Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
That is true, although if you want to take a lot of shots, most 120 cameras don't get a lot of images per roll, so you would need a lot of backs, and even 30 years ago, the backs cost more then many 35mm camera bodies. I would hate to see a guy try to do a wedding today with a Speed Graphic when most people expect to have a couple of million frames to look through on your iPad after the reception.... Doesn't mean you can't use an SG for some shots, there is no better tool for that poster sized print of the bride and groom to go in their new home.... Like I said though, a good photographer has more then one tool (camera), and knows how to use all of them. The key isn't the tool, it's using the tools to get what you want. With the minimum of time taken. Say you get $500 to do a wedding, you spend 40 hours on the computer to get a bunch of digital images to look like they were shot on film, your materials cost is $75, your depreciation on your camera is $10, you spent 5 hours on a Saturday doing the shoot. Congratulations you made $9.22/hr....

Shoot the same thing on film, you spent $150 on film and processing, your time is 5 hours plus the hour to the lab and back, you made $58.33 an hour, this is why some wedding photographers are going back to film, plain and simple.
Truly don't need a zillion shots to do a good job. An educated buyer will understand that. Modern albums typically use 60-100 shots.

The last wedding I shot, was done on 9-rolls of 35mm. That was considerably more shots than really needed.

Probably would have had plenty with 9-10 rolls on my RB. I've got three backs which would have easily covered the rushes and weddings normally are hurry then wait affairs, there would be plenty of time to reload.

Of course I'd charge more than $500.