Manual or Automatic SLR??

[Al Denelsbeck]

"Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bf42eu$5t9$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:

> How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call
> themselves "pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.
>
> I want to get more out of my pictures than I'm getting from Wolf,
> Ritz, Walmart, CVS (I am assuming here that all the problems with the
> final result are not completely the fault of how I take them).
>
> Does anyone know of a pro lab in the Atlanta area? I've looked in the
> yellow pages, but that hasn't been much help.

There's a few questions that I ask that seem to point the way easily
enough:

a) Do you do two-hour E-6 processing?

b) Can you imprint info on the slide mounts?

c) What do you charge per stop for push-processing?

d) How do you handle B&W?

e) Do you handle medium format?

The responses to those should give you a yes/no answer, especially if
the answer to any one is "Huh?". Not all pro-labs will be able to
accomodate you easily in all respects, but they will have a sensible answer
to these either way (for instance, pro-labs in my area don't do B&W, but
they're specific about why and can point to someplace that does).

That said, there's definitely a shortage of pro-labs in the Atlanta
area. I never located one while I was there, though I was well outside the
metro area (freaking Carrollton) so I didn't have much of a chance to shop
around. There is NO pro lab in Carrollton, or even close to it. Trust me on
this one...

I just poked through some old info in my archives, since I remembered
a magazine editor mentioning they shipped their scanning and such to an
Atlanta firm, and managed to find it. I have *not* had any dealings
whatsoever with this company, so cannot offer anything more than contact
info. Give it a try if you like:

Imagers,
1575 Northside Drive, Bldg. 400, Suite 490, Atlanta, GA 30318. Phone:
1-800-232-5411 Fax: 1-404-351-9020 Website: [url]www.imagers.com[/url]

Hope this helps. Good luck!

- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at [url]www.wading-in.net[/url]

[Ken]

Thanks! You guys are so helpful to amatuers like me. This group is great!

"Al Denelsbeck" <news@wadingin.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93BAD4574B8A9sandalsatwadinginnet@65.32.1. 7...

> "Ken" <kewaynco@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bf42eu$5t9$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>

> > How do I know if the "pro" lab is really? Just because they call
> > themselves "pro", it doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are.
> >
> > I want to get more out of my pictures than I'm getting from Wolf,
> > Ritz, Walmart, CVS (I am assuming here that all the problems with the
> > final result are not completely the fault of how I take them).
> >
> > Does anyone know of a pro lab in the Atlanta area? I've looked in the
> > yellow pages, but that hasn't been much help.

>
>
> There's a few questions that I ask that seem to point the way easily
> enough:
>
> a) Do you do two-hour E-6 processing?
>
> b) Can you imprint info on the slide mounts?
>
> c) What do you charge per stop for push-processing?
>
> d) How do you handle B&W?
>
> e) Do you handle medium format?
>
> The responses to those should give you a yes/no answer, especially if
> the answer to any one is "Huh?". Not all pro-labs will be able to
> accomodate you easily in all respects, but they will have a sensible

answer

> to these either way (for instance, pro-labs in my area don't do B&W, but
> they're specific about why and can point to someplace that does).
>
> That said, there's definitely a shortage of pro-labs in the Atlanta
> area. I never located one while I was there, though I was well outside the
> metro area (freaking Carrollton) so I didn't have much of a chance to shop
> around. There is NO pro lab in Carrollton, or even close to it. Trust me

on

> this one...
>
> I just poked through some old info in my archives, since I remembered
> a magazine editor mentioning they shipped their scanning and such to an
> Atlanta firm, and managed to find it. I have *not* had any dealings
> whatsoever with this company, so cannot offer anything more than contact
> info. Give it a try if you like:
>
> Imagers,
> 1575 Northside Drive, Bldg. 400, Suite 490, Atlanta, GA 30318. Phone:
> 1-800-232-5411 Fax: 1-404-351-9020 Website: [url]www.imagers.com[/url]
>
> Hope this helps. Good luck!
>
> - Al.
>
> --
> To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
> Online photo gallery at [url]www.wading-in.net[/url]

[Alan]

[email]mikescarpitti@yahoo.com[/email] (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<2fd2ff8c.0307161837.669c65d8@posting.google. com>...

> You miss the point. Everything that 'makes a great photograph' depends
> upon tonal quality, differentiation of colors, countours, etc.

We live in a culture that thinks that sex is love, education is
intelligence, reproducing is parenthood, money is class, and church
going is morality. I guess it's only natural that some would think
that cameras are photography.

[Pete McCutchen]

On 16 Jul 2003 10:07:40 -0700, [email]mikescarpitti@yahoo.com[/email] (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in message news:<m2y8yzgmbf.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>...

>> [email]mikescarpitti@yahoo.com[/email] (Michael Scarpitti) writes:
>>

>> > My photography became better when I moved to Leica. The notion that
>> > equipment doesn't matter misses the point of what the technical limits
>> > are. In any given system, the better the lens, the better the color,
>> > tonality, and 'sharpness' that can be obtained. Can you see the
>> > difference between Leica lenses and say Nikon or Canon? Of course you
>> > can. I can, and I have shown the difference to many people over the
>> > years.

>>
>> Interesting. My one experience with people who thought they could see
>> the difference ended with the friend who got me into Leicas in the
>> first place incorrectly identifying as having been taken with a 90mm
>> Summicron a shot I'd actually taken with a Tamron zoom on a Pentax
>> Spotmatic. (This was around 1974)
>>
>> (This is not to complain about either the Leica system, or my friend;
>> I took many very nice photos with that Leica, and it could certainly
>> do many things that SLRs of the period could never do -- starting with
>> having a 90mm f2 lens in the first place, and continuing through
>> focusing it in the light conditions I could shoot pictures in with it,
>> and making little enough noise that nobody much cared if I did.)

