Digital Cheaper than Film?

<p>LOL! As if.</p>

<p>Back when I was so naive (10_ years ago) I thought, wow, digital photography gonna be a lot cheaper than shooting film and having all those rolls of 35mm color negs printed through to 4x6 inch proofs for many well-organized albums.</p>

<p>No more buying film! No more color labs!</p>

<p>I just added up all the ink carts I used in my Epson R2400 the past 5+ years: 97 of them at an average price each of $14 that totals $1,358. The printer itself was about $700 I think.</p>

<p>How much did all that paper cost? A lot. I do not have accurate records there. But well north of $500 I'd guess.<br /> How about Photoshop and several upgrades to PS CS5? Another $1,200.<br /> Upgrading the main DSLR to its 3rd incarnation in 8 yrs? Another $4700 plus a few of the CF memory cards; not to mention multiple external hard drives for multiple backups of the 100,000 image files and a faster, more capable PC.</p>

<p>Then there are books and other accoutrements that mostly wouldn't be had, had it not been for these digital imaging systems.</p>

<p>Photo.net is a mere $25/year.</p>

<p>These are decisions you made to take control of your photographic process. Digital image capture did not force you to make these changes.</p>

<p>To quote a certain movie: "You decide your own level of involvement."</p>

<p> </p>

True Ken .but Photonet shows the pictures.. it sure dont take them! and I am sure you would have worked your way through all the 35mm stuff and goodies like most of us! Made me chuckle Ken keep up the good work.Miken

<p>Se Ken<br>

How many prints did you make in those 5+ years. And to do the same amount you would have shot how much film and had to pay how much for the lab work?</p>

<p>Lets see, how much did I pay for paper in college for darkroom supplies? Probably more than the printing costs from my Epson. Per-image, I have fewer test prints compared to the darkroom, so that helps keep my costs down. And the results (at least for me, people better in the darkroom may not have this issue) are considerably more consistent. That is, if I print at all. 90% of the time, I don't even print. Just throw it online so everyone can view and call it good.</p>

<p>That said, as Rob is getting at, it's all about how you decide to do it.</p>

<p>Ken - the reality is that Digital really is cheaper than film! You just have to find a more economical way to print your photos and avoid the urge to upgrade multiple times unless you can get most of your money back by selling your used gear!</p>

<p>First, don't print using inkjet! They're the fastest way to go in the hole with digital photography. Besides, I figure it costs about $1.25/4x6 photo when printed on inkjet. Why pay this premium when I can send my photos over to my local lab and get traditional 4x6 prints for $.29 each?</p>

<p>If you were shooting film are you telling me that you wouldn't use PS CS5?? I would for paid shoots! So add to film a quality 35mm negative scanner for around $1000 and subtract your PS CS5 from digital costs.</p>

<p>How about the film? Let's say you use the cheap $1.99/roll 36 exposure film...I'm not sure about your shooting habits, but I average somewhere around 4000 images/month (I shoot portraits and sports primarily now), so that would be 112 rolls of film per month. Processed and printed 4x6 proofs = 7.99 for 36 exposures at my local shop...that's $895/month that I'm basically flushing down the toilet so I can PROOF the images. Then I need to scan, retouch, and re-print the final images!</p>

<p>As for Upgrading?? I only upgrade when there's something my camera can't do for me..I've had 5 DSLRs in the past 10 years and will likely get one more in the next 12 months. My most recent camera was $2299. If I was shooting film, the camera I would need to replace it would be the Nikon F6 @ $2449. Would I have needed 5 of them? Not likely, but that's a different story.</p>

<p>So, let's add up my digital expenses vs. film expenses:</p>

<p>$7000 in camera bodies (5 bodies over 10 years) vs $5000 in camera bodies (2 Nikon F5/F6 when new)</p>

<p>$0 in time/scanning equipment over 10 years vs. $1000 scanner + $10000 in time to scan</p>

<p>$0 in printing proofs vs. $107,400 in developing and printing proofs from film over 10 years</p>

<p>$0.29/ 4x6 print (lab, color corrected and digitally proofed) vs Your $1.25/ 4x6 print (inkjet) vs. ABOVE for proofs!</p>

<p>No cost savings from PS CS5 and Upgrades or hard drives since I'd be using them anyways with film.</p>

<p>I'm just saying that your math doesn't add up for me, but I don't know your shooting habits so maybe you wouldn't spend as much on proofs as I would.<br /> RS</p>

<p>for snap shots and other non critical uses Digital has an advantage.<br>

in terms of cost and convenience<br>

we just returned from a trip where we got several PC s from the scrapyuard<br>

one was dead but my son found hundreds of stored photos<br>

aapparently the owner lost them all when his video part failed<br>

Of course negatives or slides can be burned up flooded and lost in the mail.<br>

and it is harder to duplicate., like burning a DVD<br>

but possibly soon the quality of digital will equal or surpass, for the average owner film photography</p>

 

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>Is this post tongue and cheek? It sure reads like it.</p>

<p>I am nearing 10,000 shots with my $800 DSLR. It allows me to experiment more than all the film shooting I have done over the years. My 1/2 price HP printer allows me to make incredible 13x19" prints that are better than any 35mm prints I made in the darkroom. I also bought most of my printer supplies when HP had a 1/2 price Black Friday sale.</p>

<p>I generally upgrade PS every second upgrade. I have been doing this since PS 3. I first skipped to PS 6 and then to CS.</p>

<p>One can economize using either film or digital. You don't have to upgrade your DSLR every couple of years. You don't have to take hundreds of film shots at every event unless you want.</p>

<p>Photographers are free to choose and free to do whatever their budget allows.</p>

 

<p>No, this post is not tongue in cheek at all. I had just glanced at my R2400 Ink Carts spreadsheet when I decided to do the math on how much that had cost me.</p>

<p>Like others have remarked, "it is what you make it." How involved you want to be is up to you. There is no denying the instant gratification aspect w/digital, also mentioned. Nothing like a really sweet 19x13 inch print coming off your home printer. Can't do that at home in a color chemical darkroom unless you have more skills and equipment and free time than a Pro Lab.</p>

<p>Experimenting too -- with digital it is super cheap as compared to film and the payback is instant. You learn right away.</p>

<p>(back to Richard -- good points and good math, not much to argue about there)</p>

<p>Keep shooting! Keep Printing! And have fun.</p>

<p>One of the things I like about my Epson 3880, Ken, is those large cartridges. They go forever. <br /><br />And like Richard, I find the math to be absoluely undeniable. Film would have cost me way more cash, and <em>way</em> more time. Not to mention I'd be having to jump through a different set of hurdles to please customers (and myself) while working and looking through the results.<br /><br />If my time is worth anything (it is), then that adds another enormous dimension to the equation. Some people will complain about digital workflow taking up too much time, but it's just because they're not doing it right.</p>

<p>You make some good points Ken.<br /> However, most of us have many thousands of digital images which we <em>would not have</em> if each image cost us what it would did with film and developing & printing.</p>

<p>My Epson 2200 sits idol, (is there a market for it?) as I dont make many prints. I doubt I could even get a driver to run it for Win 7 64bit.</p>

<p>When I do make prints I often use Mpix.com. It seems cheaper than printing at home.</p>

<p>I use to make c 6000 photographs a year on medium format colour slide or b&w neg film. It cost me about 60p per frame ( almost $1 ) to buy the film and have it processed and contact sheets made on the b&w. So it was costing me £3 600 pa to photograph and to this I have to add some allowance for equipment service and repair of two aging MF systems, and storage of keeper slides. </p>

<p>I don't spend any of that money now. I also save money on scanning and printing since I can make the files for b&w prints and what used to cost me £30 per print from a lab now costs me £8 for the same size print. I don't have to worry about scanning so much now so my colour prints are a lot cheaper too, and the Coolscan has gone to be replaced by a flatbed. I can get my photographs in front of stock agencies , gallery owners, friends and lecture audiences without scanning which saves me a lot of time.</p>

