Vics
Veteran
I solved the lens cap problem by putting all my front caps where they belong; in the bottom drawer of my dresser. I'll get them out when I decide to sell any given lens. I did get some blank frames from softies (shots of the interior of my bag) but I don't use them anymore, so that problem solved itself.
thegman
Veteran
For me, photography is a fairly cheap hobby, simply because I don't shoot all that much. To put it into perspective, 20 sheets of Velvia 4x5 is £80 in the UK. I gulped when I saw that, but then I thought, how many sheets will I shoot per month? Right now, maybe 2 or 4. Let's call it 4. So a box will last me 5 months. Another pastime for me is exercising at the gym, that costs £115 *per month*.
So, it can be expensive, it can be cheap, but of all the hobbies, it's not so bad.
So, it can be expensive, it can be cheap, but of all the hobbies, it's not so bad.
Alpsman
Well-known
Dont waste your filmmaterial, use both sides of your film.
Nah, I only put in Kodak, Ilford or Agfa. Never again that cheap Chinese crap that wounds up like a coilspring. Not even for testshots. And every film will be bathed in fresh developer. Material (Film & Developer) is the wrong place to save money.
Nah, I only put in Kodak, Ilford or Agfa. Never again that cheap Chinese crap that wounds up like a coilspring. Not even for testshots. And every film will be bathed in fresh developer. Material (Film & Developer) is the wrong place to save money.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I strongly disagree. Those big old Fuji's are great cameras. I own a GL690 and a GM670 with 65/8.0, 100/3.5 and 150/5.6 lenses. I had my glass CLA'ed and my bodys overhauled. Over the long-long term I plan on keeping and shooting these old Fuji's a long-long time.
Your comment is like saying old Leicas are not as good as modern ones.
Cal
dizzyg44
Newbie
surprised no ones mentioned to use 220 instead of 120 when you can get ahold of it (assuming you have a back to support it)
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
A few years ago I bought the last TRI-X 320 in 220 at Adorama, B&H was already sold out. 220 is not mentioned because availability is very limited.
My last roll of 220 is Fuji Velvia 50. Someone at a NYC Meet-Up sold me 4 rolls of Velvia 220 in 220 and 4 rolls of Ektar in 120 for $20.00. Expired but refrigerated.
When good deals happen I fully take advantage of them.
Cal
taemo
eat sleep shoot
This.
I like to verify the composition and exposure first (or at least a back up image) with my digital camera or even a 35mm film first before finalizing it with my 6x7.
Especially since I'm limited to only 10 frames per 120 film so be selective on what you shoot.
other than that, I treat it like any other cameras.
film wise, for me it's either provia, HP5+, TMAX or delta
Arthur
Established
Do you have a source for 220 film that you would share?
pschauss
Well-known
I find that, regardless of the format, most of the money I spend on photography is for paper. As far as film cost is concerned, when I shoot medium format, I find that I work more slowly and usually end up with more "keepers".
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Sadly, when it comes my way at a good price I buy it, but I consider myself lucky to get any.
Cal
ZeissFan
Veteran
Photography has always been an expensive hobby, and this holds true even in the digital age.
Personally, I try to find good deals, but I'm more concerned about quality than trying to "squeeze the nickle until the buffalo ****s." That was a Depression-era saying from my parents.
Personally, I try to find good deals, but I'm more concerned about quality than trying to "squeeze the nickle until the buffalo ****s." That was a Depression-era saying from my parents.
Alpsman
Well-known
When I compare it to thirty years ago, how much money I earned then & how much Kameras, Film & developing coasts, it seems to me much cheaper today than in the "good old days". I cn remember, that a 9x13 print coasts 12 ÖS (0,9 ct), today it coasts the same. But maybe it only looks to me that way.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I kinda agree. Film is still kinda cheap, especially if you do things to minimize costs. I think it is the spirit of this thread to keep costs low so we can even shoot more.
The problem for me is that the costs add up. Probably spent $2.5K to $3K on just film alone last year. Add in developing and you can see where a lot of my money goes.
Cal
thegman
Veteran
I have to disagree with this also. I use a Zeiss Super Ikonta III, wide open it's not bad for sharpness, stopped down a bit it's really every bit as sharp as my Rolleiflex GX with it's modern, coated lens.
If you're concerned about reliability, well, that's a personal thing, but the only camera I've had literally stop working on me was brand new.
Alpsman
Well-known
Oh lord! How many rolls will that be?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Last summer I was shooting 50-60 rolls a month, about half was 120. Problem for me is that I have a lot of gear and I often carry two MF cameras to go out shooting to exercise myself and my gear.
I own a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta, Rollie Whiteface 3.5F, Plaubel 69W, Pentax 67II, Fuji GL690, and a GM670.
In small format I shoot Nikon F3's and a pair of Leica M's (Wetzlar M6 and M4).
In my past I use to mix up 20 liters of ID-11 each month until I switched to Diafine. Just know that for the past 5 years I've just concentrated on making good negatives for wet printing with no printing to concentrate on just image capture, and I don't scan. BTW this annoys many people, but I learned a lot, and my photography made a big leap forward. I figure now is the time to shoot as much as possible so that I have no regrets in the future. I figured if I want to become a good shooter I'd better shoot as much as I can, even if this means not printing.
Recently I bought a Monochrom, but to justify having all this great gear I actually use all of it heavily.
Cal
Alpsman
Well-known
That seems quite a lot to me.
I expose asbout 100 rolls a year, around 30% 120 & rest 135. I too try to use my whole gear so that no camera starts to rust.
And I am also on the hunt for the perfect negative. I'm only interested in taking the picture. Printing is not interesting for me. But, in the 5 cold months I'll scan the negatives. And from the 7 warm months of the year there are a lot of days with cold rainweather. So tere is not that much time left for taking pictures.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Recently for health reasons I have not been able to shoot in cold weather, and like you I now have to limit my shooting to half a year like you. What I was doing was not sustainable, but I'm glad I did what I did. By concentrating on only one thing I gained mucho control and got advanced results.
Now that I have a Monochrom I will be learning digital skills and I'm assembling a grand digital studio for printing. I'm thinking of Robert Frank's shooting of the "Americans" where he almost shot 800 rolls of film and later edited. Concentating on just one thing at a time is one way of fully developing your skill.
Cal
JChrome
Street Worker
Haha, it annoys me that I can't see your work. But nevertheless, I appreciate your thought-out practice and in ways, I want to mirror it. Scanning takes a long time (perhaps as long as developing). And in many cases, I would rather be out shooting rather than looking at my own images, fixing dust problems in Lightroom, and posting to the web on my blog.
So my question is - does not looking at your photos in high detail allow you to accurately critique yourself? I would imagine you can become a great shooter because you shoot constantly and consistently. But if you don't view your own work in detail then do you know what you are really shooting? Do you even view the negs on a lightbox?
Or do you just develop a trust with yourself that the image will be great when you find something in the viewfinder worth shooting? But what about training for that "decisive moment"?
This is making me want to see your work all the more...
raid
Dad Photographer
Precision Camera charges same cost for 220 versus 120 for developing plus scanning. Yous ave 50%.