Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings



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


 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.