End of an era
Andrew Koenig
more than 400 stores.
In the window was a sign saying that after January 29, they will no longer
process film.
Spam This
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:6Vjdl.144870$_Y1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
always gets comments on how much film we stock, as our two Toronto based
competitors stock little film. I can count the number of rolls we sell per
week on the fingers of my hand. Film labs are failing as they no longer have
the numbers to be viable. A mall lab I once managed required 200 rolls per
day to break-even, if we weren't in a high cost mall 100 per day would have
been profitable. I was hired when the lab was already in place, as I would
NOT have opted to rent that space.
Summary, film is dying as a commercially viable service, I see returning to
the pre-mini lab days of out-service labs that service a bunch of stores.
Neil Harrington
It's just amazing to me how *fast* this whole revolution occurred. I bought
my first digital camera less than ten years ago, and I consider that that
made me a very early buyer -- but certainly not a convert, as I had no
thought of ever abandoning 35mm. Even some years later, when a friend of
mine (who had Canons, and had one of the then latest model SLRs with a
whopping big 3 megapixels) insisted I should switch entirely to digital, I
replied "NEVER!"
And now look. I am really kicking myself for not selling my 35s when I still
could have gotten some good money for them. The one bright spot is that
thanks to Sony, some of my Minolta lenses are now worth more than I paid for
'em.
Andrew Koenig
news:gl4p3g$iir$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> In the window was a sign saying that after January 29, they will no
>> longer process film.
> And this surprises you how?
I am sorry, but did I say somewhere that I was surprised? I must have
missed it.
Mr. Jon Pope
"Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote in message
news:wp6dnUUT-eBKbujU...@giganews.com...
Ockham's Razor
That's great. I have several old Minolta lenses from my SR-1. Maybe in
a few years.....
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts
Jim Keegan
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:6Vjdl.144870$_Y1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Allen
> http://www.openmyeyeslord.net:80/ALookBackInHistory.htm
>
Interesting site, and very informative. Having been born in 1929, I am
familiar with most of what is described in the first section, but I
wasn't aware of some of the material on the women's suffrage section.
Allen
Neil Harrington
"Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-265738...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Unfortunately, the old MC and MD mount lenses won't work on Sony DSLRs.
Gotta be Maxxum/Dynax.
Neil Harrington
"Mr. Jon Pope" <mrjo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kVodl.1578$ts4...@newsfe06.iad...
> Well they might be collectibles later on so keep them then sell on EVay
I've thought of that, but I'm afraid I'll never live long enough for these
to be worth anything.
Chris Malcolm
> "Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote in message
> news:Mencken-265738...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <kVodl.1578$ts4...@newsfe06.iad>,
>> "Mr. Jon Pope" <mrjo...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Well they might be collectibles later on so keep them then sell on EVay
>>> "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> news:wp6dnUUT-eBKbujU...@giganews.com...
>>> > And now look. I am really kicking myself for not selling my 35s when I
>>> > still could have gotten some good money for them. The one bright spot
>>> > is
>>> > that thanks to Sony, some of my Minolta lenses are now worth more than
>>> > I
>>> > paid for 'em.
>> That's great. I have several old Minolta lenses from my SR-1. Maybe in
>> a few years.....
> Unfortunately, the old MC and MD mount lenses won't work on Sony DSLRs.
> Gotta be Maxxum/Dynax.
Depends what you mean by "work". Old lenses which never had autofocus
or any other auto features won't suddenly start having them on a
modern camera. But the lenses do what they always did to light passing
through them. I've got at least two old MC/MD Minolta lenses I'll
happily go on using on my Sony DSLR until I can afford to replace
them with an easier to use modern lens.
--
Chris Malcolm
Nobody
marches on.
Neil Harrington
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6todi0F...@mid.individual.net...
How are you using 'em? They won't fit the A mount without an adapter, and
with an adapter they'll only focus close, won't they? Unless you have the
Minolta adapter with a correcting lens, which I understand is fairly rare.
