Re: Levels & Curves

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <3C2B12D3.3020300@ampsc.com>, Arthur Entlich 
<artistic@ampsc.com> writes
>Let's see, 1.5 million divided by 38 exposures (I'm giving you those two
>extra you get on a roll) equals 39,473 rolls of film, at, let's say even
>$4 each (with processing??) (not even thinking about prints), comes to
>$157,894 minimal film/processing costs.  Also, even assuming you have
>used the one camera body for 25 years, that's nearly 1600 rolls a year
>for every year or about $6300 a year in film and processing. Are you
>sure you don't wish to revamp that number, or did you perhaps convert
>your camera into a motion picture device?  Maybe you do a lot of
>multiple exposure frames?
>
>I'd suggest that if those numbers are correct, you should write Olympus
>about this and I am sure they would give you a free digital camera (at
>least) just to use your story in their ads.
>
Actually the numbers are correct Art, or as close as my estimates can 
be, although your assessment of the rate is somewhat more conservative 
than the reality of the situation.

Rather than 1.5million shots over 25 years, it was closer to 1.25million 
in about 7 years and 250,000 in the remaining years.  During those early 
years I worked part time as a professional photographer in a very high 
throughput business.  The processing costs weren't my problem but, in 
the scheme of things, were trivial.  200 rolls a week was quite a slow 
week and I mainly used my OM-1 because I felt more comfortable with it 
than any of the "staff" cameras, which were mainly Nikon as I recall. 
(The company I worked for had the Nikon franchise in the UK at the time, 
amongst other things.)

The problem I found was that taking so many blatantly commercial photos 
on a rapid basis was the ruin of any creative skills I had.  When I look 
back at the photos I took before taking that job on I am often amazed 
that I made them - it took years to come close to that level of art 
again, if I ever have.

BTW.  I was not alone in that business running so many shots through a 
camera.  One of my colleagues had the baseplate of an M-4 replaced by 
Leica FOC - because he literally wore through it!

Just to balance things out a little, I supplemented my OM-1 with an 
OM-2, although I reserved that camera for my own private work, so it 
never took anything like as many photos.  I then replaced that with an 
OM-4. That has probably taken something like 30,000 shots in total, and 
has been returned for service 5 (yes FIVE) times.  The main difference 
between the OM-1 and the OM-4?  They replaced a lot of the unreliable 
mechanics with highly reliable electronics.  ;-)
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.