Prev: Inaccurate font after scanning
Next: Free internet fax service around the world!.
From: Norm Dresner on 23 Jan 2008 09:36
What some people/organizations won't do to protect me is remarkable.

I've been going thru a pile of old print rolls to scan the negatives and
came across a few rolls that were submitted at the "local" supermarket for
"Kodak" processing. I have no doubt that Kodak really did the processing,
but what they did to the negatives is truly remarkable.

Not only are the negatives cut into segments of four, each one has a paper
strip laminated to the edge so that you can handle the strip without
touching the negatives. That's cool, though a pain to remove for scanning.

But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic sheet, I
guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this, I
guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to order
reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of the
strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.

Boy do I feel protected!

TIA

Norm

From: Guillaume Dargaud on 28 Jan 2008 13:09
> Not only are the negatives cut into segments of four, each one has a paper
> strip laminated to the edge so that you can handle the strip without
> touching the negatives. That's cool, though a pain to remove for
> scanning.
There's a way to remove those with a swift tearing motion. Took me a while
to get it right.

> But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
> strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic sheet,
> I
> guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this, I
> guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
> probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
> order
> reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of the
> strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.

Never seen such an idiotic protection. How much sharpness do you loose ?
What if there's some hair caught under it ?
--
Guillaume Dargaud
http://www.gdargaud.net/


From: Norm Dresner on 29 Jan 2008 08:07
Responses in-line
Norm
"Guillaume Dargaud" <use_the_form_on_my_contact_page(a)www.gdargaud.net> wrote
in message news:fnl5oh$826$1(a)ccpntc8.in2p3.fr...
|> Not only are the negatives cut into segments of four, each one has a
paper
| > strip laminated to the edge so that you can handle the strip without
| > touching the negatives. That's cool, though a pain to remove for
| > scanning.
| There's a way to remove those with a swift tearing motion. Took me a while
| to get it right.

Yeah, but I still haven't mastered it and occassionally leave a thin
section along the edge that has to be scraped off, thereby greatly
increasing the chance for damaging the negative

|
| > But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
| > strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic
sheet,
| > I
| > guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this,
I
| > guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
| > probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
| > order
| > reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of
the
| > strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.
|
| Never seen such an idiotic protection. How much sharpness do you loose ?
| What if there's some hair caught under it ?

Sharpness is definitely lost, but there's an even worse thing:
distortion caused by the applied layers not laying perfectly flat and
puckering. YUCK!

| --
| Guillaume Dargaud
| http://www.gdargaud.net/
|
|

From: Happy Traveler on 31 Jan 2008 17:46
The Joe I-know-what-I-am-doing will never have his negatives 'processed' at
a grocery store. Unless you really want those cheap 4x6 prints, send it to a
pro lab, with instructions to leave the negative strip uncut and intact.
It's worth the trouble. You will be able to select the scanning resolution
and some other parameters. There won't be anything glued or attached and
there won't be any scratches or fingerprints either. And when you are done
post-processing your scans and find your gems, they will take your files and
print from them too.

"Norm Dresner" <ndrez(a)att.net> wrote in message
news:ThIlj.478910$kj1.230103(a)bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
to remove for scanning.
>
> But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
> strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic sheet,
> I
> guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this, I
> guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
> probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
> order
> reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of the
> strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.


From: Norm Dresner on 1 Feb 2008 08:18
Even though the processing was via a "grocery store", it was genuine,
one-week turnaround Kodak processing.

There were two rolls out of hundreds that were processed that way because of
expediency and that was about 6 years ago. We've had the envelope with the
prints and negatives sitting in cartons since then and we're just getting
around to going through them and scanning negatives so I can reprint/enlarge
desirable pictures. I've learned and in the last few years I get negatives
developed at only known reputable outlets. But I wanted to warn anyone who
might be seduced into doing something like this what the dangers were.

Norm

"Happy Traveler" <happy_traveler(a)abc.net> wrote in message
news:W4OdnUblGobeYz3anZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
| The Joe I-know-what-I-am-doing will never have his negatives 'processed'
at
| a grocery store. Unless you really want those cheap 4x6 prints, send it to
a
| pro lab, with instructions to leave the negative strip uncut and intact.
| It's worth the trouble. You will be able to select the scanning resolution
| and some other parameters. There won't be anything glued or attached and
| there won't be any scratches or fingerprints either. And when you are done
| post-processing your scans and find your gems, they will take your files
and
| print from them too.
|
| "Norm Dresner" <ndrez(a)att.net> wrote in message
| news:ThIlj.478910$kj1.230103(a)bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| to remove for scanning.
| >
| > But it's what else they did that really set me screaming: Each negative
| > strip is laminated front and back with a (not-quite) clear plastic
sheet,
| > I
| > guess as additional "protection" against errant fingers. They did this,
I
| > guess, as an alternative to the traditional slip-in sleeves. This is
| > probably okay for Joe I-don't-know-what-I'm-doing who's only going to
| > order
| > reprints, but it's incredibly potentially damaging to the flatness of
the
| > strip because of the heat and/or adhesive used to laminate the sheets.
|
|

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Inaccurate font after scanning
Next: Free internet fax service around the world!.