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

"Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <gWfbh.3019$Yy1.2716@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > 
>> > There are small batch chemical kits from Tetenal, and room
temperature.
>> > 
>> > You can use a single tank for a single roll, and fill the bottles of 
>> > stick with marbles to slow air exposure. Its all in what one
wants....
>> > where there's a will there's a way.
>> 
>> And an expense.  You can't tell me that form of development is going to
be
>> anywhere near cheap.
> 
> Lets say the average for 120 film is 6.75 per roll at a lab without 
> driving there, if your kit only processed 10 rolls at 40.00 per kit you 
> are 2.75 ahead per roll that's 27.50 per ten rolls. 
> 
> More than likely you can process more than 10 rolls especially if 
> batched.
> 
>
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=586&A=details&Q=&sku=1
> 09282&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation>
> 
>  How much does it cost to drive there or ****p the film, not to mention 
> potential for loss. Once one has the technique down few will handle the 
> film with as much care as one's self.

It was costing me about $4.10 per 36 exposure to drop of film for E6
development at Costco (who ****ps to Qualex).  They recently discontinued
it.
After that, I use Fuji mailers at $4 and change per envelope.  Comes with
the
carboard on each slide and a nice little box ;-)

-- 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68  00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0