Most large cities have photo stores. Many of these have refrigerators
stocked
with fresh film. All you have to do is buy from one that has film stored
in
this way. It's unlikely they'd pay for refrigeration just to keep ruined
film
cold.
It is obvious that you did not read my post closely;
Alas, nothing is foolproof. That a process is automated and even consistent
does not mean that the operators are equally competent in performing the
process, equally diligent in keeping temperatures consistent or regularly
changing chemistry on a consistent schedule, equally concerned with
From
the quotes that have been included, I am not sure if you are responding to me or
to someone else. However, I will make a few counterpoints to your
comments.
First
of all, many of those high quality magazines published in the US which are
printed or distributed in Europe have bureaus
Hersch writes:
I lost an important roll recently here in California
when the local camera store operative screwed up his
mini lab, with a grossly underdeveloped roll. It can
happen anywhere.
Wouldn't it be better to have it happen while you still have the possibility of
retaking the
Harvey writes:
So it's true...You need to get your eyes checked.
My vision is normal, as far as I know (at least yearly checkups appear to so
indicate).
Austin writes:
Then either you are using labs of identical
grade, or the methodology of use you partake in
does not show the differences, or lastly, you
aren't able to distinguish the differences (that's
not meant insultingly).
Probably the second of these. There are always differences,
Pat writes:
One reason that fairly leaps to mind is
being familiar with the particular lot
(batch) of film brought, as well as knowing
how it has been handled.
You can buy lots of matched emulsions abroad, too. And how would you know how
film at home is handled any better than you would
Harvey writes:
None of us would be in business very long if we
were to just go to the cheapest place for processing.
I did not address the cost of processing.
I can't imagine telling a client, after them paying
us $20,000 (US) for a day's work, and spending an
additional $20,000 on
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images
or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less
frequently from your own site than from any other site?
Laurie writes:
To ignore such possibilities and - I dare say
probabilities - is to be in denial.
To assume that the risk is any greater away from home than it would be at home
is xenophobic and irrational. Labs in your hometown are not necessarily any
more competent or careful than labs
Laurie writes:
This is not the case for visiting tourists or
professional commercial photographers who may be
passing through a given location and not affiliated
with any of the major European or US magazines ...
If a so-called pro presumes to charge me $20,000 a day for an assignment, he
Laurie writes:
Thus your response is really not very responsive
- argumentative yes but responsive no.
Your speculation concerning the risks of buying and developing film abroad
essentially resolves to superstition, which is not uncommon among photographers.
Virtually all of the risks you
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed
in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and
decide that was a cake and note it in the index.
alan
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort
About dirty scans with LS4000.
Ls 4000 have some strange ability to dig out more skit dirt from the film
surface than other
scanners does. I have compared the same negative or slide with Imacon Photo
and the new Polaroid 120 scanner.
Look back and read earlier messages and conclusion about how
on 9/7/01 6:43 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...And when did this thread get limited to C-41
only?
It didn't. But I can say the same about E-6 and BW as well.
You can say that but it wouldn't be true.
Here are the possibilities as I see them.
1. You are right. There
I usually monitor OT messages in the hope I might see something worthwhile,
but I am giving up on this one as flogged *well* beyond death.
:-(
Am I alone in my fervent desire that OT discussions should go 'OL' after a
sensible period?
sigh
mt
.. who doesn't claim to be a professional
Mike writes ...
...
... Nikon Scan and VueScan apply different mappings
depending on settings (slide, negative, ...
Yes ... but they do this after acquiring the raw RGB, both of which are
very similar and which is a linear CCD acquisition ... anything non-linear
can be applied after that,
I would suggest that everybody just sets up a filter that transfers
Anthony's messages directly in the delete folder (there will be a lot
of them from him if you have a peak at the delete folder before
deleting permanentaly). He's not only annoying to the list but he is
plain wrong on most
Johnny writes:
Here are the possibilities as I see them.
1. You are right. There is no substantive
difference between commercial film processors
anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses
custom labs is wasting their money.
This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and
Martin,
I have scanned images on an older model competitive scanner with the LED
light source and have found it shows considerably more dust than the cool
cathode or fluorescent scanner. Over the last few years discussion on this
list and my personal testing seems to have said that the collimated
You've got to be kidding. E6 the same everywhere? I've taken identical
shots one minute apart in consistant lighting on separate rolls and had
different labs process them. The results were VASTLY different. How much
experience have you had doing this? Labs make a HUGE difference.
Lawrence
Please stop it, or the unkind words will never cease.
Regards, John.
Mark T. wrote:
I usually monitor OT messages in the hope I might see something worthwhile,
but I am giving up on this one as flogged *well* beyond death.
:-(
Am I alone in my fervent desire that OT discussions
Hello,
Now that film and x-ray has been discussed, is there any danger in passing a
digital camera through either check-in or hand carry airport machines?
Thanks,
Stephen
I also looked at the images.google.com engine and noted that the
indexing is based on the text near to the image, not the name of the
image. So even if your image is named image0001.jpg, you will still
find it if the word cake appears near it on the web page.
--Dana
--
From: Alan Womack
I have been on the list for three days or so, and will also be receiving a
Polaroid SS4000 at this amazing price.
Thanks very much to the list and the heads up on this deal.
Stephen
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Selecting a scanner
Ecost.com lists them for $441.07 (after rebate) plus a $16
David wrote:
Firewire cards are pretty inexpensive.
USB is slower than either Firewire or SCSI.
I would expect USB 2.0 which actually is faster then firewire and
most SCSI implementations.
Of course you will have to buy a new PC if you want USB 2.0 GB
__
Gordon Potter [EMAIL
... but you better have all the RGB data ... and 12bits is necessary to
capture 11 f-stops.
That is just not true. F-stops are relative to the film, NOT to the
scanner. You can expand the exposure range on the film through exposure and
development.
Of course; it might get stolen or damaged. :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stephen
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 11:35 AM
To: Film Scanner
Subject: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera
Hello,
Now that film and x-ray has been
Johnny writes:
Here are the possibilities as I see them.
1. You are right. There is no substantive
difference between commercial film processors
anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses
custom labs is wasting their money.
This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary
Austin, I think you miss the point here: Anthony's
standards for film processing quality are sufficiently
lower than yours, mine and everyone else on the list,
that all processors' work is fungible. It isn't that
all are equal.
Personally, I don't like getting scratched, mistreated
film back.
Why don't we combine our knowledge and come with a list of good, quick
turnaround film processors in the major cities of the world?
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners:
What is Nik Sharpener Pro?
- Original Message -
From: Barbara Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 7:06 AM
Subject: filmscanners: A solution to softening using Digital ICE on LS4000
.. My solution is to use Nik
Jeff Moore [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:34:15 -0400
Actually... I've been able to get hand-checks of film on the way out
of Heathrow the last two times -- after polite but dogged insisting. I
remember reading somewhere that x-raying of film in UK airports ceased
to be
Nik Pro Sharpner is a Photoshop plugin specifically for sharpening. They
claim to have advanced techniques for sharpning. I understand it id pretty
good but pricey.
http://www.tech-nik.com/english/sharpenerpro.html
David
-Original Message-
From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc.
Sigh. Filters are of course a personal decision and we all have them. I've
always felt capable of running my own killfile and don't quite understand
why anyone else needs to tell me what should be in it. I guess Robert has
Anthony in his killfile already so is no longer annoyed by what he says
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
The possibility of losses is scary,
What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images
or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less
frequently from your own site than from any other
If you want a description/review of this tool, the current issue of Photo
Techniques (Sept/Oct issue, page 54) has a one-pager on this product. This
issue should be available at a well-stocked newsstand.
Brian
--
respond to [EMAIL
Lawrence writes:
I've taken identical shots one minute apart
in consistant lighting on separate rolls and
had different labs process them. The results
were VASTLY different.
Do you have any examples online?
No. Digital cameras and digital storage media are unaffected by x rays. They
may behave strangely if they are operating _during_ the scan, but there is no
lasting effect on anything.
- Original Message -
From: Stephen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Film Scanner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday,
Austin writes:
Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you
don't see any difference, so what's the use?
Well, another option is to actually put some examples online. I don't generally
believe or disbelieve things just because others believe or disbelieve them; I
like to see objective
Harvey writes:
In a word, yes.to both questions.
Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail
image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a
source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more
on 9/8/01 4:35 PM, SKID Photography at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Womack wrote:
I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be
indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at
image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the
I wholeheartedly agree with this and would remind list members that to
answer this fool only serves to propagate his drivel. If everybody filters
him and nobody answers he will effectively cease to exist !! :-)
Geoff
- Original Message -
From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
on 9/8/01 12:28 PM, Dana Trout at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also looked at the images.google.com engine and noted that the
indexing is based on the text near to the image, not the name of the
image. So even if your image is named image0001.jpg, you will still
find it if the word cake
At 08:25 9/09/01 +1000, you wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with this and would remind list members that to
answer this fool only serves to propagate his drivel. If everybody filters
him and nobody answers he will effectively cease to exist !! :-)
Geoff
If you filter him yourself he will
From: Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Kvernstoen, Kehl Associates
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 13:36:45 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: A solution to softening using Digital ICE on LS4000
What is Nik
Several people have written stating that the excessive amount of dust that
appears when using the Nikon Super coolscan 4000 is not a function of dust
within the scanner but is due intrinsic to the design of the scanner. The
Nikon uses an LED light source which seems to accentuate dust, junk, and
Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cathode or fluorescent scanner. Over the last few years discussion on this
list and my personal testing seems to have said that the collimated type
light source of a LED light source shows more dust etc. In my personal
view I wonder if any scanner
Anthony, your answer is entirely irrelevant, you did not read the question.
The question had nothing to do with the X-Rays, but the MACHINES.
The correct answer is YES, an airport security machine CAN disrupt the data
on any magnetic media. Some of them have strong magnetics (large motors).
I
Only a scan from the lab that processed the film correctly. I'm wasn't
about to scan the other one nor do i intend to take the time to scan it to
prove my point. I don't care if you don't agree.
Lawrence Smith
*
* visit my site and participate *
* in this weeks
Paul, from just where did you get yours???
I have yet to find any vendor in cyberspace who has one in stock!
I'm sure there are scores of others who also are trying to locate a unit.
I think my dealer might still have a few left. I can check with them on
Monday. Please contact me off list
Anthony, your answer is entirely irrelevant, you
did not read the question. The question had
nothing to do with the X-Rays, but the MACHINES.
You are correct; I assumed that x rays were still being addressed. My mistake.
I'm not aware of any documented problems with magnetic fields
Austin writes:
Anthony, you did not read what I wrote. I said
you are, obviously, right. Doesn't that close
the discussion?
I read what you wrote, but it appeared to be sarcasm.
53 matches
Mail list logo
