> Marc Lawrence wrote:
>
> >If it wasn't for the contradictory reports, I think I'd
> >be looking at the Sigma 30/1.4 at this very moment for
> >the C*non, to give me that same focal length at least.
> >I've a magazine to catch up on (the UK's 'Black & White
> >Photography', one of two photo mag's I regulary buy)
> >that has a review of it.
> >
> Moose replied:
> Perhaps you would be so kind as to pass on a summary of the results?
I shall do so (my TBR pile of mag's extends back 12
months, but I'm sure I can convince the more pedantic
parts of my mind to jump ahead some :) )
> Doesnt' matter what they write on it, all C-41 processing
> is the same. Have you looked at the negs? It's entirely
> possible that the failure was in printing and the negs
> are fine. 50-50 chances, I suppose.
Oh, yes, they were fine. They are what I used on Jeff's
website (ironically, turning one into black-and-white) for
the New Year's Day photos. Still, I paid for prints,
and the lack of care on their part and control on mine
just annoys me. Today I tried to take my photos to my
regular place, near where I work. They've gone [sigh].
I always detected a reluctance to in any way go near
digital processing. In this geographic area of
retail-saturation, I always feared their future. Still,
this other lab nearby seems to have done a reasonable
job with my weekend photos (it's a shame I can't say
the same about my own efforts).
Cheers,
Marc
Sydney, Oz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|