Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[RogerMillerPhoto@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/22/2001 3:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
artistic@ampsc.com writes:


> stuart@shaws2000.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> >> 
> >> Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days...
> > 
> > 
> > No :-))
> > 
>
> My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. 
> Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove 
> problematic in certain parts of the world.  I'd think (why would I know? 
> ;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, 
> "convenient", as the "instant" films used to be.


The porn industry is a legitimate business and I wouldn't think there'd be a 
problem finding a lab that would process film for it.  As I've said before, 
shooting on film gives you more ways to make money from your work, so a pro 
would not typically shoot with a digital camera.  I suspect that most porn 
shot in digital format is done with video cameras by husbands and wives for 
their own personal consumption.  Pros would want to shoot film, if it'd make 
more money for them.

Well, I guess I get to tie the knot in this thread.  We're off topic and I 
don't want to cause Tony any more grief than he already has with other 
issues.  And I certainly don't want him to banish me to wherever he banished 
"Dickey!"  

Cheers,

Roger