[LargeFormat] Money With Menaces

[LNphoto]

On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 04:22  AM, philip lambert wrote:

>>
>> Today I spent 5 hours shooting 20 shots--30 sheets of film.  My cost
>> for film and processing: $150 (I know this will look cheap to Uncle
>> Dick)  My point is the same 20 shots could have been done on 3 rolls 
>> of
>> 120 with my Hassy for less than $25, taken half the time, and without
>> any loss in image quality.
>>
>> If I could have shot it digitally, the hard costs would be zero,
>> excepting the extra time in Photoshop cleaning up the files. Another
>> pressure I hadn't considered....Prints from a neg are more than twice
>> the cost of RA4 prints from digital files.   The point is very
>> clear....digital is more profitable, at least here.
>>
>> So now I'm in the painful process of selling off my extraneous
>> equipment so I can buy digital.   I look around... some surplus protar
>> V's might go up, a Minolta shift lens I never used....even a nice 
>> 250mm
>> Hassy CF,  but as loudly as the bottom line screams, I still can't let
>> go of the 5x7 Ansco, the 6x8 Century field or the Deardorff.  At least
>> not yet.  In my heart, I'm still a Luddite.
>
> If you actually prefer film to digital and the cost of 5x4 deters you 
> why
> don't you use the Century Graphic 8 on 120.
>

Several reasons.  The construction photography I do doesn't need 
movements, they don't care if the door looks like a keystone or not.
A 65mm on a Century or 23 Crown with a 6x7 back is only moderately 
wide.  For extremely wide I could get an XLSW with a 47mm and not have 
to deal with the bed.

Or I could use my 500 cm with a 50  supplemented  by an SWC with a 38mm.


I actually own both set ups.   The Hassy is rigid, dependable and 
faster than shooting with a Graphex/Supermatic non self cocking shutter.

Les