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
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 Po
- 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
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
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'
> 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
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~ h
wens
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 restoratio
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
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 fo
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 PROTE
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
- 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:
> 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
> ask
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
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 have
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 ha
My work digital is 3.3 mp, but lately it usually gets used at the
lowest resolution of 640x480. That's because of the nature of the
desired final output. We want jpg files to email to the engineering
office, or to a vendor, or sales.
The native 640x480 jpg right from the camera is a suitable fil
>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
___
Perso
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
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.
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 divid
- Original Message -
From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
> Hey that's why I live here too! :-)
>
> My dogs love me,
:-)
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
> t
- 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 usuall
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 a
Being a Scot, give me a good Malt Whisky any time!
James
Richmond, BC
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 5:33 PM
Subject: OT: alcohol was: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on dig
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
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 Mai
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 mixe
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-Mar
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
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 p
What I want is a process to create little 4" round Viewmaster reels.
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 digita
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
Supe
- 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 direction
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
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. H
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.
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,
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
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://
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]
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
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 came
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!
>
>
> 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 P
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:05:22 -0500, you wrote:
>The bottom line is that the pictures cost me about $8 total and no
>additional time, while obtaining superior results.
I agree that an experienced shooter with a film camera can run rings
around inexperienced grandma with a digital. And I agree th
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
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
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 fi
- 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.
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
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 interes
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,
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:
>
&
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 pri
On 4 Dec 2001 at 13:56, David Brooks wrote:
> My D1 flash sync's to 1/500.It helps me immensley for
> "critical action" stuff.That is my big complain of the
> p/s digital stugff out there now.Shutter lag is no good(correct
> if wrong)for action stuff i do in the horsey world.For stand
> alone p
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
> In a message dated 12/4/01 1:56:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 12/4/01 11:06:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Digital is very cool, but a real pain in the ass.
>
> Glad ~you~ said that!
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http:/
In a message dated 12/4/01 1:56:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Besides i still think i take better film flash then digital flash.
>
> Dave
>
I agree Dave. Lag time between pushing the shutter release and actuall firing
is, as you note-atrocious. Most under $500 dig
61 matches
Mail list logo
