tom, For me, it's not that I don't shoot as much rather, with 35mm, I would *waste* shots because it was so quick to shoot or needing to *finish* off that roll of 36. 36 shots per roll is both great and terrible. When you are shooting lots of frames non-stop, it is wonderful. When you are shooting just a few frames and want the results back, it is painful. Certainly one of the greatest benefits of digital. The 10 shot 67 rolls give me some of the same benefits. Painful on long runs but great when only shooting a few things.
Bruce Sunday, February 23, 2003, 10:21:23 AM, you wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> Nick, >> >> My film costs for shooting 120/220 have not gone up for the >> very same >> reason. I don't burn through film as quickly as with 35mm. >> I am more >> careful with shots and the process is a bit slower. My keeper >> percentage has gone up as well. t> When I started shooting 645 I was aware of this tendency and t> consciously chose to avoid it. One of the reason I chose the 645n was t> I could handle it like a 35mm, and so I attempt to use it like one. t> Basically, I was happy w/ my shooting style, I jusr wanted a bigger t> neg. t> Now, if you're shooting a lot of b+w and processing it yourself, the t> cost difference is insignificant. If you're getting proofs from a lab, t> it can get expensive. t> However, the big neg makes contact sheets much more useful than with t> 35mm, so a way to cut costs a bit would be to just get contact sheets t> from your processing. Another way would be to have the film scanned. t> tv
