P3D Dale Labs and Kodak Processing

[King3ddd@xxxxxxx]

  In a posting earlier this evening regarding Dale Labs, I neglected to 
mention 
  that the results are better suited for stereo images of half frame (nimslo) 
  or larger (5,7,or 8 sprocket) than for the viewmaster format.  This is just 
  my personal opinion though, and you may feel otherwise.  I just find that 
the 
  small VM image seems to suffer more from the slight loss of sharpness than 
do 
  the larger formats.  However, since VM stereos can not be readily 
duplicated 
  in your average photo lab or by the use of your own slide copier, (assuming 
  that you do not have access to a Repronar or an Illumitron), then, 
basically, 
  for VM, your only choice is to shoot dupes in camera or to use Dale.  
  
  As far as some of the postings regarding the lack of dependability and 
  quality of some of the slide processing labs, I have found the Kodak 
(Qualex) 
  processing lab on Route 208 in Fair Lawn, N.J. to be quite dependable.  
They 
  do alot of processing of all 3D formats and I am not aware of any problems 
  encountered by anyone using them (not to say there aren't any - I just have 
  not heard of any from the many people I know who use them).  There have 
even 
  been ocassions where one forgot to mention or ask for "do not cut - do not 
  mount" and they still, upon recognizing the 3D  format, did not cut or 
mount. 
   I sometimes have the opposite problem when I shoot full frame and send it 
  through as "normal" slides for mounting, and get it back unmounted, since 
  they think that I forgot to tell them not to mount.  I then have to explain 
  that even though it is 3D, the full frame format can be mounted without 
  destroying the pictures.  They have trouble understanding that concept, 
  despite my attempts to explain it.  This is not a problem anyone else has 
to 
  worry about, as  I have been using them for over 20 years for VM, Realist, 
  Nimslo, and full frame and they expect that all my slides are 3D, even 
though 
  there are times when I do shoot flat. (but they are rare ocassions!)  I do 
  not know if you can designate your film to be sent there if you are out of 
  the area.  I would like to hear from others whose slides are processed at 
  this plant and if you also have found them to be as reliable as I have.  
  Years ago they did realist mounting, but not anymore.
  
  Sheldon Aronowitz

---

• From: King3ddd@xxxxxxx
• Subject: P3D Dale Labs and Kodak Processing
• Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:56:04 EST

 In a posting earlier this evening regarding Dale Labs, I neglected to 
mention 
 that the results are better suited for stereo images of half frame (nimslo) 
 or larger (5,7,or 8 sprocket) than for the viewmaster format.  This is just 
 my personal opinion though, and you may feel otherwise.  I just find that 
the 
 small VM image seems to suffer more from the slight loss of sharpness than 
do 
 the larger formats.  However, since VM stereos can not be readily duplicated 
 in your average photo lab or by the use of your own slide copier, (assuming 
 that you do not have access to a Repronar or an Illumitron), then, 
basically, 
 for VM, your only choice is to shoot dupes in camera or to use Dale.  
 
 As far as some of the postings regarding the lack of dependability and 
 quality of some of the slide processing labs, I have found the Kodak 
(Qualex) 
 processing lab on Route 208 in Fair Lawn, N.J. to be quite dependable.  They 
 do alot of processing of all 3D formats and I am not aware of any problems 
 encountered by anyone using them (not to say there aren't any - I just have 
 not heard of any from the many people I know who use them).  There have even 
 been ocassions where one forgot to mention or ask for "do not cut - do not 
 mount" and they still, upon recognizing the 3D  format, did not cut or 
mount. 
  I sometimes have the opposite problem when I shoot full frame and send it 
 through as "normal" slides for mounting, and get it back unmounted, since 
 they think that I forgot to tell them not to mount.  I then have to explain 
 that even though it is 3D, the full frame format can be mounted without 
 destroying the pictures.  They have trouble understanding that concept, 
 despite my attempts to explain it.  This is not a problem anyone else has to 
 worry about, as  I have been using them for over 20 years for VM, Realist, 
 Nimslo, and full frame and they expect that all my slides are 3D, even 
though 
 there are times when I do shoot flat. (but they are rare ocassions!)  I do 
 not know if you can designate your film to be sent there if you are out of 
 the area.  I would like to hear from others whose slides are processed at 
 this plant and if you also have found them to be as reliable as I have.  
 Years ago they did realist mounting, but not anymore.
 
