>From: julian_davies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>I guess they are useful for people with a lot of copying to do and no scanner?
I do a LOT of copy work, yet can't bring myself to use the 250. I recently shot
over 500 frames for an artist. I estimate that it would have taken more time to
monkey with the loader in the darkroom than it did to change film 15 times.
Plus, bulk film is not really any cheaper. Plus, there's more that can go
wrong, which I don't really want to risk on a "pay job."
I think it would be most useful with a motor drive for sports. You know, where
the ball is snapped, and you hold down the button during the entire play, then
send your editor the ONE FRAME that shows the ball inches from the receiver's
fingers.
I got it when I thought I was going to do a lot of VR work for realtors. That
turned out to be a real chintzy market, and digital progressed to the point
that film for such work is pointless. (It's amazing, but a realtor who will
make $60,000 on a $10 million house won't spend $1000 on photography...)
>I have a colleague who owns a processing shop, and he reckons he can get the
>minilab to take 10m continuous film...
Any reasonable processing machine will take 10m. In fact, they typically splice
that much together when they do a run. Haven't you ever gotten film back that
had half a frame of someone else's photo spliced to half a frame of yours (from
beginning or end, obviously)?
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
: Buy My Step Van! <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/van>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|