R2880 and RedRiver Paper

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
On 10-12-01 17:11 , K W Hart wrote:
snip
"Less than 1 or 2 years"? Are they kidding? I'm annoyed that RA-4 prints
on
Kodak Endura paper only have a rated life of one or two Hundred years!
Sorry, it doesn't make much sense to me. And RA4 prints are a much
smaller
pain in my wallet- an 8x10 costs me about $0.55, including chems,
electricity, and water.

Discounting wasted chems, thrown out prints, etc. Unless you print in the
middle 500 and up prints a year with little waste your accounting can't be
right.


I buy chems in the 25 gallon size, and photo paper by the roll. I have very
little wasted chems and my Eseco-Speedmaster enlarger usually gets the
exposure and color balance right with very few thrown out prints.

Ken Hart

On 10-12-02 18:16 , K W Hart wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
news
On 10-12-01 17:11 , K W Hart wrote:
snip
"Less than 1 or 2 years"? Are they kidding? I'm annoyed that RA-4 prints
on
Kodak Endura paper only have a rated life of one or two Hundred years!
Sorry, it doesn't make much sense to me. And RA4 prints are a much
smaller
pain in my wallet- an 8x10 costs me about $0.55, including chems,
electricity, and water.

Discounting wasted chems, thrown out prints, etc. Unless you print in the
middle 500 and up prints a year with little waste your accounting can't be
right.


I buy chems in the 25 gallon size, and photo paper by the roll. I have very
little wasted chems and my Eseco-Speedmaster enlarger usually gets the
exposure and color balance right with very few thrown out prints.

Good for you, and condolences for spending so much time in the darkroom.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-12-02 18:16 , K W Hart wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
news
On 10-12-01 17:11 , K W Hart wrote:
snip
"Less than 1 or 2 years"? Are they kidding? I'm annoyed that RA-4
prints
on
Kodak Endura paper only have a rated life of one or two Hundred years!
Sorry, it doesn't make much sense to me. And RA4 prints are a much
smaller
pain in my wallet- an 8x10 costs me about $0.55, including chems,
electricity, and water.

Discounting wasted chems, thrown out prints, etc. Unless you print in
the
middle 500 and up prints a year with little waste your accounting can't
be
right.


I buy chems in the 25 gallon size, and photo paper by the roll. I have
very
little wasted chems and my Eseco-Speedmaster enlarger usually gets the
exposure and color balance right with very few thrown out prints.

Good for you, and condolences for spending so much time in the darkroom.


On the contrary, I consider time spent in the darkroom to be time well
spent.
"It's not real photography unless it involves handling toxic chemicals in
total darkness."

Ken Hart

On 10-12-03 14:55 , K W Hart wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 10-12-02 18:16 , K W Hart wrote:

I buy chems in the 25 gallon size, and photo paper by the roll. I have
very
little wasted chems and my Eseco-Speedmaster enlarger usually gets the
exposure and color balance right with very few thrown out prints.

Good for you, and condolences for spending so much time in the darkroom.


On the contrary, I consider time spent in the darkroom to be time well
spent.
"It's not real photography unless it involves handling toxic chemicals in
total darkness."

The thing I detest most. Even processing some B&W film in a tank stinks
too much.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.