Re: Levels & Curves

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

 > 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.)
 >


That is truly amazing!

I'm serious... did you ever consider telling Olympus about this.  I
think a camera that survived that kind of punishment would make great ad
copy (even if their current model can't come close!).  I'm amazed your
thumb and index fingers still work!  That's not only an incredible film
transport system, but shutter, meter, etc.  And considering the OM
series were sold for their small lightweight characteristics, its even
more amazing.


 > 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.
 >


Yes, our "eye" is certainly easily tainted by repeated and regular
"exposure" to any situation.  I'm sure police crime lab photographers
tend to have an odd style of family photos ;-)

   The main difference
 > between the OM-1 and the OM-4?  They replaced a lot of the unreliable
 > mechanics with highly reliable electronics.  ;-)


Yes, sadly I have parallel experiences in the Nikon line.

Art



-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.