Chris Malcolm
Yes, they won't focus to infinity without a lensed mount conversion
adapter. Most of those are cheap single lensed things and not much
good. Minolta made some rather good compound lensed converters
designed for different ranges of focal lengths. That's what I use. I
guess they're rare because they're worth keeping :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Pat
Those disposable cameras are still a pretty big use of film.
rwalker
At my local camera shop, where I have been buying my equipment and
supplies for years, stopped processing film about three years ago, and
stopped carrying film (print or slide) about two years ago. If I
wanted any 35 mm slide film, I guess I'd have to go mail order now.
Ron Hunter
Yeah, but even those are going to digital. But the images on them
aren't any too good either. Probably has a lot to do with the quality
of lens supplied with a camera that is intended for the least quality
conscious segment of the photography market.
David J. Littleboy
How much film did you have them process in the last year? I'd guess none.
I've shot maybe 2 or 3 rolls (of 6x7) since the 5D arrived here 3 years ago.
I'm surprised it took this long. One thing I noticed over here was that the
quality of snapshots ordinary people around me were getting went way up when
they started using the 2 and 3MP consumer dcams. I assume that the ability
to check the images immediately meant that most people figured out how to
take decently exposed and focused shots. (Of course, with the advent of the
cell phone camera, the quality went back down.)
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Ron Hunter
or more, and some even have optical zoom. About the only thing I don't
like about my cell phone (Motorola RAZR) is the low resolution camera.
I would use it more often if it had better resolution, and an optical zoom.
Chris Malcolm
> "Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote:
>>I was at my local supermarket a few days ago. It's a branch of a chain
>>with more than 400 stores.
>>
>> In the window was a sign saying that after January 29, they will no longer
>> process film.
> How much film did you have them process in the last year? I'd guess none.
> I've shot maybe 2 or 3 rolls (of 6x7) since the 5D arrived here 3 years ago.
> I'm surprised it took this long. One thing I noticed over here was that the
> quality of snapshots ordinary people around me were getting went way up when
> they started using the 2 and 3MP consumer dcams. I assume that the ability
> to check the images immediately meant that most people figured out how to
> take decently exposed and focused shots.
By the time the good 3MP consumer cams arrived the autofocus and
autoexposure systems were good enough to be a lot better than most
people could do manually, if the camera even allowed them to use
manual. In fact there are some DSLR users around today determinedly
using manual mode because that's what the top guys use for top
quality, none of this wimping out with P&S auto mode, but who aren't
producing as good basic technical quality as the camera could if left
to do it all on auto.
--
Chris Malcolm
David J. Littleboy
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>> How much film did you have them process in the last year? I'd guess none.
>> I've shot maybe 2 or 3 rolls (of 6x7) since the 5D arrived here 3 years
>> ago.
>
>> I'm surprised it took this long. One thing I noticed over here was that
>> the
>> quality of snapshots ordinary people around me were getting went way up
>> when
>> they started using the 2 and 3MP consumer dcams. I assume that the
>> ability
>> to check the images immediately meant that most people figured out how to
>> take decently exposed and focused shots.
>
> By the time the good 3MP consumer cams arrived the autofocus and
> autoexposure systems were good enough to be a lot better than most
> people could do manually, if the camera even allowed them to use
> manual.
Actually, the AF was a disaster. Slow as molasses on a winter's morn and
prone to finding something in the background to focus on. That latter
problem is what the "face recognition" function is about.
> In fact there are some DSLR users around today determinedly
> using manual mode because that's what the top guys use for top
> quality, none of this wimping out with P&S auto mode, but who aren't
> producing as good basic technical quality as the camera could if left
> to do it all on auto.
