On 20 Dec 2001 at 19:29, Doug Franklin wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:53:43 -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> > [...] I also have better luck scanning negatives than slides. It
> > seems that you need a bigger D-range in your scanner to really do
> > slides well.
>
> Maybe there's something I'm
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:53:43 -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> [...] I also have better luck scanning negatives than slides. It
> seems that you need a bigger D-range in your scanner to really do
> slides well.
Maybe there's something I'm not understanding here, but that sounds
strange. I thought
Kristian Walsh wrote:
>
>
> So, I was wondering about giving up on the print lark totally, and just
> shooting slides from now on. Then, as current ink-jets seem to have
> passed the PDML challenge ;-) maybe I should get a film scanner and an
> inkjet and do up the "good" pictures on that.
>
That
Kristian,
Where I am, I have found that the cost of print film is cheaper than
slide film ($4 vs $5). The cost of develop-only C41 is cheaper than
slide film ($2.30 vs $6.50). The net difference per roll is about
$5.00. I also have better luck scanning negatives than slides. It
seems that you
Hi,
It's that time of year when we look back over the previous 12 months and
recoil in horror at how much we've paid for film and d&p (for those
without darkrooms, ie., me).
So, I was wondering about giving up on the print lark totally, and just
shooting slides from now on. Then, as current i
5 matches
Mail list logo
