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

Well gee wiz. It's about time someone said the obvious. As a custom lab 
owner for thirty years I'm still truly amazed at the number of people who 
convince themselves that all photo lab work is exactly the same except for

the price. Then there are those more sophisticated folks who like to
believe 
that the same equipment produces the same work no matter who's at the 
controls, just like the same cameras produce the same shots in every 
photographer's hands. Right? Get real. People make the difference in all 
professions and you have to pay for expertise. So just go on running to 
WalMart and Costco for 13 cent prints. When the last real custom lab dies,

you'll all just complain that no one does good work.

john
tech photo & imaging
www.technicalphoto.com


"david Windsor" <Davou000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:AfL6h.120824$jG4.997232@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Derek Gee wrote:
>
>> Most places have upgraded their older processors to new digital models 
>> that do a much better job of printing than the old ones
>
> Most modern labs (unless its a 'proper film place' as the person above
me 
> do a piss poor job in reproducing the image quality (depth of tone,
color 
> gradiation). Probably because of cheap scanning/printing workflow.
Places 
> like walmart and the pharmacy dont care about getting quality images,
they 
> just want to be able to produce 600 photos in an hour.
>
> cost efficiency over quality.