Someone posted a link to an article on Sports Illustrated's digital work
flow a while back. The crap ratio _is_ enormous. I expect it was not
much lower when they were using film if the techniques described were
used before digital.
graywolf wrote:
Well, we now know why it takes 25,000 shots to cover a football game.
Set up 200 cameras and hit the remote control when something is
somewhere in front of them. The crap ratio must be enormous. About
like 200 monkeys with 200 cameras.
--
Keith Whaley wrote:
That's incredible! I guess I've never spent any tiime around the
"photographer's corner" at an event like this, but I'm almost
speechless! I've never seen so much long gla$$ in one place, ever!
That "keeper" in the yellow hat must have to have a relief so he can
go have a relief himself — or explode!
So many questions come to mind...
Uhhh, I _did_ see a couple of Canons there, however.... <g>
Thanks for the site, William
William Robb wrote:
http://www.photomalaysia.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=569&hl
--
Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested
in dogs.
P. J. O'Rourke
