Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
Also OP why shoot 120 if you're penny pinching? Why not shoot 35mm and get a $2 per 36 shot instead of $2 per 10 shot? I understand some grain bothers you but if cost is the ultimate leader, why bother with 120 at all?
Like I said earlier, it's not so much the grain that bothers me. That one cloudscape is the only shot I've taken so far where I've been bothered by it. For the most part, the images I've printed haven't suffered (in my opinion) due to grain.

My reasons for using 120:
  • Bigger negatives are fun to play with
  • Most of my usable cameras take that format
  • Fewer exposures on a roll make me think more about the shot
  • It fits my definition of “nifty”


I can understand the conundrum, Stone. When I stop and look at it rationally, it doesn't make sense. I'm at a point where I'm not that terribly worried about it. There's simply something fun about the larger size that I can't get from 35mm, even if I am using a Contax IIIa. Maybe it's that it lets me feel like a kid again. You know, size relationships. 120 film would be about the same size in my adult hands as 35mm would have been when I was about six.

Ha! There it is! Satisfaction of the inner child! Given my current income stream, I can even see the childish satisfaction of “penny pinching” not for that sake, but for the sake of finding stuff I can play with given my limited “allowance”.