A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 21st 06, 10:57 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default 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  
Old November 21st 06, 02:16 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
babelfish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default 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  
Old November 21st 06, 04:22 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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  
Old November 21st 06, 04:35 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default 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  
Old November 21st 06, 06:37 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old November 21st 06, 07:26 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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  
Old November 21st 06, 10:45 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default 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  
Old November 22nd 06, 03:05 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Greg \_\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 464
Default 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  
Old November 22nd 06, 03:13 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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  
Old November 22nd 06, 03:14 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs
Thomas T. Veldhouse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:57 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.