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
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
Just remember "she" might actually be Tony Polson.
-- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Tony Parkinson" wrote in message ... "Tony" wrote ... There is nothing like the security of a piece of medium that has to go through a chemical bath process run by a minimum wage kid more interested in oogling the better looking customers Well, when I take my films in I say "let her look, damn it" !! ;^) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
In article ,
Summer Wind wrote: "Jeremy" wrote in message newsaXRf.11561$Km6.8735@trnddc01... "Summer Wind" wrote in message news:a4MRf.53999 Where I think we will experience some dissatisfaction is with the decline of photofinishers. I suspect that lots of retail outlets will get rid of one-hour or overnight film processing, so they can make better use of the floor space to sell more profitable items. It may be that we'll have to mail our film out, or will have only a handful of local outlets that will handle it over-the-counter. But that is years down the road. The disappearance of photofinishers is indeed a worry, but they are currently printing digital files and I hope that keeps them going. I still A lot of digital customers print more than a hundred at a time. If they keep doing that, I don't see digital being a threat to retail photofinishers. -- "Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and win by experience." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
... Until the stuff is scanned and residing in multiple locations,
negatives or slides are no safer than the physical medium you use for your digital pictures. As long as there is only one copy, the chances of the picture being lost are the same with any medium. One of the nice things about the digital domain is that you can do a high resolution scan of a precious negative as a backup. Negatives are fragile too, but I'm more comfortable with an analog rendering that I can simply look at to assess its condition. A digital file can give you a false sense of security because it could be corrupt and you don't know until you try to read the file. I wonder if anyone is archiving digital images on film? SW |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message
... In article , Summer Wind wrote: "Jeremy" wrote in message newsaXRf.11561$Km6.8735@trnddc01... "Summer Wind" wrote in message news:a4MRf.53999 Where I think we will experience some dissatisfaction is with the decline of photofinishers. I suspect that lots of retail outlets will get rid of one-hour or overnight film processing, so they can make better use of the floor space to sell more profitable items. It may be that we'll have to mail our film out, or will have only a handful of local outlets that will handle it over-the-counter. But that is years down the road. The disappearance of photofinishers is indeed a worry, but they are currently printing digital files and I hope that keeps them going. I still A lot of digital customers print more than a hundred at a time. If they keep doing that, I don't see digital being a threat to retail photofinishers. But the floor space that is currently dedicated to one-hour film developing will probably be gone. They might offer to send film out for processing off-site, but I doubt that most retail locations will continue to maintain the equipment and handle the chemicals as they do now. Making digital prints will be much easier for them, because the process can be handled without the need for trained employees and can be done in a smaller space, like that used by the Kodak kiosk. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
"Jeremy" wrote in message news:kAMSf.2301$bu.2198@trnddc04... "Gregory L. Hansen" wrote in message ... In article , Summer Wind wrote: "Jeremy" wrote in message newsaXRf.11561$Km6.8735@trnddc01... "Summer Wind" wrote in message news:a4MRf.53999 Where I think we will experience some dissatisfaction is with the decline of photofinishers. I suspect that lots of retail outlets will get rid of one-hour or overnight film processing, so they can make better use of the floor space to sell more profitable items. It may be that we'll have to mail our film out, or will have only a handful of local outlets that will handle it over-the-counter. But that is years down the road. The disappearance of photofinishers is indeed a worry, but they are currently printing digital files and I hope that keeps them going. I still A lot of digital customers print more than a hundred at a time. If they keep doing that, I don't see digital being a threat to retail photofinishers. But the floor space that is currently dedicated to one-hour film developing will probably be gone. They might offer to send film out for processing off-site, but I doubt that most retail locations will continue to maintain the equipment and handle the chemicals as they do now. Making digital prints will be much easier for them, because the process can be handled without the need for trained employees and can be done in a smaller space, like that used by the Kodak kiosk. The first step in eliminating dependence on the photofinishers is to get a good film scanner. Then, after you are happy with the results of the scanner, you can start developing your own film. Start with B&W, and then go on to developing your own color film. All you need to do this is the chemicals, some canisters, and good temperature control.....A darkroom isn't necessary. Once you get the film out of the canister and onto the reel of your developing tank, you can do everything else in the light. A good quality inkjet printer can do as good a job as the photofinishers, and the quality of these things is climbing, even as the price is dropping. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
Exactly what would you back up on film - a picute snapped of the computer
screen, or a picture taken of a print? both are going to be vastly inferior to the original. As to corrupted files - it can happen - which is why you should open up the file and look at it before putting it away as your only archive. Isn't that sort of a given? Or do you expose enlarging paper, carefully cropping, dodging and burning for the best print quality and then put the paper away undeveloped? -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html "Summer Wind" wrote in message . com... ... Until the stuff is scanned and residing in multiple locations, negatives or slides are no safer than the physical medium you use for your digital pictures. As long as there is only one copy, the chances of the picture being lost are the same with any medium. One of the nice things about the digital domain is that you can do a high resolution scan of a precious negative as a backup. Negatives are fragile too, but I'm more comfortable with an analog rendering that I can simply look at to assess its condition. A digital file can give you a false sense of security because it could be corrupt and you don't know until you try to read the file. I wonder if anyone is archiving digital images on film? SW |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
"Tony" wrote in message
m... Exactly what would you back up on film - a picute snapped of the computer screen, or a picture taken of a print? both are going to be vastly inferior to the original. Not that I'm suggesting this, but surely one would use a film writer - so it's not going to be "vastly" inferior. Anyway this is inevitable: in any medium, converting from analogue to digital inherently involves throwing away information; converting from digital to analogue need not in theory, but in practice it always will unless you want to make HUGE copies... As to corrupted files - it can happen - which is why you should open up the file and look at it before putting it away as your only archive. Isn't that sort of a given? Or do you expose enlarging paper, carefully cropping, dodging and burning for the best print quality and then put the paper away undeveloped? I should think everyone knows that. Whether everyone does it all of the time is another question though ;-) Peter |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
"JimKramer" wrote in message oups.com... Bandicoot wrote: "Tony" wrote in message m... There is nothing like the security of a piece of medium that has to go through a chemical bath process run by a minimum wage kid more interested in oogling the better looking customers than keeping an eye on his machine. But if security of the medium is your interest, then that isn't the sort of place that you get your processing done, now is it? But, here at least (Chapel Hill/RTP/Raleigh/Durham), it is hard to find anyone but that to do the processing, I've been through all of the local labs including the "professional" ones and I still get obvious drip marks and scratches on my slides and mis-mounted slides. If I pay a premium rate I expect a premium service and that doesn't seem to be available here. Unless I lived in a very major city - been there, done that, glad I don't anymore - I wouldn't necessarily expect this sort of service locally. I post my films off to be developed. I could drive to the place and back in an afternoon if I really wanted to I suppose, but I have better things to do with my time and using Special Delivery nothing has ever been lost so far. The lab. also offers a motorbike courier service for anything urgent/critical, if it's worth paying the price - though maybe if I had film with a shot of Elvis waving from his flying saucer, I would take it there myself... Peter |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
"Tony" wrote in message
m... Exactly what would you back up on film - a picute snapped of the computer screen, or a picture taken of a print? both are going to be vastly inferior to the original. As to corrupted files - it can happen - which is why you should open up the file and look at it before putting it away as your only archive. Isn't that sort of a given? Or do you expose enlarging paper, carefully cropping, dodging and burning for the best print quality and then put the paper away undeveloped? See this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_recorder SW |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Film Lover's Lament
"Summer Wind" wrote
I wonder if anyone is archiving digital images on film? http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/...veStorageMedia http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/.../i9600_product -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Elementary questions on film handling. | Liopleurodon | In The Darkroom | 22 | December 8th 05 06:37 AM |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 15 | December 7th 05 11:03 PM |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 1 | November 28th 05 07:44 PM |
What film? | Art Reitsch | Large Format Photography Equipment | 5 | November 10th 05 12:14 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |