Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses
From: don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)
Date: Wed Nov 29 17:18:27 2006
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20061127195756.024204c8@infoave.net> <9b678e0611272028i2a96c2b0x9ae6683d2e364bbd@mail.gmail.com> <4cfa589b0611272044q6eaa957aqb002133dd90f480@mail.gmail.com> <82c9dd70611290356w1f8db51cqd8f021f8b07b3e5d@mail.gmail.com> <4cfa589b0611290837y6490568cgece69d951279402@mail.gmail.com>

Adam,
The c-41 machines are going into the landfill.  The non-digital printers are
going into the landfill as even the fourth world is digital now.  The lower
end digital printers are going into the landfill; the 390 was Fuji's top of
the line machine at roughtly $250,000 five or six years ago.  Now you can
buy a reconditioned one for under $40,000.  In February they were close to
$50,000 so the depredciation is huge.  As to cost, the 390 is hugely
reliable, maintenance costs are really very small as they swallow huge
amounts of paper(roughly 4500 4X6 prints an hour all day) without
complaint.  They work off a chemical cartridge that is about $100 which
supplies developer, bleach, and fix; one cartridge will do maybe 10,000
prints if I remember correctly and I may not be.  The real issue is that
they need a goodly number of prints a day to stay properly replinished,
possibly as few as a few hundred.  Plus the electricity to keep 120 liters
of chemistry at 38C.

The smaller labs are going to an ink jet system that delivers prettty good
quality very flexibly.

Don
don.dory@gmail.com


On 11/29/06, Adam Bridge <abridge@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Which makes me wonder what the cost of one of those units that would
> be tossed out would be and how expensive they would be to operate?
>
> Does anyone know? If these mini-labs are being taken out they have to
> go SOMEWHERE. Are they being sold to private owners? Recycled? Land
> fill?
>
> I figure someone out there knows the answers...
>
> ab
>
> On 11/29/06, Eric Korenman <faneuil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also pay $2 a roll to my local CVS for film 'develop - no cut'
> > Then I read an article that most CVS and similar stores plan to remove
> film
> > processing equipment in the next 1 to 2 years.
> > Enjoy it while it lasts... Cheap processing, scratched film, a confused
> > teenager who keeps asking "so..you really don't want prints??"
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/27/06, Adam Bridge <abridge@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's interesting because I notice that the in-store mini-lab at our
> > > local Longs does a good business. When I shoot TCN they are able to
> > > process the film for me, sleeve it, NOT cut it, and I pay them $2 /
> > > roll which seems decent to me.
> > >
> > > In Sacramento there's still a good B&W lab and at least one color lab
> > > that seem worthwhile.
> > >
> > > So I feel fortunate.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> > > On 11/27/06, Don Dory <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Tina,
> > > > I'm sorry that your film got screwed.  I suspect that their
> chemistry
> > > was
> > > > way out of control.  They aren't doing much film either and the
> clerks
> > > don't
> > > > typically understand an action line on the control chart, just that
> the
> > > > manager was yelling at them to get the machine up as a customer
> wanted a
> > > one
> > > > hour.
> > > >
> > > > If you shoot film, try E-6 down here in Atlanta.  They are a very
> clean
> > > dip
> > > > and dunk lab for color and hand process B&W although in FG7
> > > >
> > > > Don
> > > > don.dory@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/27/06, Tina Manley <images@infoave.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > LUG:
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the totally unintended consequences of buying the M8 is
> that I
> > > > > have returned to using film.  I always carry at least two cameras
> and
> > > > > since I've bought the M8, my second camera of choice is the M7.  I
> > > > > can carry the same lenses and not worry about two systems.  I had,
> > > > > however, forgotten about my frustrations with film.  I planned on
> > > > > taking mostly photos of family at Thanksgiving inside houses, so I
> > > > > carried lots of 400 ISO TMax and 800 ISO Fuji film.  I didn't plan
> on
> > > > > coming back through the mountains of NC and photographing
> waterfalls
> > > > > in the brilliant sunshine of a warm November day.  The 800 speed
> was
> > > > > much too high for most of what I was shooting.  I was standing
> under
> > > > > the Dry Fall waterfall when I ran out of film and had to open the
> > > > > camera and reload, trying to shield the camera from the
> water.  When
> > > > > I got it reloaded, it refused to take photos.  I had to replace
> the
> > > > > batteries. When I got home, I took the film by Walgreens.  They
> > > > > developed the color negatives within an hour but the B&W will take
> > > > > two weeks.  I would have brought it home and put it in my Jobo but
> > > > > the chemicals have expired and I would have to order more small
> > > > > quantities that would probably expire before I take more film
> > > > > photos.  I picked up the color prints and film from Walgreens and
> > > > > mounted the color negatives in slide mounts to scan in my Nikon
> > > > > LS5000.  I intended to compare photos taken with the M7 and film
> > > > > using the 35/2.0 Asph lens and the exact same photos taken with
> the
> > > > > M8 using the 28/2.8 Asph lens.  I had lots of examples - people,
> > > > > waterfalls, statues - in many different lighting situations.  I
> > > > > cannot get a single acceptable scan of the color negative
> film.  The
> > > > > waterfalls are a brilliant purple or blue.  If I use the white
> > > > > balance on the waterfall, the rest of the photo is dark and
> > > > > murky.  I'm still working on it but don't have high hopes that
> I'll
> > > > > be able to compare anything. The digital photos are already with
> my
> > > > > stock agency.  I want another M8.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tina
> > > > >
> > > > > Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA
> > > > > http://www.tinamanley.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Leica Users Group.
> > > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
> information
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Leica Users Group.
> > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)
Reply from leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams) ([Leica] Re: M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)
In reply to: Message from images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)
Message from faneuil at gmail.com (Eric Korenman) ([Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] M7, M8, Film, Digital, same lenses)