>
>
>
>If it 'could not' be seen, it doesn't exist. It can be seen.

See, the thing is, people can "see" all sorts of things that aren't
there. Once upon a time, doctors believed in all sorts of "cures"
that flat-out didn't work, and, much of the time, made things worse.
Our minds play tricks on us, and we tend to see what we want to see.

That's why, when drugs are tested, they use double-blind tests.
Neither the patients nor the doctors administering the drugs know
whether they're receiving the drug or a placebo.

Leica makes fine camera equipment, and the lenses made to fit Leica
cameras are first rate. Obviously, you're happy with what you've got,
and that's great. But I'm skeptical of pronouncements by somebody
whose attachment to a particular brand of camera appears to have taken
on many of the trappings of a religious cult.
--

Pete McCutchen

[Michael Scarpitti]

[email]AlanRRT@aol.com[/email] (Alan) wrote in message news:<267766ad.0307170623.663b566f@posting.google. com>...

> [email]mikescarpitti@yahoo.com[/email] (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message news:<2fd2ff8c.0307161837.669c65d8@posting.google. com>...

> > You miss the point. Everything that 'makes a great photograph' depends
> > upon tonal quality, differentiation of colors, countours, etc.

>
> We live in a culture that thinks that sex is love, education is
> intelligence, reproducing is parenthood, money is class, and church
> going is morality. I guess it's only natural that some would think
> that cameras are photography.

Again, you've missed my point. Again, read and try to follow.

Any 'great photograph' (whatever that means) MUST employ photographic
means (lens, film, etc) to accomplish its goals. If the 'great photo'
is great because it captured a 'fleeting moment', is not the shutter
reponse lag time important? The Leicaflex has the shortest response
time of any SLR. This means that the user can react faster to that
'crucial moment' to create that 'great photo'. Does the 'great photo'
employ subtleties of light and shadow, with minute variations of shade
in the shadows to accomplish its effects? Then a lens with greater
contrast (Leica) will differentiate those tones better. Does the
'great photo' depend on the contours of a child's face? If so, the
greater edge definition of Leica lenses will bring out the intent of
the photo better.

The limitations of lesser equipment become hindrances once you become
used to the superb performance of Leica equipment. our 'great photos'
will become more numerous, not just rarities.

Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
some Leica gear and see for yourself.

[Jeremy]

x-no-archive: yes
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> The limitations of lesser equipment become hindrances once you become
> used to the superb performance of Leica equipment. our 'great photos'
> will become more numerous, not just rarities.
>
> Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
> the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
> some Leica gear and see for yourself.

While I have absolutely nothing but respect for Leica optics, it appears
that you have chosen to reject other lens designers' products, as being
somehow less-than-adequate.

Even Erwin Puts has gone on record as saying that the major lens designers
all know how to make great lenses--and that they each have their unique
vision of what characteristics make up their idea of a perfect lens.

Leica has gone through several changes in designs since they started. So,
which "Leica gear," is it that you find to be so superior?

Just one example, of many that I could offer, is Zeiss. They have a
different notion of what makes an ideal lens. Pentax, my own favorite, has
historically based their prime lens designs more on the Zeiss model.

Do you honestly believe that people would be able to see--with any degree of
regularity-- the differences between identical photos shot with Zeiss, Leitz
and Pentax lenses? I am aware of a number of such trials, and the evidence
suggests that there is little difference in the final images.

I would stack the current Pentax "Limited" series of lenses against Leitz's
any time. Nikon and Canon make some very credible stuff, too. And let's
not forget Minolta--they supplied several bodies and lenses to Leitz, which
were re-badged with the Leica nameplate.

If you really want to see major improvements in the quality of images, I
suggest that you compare almost any brand of medium format against Leica.
(Especially, compare the Rollei MF stuff against Leica 35mm). The results
will blow Leica away. Not that I want to put down Leica--but the cost of
good MF equipment is going to probably be less than buying Leica. So, if
money is any measure of quality, Leica may not be that much of a bargain.

My point is that comparing Leica to Pentax/Nikon/Canon/Minolta will not
result in nearly as much difference in image quality as would be apparent by
comparing Leica to virtually any medium format gear. There is only so much
that one can squeeze out of a 35mm negative . . .

[Duncan Ross]

>From: [email]mikescarpitti@yahoo.com[/email] (Michael Scarpitti)

>Date: 17-Jul-2003 18:23 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2fd2ff8c.0307170923.3b86b9bf@posting.google.com >
>

<snip>

>Yes, 'great photos' can be taken with any equipment. And, that's not
>the point. There is a magnitude of quality that is undeniable. Try
>some Leica gear and see for yourself.

Much as I agree with you often Mike I would just like to add that it isn't the
case that all Leica gear is superior to /all/ other gear regardless of period
etc. The Jupiter 8M I use outperforms the original Leica Elmar (to be truthful
I've read that the Elmar is a not-particularly-favoured lens amongst Leica
owners). However in ng speak, anything soviet is by definition utter junk and
anything made by Leica is outstanding. I would seriously love to run a few
films through a Leica at some time though, just to see what it's like! Give me
a bell next time you're in SW Scotland!

[jennylyn01]

I always used automatic SLR coz I find better used in my previous work for photography. I feel comfortable in using auto SLR.