l'Oreo

[Linnstaedt@xxxxxxx]

Herr Doktor,

You wrote,
>1. You could get a Realist stereo camera for less money than a Loreo.<

Yes, you can _get_ a Realist for cheap, but you can't _use_ it well!  What of
the "hidden costs" that are conveniently not mentioned?  Using a Realist
properly will require an exposure meter, so add at least $70 (up to $250!).
 Point & shoot people probably don't have an SLR, which makes for a bulky and
even more expensive "exposure meter".  Despite marketing claims, a 40 - 50
year old camera which has not been serviced to bring it up to specs, cannot
possibly satisfy a photographer.  So for cleaning & testing, add another $95
or more (that's what it costs here in Ft. Worth).  Cost so far for USING the
Realist is over $250.  And that's if you don't want a case ($25), which is
included with the Loreo.  FLASH?  It's built into the Loreo.  For the
Realist, be ready to shell out more money for an electronic flash, adapter,
and mounting bracket.
Oh! you wanted a viewer so you can _see_ those shots?  It's included with the
Loreo.  Unless you want to "free view" your slides, the Realist 2061 viewer
will cost you $99, or you can go with the SV1available light viewer for
$2.95+shipping (from Reel 3D).

<2. I get Sensia 100 36 exp. for $4.29.  That might be a bit more expensive
   than print film, but not *much* more expensive.>

Yes, that's the price from B&H for RD100 135-36.  Equivalent Fujicolor CN100
36 exp. is just $2.19.  So Fujichrome is a little less than TWICE the price
of Fujicolor.  No big deal if you buy 1 or 2 rolls.  My last order was 10
rolls of Fujichrome for my Kodak Stereo (going to Israel in February);
difference in price is $42.90 versus $21.90.  Not much is it?

<3. Your local friendly drug store will process your 36 exp. roll for $3.
   That's cheaper than making 4x6 prints.>

Yes, if you don't count the "cost" that your slides must be properly exposed
on a film with far less latitude for exposure compared with print film.
 Print film has *much* more exposure lattitude.  The 4x6 prints are
color-corrected and ready to view, so the price includes some very convenient
labor.  And if the prints aren't the color, etc. you prefer, most places will
redo them free of charge.  Take a few bad shots? you won't be charged for
those prints (at most places) whereas the chrome film offers no such
guarantee.  Further, a 36 exposure roll will yield 36 exposures in a Loreo,
but only about 28 in a Realist.  Count that as a 22% increase in cost for the
Realist.

<4. Time-consuming?  One hour per roll of 36 exp. is time well spent.>

If only the beginner could do this well, this fast!  Stereo window?  We're
talking beginner stereographers here, and I don't think anyone would consider
George Themelis a beginner.

<<Money-consuming?  Sure, but if you only keep your best images, it might
   be cheaper than prints.>>

First you need to buy a film cutter for $26.95 (unlighted).  You can use
scissors, but then it's not such an easy job getting good alignment.  Don't
you mount them _into_ something?  Cardboard mounts are $7.95 per 100.
 Holding them in place before heat-sealing will require tape of some sort
which has a cost, also.  Or RBT's are about $32+$4 per 50, w/ glass (a true
bargain) $35+$4.  Using aluminum masks will cost you $11.95 per 50, plus
$29.95 per 100 for glass, PLUS $13.95 for silver polyester film tape.
 Regarding saving money and trouble by keeping only your best images:  you
toss out the bad ones before mounting but will frequently need to mount your
"good" to "best" before you cull them to your "best".

<Nerve-wracking?  No way!  It's fun.>

Again, the beginner will find it challenging.  Oops!  Need an alignment guide
$4.95+ shipping.  Now the beginner is learning to get the "window" right.

>>So, what is it going to be?  Conveniently obtained fuzzy prints so you can
watch TV all night long, or a pleasant evening mounting brilliant and sharp
slides full of life and realism?  It's up to you.>>

It's also up to the size of your wallet and time schedule (what's a TV?) when
you count everything which is necessary!  You can spend even more money if
you want to get some of the fun equipment.  Well, I do enjoy my Kodak Stereo
very much (its not a Realist or Revere, but I don't let that bother me) and
slides on Kodachrome 25 are just luscious.  There is no comparison between a
Revere or Realist, etc. and the Loreo, for the two cameras are for two very
different users.  Personally, I don't mind taking my Loreo places that I
wouldn't want to take my Kodak and SLR (for metering, remember) for fear of
damage.  Replacing a $100 Loreo compared to $500+ ?  Be Realist-ic.

Respectfully yours,
Robert Linnstaedt


------------------------------