Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: re: Camera Vibration and Sharpness (photo labs)
Message-ID: <527@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Mar-85 10:44:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.527
Posted: Sat Mar 23 10:44:54 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 07:00:43 EST
References: <330@lcuxc.UUCP> <381@wjvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 32
Summary: 

In article <381@wjvax.UUCP> ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) writes:
>
>I guess the moral is, there are labs, and there are labs. 
> ...
>My best results have been with an industrial quality photo lab
>in this area. 
> ...
>For normal stuff, you can't go wrong with Kodak.

I wonder if other people are as dissatisfied with Kodak's quality for
color enlargements as I?

I've found the difference between Kodak and a professional color lab to be
remarkable. It is evident Kodak (at least the lab in their  San Francisco area)
does not take the time to get the color right and focus just perfectly
like a reputable color lab does. However, I pay for it; the color lab
costs about twice as much as Kodak. So I use Kodak for snapshot enlargements
and the color lab for my more serious photography.
-- 


Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /