Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Why RAW?

  1. #21
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,902

    Default Re: Why RAW?

    talk about Nat Geo assignment, I remember many years back, read an article about Nat Geo photographer, bring back a few shoe boxes of 35mm slides, that is only just for one article...

    anyway, I would not considering this as machine-gunning too, cos all the images are usable, not anyhow shoot.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: Why RAW?

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    talk about Nat Geo assignment, I remember many years back, read an article about Nat Geo photographer, bring back a few shoe boxes of 35mm slides, that is only just for one article...

    anyway, I would not considering this as machine-gunning too, cos all the images are usable, not anyhow shoot.
    Hmmmm... I just did an estimate. I believe the plastic boxes Kodak used to pack thin Kodachrome 24x36 cardboard-mounted slides make for a quite efficient packing of slides, where 1 box = 36 slides. Taking such a box (just found one last weekend while cleaning up) and comparing it to a shoebox, I estimate about 1200 slides per shoebox. (Admittely there are bigger shoeboxes.) This would translate to almost one shoebox of slides per wedding. I wonder how many shoeboxes per day did the Nat Geo photographer fill?

    Anyway, no offence. It seems we just have different frames of reference.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •