They are trying to match Sports Illustrated. 14000 shots for 6 usable photos. Seems like a surveillance camera could do about as well. On the other side I will always remember the Graflex ad that was titled "One good negative. Seven great pictures." It showed a 4x5 negative and 7 crops that produced 7 entirely different excellent photos made from it. 1 shot for 7 usable photos. Seems like a better philosophy to me. I always wonder how many dud 8x10 negatives and transparencies there are out there? Not a whole lot of them I would guess. Expensive makes you try harder to do it right.
--
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. 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?
Shel
[Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you're not interested in digital optimization of images on the
computer,
then by all means go out and get the MZ-S, a wonderful film camera. If however you're interested in having control over your photographic output, then I recommend you seriously consider digital. I recently have started
the
move into digital, after shooting slides for years, I had no idea as to
the
time digital would take, but I sure like the results & the long term cost savings. During a recent 10 day shoot during which I shot 1400 images, I figure I saved, in slide processing costs, the better part of the cost of the *ist D.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
