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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:
> Dry Creek has a good reputation, which is why [I presume] that Costco is

> using
> them.  So, you didn't answer my question.  Did you run the test [where
you
> determined DMAX numbers] based on a print using an older profile or the 
> newer
> profile?  I am just curious what those results might look like.

I looked it up, and the profile we used for comparison was of the new
higher 
resolution variety. I also looked deeper into Drycreek and discovered
that, 
like us, also use Gretag Macbeth's Profiler Pro software to create their 
profiles and Xrite spectros, so their equipment and software have the same

capabilities as ours. Having the same software doesn't necessarily mean
that 
they make their profiles in the same way though as evidenced by the fact 
that they needed to upgrade to a higher resolution which they should've
been 
using all along for photo profiling. Generic profiles like this are better

than nothing, but not very accurate. As I've stated before, a really good 
profile takes a lot more than Drycreek is doing no matter what they claim.

Whether or not the average image will show the difference is the question.

Often it will not, but in many cases it will be quite obvious when it's 
wrong.



> BTW ... Costco only offers a single paper, a Fuji Crystal Archive paper
in
> glossy and lustre versions.


We use a lot of Fuji also as well as Kodak and Mitsubi**** depending on the

need. There are three kinds of Fuji Crystal Archive and only has a higher 
quantity of silver in it. The cheaper version is what Costco and many 
competing labs use and this is one reason why they have limited dmax and 
gamut. They save a few pennies per square foot, but at the prices they 
charge it adds up fast.