 |
|
|
|
Next: Hung by the Neck
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:55 pm
Post subject: HDR /and/ Kodak
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
+ After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
effort
on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
perfect...
for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
it was no longer economically feasible(?).
More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
range...
the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
agree
we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
itself -
to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
definitely
is photographic art though.
END |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posts: 150
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
stuseven wrote:
> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> effort
> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> perfect...
WHAT? It made about 40% of my photos look impossibly bad, and the
remaining 60% merely wrong. It looked like a totally badly
done unsharp mask ... halos around everything!
Doug McDonald |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:55 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven wrote:
> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> effort
> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> perfect...
> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>
> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
> range...
> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
> agree
> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
> itself -
> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
> definitely
> is photographic art though.
>
> END
I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
few). This is the result
http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.
The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
(or more photographic, compared to photoshop). >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:22 am
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 8, 2:15 pm, jerry_kean wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:39:55 -0700, acl wrote:
> >On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven wrote:
> >> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> >> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> >> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> >> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> >> effort
> >> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> >> perfect...
> >> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
> >> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
> >> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>
> >> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
> >> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
> >> range...
> >> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
> >> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
> >> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
> >> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
> >> agree
> >> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
> >> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
> >> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
> >> itself -
> >> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
> >> definitely
> >> is photographic art though.
>
> >> END
>
> >I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
> >DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
> >when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
> >of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
> >converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
> >few). This is the result
> >http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
> >I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
> >(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
> >conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
> >adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.
>
> >The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
> >and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
> >(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).
>
> DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
> across in any category of software.
Yes, it's big, slow and clunky. And overpriced.
> You can get the same or better capabilities
> in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40.
No, in fact you don't. >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 08, 2007
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:15 am
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:39:55 -0700, acl wrote:
>On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven wrote:
>> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
>> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
>> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
>> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
>> effort
>> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
>> perfect...
>> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
>> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
>> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>>
>> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
>> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
>> range...
>> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
>> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
>> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
>> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
>> agree
>> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
>> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
>> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
>> itself -
>> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
>> definitely
>> is photographic art though.
>>
>> END
>
>I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
>DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
>when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
>of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
>converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
>few). This is the result
>http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
>I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
>(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
>conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
>adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.
>
>The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
>and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
>(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).
DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs. >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:02 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> WHAT? It made about 40% of my photos look impossibly bad, and the
> remaining 60% merely wrong. It looked like a totally badly
> done unsharp mask ... halos around everything!
>
> Doug McDonald
+ right Doug... or, at least, in it's last dying embodiments...
various
things only retaining the name "Perfect Touch" gave any new users a
bad taste for the service, and, those - such as myself, who saved
pennies
and nickels just to afford another set of these gems - soon learned of
its
demise as a viable service - thus, indeed, my reason for lamenting
such.
Granted, it was not geared for pro photographers... in fact,
unless you
used one of their one-time-use film cameras, chances of getting
results
were severely hampered. In that sense, it is unfair to even mention
that
service in this newsgroup, but I have done so, instead, respecting the
breakthrough consumer service Kodak's Perfect Touch once represented. >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:07 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
> DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
> when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
> of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
> converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
> few). This is the resulthttp://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
+ yum yum... some of the nicest out of the camera digital
conversion
Ive seen - thank you for sharing ! >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:15 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
> across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
> in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
> adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
> make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
> years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
> back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
> adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
> does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
> it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
> ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
> bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
> semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
> smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs
+ LOL... well... OP's experience is limited to freeware and/or
drugstore processing...
its nice to know, somewhere out there, someone is actually producing
correct
enchaneware for purists and the very knowledgeable. >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
stuseven waves to Mr. Baird...
I sometimes hear this echo in here... a living Kodak
representative...
gee, neat 
Well Mr. Baird, my comments are made from experience, though,
not also expertise respecting the full range of available Kodak
services.
The "Perfect Touch" print service to which I so often refer was
something
available at several local grocery/drug store outlets... drop off one-
time-use
film camera / return in 3-5 days for delicious color prints. It
simply is
nowhere to be found in my area anymore, and Columbus (Ohio) is a major
market city.
The digital age is here, and I dont expect Kodak to revive this
film
oriented service... as I commented initially... its likely considered
a
financial liability in these times.
I will give the Kodak online digital service a try, and thank you
for
your reply.
*** cool deal... I just signed up at Kodak Gallery, and got a free 20
print offer !
end
On Oct 10, 5:31 pm, "Newsnet" wrote:
> Greetings Stuseven,
>
> Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and is
> included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as you
> can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went into
> the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
> picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.
>
> I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature. Go
> to the following URL to find locations that offer it.
>
> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010/1306&...
>
> Talk to you soon,
>
> Ron Baird
> Eastman Kodak Company >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:35 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
+ I felt so bad about this reply, I just had to respond again...
I did, in fact, check out the DxO software and site mentioned by
this poster... if you read "the fine print" you begin to understand
-why- we see comments like this about DxO and other... I know
from experience, anything more than a 1200x800 image can start
to slow down pentium-4 or older... the man with the DxO suggestion
is running an Apple-Quad setup... spitting out processed prints from
mega-pixel originals every ten seconds... I can spit out about ONE
of these in an afternoon... thats if I just let the computer run and
go
shopping / library / visit friends / etcetera So... DxO... as
with other
of the extravegant items so often mentioned here, may not in fact be
for every camera enthusiast quite yet. Good, again, to see that such
software is out there... does produce terrific output !
> > DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
> > across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
> > in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
> > adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
> > make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
> > years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
> > back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
> > adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
> > does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
> > it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
> > ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
> > bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
> > semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
> > smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:00 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 11, 3:35 am, stuseven wrote:
> + I felt so bad about this reply, I just had to respond again...
> I did, in fact, check out the DxO software and site mentioned by
> this poster... if you read "the fine print" you begin to understand
> -why- we see comments like this about DxO and other... I know
> from experience, anything more than a 1200x800 image can start
> to slow down pentium-4 or older... the man with the DxO suggestion
> is running an Apple-Quad setup... spitting out processed prints from
> mega-pixel originals every ten seconds... I can spit out about ONE
> of these in an afternoon... thats if I just let the computer run and
> go
> shopping / library / visit friends / etcetera So... DxO... as
> with other
> of the extravegant items so often mentioned here, may not in fact be
> for every camera enthusiast quite yet. Good, again, to see that such
> software is out there... does produce terrific output !
Hey, if you're referring to me by "the man with the DxO suggestion", I
actually run a laptop with 512MB RAM and a 1.5GHz processor. Let me
tell you, DxO is *glacially* slow on it! Furthermore, its output is ok
to look at on a screen, or print at 10x15cm, but its raw conversion is
atrocious: I can easily see the lack of detail at A4 size (ie 20x30cm
or so) at low ISOs, and at high ISOs, forget it: it turns my photos
into mush.
I only use it for mass conversions for the web, as I said. Its main
strength for me is the automatic "lighting adjustment" and colour; but
if I'm going to put in some effort into the image, and/or print it, I
don't use DxO. It's just for automation, which it does better than
anything else I've seen, but its output is usually not something you
can work with (ie it looks ok, but it's ruined as far as further
processing is concerned). >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:31 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Greetings Stuseven,
Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and is
included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as you
can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went into
the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.
I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature. Go
to the following URL to find locations that offer it.
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010/1306&p...ocale=e
Talk to you soon,
Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company
"stuseven" wrote in message
>+ After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
> effort
> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
> perfect...
> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
>
> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
> range...
> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
> agree
> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
> itself -
> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
> definitely
> is photographic art though.
>
>
> END
> >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:05 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Oct 11, 10:58 pm, stuseven wrote:
> + Sorry "DxO guy"... I messed that up seriously... it was, in fact
> another
> photographer who uses DxO (Ken Rockwell) to whom I was referring....
> ...you have the nice pictures from Genoa(?) or similar... but it was
> Mr. Rockwell
> (I think Ive got it right finally) who had commented on spitting out
> an image
> every ten seconds on his Mac quad setup... obviously, something not
> possible on a laptop, or most laptops Ive seen.
Argh! You confused me with Ken Rockwell?!
Thanks for your kind words on the Genoa shots, by the way. Although if
you go there you'll find that all you have to do is point the camera
(which is all I did, I didn't have time for serious photography). >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:52 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
+ Sorry "DxO guy"... I messed that up seriously... it was, in fact
another
photographer who uses DxO (Ken Rockwell) to whom I was referring....
...you have the nice pictures from Genoa(?) or similar... but it was
Mr. Rockwell
(I think Ive got it right finally) who had commented on spitting out
an image
every ten seconds on his Mac quad setup... obviously, something not
possible on a laptop, or most laptops Ive seen.
> Hey, if you're referring to me by "the man with the DxO suggestion", I
> actually run a laptop with 512MB RAM and a 1.5GHz processor. Let me
> tell you, DxO is *glacially* slow on it! Furthermore, its output is ok
> to look at on a screen, or print at 10x15cm, but its raw conversion is
> atrocious: I can easily see the lack of detail at A4 size (ie 20x30cm
> or so) at low ISOs, and at high ISOs, forget it: it turns my photos
> into mush.
>
> I only use it for mass conversions for the web, as I said. Its main
> strength for me is the automatic "lighting adjustment" and colour; but
> if I'm going to put in some effort into the image, and/or print it, I
> don't use DxO. It's just for automation, which it does better than
> anything else I've seen, but its output is usually not something you
> can work with (ie it looks ok, but it's ruined as far as further
> processing is concerned). >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 05, 2007
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:21 pm
Post subject: Re: HDR /and/ Kodak [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi Stuseven,
Actually, the processing service is still available. Whether or not it can
be easily found at local retailers is something else. For a review of the
feature, however, try the site I offered for film using the URL I included
below. This relates to both digital and film.
Actually, it is a nice service and when we initially offered it as well as
today, we were able to scan the negative and adjust the color and quality of
the exposure to help improve the results. Later, when digital came along, we
included it when printing from a digital file. If there is one thing that
Kodak can do well it is color imaging.
Talk to you soon, Stuseven,
Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company
"stuseven" wrote in message
> stuseven waves to Mr. Baird...
>
> I sometimes hear this echo in here... a living Kodak
> representative...
> gee, neat
>
> Well Mr. Baird, my comments are made from experience, though,
> not also expertise respecting the full range of available Kodak
> services.
> The "Perfect Touch" print service to which I so often refer was
> something
> available at several local grocery/drug store outlets... drop off one-
> time-use
> film camera / return in 3-5 days for delicious color prints. It
> simply is
> nowhere to be found in my area anymore, and Columbus (Ohio) is a major
> market city.
>
> The digital age is here, and I dont expect Kodak to revive this
> film
> oriented service... as I commented initially... its likely considered
> a
> financial liability in these times.
>
> I will give the Kodak online digital service a try, and thank you
> for
> your reply.
>
> *** cool deal... I just signed up at Kodak Gallery, and got a free 20
> print offer !
> end
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 10, 5:31 pm, "Newsnet" wrote:
>> Greetings Stuseven,
>>
>> Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and
>> is
>> included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as
>> you
>> can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went
>> into
>> the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
>> picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.
>>
>> I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature.
>> Go
>> to the following URL to find locations that offer it.
>>
>> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010/1306&...
>>
>> Talk to you soon,
>>
>> Ron Baird
>> Eastman Kodak Company
> >> Stay informed about: HDR /and/ Kodak |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Why to avoid Kodak cameras - Kodak quits BBB - Anyone considering buying a Kodak camera should reconsider their choice. There are better companies to deal with. Eastman Kodak (EK), the company famed for generations of priceless photos, has resigned from the national Council of Better Busines...
Kodak does not like me.... Please Help... -
Ron - Kodak guy - Just bought a C743 and got it home before noticing box says Windows 2000 SP4 & XP. NO 98SE etc. Is that correct? If so then I guess I have to decide if spending the money on XP to upgrade my daughter's pc (PIII-733Mz-256Ram) is worth it given my..
Kodak P712 - Hello, This camera looks like it might work for me....just starting out with digital........long time camera user N-90 last camera......this will be my first digital. Seems to have everythng I need - Image Stabilization, RAW,JPG,TIF. Great..
Kodak DX4530 - I have been having problems with this bloody awful camera ever since I bought it. Usually, at random intervals the camera will cease to function and freeze with the lens partly retracted. Mostly this can be overcome by switching off, removing the SD.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
