-41 minilab would cost. But that's optional, not required. You are so assured that what fits your isolated situation and location is the norm, when I assure you your situation is ~not~ the benchmark for pricing or ease of procuring prints. Mafud I never said that my situation is the norm; that is an assumption on your part. What I said was that in many places the prices are the same. If you want to attack overly-general statements, you might want to start with your statement about making prints from digital files: the expense is outrageously unreasonable for just a few prints. In response to that, I could easily quote your above post to me... that you are making the assumption that what fits your isolated situation and location is the norm. To be honest, I don't care what the norm is or isn't. I just wanted to qualify your over-general condemnation of outrageously unreasonable prices for digital prints, and to show you that there are places around where this is not true. How much do you pay for, say, a 4x6 and 8x10 from a digital file, as compared to one from film? I'm curious now. chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 11:18 AM, Chris Brogden wrote: Look... YOU DON'T NEED A COMPUTER TO GET A PRINT FROM A DIGITAL CAMERA. What part of that is hard to understand? Mafud full well understands this, as evidenced by pretty much this exact same exchange some time last year. He's trying to get a rise out of us, and, once again, I'm taking the bait. I just can't stand misinformation, especially misinformation that paints my business in a bad light. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 11:18 AM, Chris Brogden wrote: Look... YOU DON'T NEED A COMPUTER TO GET A PRINT FROM A DIGITAL CAMERA. What part of that is hard to understand? Mafud full well understands this, as evidenced by pretty much this exact same exchange some time last year. He's trying to get a rise out of us, and, once again, I'm taking the bait. I don't think so. I think he's genuinely slow to adopt new ideas. If you take offense at this, Mafud, how else do you explain your failure to understand these basic points over the past year? I just can't stand misinformation, especially misinformation that paints my business in a bad light. Agreed. That's why I'm continuing this on-list instead of taking it off-list as I usually do. Whether from ignorance or maliciousness, Mafud is spreading a lot of false information about the digital process. I don't want people to read that and become misinformed themselves. chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Speak for your part of the world. Here you get no such bargain. You guys need to catch up with us Canadians.. WW - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/5/01 1:09:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bill is talking about WAL-MART for crying out loud. Are you telling us that Wal-Mart is not a common store? -Aaron Ah, speaking my language. My wife is the front end manager for a Walmart Super Store. I'll check this evening. But you moved the target. ~You~ were speaking of ~LABS~. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
What I want is a process to create little 4 round Viewmaster reels. g Tom C. - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers Aaron wrote: Know what's going to be the first casualty in the digital vs. film sales war? APS. Do you mean second, after Polaroid? Actually, I think APS would have eventually died regardless of whether digital had come along or not. --Mike - 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 . - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/5/01 1:32:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed. That's why I'm continuing this on-list instead of taking it off-list as I usually do. Whether from ignorance or maliciousness, Mafud is spreading a lot of false information about the digital process. I don't want people to read that and become misinformed themselves. chris Ah, and now the Prime Minister speaketh. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 03:20 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: Do you mean second, after Polaroid? Polaroid's pro materials will be around for some time still, I think, at least in their Fuji-manufactured forms. Also, the $50 Polaroid camera doesn't look to be easily replaced by a $400 digital, based on price alone. It was other stuff that killed Polaroid -- bad marketing decisions being foremost if you ask me. They dumped a bucket of money on that Britney Spears endorsement, to fuel sales of a camera they lost money on (the I-Zone), in order to make money from the film sales...except they forgot that a fad-loving target market uses the camera a couple of times and then puts it on the shelf, not buying any more film. I sold a dozen of those cameras last Christmas, and since then I've only sold 8 packs of the film. Actually, I think APS would have eventually died regardless of whether digital had come along or not. I agree. I think, though, that digital will hasten APS' demise, forcing one or more of the big companies supporting it to drop the format. -Aaron - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wednesday, December 5, 2001, at 03:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, speaking my language. My wife is the front end manager for a Walmart Super Store. I'll check this evening. But you moved the target. ~You~ were speaking of ~LABS~. What on earth are you talking about? A Wal-Mart photo lab is a lab. A Wal-Mart photo lab was one of the three presented in arguments against you as evidence that one can, in fact, get digital prints at the same price as conventional. You disputed the three and said they were unrepresentative. Now somehow I am moving a target? Please explain yourself. And please give us the lab name and prices you are quoting when you say that prints from digital are outrageously expensive compared to conventional prints. This is the fourth request. -Aaron - 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 .
OT: alcohol was: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Yup, but I hate most alcohols. :) chris On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: VO. Seagrams VO. Canadian blended whiskey. I thought you were Canadian!? Tom C. You mean vodka? I like that, too. I hate most alcohol, but I like vodka, run and gin if they're properly mixed. chris - 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 . - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Aaron Reynolds wrote: Who wants to join my APS deadpool? Let's pick the date that Kodak announces it is no longer supporting the format. I pick 2005. I think they'll try and hold onto it for a bit longer. I say 2007. chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/5/01 1:32:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed. That's why I'm continuing this on-list instead of taking it off-list as I usually do. Whether from ignorance or maliciousness, Mafud is spreading a lot of false information about the digital process. I don't want people to read that and become misinformed themselves. chris Ah, and now the Prime Minister speaketh. Mafud Dang... I wanted to be the President this time. :) Mafud, if you can't argue against any of the flaws that Aaron or I point out in your statements, why do you continue to make outlandish claims and spread false information about everything digital? You did it last year, you're doing it again, and I suspect you'll still be doing it next year. What gives? And, while you're at it, what lab do you use that charges so much more for prints from digital media than from film, and what are their prices? Or did you just make up that claim out of nowhere, as I suspect you did? chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
In a message dated 12/5/01 8:42:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And, while you're at it, what lab do you use that charges so much more for prints from digital media than from film, and what are their prices? First I laughed when you had the bald-faced audacity to advance ~any~ Walmart as a lab, laughing harder still that you really ~beleived~ a Walmart could be of lab quality. Then I considered you were deliberately being both obnoxious and obstreperous. If Walmart is what you, or is all you can advance as a lab, I now understand why you are so juvenile in your approach: put up or shut up. Walmart is to a pro level lab what a mutt is to a purebred. OK, they process film and/or digital. But that makes them film/pixel processors, not labs, not in the sense most serious people use when speaking of such. As to making a comparative analysis between a Walmart and ~any~ lab I know: my lab has an art department that charges $45 an hour for spotting negatives. What does Walmart charge? My lab routinely processes 30 x 40 prints and larger: how large a print can Walmart print (on site)? My lab occupies two whole floors of space in their own building and your Walmart? Fits in a 30 x 30 foot space you say? That's no lab: that's a kiosk. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
- Original Message - From: aimcompute Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:48 PM Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers I don't take my regular film to a Wal-Mart (no offense Bill). If it's family snapshots, yes I do. I usually shoot transparency, so I take it to the best pro lab in town I know of, Media Specialties. No offence taken. In the work place, one of the things one needs to realize is the limitations placed on him or her by his employer. Wal~Mart is not interested in being a pro lab, the same way they are not interested in selling Armani suits. We are what we are, if that isn't what you want. go elsewhere. Enough people want what we are to make us the most successful retailer in the world. We add significantly to the bottom line profit of the company, which is where the rubber meets the road. I have worked for pro labs, I have operated my own pro lab. I choose to live where a pro lab is not a viable entity. I choose to live here because it is unlikley that some asshole will fly a plane into what passes for a tall building or poison my water or contaminate my local post office. If the price I pay for living somewhere that is unlikely to be fucked up by dipshits is to work for a 1 hour kiosk, I happily accept the price. My house is paid for, I have food on the table, my dogs love me and I get laid on a regular basis. I have no complaints. William Robb - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Hey that's why I live here too! :-) My dogs love me, regardless of what I do to dissuade it, the cats do too! Here coyote coyote... With my wife's recent disc surgery, certain things are off-limits. I wish I had my house paid for, but I do have food on the table. :-) Tom C. - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:13 PM Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers No offence taken. In the work place, one of the things one needs to realize is the limitations placed on him or her by his employer. Wal~Mart is not interested in being a pro lab, the same way they are not interested in selling Armani suits. We are what we are, if that isn't what you want. go elsewhere. Enough people want what we are to make us the most successful retailer in the world. We add significantly to the bottom line profit of the company, which is where the rubber meets the road. I have worked for pro labs, I have operated my own pro lab. I choose to live where a pro lab is not a viable entity. I choose to live here because it is unlikley that some asshole will fly a plane into what passes for a tall building or poison my water or contaminate my local post office. If the price I pay for living somewhere that is unlikely to be fucked up by dipshits is to work for a 1 hour kiosk, I happily accept the price. My house is paid for, I have food on the table, my dogs love me and I get laid on a regular basis. I have no complaints. William Robb - - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: I agree 1000%. Until I can do everything with digital I can with film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it. Let's see... I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release. Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs. Why does everyone always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras? Do you include the price of a good minilab into the purchase of your film camera? If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab and let them do it... just like film. Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for prints from digital files as from film. This isn't a rant against you, Tom, but against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems with home printing. I'm bitter tonight because I have to mark 50 essays for next week and I'm running out of time... and the store is insanely busy because of Christmas (this is a good thing, though... anyone need a camera? g).. and everyone keeps wanting me to go out and do fun stuff, and I'm a sucker for peer pressure and a good rum-and-coke. :) chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Chris, I wasn't arguing so much about price. It's more about time. About a year ago it seemed pretty clear (from what I read) that digital was FAR from the quality of film, by about a factor of 10. I'm talking again about RAW information. It doesn't seem that we've come far past that. Maybe a time and 1/2 in the last year? For something that the ordinary person can afford? I even think a 640X480 Mavica does a nice job for what I use it for. I think digital is fine for every day use. I'm not convinced it's fine for more than that... yet. Respectfully, Mighty Mouse - Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:40 PM Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: I agree 1000%. Until I can do everything with digital I can with film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it. Let's see... I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release. Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs. Why does everyone always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras? Do you include the price of a good minilab into the purchase of your film camera? If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab and let them do it... just like film. Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for prints from digital files as from film. This isn't a rant against you, Tom, but against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems with home printing. I'm bitter tonight because I have to mark 50 essays for next week and I'm running out of time... and the store is insanely busy because of Christmas (this is a good thing, though... anyone need a camera? g).. and everyone keeps wanting me to go out and do fun stuff, and I'm a sucker for peer pressure and a good rum-and-coke. :) chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: Chris, I wasn't arguing so much about price. It's more about time. That's why I said that the rant wasn't directed against you. :) And yeah, it can take a while to print images yourself... but a good lab can give as fast a turn-around time as film, and often even faster. About a year ago it seemed pretty clear (from what I read) that digital was FAR from the quality of film, by about a factor of 10. I'm talking again about RAW information. It doesn't seem that we've come far past that. Maybe a time and 1/2 in the last year? For something that the ordinary person can afford? Well, I've been working at Don's for just over three years now, and digital's come a long way in that time, IMO. I remember when 1.3MP cameras were the rage, while nowadays the standard is 3MP and up. But yeah, they are expensive, aren't they? This is just a matter of time, though, and after some more years pass I fully expect to see kick-ass quality digital come down to affordable levels. I even think a 640X480 Mavica does a nice job for what I use it for. I think digital is fine for every day use. I'm not convinced it's fine for more than that... yet. For me, it's a bit like a cell phone. I use my 2MP digital for certain things (eBay, parties, etc.) because it's small, cool, fun, and good enough quality for what I want to do with the images... just like I use my cell phone for pretty much the same reasons. At the same time, the audio qualiy of my cell isn't good enough for me to use it all the time as my only phone, so I still have a land-based one. It's about the right tool for the job, not about which format is intriniscally better. Again, this is just a general observation, not anything directed at Tom. :) Respectfully, Mighty Mouse Ditto, Arthur Dent - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
SHUT UP CHRIS! :-) :-) :-) You drink RUM and Coke??? Step up to VO. You won't regret it! Tom C. - Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:40 PM Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: I agree 1000%. Until I can do everything with digital I can with film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it. Let's see... I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release. Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs. Why does everyone always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras? Do you include the price of a good minilab into the purchase of your film camera? If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab and let them do it... just like film. Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for prints from digital files as from film. This isn't a rant against you, Tom, but against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems with home printing. I'm bitter tonight because I have to mark 50 essays for next week and I'm running out of time... and the store is insanely busy because of Christmas (this is a good thing, though... anyone need a camera? g).. and everyone keeps wanting me to go out and do fun stuff, and I'm a sucker for peer pressure and a good rum-and-coke. :) chris - 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 . - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, aimcompute wrote: SHUT UP CHRIS! :-) :-) :-) But let me tell you one more thing... :) You drink RUM and Coke??? Step up to VO. You won't regret it! You mean vodka? I like that, too. I hate most alcohol, but I like vodka, run and gin if they're properly mixed. chris - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
- Original Message - From: aimcompute Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers SHUT UP CHRIS! :-) :-) :-) You drink RUM and Coke??? Step up to VO. You won't regret it! Until tomorrow Tom. You may well regret it tomorrow.. WW - 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 .
Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
Chris B. wrote: Why does everyone always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras? Do you include the price of a good minilab into the purchase of your film camera? If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab and let them do it... just like film. Well, because those folks are arguing against it. Technically, I have to add the cost of a darkroom to the cost of my film cameras, not to mention chemicals and paper. Photo paper has been a rather large line-item in my budget for most of my adult life. Well, okay, so I don't have a budget. But if I *DID*, it would be a big number there, I'll tell ya whut. --Mike - 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 .
