Charles Loeven <cpl49@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake
thusly:
>
> I never understood that statement about film being cheap.
The second half of the sentence is missing:
...is cheap *compared to the other costs of the shoot*.
If you spend $15000 on a trip to Nepal or Antarctica, or hire Elle
McPherson for $50000/day, then the cost of film is negligible by
comparison, and you'd be a fool to take only one shot and hope you got
it right first time.
For me (a struggling amateur), film *is* expensive, but when I take a
once-in-a-decade holiday in two weeks, I'll be burning more film in
ten days than I have so far all year.
cjb.
--
------------------ Linux hackers do it in protected mode -------------------
| Christopher Biggs - Software Engineer, Stallion Technologies, Australia |
| chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Ph+61-7-3270-4266 - Fx+61-7-3270-4245 - PGP&MIME |
------- Mathematics and alcohol don't mix --- Never drink and derive -------
< 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 >
|