Going all film?

"The point is that film is not as expensive as some are lead to believe, and digital costs more than some realise"

 

Jack, good point. Guys like Ken Duncan are regularly finding one single image brings them in $300k in sale. A negative in a film sleeve will always be there to scan. What happens if your digital file goes corrupt, operating systems change and are no longer supported. Multiple hard drive backups/cd backups mean nothing if it is no longer supported.

 

For important stuff I will stick to film (more archival), I don't have to keep updating my backups, worry if it will read, and you cannot touch the quality of larger film unless your willing to pay 20x more for digital.

"For important stuff I will stick to film (more archival), I don't have to keep updating my backups, worry if it will read, and you cannot touch the quality of larger film unless your willing to pay 20x more for digital."

 

+1

 

My thoughts 100%.

Chris - Good for you! </p>

 

<p>Reading the responses and how many people complained that film cost MORE than digital I created a little table in excel to compare the costs. Now a lot of this is subjective, things may cost more in one area than another, also the type/brand and requirements can throw the numbers off. However I think this 'ballparks' the cost quite effectively. (now to see if my html table skills work here!)</p>

 

<table border=1>

<th>Components</th>

<th>Digital</th>

<th>Film</th>

<tr></tr>

<tr><td>Camera</td>

<td>$1500 - $10,000+</td>

<td>$500 - $4000+</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Lenses</td>

<td>$1000</td>

<td>$1000</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Extra gear (flash/lightmeter)</td>

<td>$300</td>

<td>$550</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Computer</td>

<td>$1500</td>

<td>$0</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Software</td>

<td>$1500 - photoshop, corrupt card software, OS, upgrades, etc</td>

<td>$0</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Monitor</td>

<td>$500</td>

<td>$0</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Printer</td>

<td>$600 + $500 / month</td>

<td>$0</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Paper</td>

<td>$200 / month</td>

<td>$200 /month</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Darkroom - Enlarger</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$150</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Accessories</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$150</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Timer</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$100</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Misc</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$100</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Chemicals</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$50 / month</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Film</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$5 / roll</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Processing - DIY</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$35 / 10 rolls</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Processing - Lab</td>

<td>$0</td>

<td>$10 / roll</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>CF Cards</td>

<td>$200</td>

<td>$0</td></tr>

 

<tr><td>Total</td>

<td>$7,100</td>

<td>$2,895</td></tr>

 

</table>

 

<p>

I took a few liberties here - first off with film I'm assuming no computer is needed, all work is done in the darkroom - that saves a bunch. I'm sure someone will spout off about $400 computers - whatever. I also didn't include a scanner, again because a computer isn't required. Of course a scanner and computer can be added - depending on the models that can add say $3500 for a nikon scanner and decent computer system with photoshop. </p>

 

<p>Printer - a good inkjet printer capable of handling 13x19 can go for $400 - $600 and each ink cartridge goes for about $60 - $120 - for 8 inks you're talking a good chunk of money. AND that's a consumable - you have to keep buying those. (hey sounds like film!) The nice thing about digital is that pretty much everyone here already has a computer, thats sort of guaranteed! :) But to upgrade or buy Photoshop, calibration software, etc - that stuff is expensive! </p>

 

<p>I sort of lumped the darkroom stuff into several generic categories - some people want trays, others complain, some want rotary systems, blah blah blah. A basic darkroom shouldn't cost much, and for $50 chemicals should last a while. Paper is a different consideration. Paper is a tough one, in the darkroom there are so many choices, inkjet - there isn't much choice - but the cost is probably similar until you get into HUGE sizes. </p>

 

<p>Film - I'm buying my MF film for about $5.00 a roll and again, the chemicals last a long time. 6 months? So for about $50 you can get all the chemicals, tank, etc to develop something like 16 - 20 rolls of film. Processing - seems to average about $10 a roll when sent to a lab. </p>

 

<p>CF cards - I'm guessing here that the average is 4 cards for about $50 each, people forget that CF cards have a limit to the number of times they can be written to. I think it was like 1000 - 2000 times? So those become consumable too eventually. Or the newest technology (8GB cards, 16GB cards) its a never ending stream of money.</p>

<p>

This is by no means accurate - just off the top of my head with some baseline prices/guesses. I'm sure the amount of shooting will have an impact. Film is an ongoing cost that will rise over time, maybe not exponentially, but each month that number under film will increase until it catches the digital number. A reality is that by the time film reaches that $7,100 value, the digital shooter will be either A) upgrading to the latest/greatest, B) Buying a second camera, or C) sending his/her unit off for repair for another $500+ dollars. Another reality is that the film shooter will want a nice scanner (Ca-Ching!) and other toys to bring the numbers more equal. </p>

 

<p>Others with more experience than I can fine tune the amounts this is very rough, and there are ways to reduce this. The ultimate story is that digital has a very high up front cost. However its monthly costs are fairly low. Assuming you don't need a printer and print online, you can seriously reduce the cost of digital. Just doing this exercise has me convinced to NOT buy a large format printer for printing my shots. I want one, but the cost is outrageous, and I can't transfer that cost to my customers directly. With film I can, or its easier to.</p>

 

<p>This was an interesting and tedious exercise - I never want to enter another html table manually like this again! :) </p>

 

<p>Frankly, I think film and digital the cost will eventually be equal and that shall be the moral of this post.</p>

 

Computer - who doesn't have one already? Cost: $0

 

Software - comes with camera. Cost: $0

 

Monitor - see Computer. Cost: $0

 

Printer - where do you get your cartridge prices? You can buy all 8 inks for a R1800 for $120, not $120 per cart! Besides, it's the cost per print that counts. You can also avoid buying a printer and print at any local lab for the same price as film prints. I would even recommend that for many people. You don't HAVE to buy a printer. Cost: $0

 

Now the digital side is down to $3,000. I could shoot $105 worth of film and processing in a day if I wasn't using my DSLR.

 

Where film shines is in larger formats, if you have the equipment and skill to make the most of them. DSLRs are so cheap now that film just doesn't have a cost advantage. It's the other way around once you start seriously shooting.

Chris

 

I think you have taken right decision as when learning photography it is good to learn on film.

 

Quality of film is still ahead of digital.

 

secondly film scanner are getting better and cheaper.

 

Film equipment last lifetime whereas you have to invest in very expensive digital system every third or fourth year.

 

If some professional can earn enough from photography that he can update his digital equipment every secong or third year than question of film or developing cost does not arrise.

 

Creative satisfaction is supreme in film photography

 

Painting is still going great despite photography being around for more than century.

 

Keep shooting film as this will be regarded as fine art very soon

Hi Chris,

 

I also started with film,now shooting digital.I also have an ETRSi.Now

not in use because films are not available and clients don't want bear the

costs.The quality you got from 120 transparency is G-R-E-A-T.

Digital won't reach that lavel as the other (film) goes through chemical

processing thus produceing unlimited numbers of color shades.

the other libery Chris W. took was quoting *used* darkroom prices. A new Beseler enlarger is close to a $1000. Why not quote used computer prices? I can't give away a Sony Trinitron CRT monitor and its color accuracy is top-notch.

 

For low shooting volumes, film can be quite cost effective. I use 4x5 film when shooting select landscapes. I make about 50-100 exposures a year.

 

But for high shooting volumes, digital is cheaper. I bought an Canon XSI for $900 in April. With the new baby and all, I've got over 1000 shutter activations on it already. Of course my keeper percentage is much much lower with digital than with film.

People always compare the numerical qualities of the end result such as sharpness

color saturation, etc. What about the process of crafting an image. I have used

everything from digital dslr to 8x10 film professionally and I can tell you that

sometimes you just can't take the same picture with a different camera. So lets

compare what it takes to achieve similar results on a dslr v. 6x7. The first thing is

that there is a 3 to 4 stop difference in depth of field. This means you will likely be

on a tripod with a cable release to achieve the same depth of field you could achieve

hand held with a dslr. Second, manually focusing a 6x7 camera takes great care

and a lot of time compared to a dslr which is nearly instant with good technique.

Third, If you plan to use supplementary lighting with 6x7 you will need an 800 watt

second unit or higher to achieve what can be done with a small consumer flash unit.

If you work in dim interiors, I am absolutely convinced that every dollar you spend

on reduction of noise at high iso is a dollar you don't spend on powerful lights.

Fourth, mobility and speed on the part of a good photographer translate directly into

more pictures, more spontaneity, and more experimentation. Fifth, the ability to

proof and adjust spontaneously with digital allows you to finesse lighting

composition, and exposure far more accurately and quickly than with film or

polaroid. So far I am only talking about capturing the image, not processing it. How

does this translate visually? Some people take very simple beautiful images that

are the result of all the "inconvenience" of shooting film. Those are unique works of

art that are worth all the trouble. If you like spending hours carefully planning how to

focus, compose, and expose film for a shot you will get images that communicate

that process in some way for good or for bad. If you like images that result from the

masterful use of all the conveniences of modern equipment then you probably

should keep your dslr. Every improvement in speed and convenience in my

cameras has resulted in more creative, spontaneous work for me. It is true for me

as a wedding and portrait photographer, but it is also true for high end studio

professionals I have worked with in food photography, fashion, and product

photography. Features that amateur photographers view as conveniences have a

way of becoming essential in a more competitive work environment.

Keep both. There's no point in ditching your digital kit at rock bottom prices, and anyway there'll be times when you

just want to make a quick photo of something - friends, family, colleagues, etc.

 

The RB is an excellent and very reliable camera. I used an RZ for a long time and loved it, but I wouldn't buy one

just on the off chance that you may want a digital back in the future. After all, you're looking to learn about film and

using a reliable and entirely manual camera is the best way to do this. There is a learning curve with film but it's

worth working through because the results can be far superior to digital capture once you've mastered it. Plenty of

folks on APUG will help you through the learning curve.

 

Just for the record, I use digital when I'm making snapshots or TFP'ing a model, but almost all my serious work is

on film. The only exception is when I'm working with moving dancers because instant review is very useful for this

kind of thing.

How about going into new areas of photography with the gear you already have? I

know it's not the right forum to be emphasizing that, but it's about the end result,

isn't it?<br> (Gear fondlers close your ears and minds now!)<br> Good end results

can be achieved in a digital workflow, a silver halide based workflow or a hybrid one.

<br>

What do you want to express? Is your D1H an unsurmountable hindrance in doing

so? I guess not!<br>

So, when you're successful and inundated with request from galleries and

publishers, then you can pick the tool you like most. But then, it just might not be so

important anymore.<br><br>

Best regards, Christoph

I had cost discussion digital vs. film some time ago. First of all medium format film should be compared to medium format digital back as far as quality goes. I don't want to see another comparison of DSLR vs. medium format film files seen @ 100%. Large format print from the negative in the darkroom is way better than inkjet print from DSLR, and if we are talking about comparing digital files people forget that medium format scans can be much larger than DSLR files so looking at both @ 100% is unfair. I scan 6x6 negatives @ 400dpi on my Nikon 9000 and resulting files are 8800x8800 pixels, that is 77,44 megapixels, more than six time the size of Canon 5D file so if we look at 5D file @ 100% we should be looking at film file @ 15%, do one and see how that is gonna look like, I did.

 

Coming back to cost comparison, I'm not including equipment cost at all, lets assume these are equal..................we agreed that high resolution digital back depreciates $10,000 over two years and that is the cost if one wants to have medium format quality in digital. I buy film on Ebay, usually slightly expired and when I buy large quantities (I have 250 rolls in my fridge now) cost per roll comes down to $1.50. I shoot mostly C-41 that any minilab can process well as there is no human input in development process, machine does everything automatically and my corner one hour lab charges me $2 per roll. I scan all the images myself and I print both inkjet and traditional but I will skip the cost of printing, lets assume it's again similar. So the real usage cost in my case is $3,50 per roll of film. Now with the $10,000 one looses on medium format digital back I can shoot 2857 rolls of film, years and years of shooting :-) So for me is not only cheaper but I love the process and results as well :-)<div></div>

Film can be very labor-intensive unless you have someone else take care of all your darkroom work. That means less time available for actual shooting. That's why I see it as more of an interesting low-volume niche these days.

I am now in my 28th year of shooting professionally having had studios in London

for 12 years and now I am based in Boston USA (since 1992). Having shot 8x10,

5x7, 4x5, 6x7, 6x6, 6x4.5 and 35mm film on assignments all over the world, and in

my various studios, I have had a love affair with photography that I wouldn't trade for

anything. Before I went into the business of photography it had been my hobby

since I was 10 - I still list photography as one my primary personal interests.

 

The point is that PHOTOGRAPHY has been my passion - images - what is going on

in front of the camera... lighting, impact, composition, timing, originality, color (or

not)... the camera is merely a capture device. My interests have never included

equipment collecting or cameras per se.

 

I have shot digital exclusively for the last three years - MF digital and DSLR - and at

this point I hope that I never have to shoot another roll or sheet of film. My Sinars

and RZs haven't been touched in well over two years and while my refrigerator still

has large stocks of film, I no longer offer it to my clients and they fully expect me to

shoot in digital.

 

The on site workflow, proofing and immediacy have helped my speed, confidence

and creativity. My clients can be sure we have a concept in the bag and we are free

to experiment with new ideas and offer many more options. There is no cost

attached to multiple variations in the way that there was with film.

 

I don't need a huge case of different types of Polaroids and chrome emulsions -

Velvia, EPP, 64TII, Astia, etc. for different applications and in multiple formats.

Shooting RAW gives me full creative control after the fact and endless choices for

film types, sizes, resolutions and color space decisions.

 

I can fly anywhere in the world on assignment without worrying about film hand

checks, x-rays and officious airport security crews trying to open boxes of 4x5 film,

Polaroids and attempting to take 120 rolls out of their foil wrappers..

 

Now that Polaroid is essentially dead and gone, the client proofing options will

eventually be non existent with film, or so expensive as to further hobble the

process. Professional labs are disappearing at an alarming rate, prices for E6

processing are going through the roof and finding decent processors who care about

their densitometer and their plots, and are competent at clip tests, pushes and pulls

and proper procedures is near to impossible - especially in far flung locales where it

used to be no problem.

 

Quality at 39MP MF digital and 21MP DSLR renders the endless film vs digital

debates moot. Most of the people I hear comparing film to digital are comparing low

end digital (and limited knowledge of post processing techniques) to a lifetime of

knowledge of manipulating negatives and wet processing - not exactly an "apples to

apples" comparison.

 

The most important aspect for me though is that the quality of my work has mot

been negatively impacted at all - if anything digital has allowed me more

opportunities for experimentation and creative exploration.

 

As to the archiving issue, it's easy to transfer data to new media, larger drives etc.

This is simple sensible business practice, not rocket science. Also, it's easy to

duplicate your files, have duplicate back ups on site and an on-line, off property,

back up of your entire archive as well. Try doing that with a chrome!

 

I am not "anti-film" - I had a nearly 25 year career using nothing but film, in every

format, and loved every minute of it. I have just moved on to what I see as medium

better suited to my professional work, that is the industry standard in my field, that

is much more convenient to transport on commercial flights and has given me an

opportunity to expand my range and improve my creativity. The proof of the pudding

is in the images and for that reason I will look back fondly at film, but won't ever be

using it again.

 

For amateurs shooting B/W who love darkroom work - why not? FIlm is a great

learning tool, very unforgiving which is good, and very satisfying to get right. I hope

people use and enjoy film for years to come. However, for me - as with my vinyl

records - it is a part of my past. Each to his own.

To Chris Williams;

You hit the nail on the enlarger cost, $150.00 is exactly what I paid for my Omega D6, modded for B/W. Looks like I have to spend about $1050.00 more to set myself up, and I'm in business! (You forgot the glass negative carriers and darkroom sink and ventilation fans, about $450 there.) You can spend a lot on any hobby, but if you watch yourself, you don't have to. And to Jack Welsh, it's true for older analog recordings, records can sound better, it depends on how well the digital transfer was done on a CD.

About film being very labor intensive. I am always reading comments about people who shoot digital seem to spend 5% at the camera and 95% at the computer. And, while computers are always changing. Try to find a computer that comes with a 3 1/2" floppy. It's harder all the time. The digital formats now, won't last for very long. Vista is being replaced. But, the earliest negatives ever taken that still exists can still be printed.The point is that while digital can rival film, it comes at a cost. I read a photo mag about how a pro was given the $8,000.00 digital camera and he therefore switched to digital. Amateurs don't have the tax write-offs,etc that pros have. Maybe a pro can justify a digital costing several thousands, but, most amateurs cannot. I saw on ABC news several years ago about the Time magazine photographers. When that Monica -Clinton scandel came out. The one who beat his fellow news photographers did it because while the others had wiped out their old photos to make room for new ones. He took out an old slide of Monica.

Jack,

 

I'm afraid that you're grasping at straws ;-)

 

Who cares if computers are always changing as long as today's data formats are readable tomorrow? Popular raw formats including DNG, NEF, CRF and ORF are understood well enough to be readable by 100% free open source software, which bodes well for the future: You aren't chained to some Vista-compatible version of the software from your camera maker, you know. Neither are you tied to operating systems from Microsoft or Apple.

 

As for film, you must be lucky if you never had color images that shifted or faded, no scratched negatives, no fungus problems, and no deterioration due to acid in the paper or PVC in the slide pages.

 

As for spending 5% of my time behind the camera and 95% in post processing, that would only be true if you count my camera time as 1/125th, 1/250th, 1/500th of a sec, etc!

> I don't take photos to sit in a computer, and then I would have to buy a ridiculously priced inkjet printer and buy new cartridges

 

Leaving the actual printing to a professional lab is in this case cheaper and gives better results. Going digital does not mean you must do every step by yourself. This is the same as with film: only few would process color film by themselves. Instead they would leave this step to a lab and just do their own printing in the darkroom once they have got the negatives.

Exactly as Jeff S and Matthias say...

