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 35 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 27, 2006 at 01:46 PM

babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

As an FYI ... Costco doesn't use a generic profile.  Each printer that
they
offer profiling on has its own profile per paper type that they print
(i.e.
Coon Rapids, MN Costo printing on a Lustre paper has its own profile).
 
> 
> 
>> 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. 

In fact, I am not sure which of the Fuji Crystal Archive papers they use
... I
will be sure to find out next time I am in there.

-- 
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 Sat Jul 5 23:35:09 CDT 2008.