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

In article <YaW8h.6987$oP6.3464@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Philip Homburg"
>> The advantage of digital printing is that you can order prints from any

>> lab
>> as long as ****pping shots remain reasonable.
>
>You mean it's all the same except for the ****PPING PRICE? We've really 
>reached a new low.

No, it means that for me, a lab in the US will probably be unable to
compete
with a lab in .nl because the ****pping costs are much higher for the lab
in
the US.

>> 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.
>
>You've got it backwards because you've been trained to think you're
ordering 
>fast food from a wall board menu at McDonalds. Like a good restaurant or 
>even a machine shop, doctor or carpenter, a good lab will be able to
handle 
>your requests and advise you on the best approach. It's a service
business. 
>No offense, but like many people, you've been conditioned to think this
way 
>by our current culture of discounters, franchisers and niche marketers. 
>Imaging is very personal so options and expertise should be very
im****tant 
>to you.
>
>And don't ever think that just because a photo was shot digitally, then
it's 
>going to be printed the same way everywhere as nothing could be further
from 
>the truth. Even Time Warner can't get it that good between their presses
and 
>they spend millions every year trying. I often see the same ad in two
places 
>in the same magazine that don't match one another after the advertiser
has 
>spent a fortune to place it. Yet people expect the same print from
different 
>places for 13 cents. It hasn't happened yet and it won't. 

I don't know what Time Warner does, but the current consumer lab I use is
very predictable. It may not be repeatable to within 0.1 delta-E, but it
works
well enough.

It looks like you want to offer a service that I don't want to buy.

I want a predictable, repeatable way of converting bits to high quality
prints.
In the ideal case, I can simulate your printer on my computer, and
determine
what is best. Then (again in the ideal) case, if I like the print that 
results from the bits I sent, I should be able to send you the same bits
in
10 years time, and get exactly the same print.

It doesn't matter if different labs provide different results from a
single
digital image. As long as the labs provide all the data I need to model
their printing services, I can come up with the right image for each
printer.

You are sort of implying that printing has to rely on personal service.
And that is probably why you lose customers. Mass produced item can be of
high quality. Many people are willing to pay for better than average mass
produced items. Very few people can afford hand crafted items.

So instead of going to you, people will buy a high quality (mass produced)
printer, and make their own prints.

Where you do think those digital images are coming from? Hand-made digital
cameras? Hand-made film exposed in hand-made cameras, processed
individually
by hand, and scanned on a hand-made scanner.

The big think about digital printing is that the photographer is in
control.
And that only works if the lab is predictable, consistent, repeatable,
etc.

Of course, you can offer post-processing services as an optional extra.
But
IMHO that should be kept separate from printing.


-- 
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