<LOL> So, until digital arrived, how did those without access to labs or darkrooms get their film processed and printed? Have all the labs and darkrooms gone away now that pixels have grabbed a strong toehold in the marketplace?
On Sunday I shot 110 frames on film in about four hours. Add to that about 90 digital exposures .... so that works out to about 50exposures per hour, or more than one a minute when you figure that time was needed to reload film, change the memory card, and eat a slice of pizza. If you count shmoozing with a couple of friends that works out to about one exposure every 37 seconds while I was in "shooting mode." Ohhhh .... I see what you mean about being "chuffed." ;>)) Shel > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 10/14/2004 8:32:13 PM > Subject: Re: De-Lurking and Replacement Decision > > On 14 Oct 2004 at 19:57, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > That's .... well, I was gonna say something nasty but thought better of > > it, so I'll just ask, what makes you say that one can't have control over > > their output unless one uses digital. > > For a lot of us without access to labs or darkrooms this is the case. > > > And what the heck is it with so many of > > you digi people that you seemingly MUST comment on how many hundreds of > > exposures you make? > > LOL, And what the heck is it with so many of you filmi people that you > seemingly MUST comment on how few exposures you make? > > I often comment on how many images I make using my digcam because I'm chuffed > that I now can, film and processing was a constant $$$ noose of sorts. > > Make any sense?
