ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest forFri 17 Jan, 2003


  • To: lexa@www.lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] RE: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest forFri 17 Jan, 2003
  • From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:13:39 -0500
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <3E2A7AB8.8000607@shaw.ca>
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

Hi Arthur,

> Rather than canned "air" which is really a propellant which can spit out
> liquid on your film,

Just as a note, I have not had that problem as long as I don’t use too much
at one time (short bursts), and as long as the can is held upright.

> (and besides its bad for the environment (including
> your own personal one)

I thought it was more so those that used CFC based propellants that were
(really) “bad for the environment”, and that the “CFC Free” ones were not
near as “bad”.  The one I use has difluoroethane, and states “%100 safe for
the ozone”.  I did a web search on it, and I wasn’t able to turn up anything
substantive with a quick glance.  Do you have more information on this?

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.