duane hartse

Thanks for the answers. I'm more snap shooter than street shooter--I'm not a photographer nor do I think of myself that way, I'm just a guy with a camera (who's up way too late)--so it's hard for me to shake off the usual notions of which times/places/things/people are worthy of a photo and which aren't. (Came from one of those families where a camera would get pulled out a couple of times a year.) I've been carrying a camera around with me for a while now because I've read one should, but I rarely pull it out and take a picture, often because I do worry what other people will think of me. I'll have to make a conscious effort to change that. I really like Rene's picture and I'm glad circumstances led him to share it.

Rene, this is tangential to your question, but do you feel funny or get funny looks snapping a picture of your wife at the grocery store? The reason I ask is that I sometimes snap a picture or two of my young daughter at the store, but I always feel a little self-conscious about it.

<div></div>

<p><i>Thank you for reporting this buglet. The dates for the last contribution were correct, but the query was not restricted to the last 30 days.</i></p>

<p>I assume Brian must have logged on as me to check out the bug, I'm not answering myself. At least I hope not.</p>

Thank you for reporting this buglet. The dates for the last contribution were correct, but the query was not restricted to the last 30 days.

I get the following message here:

 

'You have marked 7 other photo.net members as "interesting", of whom

7 have posted on photo.net in the last 30 days'.

 

Only problem is, 2 of the 7 members haven't posted anything in over

a year.

Similiar problem with this link, which had an embedded space: http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/msystem/49.pdf

Not dead, just an extraneous comma included with the link: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/llcforweb.pdf

I don't know about where you live, but around my area it seems ISO 100 film is getting to no longer be a consumer film. It's been disappearing from drugstores, grocery stores, discount stores--I have to buy it from my local photo store. All the consumer outlets seem to want to stock these days are ISO 200, 400, and 800 films.

Hmmm. Scanning previously processed images to a picture CD costs:

 

35mm cut negatives - $2 per strip,

35mm slides - $2.50 per 4 slides

 

Now that makes some sense, as there's a little more handling with the slides. And scanning a up to 5 MB file (supposed to be good for up to 8x10 inch prints) costs $2.95 per image, regardless of whether it comes from a negative or a slide.

Oops, guess Bill already covered my point, but it's supposed to be true in any business. Show people the higher prices first.

Don't know if this will help, but one general rule of thumb when discussing prices is to start with a higher price and work down to a lower one. Supposed to make the lower price seem much more palatable.

Okay, I take a negative into to my local pro lab to get a reprint

from a negative. They scan scan the negative and make a print on

their Noritsu. I take a slide into my local pro lab to have a print

made from that. They scan the slide and make a print on the same

Noritsu. Seems pretty much the same to me. That is, until I have

to pay: $0.38 for the print from the negative, $1.50 for the print

from the slide. Can someone tell me what I'm missing here, because

I feel like I'm being taken advantage of every time I have a print

made from a slide. Problem is when I've looked online at the prices

of other labs, it looks like they do the same thing. What am I

missing?

You can read a paper on it by the researchers at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~summetj/papers/truongk-ubicomp2005.pdf

<div></div>

Pop photo has an article on this at their web site http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1545

Seems you can read the research paper at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~summetj/papers/truongk-ubicomp2005.pdf