 Sheldon Aronowitz    

---

• From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@xxxxxxx>
• Subject: P3D Returned mail: User unknown
• Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:42:33 -0500 (EST)

The original message was received at Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:41:55 -0500 (EST)
from root@xxxxxxxxx

*** ATTENTION ***

An e-mail you sent to an Internet destination could not be delivered.

The Internet address is listed in the section labeled:
 "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----".

The reason your e-mail could not be delivered is listed in the section labeled:
 "----- Transcript of Session Follows -----".

The line beginning with "<<<" describes the specific reason your e-mail could
not be delivered.  The next line contains a second error message which is a
general translation for other e-mail servers.

Please direct further questions regarding this message to the e-mail
administrator or Postmaster at that destination.


   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to calcite.rocky.edu.:
>>> RCPT To:<photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<<< 550 <photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... User unknown
550 <photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... User unknown

Final-Recipient: RFC822; photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; calcite.rocky.edu
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 <photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:42:33 -0500 (EST)

Received: from King3ddd@xxxxxxx
    by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id y.46.1857a20 (7944)
     for <photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:41:55 -0500 (EST)
Return-path: King3ddd@xxxxxxx
From: King3ddd@xxxxxxx
Message-ID: <46.1857a20.25d65ab3@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 01:41:55 EST
Subject: P3D Dale Labs and Kodak Processing.
To: photo3-d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 38

In a posting earlier this evening regarding Dale Labs, I neglected to mention 
that the results are better suited for stereo images of half frame (nimslo) 
or larger (5,7,or 8 sprocket) than for the viewmaster format.  This is just 
my personal opinion though, and you may feel otherwise.  I just find that the 
small VM image seems to suffer more from the slight loss of sharpness than do 
the larger formats.  However, since VM stereos can not be readily duplicated 
in your average photo lab or by the use of your own slide copier, (assuming 
that you do not have access to a Repronar or an Illumitron), then, basically, 
for VM, your only choice is to shoot dupes in camera or to use Dale.  

As far as some of the postings regarding the lack of dependability and 
quality of some of the slide processing labs, I have found the Kodak (Qualex) 
processing lab on Route 208 in Fair Lawn, N.J. to be quite dependable.  They 
do alot of processing of all 3D formats and I am not aware of any problems 
encountered by anyone using them (not to say there aren't any - I just have 
not heard of any from the many people I know who use them).  There have even 
been ocassions where one forgot to mention or ask for "do not cut - do not 
mount" and they still, upon recognizing the 3D  format, did not cut or mount. 
 I sometimes have the opposite problem when I shoot full frame and send it 
through as "normal" slides for mounting, and get it back unmounted, since 
they think that I forgot to tell them not to mount.  I then have to explain 
that even though it is 3D, the full frame format can be mounted without 
destroying the pictures.  They have trouble understanding that concept, 
despite my attempts to explain it.  This is not a problem anyone else has to 
worry about, as  I have been using them for over 20 years for VM, Realist, 
Nimslo, and full frame and they expect that all my slides are 3D, even though 
there are times when I do shoot flat. (but they are rare ocassions!)  I do 
not know if you can designate your film to be sent there if you are out of 
the area.  I would like to hear from others whose slides are processed at 
this plant and if you also have found them to be as reliable as I have.  
Years ago they did realist mounting, but not anymore.

Sheldon Aronowitz   

---

---