Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Photography > Film Labs > Re: really no p...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 31 of 87 Topic 1212 of 1284
Post > Topic >>

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

by "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nov 21, 2006 at 03:22 PM

babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 im****tant 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 cor****ations 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
 




 87 Posts in Topic:
really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or dia
kodak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-07 06:36:50 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-07 21:03:34 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Derek Gee" <  2006-11-08 02:52:08 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
scenic_man <zcukpkn02@  2006-11-08 03:11:53 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Derek Gee" <  2006-11-10 03:36:22 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
david Windsor <Davou00  2006-11-15 16:02:16 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-16 01:51:42 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-16 13:42:14 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-16 22:13:04 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-19 06:23:20 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"dooey" <doo  2006-11-19 11:53:15 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-19 19:45:52 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-19 21:53:59 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-20 00:48:51 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-20 04:34:20 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-21 02:27:44 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-21 10:57:46 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-21 13:16:13 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-21 16:35:45 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-21 17:37:51 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-21 18:26:08 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-21 21:45:59 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-22 02:13:49 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-21 21:05:29 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-22 02:14:18 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-22 11:06:32 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-22 15:04:55 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-24 21:58:36 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-22 15:14:37 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-24 21:22:41 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-21 15:22:06 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-22 10:38:48 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-22 13:26:44 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-24 21:14:25 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-27 13:46:36 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-24 21:20:22 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-08 05:03:10 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-08 13:42:15 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
David Starr <davestarr  2006-11-08 15:49:25 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
Michael Weinstein <not  2006-11-19 03:42:07 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
Keith Tapscott. <Keith  2006-11-26 13:49:01 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-26 17:26:14 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-27 06:28:15 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-27 13:42:09 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
David Starr <davestarr  2006-11-27 17:36:32 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-28 00:41:07 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-27 20:03:11 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-28 02:24:55 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-28 03:15:53 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-28 05:55:05 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-28 06:35:46 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-28 06:59:40 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-28 09:35:46 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-28 19:24:11 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-30 02:02:58 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Derek Gee" <  2006-11-30 03:54:31 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-28 13:41:08 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-28 19:27:06 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-29 01:04:33 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-28 20:40:44 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-29 05:51:10 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-29 18:48:23 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-30 07:49:19 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
philip@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-30 09:15:28 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-30 13:06:43 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-29 13:28:44 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-29 18:44:08 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-30 02:13:32 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-30 00:43:55 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-11-30 07:50:23 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"babelfish" <  2006-11-30 13:02:18 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-11-30 13:37:24 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"jeremy" <je  2006-11-30 14:57:41 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-30 18:31:05 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-12-01 18:51:47 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-12-01 15:19:36 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-12-04 14:41:07 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-11-27 18:44:33 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
rodsmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2006-12-04 19:08:08 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Thomas T. Veldhouse  2006-12-04 20:25:53 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-12-05 03:09:59 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-12-05 00:01:47 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-12-05 07:02:08 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
"Greg \"_\"  2006-12-05 19:27:56 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2006-12-06 07:48:09 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
John Horner <jthorner@  2006-12-16 07:56:25 
Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or
Jim   2007-02-02 08:01:26 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sun Jul 6 17:33:38 CDT 2008.