Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie )
Newsgroups: net.rec.photo
Subject: Re: Re: Good Films Re: 5247
Message-ID: <4547@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 11-Sep-84 17:40:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.4547
Posted: Tue Sep 11 17:40:39 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 02:16:26 EDT
References: <43@ism70.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 10

Sorry, but I've never been overly fond of Eastman color for movies either.
Sometimes professional means cheap, too!  Professionals don't always go
with the highest quality because they've got to keep their profit margin.
Motion picture film is not always balanced for Tungsten, just usually.
You can even get daylight Super-8, you just got to stick the little key
in the hole to make the 85 filter get out of the way.

I beg to differ.  Look at National Geographic, or any magazine that the
photographers list what film they were using.  Look at what contract
photographers use.  A majority use Kodachrome and Ektachrome.  It is
a professional film.  Ektachrome wins out on pros who do their own
developing because E-6 is one of the handier chemistries.

Gaffer's tape is a professional tape, but I don't use it on my desk top.

-Ron