It finally showed up in my email the next message after this.
Is kind of funny, considering the content, heh?
--
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 28 Aug 2004 at 0:48, graywolf wrote:
Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN!
Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server.
Nope, on football/soccer.
Alex Sarbu
- Original Message -
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
Hi,
I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania
as well.
Perhaps
Hi,
I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania
as well.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing.
A culture of compaining, or a culture of bad labs? Romania is a poor
country. There are not enough wealthy photographers around to support
decent labs.
They spend all their money
Bob W wrote:
A culture of complaining, or a culture of bad labs?
Both.
- Original Message -
From: Bob W
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
A culture of compaining, or a culture of bad labs? Romania is a
poor
country. There are not enough wealthy photographers around to
support
decent labs.
That hasn't entered into the conversation until now.
Running a good
Tom,
I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then
again there's the problem of repeated messages.
I think there must be more than one problem at work here...
If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding,
that could
You are a class act Shel. Glad you're still around.
Robert
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
For me the issue is quality results in conventional BW and quality
processing
Hmmm. Let's do some statistics. Supposing that 80% of the camera owners
are boneheads (in respect to photography) and 50% of the lab operators
are boneheads (in respect to their work). What is the probability that
when a customer enters a random lab, at least one of them
client/operator is a
Vic ...
Time to burst your bubble: not every lab is going to give you the same
quality results when processing slide film. As with all labs, there are
those that are poor, those that are good, and those that are superior. Try
this experiment: get a few short rolls of your favorite slide film,
Shel wrote:
My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The
Negative
and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you
don't
like Adams' work or accept some of his theories.
I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty
year hiatus,
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
snip
My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative
and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't
like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. Then go see some
exhibition quality
4:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
Shel wrote:
My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The
Negative
and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you
don't
like Adams' work or accept some of his theories.
I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Robb wrote:
I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo
labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group
of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs.
Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making
Whose lap was it?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William Robb wrote:
I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding
- Original Message -
From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
Don't forget I live in Romania. You should see how they treat the
films, and
how the prints looks like (yup, even with those x$ Frontiers).
We may
have few acceptable minilabs, but that's all (and you
Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN!
Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server.
E-mail is weird. I remember getting a e-mail from a friend who lived a few
blocks away (in Charlotte, NC, USA) and seeing by the routing info that it had
come to me via
Many folks seem to have had bad luck with their film processing. In over 25
years of shooting with an SLR (Pentax since 1980), I don't think I've had
more than 1% of my pictures messed up by a lab. I've found labs that gave
consistently bad results (greenish color cast at one, dust spots at
Pat White said:
Some of my photographically casual friends ask why I don't use Wal-Mart or
Costco for processing, since it's cheaper. They seem to find the quality
acceptable. Perhaps they actually are the voice of the masses. Sometimes
they can see the
Bruce penned: Hello Billy,
My experience over the years has not been that great. Fast,
inexpensive labs have problems with squeegee scratching, chemical
deposits, bad chemistry and cutting negs poorly. I have tons of
examples of all the above.
My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010,
when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be
using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream
world? I sure hope not!
Pat White
I don't think so Pat. I think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010,
when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be
using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream
world? I sure hope not!
I don't think so Pat.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010,
when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be
using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream
world? I sure hope not!
Pat White
I don't think
After a long hiatus from the darkroom and doing my own film processing -
shooting more color than BW, scanning and using labs more than printing -
I'm returning to what has given me the greatest satisfaction and creative
control. Last evening I began setting things up to start processing BW
film
]
Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM
Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Peter J. Alling wrote:
This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless
but
this is ridicules.
Again, this is because the poster (Shel in this case) assumed that
because they hadn't
: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:28:33 -0700
Odd, it's not shown up once on my copy of the list. I sent a couple
figuring it was lost in cyberspace. Didn't see
of the internet
LOL
Shel
From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM
Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Peter J. Alling wrote:
This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless
but
this is ridicules
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive
SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it
thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer
messages if I were to switch PDML over to there.
--
Shel
-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:35:07 -0400
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly
aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost
labels anything it thinks
server to the cluster.
Don
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to
overly
-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to
overly aggressive
SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost
in the implementation on the pdml.net server.
Don
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I am not talking about filtering locally, Don. I am talking
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:46:48 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet LOL
We have one. It's called the Gossip Fence. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Shel Wrote: Someone in an earlier thread likened many current photographers
as camera
operators, and I felt myself coming to that same conclusion about my work.
I point, I shoot, and give the balance of the creative process over to
someone else, to some further technology, to some
You seem to be in denial William. The point is that the majority of the labs
were bad, and that they failed the consumer en-masse. With the technology
available to them 1 hour cheap and fast was entirely acheivable. The problem
was that the industry got greedy and lazy. Not just a few labs, but
And finally William accepts the arguments put to him.
U-turn?
Antonio
On 25/8/04 7:55 am, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My lab could.
My lab closed in 1997.
The one I work for now can do very good on occassion, but not
consistently.
Excellence hasn't existed in my industry for
Robert Woerner felt lonesome in his filmness and wrote:
You digital guys are bringing me down.
Non illegitimi carborundum. The digitalphiles are a bunch of pinheaded geeks
who would rather waste countless hours in Photoshop trying to fix their
awful contrast inhibited detailess soulless
: Caveman
FJW Subject: Re: I enjoy film
FJW
FJW
FJW The success of digital is largely due to the failure of the
FJW industry to
FJW provide adequate film printing services to the consumer.
FJW
FJW
FJW The failure of the minilab is largely due to the consumer insisting
FJW that the bottom line
You're not alone. Yes digital is fun and is probably the future. I have a
point and shoot that I enjoy very much, but am not about to give up my film
bodies when I can have the best of both worlds- shoot film, scan the best ones...
Vic
William Rob wrote by going fast and cheap they gave up the right to expect
quality.
I agree entirely. That's why I shoot slides for most of my serious work. As
far as print film goes, if they're snaps I go for fast and cheap. If it's more
serious stuff, I go for quality. If I get a nice
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I get a nice snapshot that is printed poorly (often the case) I scan
it myself...
This leads nicely into a question i;ve been meaning to ask for a while -
does the development of the negatives by minilabs vary as much as the
printing?
ie. does it
Hey Billy: I don't think it matters much where you get your negs developed.
My experience has been that when I get some brutal prints back (shots I would
have normally just thrown away and think that I screwed up) if I scan them I
can get them to look the way I wanted them to in the first
Hello Billy,
My experience over the years has not been that great. Fast,
inexpensive labs have problems with squeegee scratching, chemical
deposits, bad chemistry and cutting negs poorly. I have tons of
examples of all the above.
Just hang around and watch the staff handling of film for awhile
Huh?
On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Robert Woerner wrote:
What it boils down to is that the masses of men not only lead lives of
quiet
desperation but they settle for mediocrity en masse.
: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
Better labs will treat your film with more care and respect. If you
just have develop only and no prints made, you may find the cost
difference per roll quite small between a good lab and a poor lab.
The best way to pick
I too enjoy film. I just haven't shot any in nearly a year. More than
film, I enjoy being able to take a single shot or a few shots, go right
to the computer with the files, and print a nice enlargement
immediately, with no film or processing costs and no delays.
The irony and sad part (to me)
I feel the same way! Film is fun to shoot, no question, and there are
some advantages to it like exposure latitude. The only problem is that
when I started shooting with the istD I noticed that my 8x10 prints were
superior to the ones I got from film and, being a portrait shooter, I
quickly
The success of digital is largely due to the failure of the industry to
provide adequate film printing services to the consumer.
Same industry that pushed smaller and crappier film formats (anyone
remember disc film, APS, etc).
Same industry that was interested in printing each and every frame
Just waiting for WfieldW's reply.
Norm
Caveman wrote:
stuff
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Re: I enjoy film
The success of digital is largely due to the failure of the
industry to
provide adequate film printing services to the consumer.
The failure of the minilab is largely due to the consumer insisting
that the bottom line
In a way this is all to the good. We get so many who are enamored with their new
digital cameras on the list that it is easy to get the idea that no one is using
film any more. Not so! Many of us still like the old way. But we do need to
speak up, or soon we will be forgotten, and then there
50 matches
Mail list logo
