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 22 of 87 Topic 1212 of 1284
Post > Topic >>

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

by "jeremy" <jeremy@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nov 21, 2006 at 09:45 PM

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:4xH8h.2839$Yy1.796@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> jeremy <jeremy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
 




 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 Thu Jul 24 4:20:36 CDT 2008.