Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?

[graywolf]

Some of that cost is offset but lower flim use. With the larger format you tend 
to work far more carefully and once you are experienced enough to really know 
what you are doing film use can approach 1:1. I usually think of it in film 
units. e.g. 1-8x10 = 2-5x7 = 4-4x5 = 8 t0 12-120 = 36-35mm. That means the 
actual cost of all of them film wise is about the same. Of course if a film unit 
 costs you $48nz in 4x5 and $20nz in 6x7 as you indicate then you have a problem.

I have to develop my own 4x5 b&w now because the few places I can get it 
processed know they have no competetion and charge $5us a sheet. It actually 
costs me about 25 cents a sheet to do it myself  and I do not process with clips 
which punch holes in the negative. (Maybe there is a business opportunity there? 
No, not in a town as small as this one.)

--
David Mann wrote:
On Jul 28, 2004, at 6:11 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
sure you CAN do landscape on a P67, but WHY?

In my case, it's because 4x5 is very expensive.  Last time I checked the 
film and processing costs NZ$12 per sheet.  Compare that with 6x7 at 
NZ$2 a shot, and 35mm at about NZ$1.

There are other reasons why I didn't buy a 4x5 rig but the ongoing cost 
is the main one.  It's a pity really as the lack of movements on a 
Pentax 67 can be a real hassle.

Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html