From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:29:31 -0400, ASAAR <caught(a)> wrote:

> As long as there's demand for pro photographers shooting MF and
>larger, I think that there'll be at least a few labs that use
>enlargers. My guess is that most by now scan the film and print
>digitally, and that's all that I've seen in local labs for the last
>10 years or so. Anyone that still shoots film probably knows a lot
>more about this.

At the Orlando Camera Club, they have monthly competitions. The
categories are color prints, color slides, monochrome print, and
digital (on-line). Several of the members are still using film. One
of the most proficient members shoots nothing but medium format.

The digital group was added only recently. While the color print and
monochrome print category can be captured by digital cameras, the
members who always seem to get the highest score in the judging are
shooting film. I'm not inferring that the get the highest scores
because they are using film, though.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Turco on
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Eat "you are" heart out? What kind of pidgin English is that?
> Gary Eickmeier

Hello, Gary:

Actually, Rita Berkowitz is an infamous troller, who thinks the
"fish" that she catches are pigeons, not "pidgins." <g>

John Turco <jtur(a)>
From: Neil Harrington on

"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008(a)> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> I am going to part with my much-loved Durst A300 (it almost breaks my
>> heart to do so, but I know I'll never go back to film and it's just
>> sitting there in the closet) and I'm wondering about how to manage
>> shipping if I decide to put it up on eBay. It's 35mm only, but it's
>> not a light thing like most 35mm enlargers -- it is relatively
>> massive, weighs about 45 pounds. I don't have the original carton, or
>> any other box it would fit in, and I'm wondering how to get it
>> packaged. I think Staples (which is also the local UPS center) has
>> some sort of packaging service but I don't know how suitable it would
>> be for shipping an enlarger.
>> Any thoughts on this?
> Easy project. Just disassemble it to where you feel comfortable with how
> well you can fit it in a box you have on hand. You then shrink-wrap each
> piece so that you can secure it to a piece of Styrofoam or another piece
> that is shrink wrapped. The key is that you should have eliminated every
> possibility of movement even if you sere to drop the package. If you
> don't
> have a roll of shrink-wrap, you can use Glad Wrap in a pinch. Under no
> circumstances let Staples pack it as they will throw it in a box with foam
> peanuts that will guarantee a broken item due to movement.

OK, thanks. I'll still need to get a large, really sturdy box of some kind.
That's the sort of thing I thought Staples might have.


From: Neil Harrington on

"William E. Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

> Film scanner + computer = enlarger. - Is there really any market for these
> things anymore?

Evidently there is, though very little. I just now looked and there are
still listings for 'em on eBay, and a pitifully small number of bids. Far
fewer than when I looked at the enlarger listings there a year or so ago.
And just one bid at $150 for a Leitz Focomat ( ! ) with about 14 hours to

What I now think I'll do instead is just give it to my local community
college, which still has a photography course using 35mm.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message

> But as a verb, grok means "recognize and process correctly". As in "Most
> browsers can't grok SRV records." It's a term from the Unix world,
> possibly
> originating at MIT. (I say that only because I think that's where I first
> heard it.)

David Littleboy is correct. It's a word invented by the SF writer Heinlein.