 

If the 5% - 95% time split were true, I would be spending nineteen days processing

out every one day shoot! Clearly a silly notion...

 

As to not taking photos to sit in front of a computer - the same could be said for not

taking photos to stand in a darkroom. In both cases it's a choice to either do the

printing work yourself, or pass it on to a professional lab.

 

There is no point in resorting to hyperbole and facile arguments to defend a point of

view. If film works for you, then it doesn't need defending, same with digital. I made

the switch because it was beneficial on many levels for my professional work. If I

produced large format black and white prints for my hobby and loved wet darkroom

work I wouldn't be in the slightest bit interested in digital.

 

There is no right or wrong here - there are however valid and invalid arguments.

John, I agree with you on this no right or wrong. The 5-95% was just a

generalization. But, I do read alot of comments about how much time consuming

being at the computer is. And, in some photo mags about how some wedding

photogs have gone back to film because of it and how they can now just drop off

their film at a lab and go on to the next shoot.

About this computer formats will be readable for a very long time.

The other item that the Time news photogs mentioned was that because the

computer world is always changing, thay they showed a concern about news

photography for the future. That if digital was around in the 1800's,that we would

probably not have any photos of Lincoln.

A scratched negative can still be printed. But, a scratched cd?

I remember music cd's that couldn't be played because of it.

A neg can have more harm done to it and still have at least part of the image

printed, than any digital device, CD, floppy.

My negs from the 60's and 70's haven't faded or changed color. Color and B&W.

When digital first came out, the manufacturers knew that most people had film

cameras and not digital. So, they had to sell people on digital.

My whole point is that digital is fine, yes. But, digital does costs more than people

are lead to believe and is more time consuming than alot of people realise.

Developing and printing B&W isn't that time consuming to me at least.

> That if digital was around in the 1800's,that we would probably not have any photos of Lincoln.

 

Probably true. However, with todays harddisk prices and sizes, you can keep all your photos on hard disk (e,g, on two to three USB drives) and each time you buy a new one because your old ones are full, all your old photos will fit on the new drive and leave lots of space for new images.

 

And of course as soon as you have got a print, you are on par with the analog world.

I use an RB67 for my serious stuff, No digital camera under say 10 grand can touch the quality of a 6x7 chrome, i have a little point and shoot digital for snaps, the rb is way to big for snaps though i have used it for that. : )), Ill probably always use my rb with slides because i doubt i could ever afford a medium format digi back, i save money by processing my own chromes. works out pretty good.

I am new to this forum and I am beginning to believe film vs digital is a stupid argument and too complex to really explain.

 

My first reason for this is most of the populous are only interested in family pictures, wedding, and birthdays. From time to time a picture of some building they visited and a picture of the grand canyon they visited on vacation. That's what most cameras are used for. I imagine in this situation cameras spend most of their life on a self collecting dust until the next vacation or next birthday or that rare 25th wedding anniversary. In this case I would suggest a person buy a digital camera with AA batteries or film. It would only need about 3megapixels.

 

Unless your some super art person who needs LF or some pro wedding photographer the argument film vs digital doesn't even apply. Because it can't be gaged scientifically. Photograph hobbyist must choose based on personal cost limits and "fun" which is emotional not scientific.

 

If you sell your pictures, then obviously go with what is the most profitable. If your not selling your pictures, it doesn't matter what format you use. And if your camera is going to sit on a self most of the time, don't buy some camera with a special battery that once it dies you have to buy another camera because the batteries aren't available.

5 years ago I was all digital. My first camera was a digital. My first pro job was digital. Now I'm all film.

 

I'm not going to list the reasons. They're pretty well known and just too many of them.

 

My expectation is that in a few years digital sensors will have as good or better quality as film, the the cameras will be tough-as-nails workhorses like my F3. When that day comes I'll switch back in a heartbeat.

 

Maybe in a few years, but it ain't happening now.

There is one bit of digital left: my Nikon Coolscan V ED scanner. I love it. Who knows how long good film scanners will be made so get it now. Trade in your digitals bodies for the best film scanner you can afford.

 

My experience is that all flatbed scanners suck, but since you're going MF you may wind up with an Epson V700/750. But IF you do want to spend the kind of bucks that you would spend for a digital body, get the Coolscan 9000 ED which can scan MF.

 

I used to print in a color darkroom, but once you get a good scan digital really is better now.<div></div>

While people can go back and forth between the digital and film debate. The main thing Chris is that if you want a RB, then buy it You will be using it and that is what counts.I have a RB Pro-s and I'm not sorry. It isn't a RZ. But it doesn't have the higher costs or the electronic gadets that might fail someday, either.