Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 24 vs 36 exposure debate

Subject: Re: [OM] 24 vs 36 exposure debate
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 13:57:45 +0000
At 18:07 1/1/02, Albert wrote:

FUD Dispell::  Someone told me pictures taken from a 36roll is worse quality
than a 24, because of the roll size??  I can't imagine this being true??
Someone dispell this FUD for me??  Thanks.

Any explanation as to why?
This is pure, unadulterated, Urban Legend. Look up professional 35mm films. All of them are 36 exposure *only* except Kodak's color negative "Law Enforcement" film (LE100/400/800) which comes in 12 and 24 exp. short rolls. Also used by insurance adjusters. LE100/400/800 are the old Ektapress PJ100/400/800 films; compare their data sheets! [If you liked Ektapress, buy the "LE" films.]

Been using 36 exp. rolls for some time and cannot tell any difference between them and the occasional 24 exp. rolls used when I cannot get the longer ones. Interesting that you would only find the longer rolls in Taiwan. I can only find the shorter ones locally for consumer films.

If you put a plain red brick on top of a power meter, it slows the meter down and reduces the electric bill. Pangs of conscience doing this? Use half a brick.

-- John


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz