The problem with distributive innovations is they're unpredictable. The
Segway was touted as a disruptive innovation, but once it was released,
turned out to be a huge yawn. You just can't predict what will be a
truly disruptive innovation. Film has many advantages over digital
image capture
Thanks for clarifying that, Tom. I think they should have been more to
the point and simply declared that it was merely a flesh wound. Maybe a
little "come back you yellow bastards! I'll bite your legs off!" Much
more too the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Mark
On 9/6/201
on 2013-09-06 7:39 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
I would argue that they indeed achieved disruptive innovation when they started
the world of digital imaging. And it was so successful it disrupted them too.
good point - self-disruptive
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/
>> I guess since they had a huge chance of disruptive innovation with the
>> advent of digital imaging and blew it, they're going to try again.
>
> I would argue that they indeed achieved disruptive innovation when they
> started the world of digital imaging. And it was so successful it disrupted
On Sep 6, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Tom C wrote:
> From wikipedia:
>
> "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new
> market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an
> existing market and value network (over a few years or decades),
> displacing an earlier technology.
>>
>> Your point is... ? What's the basic difference in meaning between
>> disrupt, disrupting, and disruptive? They all mean the same thing to
>> me, except for how they fit into a sentence grammatically.
>
> They may all mean the same thing to you, but they don't to the rest of the
> world.
>
>
On 5 Sep 2013, at 21:44, Tom C wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Bob W wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C wrote:
>>>
> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will
> see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods
> packag
On 05/09/2013, Tom C wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Bob W wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C wrote:
>>>
> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you
> will
> see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods
> packaging" an
On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C wrote:
>> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will
>> see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods
>> packaging" and "disrupting functional printing" WTF? I guess the
>> word "disrupting" means something di
On 9/5/2013 10:41 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
John wrote:
In Kodak's emergence from bankruptcy and the new Kodak Alaris supporting
"Kodak" labs with chemistry & paper, what happens to Kodak film?
I made a post about that a couple of days ago:
It sounds like the new "
> On 5 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Bob W wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C wrote:
>>
I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will
see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods
packaging" and "disrupting functional printing" WT
> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will
> see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods
> packaging" and "disrupting functional printing" WTF? I guess the
> word "disrupting" means something different now than it did when I got
> sent to
On 5 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Bob W wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C wrote:
>
>>> I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will
>>> see that two of their three main goals are "disrupting product goods
>>> packaging" and "disrupting functional printing" WTF? I gu
John wrote:
>In Kodak's emergence from bankruptcy and the new Kodak Alaris supporting
>"Kodak" labs with chemistry & paper, what happens to Kodak film?
I made a post about that a couple of days ago:
It sounds like the new "Kodak Alaris" company is getting wha
On 9/4/2013 10:56 PM, John wrote:
In Kodak's emergence from bankruptcy and the new Kodak Alaris supporting
"Kodak" labs with chemistry & paper, what happens to Kodak film?
I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will
see that two of th
In Kodak's emergence from bankruptcy and the new Kodak Alaris supporting
"Kodak" labs with chemistry & paper, what happens to Kodak film?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visi
On Nov 20, 2005, at 5:01 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
A web search turns up a mixed bag about the explosive properties of
Nitrocellulose billiard balls, some seem to think that the paints
used to color them might have acted as a primer... Anyone
interested in experimenting?
Might have been t
A web search turns up a mixed bag about the explosive properties of
Nitrocellulose billiard balls, some seem to think that the paints used
to color them might have acted as a primer...
Anyone interested in experimenting?
graywolf wrote:
As a note, unless it is deteriating, or chopped up into
As a note, unless it is deteriating, or chopped up into fine particles
nitrocellulose is not as bad as it sounds in this thread. You would
probably have a hard time igniting that billiard ball mentioned for
instance. But once burning it would be almost impossible to put out.
graywolf
http://ww
Paul Sorenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>graywolf wrote:
>> LOL! Nitrocellulose, AKA, gun cotten is classified as an explosive.
