Re: APS Sucks.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:13:56 -0800, Dale DePriest
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


>Digitals are much more expensive on the front end and eat batteries or 
>require frequent recharges. They still have made few inroads into the 
>not computer savy groups.

I admit to running around in pretty geeky circles, but all the sales
reports I've seen say otherwise.  See my other post for a quote from
Kodak on the subject.

As the old line goes, a technology used by all of your friends is not
mainstream.  A technology used by all of your friends' parents _is_
mainstream.  When I just surfed to http://www.walmart.com, the top
banner read:  "Order 4x6 Prints of Your Digital Photos.  Just 26c each
-- every day."

>> So in my mind, we're back to square "A" as in _A_dvanced Photo System.
>> APS has some nice film handling and recording features.  At least in
>> theory -- the last time I brought a roll of APS into my local 
>> Walgreens, they ignored the H/C/P settings and printed everything as 
>> a 4x6.  Twice.
>Try Longs, they do fine.

Where I live, Longs is a jewelers.  Walgreens is simply the closest
place that offers 1 hour APS service.  I do have other alternatives,
including two good labs nearby.  For that matter, next door to
Walgreens is a grocery store with a Konica processing drop-off box.  I
tried them once as well.  Not only did they fail to provide next day
service as promised, but the "free replacement film" they included was
35mm!  It took a call to the manager to get a replacement APS roll.

>Your choice, but the PQI does help under some conditions so the 
>percentage of pictures is better. Digitals are not the average 
>housewife's choice.

None of the processors I've tried uses the POI data.  Instead they use
the same correction features for APS as they do for 35mm color prints
For example, see: http://www.dalelabs.com/aps.html.

-- 
Michael Benveniste -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250.  Use this email 
address only to submit mail for evaluation.