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]

Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging



Why don't we combine our knowledge and come with a list of good, quick
turnaround film processors in the major cities of the world?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging


> > Johnny writes:
> >
> > > Here are the possibilities as I see them.
> > >
> > > 1. You are right. There is no substantive
> > > difference between commercial film processors
> > > anywhere in the world. Everyone who uses
> > > custom labs is wasting their money.
> >
> > This is generally true, at least with respect to ordinary C-41 and E-6
> > development.  If anyone disagrees, perhaps he can point me to
> > some examples that
> > show an obvious difference between one lab and another.
> >
>
> Everyone disagrees, but you've already said you don't see any difference,
so
> what's the use?  Everyone else on this list, professional photographer,
> expert photographer, and otherwise are all wrong and you are, obviously,
> right.
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.