That's not been my experience. Doing landscapey things with wildly different
lighting in every shot, AE is rather hopeless. Take a shot, see how far off
it is, dial in the EV compensation, and shoot again desperately trying not
to change the composition so that the stupid meter won't do me a different
favor. Repeat for next shot. I would have been better off using an external
spotmeter, manual mode, and a bit of thought before shooting, but the cold
froze the battery in the spotmeter. (It's not that matrix metering is bad,
it's that there are a lot of situations where in-camera metering can't
possibly get the right answer; sort of like AWB not being able to tell the
difference between a white shirt in pink light and a pink shirt in white
light.)
Neil Harrington
> "Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> By the time the good 3MP consumer cams arrived the autofocus and
>> autoexposure systems were good enough to be a lot better than most
>> people could do manually, if the camera even allowed them to use
>> manual.
>
> Actually, the AF was a disaster. Slow as molasses on a winter's morn
> and prone to finding something in the background to focus on.
That last is still sometimes a problem. At the Christmas family get-together
I had brought a brand-new Coolpix S600 as a second camera, and used it on a
number of "let-the-camera-do-all-the-thinking" shots while everybody was
opening presents. Between the unwrapping and drinking and conversation I
wasn't paying enough attention to where it was focusing while snapping away
(I'd left it in the default "auto" AF mode), and was mighty chagrined
afterward to find it had often focused not on the subject, but on the
crisply patterned wrapping paper several feet behind.
In this AF mode it's supposed to automatically focus on the nearest object,
but clearly that means "the nearest object which has plenty of contrast and
distinct edges." When the ambient light is rather low, as it was in this
case, the camera would often make this sort of mistake. Made me feel kinda
stupid.
> That
> latter problem is what the "face recognition" function is about.
Which works amazingly well, provided the subject is looking directly at the
camera. That does limit its usefulness, though probably not for most other
people. At least, most of the people I know who take pictures seem to
*always* have the subject(s) looking right at the camera.
I love this little S600, incidentally. It's a delightful carry-everywhere
camera and delivers excellent results, as long as an appropriate AF mode is
used.
Ron Hunter
the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still, when
you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than the
auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually focus, or
'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture settings. I
suspect that most DSLR users just set their camera to 'auto' until they
encounter a situation that requires human intervention.
Chris Malcolm
But you're a sophisticated photographer being fussy and trying to make
a success of technically difficult photographs. For the average
holiday and family event snapshooter the auto facilities of P&S
cameras have greatly improved the general quality of their shots and
the range of circumstances in which they can get images worth sticking
in the family album.
Because I often wander around with a big camera in places where lots
of tourists are taking photographs I sometimes get into conversations
with them about photography. Some of them ask my advice about the
difficulty they're having getting properly exposed images in their
DSLR. I suggest trying the fully auto mode. Some of them don't like
that suggestion because they've been told you get the best images in
the manual mode. My impression is that there's enough of them about
that if you were teaching a photography class you'd be quite likely to
encounter one.
--
Chris Malcolm
Neil Harrington
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTU...@giganews.com...
>>
> Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S cameras do
> the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still, when
> you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than the
> auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually focus, or
> 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture settings. I suspect
> that most DSLR users just set their camera to 'auto' until they encounter
> a situation that requires human intervention.
Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users, and not
just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
My first AF SLR was the original Minolta Maxxum 7000, which I think I bought
in 1986. A friend of mine was so impressed with it he bought one too. As far
as I know, over the next 20+ years he never once took it out of Program
mode.
Ockham's Razor
"Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTU...@giganews.com...
>
>
> >>
> > Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S cameras do
> > the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still, when
> > you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than the
> > auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually focus, or
> > 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture settings. I suspect
> > that most DSLR users just set their camera to 'auto' until they encounter
> > a situation that requires human intervention.
>
> Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users, and not
> just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
I am using a Nikon D50 (yes, I know it is old technology) and use it in
"P" mode which allows me to customize a few settings like ISO but
otherwise the camera functions in Auto.
