Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
The OP said the stuff is not designed for printing, but scans well. That firmly positions his intended method of printing this film, and the method he intends those interested in this process to use. One could do many things. But who will? And why, then, was only scanning mentioned in the OP?

What is so hard about putting the post where it belongs, on DPUG? Everything that is OK here is OK there, but not the other way around. It would also help DPUG to grow with new unique content.

I specifically tried to be polite about stating the obvious, yet you basically told me to shut my mouth and accused me of going out of my way to engage in a witch hunt, which is not true. I opened the thread because I was interested, not to seek and destroy digital-oriented content.

As for what I'd prefer the moderators to do, that is obvious. IMO, it should be moved to DPUG if it is going to be presented as written. If not, then the OP should remove his caveat in regards to the usefulness of this process. But it's their Website, not mine. And it is not like I am raising a stink about it and making demands. I just mentioned it. It would be fine to me if it was five words, or even a paragraph or two as an aside within the body of the thread, but within the OP, framing scanning as the pretty-much the way to use these films, I don't think it belongs. Why is it so hard to hear that I think this?
99.9% of this thread is about analogue movie film and the (very interesting) possibilities of using and processing it. I don't think that this would be of much interest or use to the average digital enthusiast.

And, yes, I freely admit that I scan and inkjet print all my own negs and slides (wash my mouth out...lol)...that's because, until our house move, my darkroom is in storage so I can only currently do the film processing, B&W, E6 and C41. Are you going to banish me to the dark side?