>>
>> BTW they use it for paint too. Gives a much nicer look than Acrilics
>> paint does. It is still the preferred finish for guitar and other
>> instrument sound boa
The "dope" used to stiffen the fabric on early airplanes was cellulose
nitrate and highly flammable. Many a WWI aviator chose to jump to his
death sans parachute rather than burn to death in a flaming aircraft.
-P
graywolf wrote:
LOL! Nitrocellulose, AKA, gun cotten is classified as
Nitrocellulose was originally used as a substitute for ivory in billiard
balls...
Bob Shell wrote:
On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:05 PM, graywolf wrote:
LOL! Nitrocellulose, AKA, gun cotten is classified as an explosive.
BTW they use it for paint too. Gives a much nicer look than Acrilics
paint d
Some of it already has...
Bob Shell wrote:
On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:05 PM, graywolf wrote:
LOL! Nitrocellulose, AKA, gun cotten is classified as an explosive.
BTW they use it for paint too. Gives a much nicer look than Acrilics
paint does. It is still the preferred finish for guitar and oth
On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:05 PM, graywolf wrote:
LOL! Nitrocellulose, AKA, gun cotten is classified as an explosive.
BTW they use it for paint too. Gives a much nicer look than
Acrilics paint does. It is still the preferred finish for guitar
and other instrument sound boards as it give a much
LOL! Nitrocellulose, AKA, gun cotten is classified as an explosive.
BTW they use it for paint too. Gives a much nicer look than Acrilics
paint does. It is still the preferred finish for guitar and other
instrument sound boards as it give a much mellower sound.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphot
>On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the correction, Bob. I actually did a bit of googling,
>> instead of just recalling from memory, and found that the Cellulose
>> acetate has an ignition temp of 800F and the Estar base 900F. I'm
>> assuming the cellulose nitrate
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Thanks for the correction, Bob. I actually did a bit of googling,
instead of just recalling from memory, and found that the Cellulose
acetate has an ignition temp of 800F and the Estar base 900F. I'm
assuming the cellulose nitrate ignited at
- Original Message -
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: Re: OT - old Kodak film identification?
Thanks for the correction, Bob. I actually did a bit of googling,
instead of just recalling from memory, and found that the Cellulose
acetate has an ignition temp of 800F and the
Thanks for the correction, Bob. I actually did a bit of googling,
instead of just recalling from memory, and found that the Cellulose
acetate has an ignition temp of 800F and the Estar base 900F. I'm
assuming the cellulose nitrate ignited at much lower temperatures.
On 11/19/05, Bob Shell <[EMAI
On Nov 18, 2005, at 11:10 PM, graywolf wrote:
It just means it is not nitrocellulosebased film. Consumer film
pretty much stopped using that before WWII, but motion picture film
still used nitrocellulose into the late fifties.
Nitrate base films were preferred because cellulose nitrate was
On Nov 18, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Most likely, it means that the film has an Estar (or whatever Kodak
called it back then) base instead of a celluloid base. The safety
film ignited at a higher temperature than the older celluloid stuff.
Thus - safety film. As far as EI goes,
Excellent. Thank you Bill.
-Mat (still scanning... digital ICE takes a LONG time on a 6x6 negative)
On 11/18/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is Kodacolour-X.
> Process C-22.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
s, or a predecessor to C41 (has the
same orange tint, scanner color-corrects it pretty well). The only
marking on the margin of the film is "Kodak Safety Film."
Anyone have any ideas about what kind of Kodak film it might be?
Most likely, it means that the film has an Estar (or whatev
- Original Message -
From: "Mat Maessen"
Subject: OT - old Kodak film identification?
The only
marking on the margin of the film is "Kodak Safety Film."
Anyone have any ideas about what kind of Kodak film it might be?
It is Kodacolour-X.
Process C-22.
William Robb
e
> same orange tint, scanner color-corrects it pretty well). The only
> marking on the margin of the film is "Kodak Safety Film."
>
> Anyone have any ideas about what kind of Kodak film it might be?
Most likely, it means that the film has an Estar (or whatever Kodak
called it back
on the margin of the film is "Kodak Safety Film."
