[MF3D.FORUM:373] Re: MF Ektachrome Infrared

[Tom Deering <tmd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

What I meant was, at $17 a roll, this film is roughly 6 times more 
expensive than, say, Velvia.  Or to put it another way, the cost of 2 
frames of infrared is about the same as an entire roll of Velvia.  I 
can't see wasting such expensive emulsion due to spacing problems.

Tom


On 4/2/00, Paul Talbot wrote:
>Tom Deering wrote:
>
>Re:  [EIR]
>
>> This looks interesting for sure.  If I did it, I might repackage it
>> using 120 paper.  At $20 a roll, I'd hate to lose any of that
>> emulsion to spacing problems.
>
>I was thinking kind of the opposite.  It's only costing $2
>extra to double the number of potential shots.  A 120 roll sets
>you back $2.83 per shot.  You can afford to be super-conservative
>on the 220 advance technique and still come out ahead.  In fact,
>if you only get SEVEN shots on the 220, that seventh shot, at $2
>for the film, is less than the cost of each of the 6 on the 120.
>(You need to get more than one extra shot when factoring the cost
>of processing, however.)
---
tmd@xxxxxxxxxxx    http://www.deering.org