If one got into a "human intervention" situation wouldn't it require you
to get out the old exposure meter?
Pat
> Pat wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 10:03 am, "Spam This" <spamt...@nospam.eh> wrote:
> >> "Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote in message
>
> >>> with more than 400 stores.
> >>> In the window was a sign saying that after January 29, they will no longer
> >>> process film.
> >> And this surprises you how? Film sales are way down, our store in Ottawa
> >> always gets comments on how much film we stock, as our two Toronto based
> >> competitors stock little film. I can count the number of rolls we sell per
> >> week on the fingers of my hand. Film labs are failing as they no longer have
> >> the numbers to be viable. A mall lab I once managed required 200 rolls per
> >> day to break-even, if we weren't in a high cost mall 100 per day would have
> >> been profitable. I was hired when the lab was already in place, as I would
> >> NOT have opted to rent that space.
>
> >> Summary, film is dying as a commercially viable service, I see returning to
> >> the pre-mini lab days of out-service labs that service a bunch of stores.
>
> > Those disposable cameras are still a pretty big use of film.
>
> Yeah, but even those are going to digital. But the images on them
> aren't any too good either. Probably has a lot to do with the quality
> of lens supplied with a camera that is intended for the least quality
> conscious segment of the photography market.
Hey, those cameras are FUN. Because they have little value and
because they are waterproof, they allow you to take all kinds of
interesting pictures. Get the kids out on a boat, jump in the water,
look back at the boat and take your pictures -- that kind of stuff.
Ron Hunter
> In article <tPGdnYkYCtk1R-TU...@giganews.com>,
> "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>> Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S cameras do
>>> the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still, when
>>> you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than the
>>> auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually focus, or
>>> 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture settings. I suspect
>>> that most DSLR users just set their camera to 'auto' until they encounter
>>> a situation that requires human intervention.
>> Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users, and not
>> just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
>
> I am using a Nikon D50 (yes, I know it is old technology) and use it in
> "P" mode which allows me to customize a few settings like ISO but
> otherwise the camera functions in Auto.
>
> If one got into a "human intervention" situation wouldn't it require you
> to get out the old exposure meter?
>
better setting than what the camera suggests. I have always used
auto-focus since my eyes have always had a problem with focusing a
camera through the optical viewfinder, unless I was using one of the SLR
cameras with the split image focusing system. With all the auto-focus
options, these days, the camera can often do a better job, and do it
quicker, but NOT always.
Stormin Mormon
year. I used to do a bunch of prints from my digicam, and
buy groceries. Now, I get to go to Walmart. As a former
Kodak employee, and the son of a Kodak retiree, it pains me
to see that Fuji is 17 cents a print, and Kodak is 28 cents
a print. And while I'm buying Fuji prints in Walmart, it's
so convenient to walk over to the food section. Buy a half
galon of 2% melanine milk and some salmonella peanut butter.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:6Vjdl.144870$_Y1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I was at my local supermarket a few days ago. It's a branch
J. Clarke
> Wegmans grocery, in the Rochester NY area did that last
> year. I used to do a bunch of prints from my digicam, and
> buy groceries. Now, I get to go to Walmart. As a former
> Kodak employee, and the son of a Kodak retiree, it pains me
> to see that Fuji is 17 cents a print, and Kodak is 28 cents
> a print. And while I'm buying Fuji prints in Walmart, it's
> so convenient to walk over to the food section. Buy a half
> galon of 2% melanine milk
When did Wal-Mart carry "melamine milk"? You'd do better to avoid
Oreos, which _are_ on the list, than Wal-Mart's milk, which is not.
But even then you only need to avoid them if you bought them in Asia.
> and some salmonella peanut butter.
When did Wal-Mart start selling peanut butter made by The Peanut
Corporation of America, in their Blakeley, Georgia plant? There was
one lot, from one factory, and it was never packaged in jars and sold
to the public on supermarket shelves.
If you want to beat up Wally World beat them up for things they did,
don't make up things that they didn't do.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Neil Harrington
> In article <tPGdnYkYCtk1R-TU...@giganews.com>,
> "Neil Harrington" <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S
>>> cameras do the job much faster than most people could do it
>>> manually. Still, when you want to focus on something farther away,
>>> or closer in, than the auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to
>>> either manually focus, or 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies
>>> to aperture settings. I suspect that most DSLR users just set
>>> their camera to 'auto' until they encounter a situation that
>>> requires human intervention.
>>
>> Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users,
>> and not just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
>
> I am using a Nikon D50 (yes, I know it is old technology) and use it
It doesn't seem like such old technology to me. I still use my D70s
occasionally and that's a bit older. My D80 is better in almost all respects
but it doesn't seem to me like a vast difference in technology.
> in "P" mode which allows me to customize a few settings like ISO but
> otherwise the camera functions in Auto.
Me too. The only time I go out of P mode is when I need to choose the
aperture because depth of field is a big concern, or on some rare occasion
when I need to go to full manual. That has happened, but so rarely I can't
remember the last time I went to manual or why I needed to do that.
>
> If one got into a "human intervention" situation wouldn't it require
> you to get out the old exposure meter?
What sort of human intervention situation, for example?
Ron Hunter
Sorry, to correct you, but I got a letter from Sam's Club that some of
their peanut butter crackers (Austin brand) were involved in the recall.
Fortunately, we hadn't bought any recently, and the ones we had bought
were consumed with no ill effect.
Paul Furman
> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTU...@giganews.com...
>
>
>> Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S cameras do
>> the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still, when
>> you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than the
>> auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually focus, or
>> 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture settings. I suspect
>> that most DSLR users just set their camera to 'auto' until they encounter
>> a situation that requires human intervention.
>
> Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users, and not
> just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
>
> My first AF SLR was the original Minolta Maxxum 7000, which I think I bought
> in 1986.
My first AF SLR was medium format and almost like digital.
Polaroid SX-70 (circa 1975-ish) :-)
Then I didn't use AF again till 15 years later...
> A friend of mine was so impressed with it he bought one too. As far
> as I know, over the next 20+ years he never once took it out of Program
> mode.
>
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>> Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S cameras
>>> do the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still,
>>> when you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than
>>> the auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually
>>> focus, or 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture
>>> settings. I suspect that most DSLR users just set their camera to
>>> 'auto' until they encounter a situation that requires human
>>> intervention.
>>
>> Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users,
>> and not just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
>>
>> My first AF SLR was the original Minolta Maxxum 7000, which I think I
>> bought in 1986.
>
> My first AF SLR was medium format and almost like digital.
> Polaroid SX-70 (circa 1975-ish) :-)
> Then I didn't use AF again till 15 years later...
Oops, make that 25 years later...
Twibil
> > Wegmans grocery, in the Rochester NY area did that last
> > year. I used to do a bunch of prints from my digicam, and
> > buy groceries. Now, I get to go to Walmart. As a former
> > Kodak employee, and the son of a Kodak retiree, it pains me
> > to see that Fuji is 17 cents a print, and Kodak is 28 cents
> > a print. And while I'm buying Fuji prints in Walmart, it's
> > so convenient to walk over to the food section. Buy a half
> > galon of 2% melanine milk and some salmonella peanut butter.
>
> When did Wal-Mart start selling peanut butter made by The Peanut
> Corporation of America, in their Blakeley, Georgia plant? There was
> one lot, from one factory, and it was never packaged in jars and sold
> to the public on supermarket shelves.
>
> If you want to beat up Wally World beat them up for things they did,
> don't make up things that they didn't do.
Note: Ser Young's post contained a minimal amount of what's known on
the ghetto streets as "satire".
Learning to recognise it without having Tina Fey along to hold your
hand can open your horizons to a whole new world of humor.
~Pete