If that's how you work, I can't sit here and tell you you're wrong. However, my approach is that I have four backs for my RZ and keep each loaded with a different type of film. And if I don't finish a roll, it can sit there happily until I need that film type in another week or four, at which point it'll be finished off and I don't waste any. I can put up with waiting to get my images, in fact I often have a little backlog of 5 to 15 rolls before I fire up the Jobo.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
I was referring to detail and cost per frame (35-50c vs $1.80, for first-rate films), not per area so I think we mostly agree here. I have a pair of 16x20" prints on my cubicle wall: one from 6x7 TMY2 and one from 4x5 Fomapan (Arista) 100... they have the same level of perceptible detail and the better film in smaller format gives about 4 stops of speed advantage. So even though a large negative is nice, my subjective experience is that it makes no (when using cheaper films) to visible-but-not-earthshattering (using identical films at 5x $/frame) difference in final appearance. I'd much prefer to shoot 5x7 but I can't really get the films I want in that size and my enlarger is only 4x5. The extra area would probably make more difference if I could print at 32" or 40" but I can't as yet.
Originally Posted by ntenny
Maybe I'm an incompetent, but my keeper ratio for LF and MF is about the same unless I'm doing higher-risk (uncontrolled subject) shots like candid portraits that have an inherently lower keeper rate due to fleeting expressions, etc.