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