Anyone have any ideas about what kind of Kodak film it might be? Just
a simple curiousity question. Compared to current consumer color
films, the colors are quite muted. And I discovered that scanning it
at 3200 DPI just shows the aberr
Some of us on the list are scanning old negatives. Some old film only had
numbers along the edges, and there's no reference to the name of the film
as there is on newer emulsions. This site may be helpful. It references
edge numbers to the film name and type.
http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakf
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20040421-01.shtml
"For the (first of 2004) quarter, the company estimates that U.S. consumer
film industry volume declined about 15% compared with the first quarter of
2003."
that report also states:
"Highlights for the (first of 2004) quarter incl
On 12/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
[snip]
>Who says we're leaving the film business!
It'll never catch on...
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Polycontrast IV RC Paper - Polycontrast IV offers excellent
> tonal range, providing outstanding detail, especially in the
> highlights, giving you prints with rich blacks and clean
> whites. We are also introduc
Gee, maybe like apples and oranges. Film is film, digital
is digital ...
If I could only get my Tri-X to have such bright colors like
I get from my digicam, and if my digi would only produce the
nice bright colors of Kodachrome, and if Kodachrome only
came in B&W ... I'd find something else to k
l Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 February 2004 17:28
> To: PDML
> Subject: New Kodak film & paper
>
>
> Everybody's yapping about digital at PMA ... let's not let
> this get lost in the shuffle:
>
> Hot off the press here in Las Veg
Everybody's yapping about digital at PMA ... let's not let
this get lost in the shuffle:
Hot off the press here in Las Vegas at the PMA trade show,
Kodak has just
announced new films and B&W paper. Kodak's hype below:
Ultra Color 100 - The finest grain, sharpest 100 speed color
negative film.
If
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > More bleak news today wrt Kodak abandoning even more film
> > production. Details not important here ... Google is a good
> > place to search for them.
> >
> > BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use Kodak as
> > their primary source for film.
For the last s
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> More bleak news today wrt Kodak abandoning even more film
> production. Details not important here ... Google is a good
> place to search for them.
>
> BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use Kodak as
> their primary source for film.
Actually, I was loyal to Koda
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, tom wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Mark Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > Juey Chong Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >On Thursday, Jan 22, 2004, at 13:16 America/New_York, tom wrote
On Thursday, Jan 22, 2004, at 13:16 America/New_York, tom wrote:
I use Kodak lens wipes.
They come in 135 and 220 sizes?!
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shel Belinkoff asked: "BUT ... I was wondering how many here
still use Kodak as their primary source
"Leon Altoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:47:07 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>>"Leon Altoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>If they stop making Kodachrome
>>
>>Not if, when.
>>I give it two years at the outside.
>
>
>Unfortunately I probably agree with you. I just want 1
Shel Belinkoff schrieb:
>
>snip<
>
> One of my all time favorites is APX 100 @ 64 EI souped in Rodinal 1:100 for abt 15
> minutes. And, of course, APX 25 @ EI 12-15 souped in
> a similar manner.
Yep,
but it's a shame, they don't make APX 25 anymore.
I've done a lot of microphotography on aPX
Bill wrote:
Okay, here's a suggestion for you MBA's out there. Put more emphasis on
customer service and employee appreciation, instead of the bottom line and
you'll still turn a profit.
Here,here.
I had a conversation with another lab manager today. The gist of it was that
if our company was r
I use Portra 160 VC for almost all my color negative work. I find it
scans better than any other negative film I've tried. I use Tri-X and
Plus X for most of my BW work.
On Jan 22, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Tom Reese wrote:
Shel Belinkoff asked: "BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use
Kodak
a
Your info wrt the formula change is correct. One of these days I'll have to try the
new Tri-X, but I've still got a couple of bricks in
the freezer here. I'm considering trying Neopan 400. I've seen some photos done with
that emulsion that I liked quite a bit.
One of my all time favorites is
Keith Whaley wrote:
P.S. Speaking of Graphics, just the other day at lunch with some others
OFs, one mentioned he had an older Crown Graphic, I think it was. He
wanted to sell it.
I don't know. . .do I need all that additional hassle? sighhh. I've
always wanted one, but. . .
Yes yes yes yes ye
, I don't know.
cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The
J&C definitely does carry 127! B&W as well as slide film.
I'm gonna order some out, and start using my Yashica again. . .
I'll check out the Crown Graphic and let you know what I find out.
keith
graywolf wrote:
>
> Forte. Common sizes are available from B&H at very reasonable prices. They have
Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use Kodak as
> their primary source for film. For me, were it not for
> Tri-X, I'd rarely use a Kodak product, much preferring other
> films over comparable issues in the Kodak line. This is
> especially true
Bill Owens wrote:
>
> > Graywolf asked and answered:
> > . Have I ever mentioned my opinion of MBA's? Of course I
> > >have.
> >
> > Perhaps they would listen if you had a viable suggestion.
> >
> > Lewis
>
> Okay, here's a suggestion for you MBA's out there. Put more emphasis on
> customer serv
Hi,
Bob W wrote:
>
> > BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use Kodak as
> > their primary source for film.
>
> I use Tri-X, Kodachrome and Royal Supra (which has the word
> 'professional' written on the box!). The only non-Kodak film I use is
>
> Graywolf asked and answered:
> . Have I ever mentioned my opinion of MBA's? Of course I
> >have.
>
> Perhaps they would listen if you had a viable suggestion.
>
> Lewis
Okay, here's a suggestion for you MBA's out there. Put more emphasis on
customer service and employee appreciation, instead
I use Fuji exclusively.
Jim A.
> From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:30:50 -0800
> To: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: The decline and fall of (Kodak) film
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resen
At 08:30 AM 1/22/2004 -0800, you wrote:
BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use Kodak as
their primary source for film.
I use mostly Kodak emulsions, but unfortunately they have a knack for
discontinuing the films I like the most...
For now, I plan to continue with E100G and E100VS. I h
Graywolf asked and answered:
. Have I ever mentioned my opinion of MBA's? Of course I
have.
Perhaps they would listen if you had a viable suggestion.
Lewis
_
High-speed usersbe more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
"Leon Altoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If they stop making Kodachrome
Not if, when.
I give it two years at the outside.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:01:04 +, Bob W wrote:
>I am optimistic that high quality film & processing will still be
>around in 25 years. It just won't be on the high street (and it won't
>be Kodachrome). It will be in specialist shops, along with the other
>vintage processing materials like gum bi
graywolf wrote:
>
> I am switching to Hungarian manufacturer. I am hoping that they will continue
> supporting B&W film at reasonable prices and in odd sizes for many years to come
> and that my tiny contribution will help them stay in business.
Will they/do they make 127 film, for my beautifu
Pentax schrieb:
>
> I use a lot of Tri-X and lots of their chemicals as well: HC-110,
> Dektol, Photo Flow, and Fixer.
>
> Also use PolyMax RC for proofs.
>
> From the articles I've read, even though they are shifting away from
> film, they still sell over 120 million rolls a year providing "
I am switching to Hungarian manufacturer. I am hoping that they will continue
supporting B&W film at reasonable prices and in odd sizes for many years to come
and that my tiny contribution will help them stay in business. Kodak & Fuji are
money making machines that will drop their customers in t
More bleak news today wrt Kodak abandoning even more film
production. Details not important here ... Google is a good
place to search for them.
BUT ... I was wondering how many here still use Kodak as
their primary source for film. For me, were it not for
Tri-X, I'd rarely use a Kodak product, m
My understanding is that Kodak has mostly just been changing the names of their
films for quite some time now rather than actually producing a new and better
film. Marketing in action.
--
Chris Brogden wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it just me,or is Kodak doing a mini
Previously written:
Is it just me,or is Kodak doing a mini-blitz ad campaign for the new high
definition
film.In the past 10 days
or so,I have seen the commercial up to 5-6 times a night,every night, whilst
watching the
tube.
I cannot see Kodak or any other company that would be planning to slow/
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > Is it just me,or is Kodak doing a mini-blitz ad campain
:Chris penned back:
> It sounds like they're discontinuing their Royal Gold 200 and 400, and
> possibly their Gold Max line, in favour of
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it just me,or is Kodak doing a mini-blitz ad campain for the new high
> definition film.In the past 10 days or so,i have seen the commercial
> upto 5-6 times a night,every night, whilst watching the tube.
> I cannot see Kodak or any other company
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's because Kodak has deeper pockets than other film producers, and
>they do much more research and development work.
But the pockets are getting shallower and the R&D is being cut *way* back.
They've recently shut down several color negative film R
Ya its sad.I was getting some nice results from
the RG 200 and occasionally from the 400.I used
the Max films until i discovered real film:)
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yeah, they're desperately trying to get people to buy Gold Max
instead of
th
> It's a good thing I didn't like Supra 400 and 800. They existed for what
> - two years? I guess it's not a good idea to develop a liking for any of
> Kodak's C-41 films. They don't seem to last long.
Supra 400 is my fave film for photos of the indoors of building projects
with available artific
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joseph Tainter
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 9:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Kodak film changes
>
>
> It's a good thing I didn't like Sup
It's a good thing I didn't like Supra 400 and 800. They existed for what
- two years? I guess it's not a good idea to develop a liking for any of
Kodak's C-41 films. They don't seem to last long.
Joe
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net a
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham
Subject: Kodak film changes
> Kodak Professional Royal Supra to replace both Royal Gold and
> Professional Supra!
>
> See AP this week - Professional Royal Supra (wot a mouthful!)
200 will
> have the same grain as the old Royal 100
KODAK UNWRAPS NEW PRINT FILM
Kodak has launched a new range of 35mm consumer colour print film called
Royal Supra. Aimed at 'advanced amateurs, enthusiasts and professionals'
and due out in September, the new film replaces the previous Royal and
Professional Supra film families. The new film will
In a message dated 8/13/2002 9:17:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Kodak Professional Royal Supra to replace both Royal Gold and
> Professional Supra!
>
> See AP this week - Professional Royal Supra (wot a mouthful!) 200 will
> have the same grain as the old Royal 100 i
Kodak Professional Royal Supra to replace both Royal Gold and
Professional Supra!
See AP this week - Professional Royal Supra (wot a mouthful!) 200 will
have the same grain as the old Royal 100 if you shoot it at 100, so it
really becomes a 100/200 film (an idea like the old Fuji MS 100/1000).
I
Wow! It just makes me want to go to Japan even more. It's paradise.
Regards
AG
PS: To keep the OT, search the net for tne song "Shima uta" from The Boom.
Nice japanese song (in japanese of course)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and
Wow ... that's more exciting than the beer case at the local Pic n Pac.
Man, it would be nice to have film laid out like that ... just walk down
the aisle and grab whatever you fancy.
Rob Studdert wrote:
> I friend showed me some images from his recent trip to Japan, there seems no
> lack of Ko
Holy Mackerel! Nope, no shortage in Japan.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: OT Kodak film in Japan
> Hi Team,
>
> I fr
Hi Team,
I friend showed me some images from his recent trip to Japan, there seems no
lack of Kodak films in the Japanese photo shops he visited, check this out:
http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/IMG_0646.jpg
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hour
> darkroom and
> transfer the spool and film into a reloadable.
> This time, when I was
> buying a few extra canisters at the local photo
> shop, I found a tool
> called the "Kodak Film Extractor". To make a long
> story short- this
> tool is awesome. Pull
Dymo Label tape works as well, for about a third the price.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan K. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: May 4, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Kodak Film Extractor
> Hi All,
>
> Just thought I'd
"Ryan K. Brooks" wrote:
>
> Maybe
> I'm an idiot for not knowing this existed.
Those of us in labs lose them thingies by the truckload. :) Non-lab
people seem mezmerized by the fact that such a device exists.
My fave is the one from Kaiser, but they all do the job (the Kaiser one
is just s
way, I usually just open the canister in the darkroom and
transfer the spool and film into a reloadable. This time, when I was
buying a few extra canisters at the local photo shop, I found a tool
called the "Kodak Film Extractor". To make a long story short- this
tool is awesome.
89 matches
Mail list logo
