As one of my other posts reveals, I'm shooting a wedding this May and I need some more film backs for my Hasselblad, so I have two or three pre-loaded with film, ready to shoot.
I'm having a wobble on whether to buy 2 or 3 A12 backs, or 2 or 3 A24 backs. As we know, the A12's hold 12 shots before needing to be swapped\re-loaded. The A24, 24 shots each. But, the film is twice the cost, and the development costs are twice as much. For example :
Pack of 5 120 Kodak Portra 400 =
60 shots
£30 to buy,
£25 to develop,
£25 to scan =
Total for 5 rolls : £80 (£1.33 per exposure)
Pack of 5 220 Kodak Portra 400 =
120 shots
£70 to buy,
£50 to develop,
£50 to scan =
Total for 5 rolls : £170 (£1.40 per exposure)
So, clearly, the A24 backs will result in a higher finished cost, despite the backs themsevles being about the same or a bit cheaper than the A12's. But the A24's will allow me greater capability and less hassle\stress during the shoot. Either way, I'll sell them again after the wedding as I don't need them day to day as I only shoot landscapes really.
I checked that my lab can process 220 film too, which it can, allbeit at twice the cost of 120 film.
My question is whether the 220 film is any different in terms of handling, loading etc. I read it doesn't have a back on it. Does this make it more delicate or more easy to accidentally fog? Or is it essentialy just the same as using 120 but with twice the shots per roll?
I'm having a wobble on whether to buy 2 or 3 A12 backs, or 2 or 3 A24 backs. As we know, the A12's hold 12 shots before needing to be swapped\re-loaded. The A24, 24 shots each. But, the film is twice the cost, and the development costs are twice as much. For example :
Pack of 5 120 Kodak Portra 400 =
60 shots
£30 to buy,
£25 to develop,
£25 to scan =
Total for 5 rolls : £80 (£1.33 per exposure)
Pack of 5 220 Kodak Portra 400 =
120 shots
£70 to buy,
£50 to develop,
£50 to scan =
Total for 5 rolls : £170 (£1.40 per exposure)
So, clearly, the A24 backs will result in a higher finished cost, despite the backs themsevles being about the same or a bit cheaper than the A12's. But the A24's will allow me greater capability and less hassle\stress during the shoot. Either way, I'll sell them again after the wedding as I don't need them day to day as I only shoot landscapes really.
I checked that my lab can process 220 film too, which it can, allbeit at twice the cost of 120 film.
My question is whether the 220 film is any different in terms of handling, loading etc. I read it doesn't have a back on it. Does this make it more delicate or more easy to accidentally fog? Or is it essentialy just the same as using 120 but with twice the shots per roll?
). It's true that you will get more shots on 220 before you need to whip out a roll (useful for bracketing in the landscape context), but are you taking too much? As I said if you have an image plan you can accommodate sections of the wedding on one roll of 120, and whip another for the next section and so forth. Seems labs still like to get in on the lark in charging a higher cost for 220. Where I am, 220 rolls are processed at the same cost as 120 rolls (E6/C41 and this is common in Australia). I expect there will not be film available in the 220 format for too much longer, certainly I wouldn't buy equipment that relies on that format looking into the future.
