shawn
Veteran
I process my B&W and color film myself. There are still costs for that though pretty minor for B&W once one has the equipment. There are also costs to get the equipment to scan and/or print it as well.Ah....there's still folks who view the world in monochrome & process their own....
There are reasons to shoot film. A cost advantage isn't really one of them.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Neither is cost/advantage involved in digital really....if we follow the conversations here. Between flipping Leica Ms from M8-11, computers, printers.....if we're honestly going whole hog.
I got my Durst 138 for $500 Cdn, The Beseler 45mxt for less.... and haven't "upgraded" since...
shawn
Veteran
Your Durst is about 2/3 of the way to a used Z5. Still haven't bought chemicals, paper, bottles, timer, trays, easel, paddles, tongs, safelight(s), focusing loupe or built/adapted a darkroom. Easily, the cost of the Z5 and you haven't purchased a roll of film yet.
There is a massive difference in cost per shot, along with time for those that process and scan/print themselves.
There is a massive difference in cost per shot, along with time for those that process and scan/print themselves.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Amortized over the 25 yrs i've used them.... only pennies a day..... & still going strong.
If digital is your thing have at it
Whatever one's passions or hobbies are, they aren't typically doused by statements of monetary savings, be it scotch drinking, fly fishing, golf or other....
SWB
Established
The point would be if you care about using film for its aesthetic considerations how do you get around using film? You could use less film but more wisely, or buy more film and offset going digital for a (long) while. But if using film is just to tick a virtue signalling box and then complain about the price of film and make yourself a 'victim' I don't think it stacks. A roll of 35mm Portra could be used with the same discipline as somebody using 4x5, you don't have to spray and pray. It's about management of expectations instead of being handcuffed by previous expectations.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I was thinking more out of date Foma vs Tri-X.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Not sure anyone has mentioned this on the Nikon Z cameras, but the 1:1 aspect ratio is in the RAW files' EXIF data and just mapped onto the file. So all the data is there (that is, you get the full pixel count), but the JPG is simply showing you a square. Kinda the same as "visualizing" your shot as square and cropping it to the actual dimensions when you are sitting in front of your computer. Personally, I "see" slightly different in every format/aspect ratio. So I take different pix with a Hassie or a Mamiya C33. . . I just do.
CMur12
Veteran
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have never owned a 1:1 camera since my Baby Brownie, and that was a long, long time ago. I have done dark room work in 120 and 35 mm. 8+ hours stints doing 35 mm processing and then enlarging and printing was complicated, time-consuming and not a lot of fun. So I stick with digital where I can select and edit on a computer. If I want it printed, which is rare, I send it out and it comes back along with a frame I have ordered. I find this a lot easier than dealing with red-lighted darkness and chemicals.
So now the question is format. I have a camera which will do an in-camera 1:1 format. I am tempted. It is now at 4:3 so the jump is not far.
I just tried a few test shots. Yeah, I will try the 1:1 for awhile and see how I like it. Thanks for the nudge. ;o)
So now the question is format. I have a camera which will do an in-camera 1:1 format. I am tempted. It is now at 4:3 so the jump is not far.
I just tried a few test shots. Yeah, I will try the 1:1 for awhile and see how I like it. Thanks for the nudge. ;o)