If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
In article Aut8h.2650$w37.2027@trnddc08,
babelfish wrote: For those interested parties, I looked up our data and the profiles show the following black vales as measured in LAB color space: The local Costco = 11 Tech Photo = 2 Interesting, my local el-cheapo lab seems to provide the same density as Costo. However, I can't find any of this spelled out on you website. So I guess you just have to rely on word of mouth advertising. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
"Philip Homburg" babelfish wrote: For those interested parties, I looked up our data and the profiles show the following black vales as measured in LAB color space: The local Costco = 11 Tech Photo = 2 Interesting, my local el-cheapo lab seems to provide the same density as Costo. However, I can't find any of this spelled out on you website. So I guess you just have to rely on word of mouth advertising. Word of mouth is pretty slow, but it's certain. We don't advertise so that's how we've remained in business thirty years while nearly all of our competitors have closed. We always knew that we put more into our work than the discounters, but I just recently decided to compare our profiles against theirs as a way to prove just one aspect of it. I'm going to write up a web page with the description and more charts for anyone who's interested. Unfortunately, the number of people who care about such things and are willing to pay for it are a quickly vanishing breed. My more realistic choices are to reduce our standards and prices to what everyone else does or else close the lab. Not good choices. After thirty years of striving for excellence I've arrived at the point where sadly, there's no market for it. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
babelfish wrote:
Then I should send you a Colorthink screenshot of our profile matched against Costco's as proof of the difference. You would clearly see that we have about a 20 percent greater gamut volume, mostly in dark saturated I would have agreed with you a few months ago, but they have moved to a richer gamut themselves. http://www.drycreekphoto.com/custom/enhanced_labs.htm Many, if not most of the Costco labs now use this. Did you compare their enhanced profiles or their standard [from only a couple of months back]? colors and deeper blacks. IOW, we print more color than they do. If you're serious about photography, and you must be or you wouldn't be here, then you shouldn't assume that all processing is the same except for the price. The mere pennies that Costco charges makes for quite a deal for the average person who isn't concerned with getting all that is possible from your files, but you DO get what you pay for. We drive our lasers harder to achieve greater Dmax and color gamut, but this reduces the lifespan of the equipment and it's more difficult for our technicians as well. Our workflow places no restrictions on file types and we do any required profile conversions and sizing as a matter of course. Anyone who comes to my lab for reprints with work that was done first at Costco immediately sees the improvement, but most don't remain as steady customers because of our increased cost of doing a great job. Consequently, we get the problem files and most important images while Costco gets the quantity. This is the world we live in where price is the ONLY thing that matters to most people and it's sad when even professionals and corporations are willing to compromise the majority of their images to save a paltry amount of money. In this environment, anyone who attempts to do his best is quickly driven out of business and soon only the shoddy mediocrity of hucksters will remain. Still, I will be glad to do side by side comparisons pretty soon. I value the quality over the price, in general. I think you are likely correct, but Costco does offer an incredible value for a color profiled option, and I must do the due diligence to rule them in or out. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
In article x_C8h.2752$w37.693@trnddc08,
babelfish wrote: I'm going to write up a web page with the description and more charts for anyone who's interested. Unfortunately, the number of people who care about such things and are willing to pay for it are a quickly vanishing breed. My more realistic choices are to reduce our standards and prices to what everyone else does or else close the lab. Not good choices. After thirty years of striving for excellence I've arrived at the point where sadly, there's no market for it. The advantage of digital printing is that you can order prints from any lab as long as shipping shots remain reasonable. The problem I have is that other than word of mouth, there is no way to find a good lab, because they can't bothered to tell you what they do. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
The advantage of digital printing is that you can order prints from any lab as long as shipping shots remain reasonable. The problem I have is that other than word of mouth, there is no way to find a good lab, because they can't bothered to tell you what they do. I am beginning to think that it is time to buy a good inkjet printer and do it myself. OFOTO/Kodak Gallery has been producing prints that are not of their former quality, and delivery on my last 3 orders has taken between 2-3 weeks, from their plant in California to my home in Philadelphia. Maybe it's time to stop relying upon others and to just do it myself. I haven't followed the printer market, but I suspect I'll check out Epson, as they seem to have the best reputation. I never thought I'd consider printing my own, but this nonsense of waiting long times and then getting consumer-quality results is becoming unacceptable. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
jeremy wrote:
I am beginning to think that it is time to buy a good inkjet printer and do it myself. OFOTO/Kodak Gallery has been producing prints that are not of their former quality, and delivery on my last 3 orders has taken between 2-3 weeks, from their plant in California to my home in Philadelphia. Maybe it's time to stop relying upon others and to just do it myself. I haven't followed the printer market, but I suspect I'll check out Epson, as they seem to have the best reputation. I never thought I'd consider printing my own, but this nonsense of waiting long times and then getting consumer-quality results is becoming unacceptable. Most prints made at home with anywhere near lab quality results runs $0.45 to $1.00 per print, excluding the initial investment of the printer. That is not cheap, so consider your options and your needs before you commit. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message ... jeremy wrote: I am beginning to think that it is time to buy a good inkjet printer and do it myself. OFOTO/Kodak Gallery has been producing prints that are not of their former quality, and delivery on my last 3 orders has taken between 2-3 weeks, from their plant in California to my home in Philadelphia. Maybe it's time to stop relying upon others and to just do it myself. I haven't followed the printer market, but I suspect I'll check out Epson, as they seem to have the best reputation. I never thought I'd consider printing my own, but this nonsense of waiting long times and then getting consumer-quality results is becoming unacceptable. Most prints made at home with anywhere near lab quality results runs $0.45 to $1.00 per print, excluding the initial investment of the printer. That is not cheap, so consider your options and your needs before you commit. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 Well, I don't look forward to paying higher prices, but when the alternatives are either poor quality or inconsistent quality, what can one do? When prints begin looking like they came from negs shot in a disposable camera, it doesn't say much for buying good equipment and using painstaking technique. I just got a stack of prints that I uploaded to Kodak Gallery on November 4. Kodak put the prints into the mail the same day. and they took a full two weeks to reach me! That is poor. I'm going to try a couple other online printers, and if they don't work out, I'll probably just get a printer. That Epson R1800 looks pretty good. Dale Labs has resumed making online prints. I'll upload a bunch to them and see how they turn out. In fact, I think I'll upload a few from the batch I just got back from Kodak Gallery, to compare the differences in print quality. Dale has always done good work on my film processing and printing, so let's see. But you're right, I'd really prefer to have it done online if at all possible. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
In article ,
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote: Most prints made at home with anywhere near lab quality results runs $0.45 to $1.00 per print, excluding the initial investment of the printer. That is not cheap, so consider your options and your needs before you commit. wow a whole dollar per 8x10 :^) Do you have any idea what prolabs charge for an 8x10? -- "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
jeremy wrote:
Well, I don't look forward to paying higher prices, but when the alternatives are either poor quality or inconsistent quality, what can one do? When prints begin looking like they came from negs shot in a disposable camera, it doesn't say much for buying good equipment and using painstaking technique. I just got a stack of prints that I uploaded to Kodak Gallery on November 4. Kodak put the prints into the mail the same day. and they took a full two weeks to reach me! That is poor. I'm going to try a couple other online printers, and if they don't work out, I'll probably just get a printer. That Epson R1800 looks pretty good. Dale Labs has resumed making online prints. I'll upload a bunch to them and see how they turn out. In fact, I think I'll upload a few from the batch I just got back from Kodak Gallery, to compare the differences in print quality. Dale has always done good work on my film processing and printing, so let's see. But you're right, I'd really prefer to have it done online if at all possible. I have had decent luck with MPIX. Have you tried MPIX? Of course, you should consider trying the what another poster suggested as well as potentially Costco if you have access. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?
"Greg \"_\"" wrote:
In article , "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote: Most prints made at home with anywhere near lab quality results runs $0.45 to $1.00 per print, excluding the initial investment of the printer. That is not cheap, so consider your options and your needs before you commit. wow a whole dollar per 8x10 :^) Do you have any idea what prolabs charge for an 8x10? Who said anything about 8 x 10? -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS, why does no one have this anymore? | SMS | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | September 29th 05 09:01 PM |
I can't take it anymore :o( | Steve Kramer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | April 5th 05 04:54 AM |
I can't take it anymore :o( | Steve Kramer | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 3rd 05 10:13 PM |
Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital | Geshu Iam | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 109 | October 31st 04 03:57 PM |
Speaking of sheet films (Tri-X /Bush thread) --Hows the J&C House brand in 4x5 thru 11x14? Efke sheet films? | jjs | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | October 25th 04 05:24 PM |