<p>Sure the replacement cycle for camera bodies is a lot shorter so I'd guess that I need to spend maybe £1000 or £1500 more pa on my equipment than I used to with film systems. Adding this up I reckon I'm saving at least £4500 ($7500) pa by using digital as against MF film and this is increasing yearly as the cost of film and processing goes up ahead of inflation. Thats well over half of my variable costs.</p>

<p>Looking around me I can't see anything major in the way of computing or software that I wouldn't need equally with film. So how could I contrive to screw up such a large saving? Well first I could do it by carrying out things inefficiently. I could buy a pro level printer and lots of ink and print every photograph I like right here despite the fact that I don't really need those prints and its much more efficient to buy those I do need from a lab now that I can make my own files and so exert control. I could buy every bit of software I might ever need instead of carrying a view that between PS and LR I can do just about anything I need to do. I could flit around from camera to camera and lens to lens rather than settling for a replacement/upgrade policy I can actually afford for both photography and computing equipment. But I don't do any of those things and so not unsurprisingly I believe I'm saving money.</p>

<p>I think there's a much closer and so more interesting debate on time. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>you are talking about film camera vs the whole digital darkroom...</p>

<p>how much will it cost you to but your enlarger, chemical, paper, filter, lens, film, camera etc...</p>

<p>if talking about film vs CF card.. it is way cheaper for sure; 1 CF card for 100$ = zillion of image.. 100$ = what.. around 10film with process.. 240 exposure or so?</p>

<p>no need to keep upgrading camera, no need for CS5 (element can do) you can also use Costco or so to print.. but i like to print my own stuff even if sometime it cost a bit more (4x6 are way cheaper with lab, 8x10 and up are about the same price with far more paper choice with ink jet)</p>

<p>but i agree that going digital for a new guy can be a serious investment.. but rarely i see someone starting from scratch.. everyone have already a computer, a crack copy of CS5 (common, i know it) and a printer that does it all.. all they need is a camera.. and you have the choice from 200$ to 45k if you want ; )</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm with Richard Snow on this one: I have shot some 150,000 images in the last five years. Total cost: 5 cameras, 1 computer, software, CF cards, storage - ballpark some $12,000. Just for film development and scanning cost - about $20 per film - the cost would have been $83K. Had I followed KR's advice on only shooting the keepers with film (lets assume some 10%), then film would have come down to a comparable level - if I only knew how to manage that.<br>

More important for me - with digital, I am in control of the entire image creation process - no more dealing with color labs etc. Digital put the fun back into photography for me - priceless.</p>

<p>Everyone's switch to digital got me doing my own colour printing, 4x5 Durst enlarger for $200, less expensive than an inkjet capable of 20x24" prints. :) Paper and chems are less than 80 cents for an 8x10 print.<br>

No expensive scanner and the trouble of scanning lots of negatives. No sitting for hours on end editing scanned images. No massive capital expense of new cameras and lenses(if needed).</p>

<p>Nothing is better than the satisfaction you get looking at a gorgeous 16x20 hand crafted optical print.</p>

<p>Thank you all. :) </p>

 

<p>Digital is not cheap, but in the long-long run it's definately cheaper than film in that you don't have to develop any of the throw-aways. If I were to develop all the garbage pictures I have stored on my computer I would be broke by now. Of course with film I didn't go out and shoot 500 pictures in one day. <br>

When the company I work for switched from digital to film, they thought they would be saving money, but it did not work out that way at first. There was the initial huge cost of the digital cameras. Then came the new computers with software(Photoshop, Lightroom), then we had to hire Editors, because the Printer charged extra to perform any editing. Something they did not charge us with film. Flash card, batteries, chargers, insurance etc etc. consequently we had to raise prices which cut into our profits.</p>

<p>Personally I can't say I really saved any money switching over to digital. I have purchased 3 digital cameras @ $1000+ in the span of just 5 years. That's allot of film ! An Epson printer R2400 which at $15 per cartridge sounded better to me than $75 per cartridge X 8 ! A Scanner, a new computer, flash cards, photoshop, lightroom, school, I'm not saving any money at all...</p>

<p> But would I go back to film ? Heck no ! I rather pay for the convenience. </p>

<p>What exactly does printing and ink costs have to do with digital vs film for capture cost? Oh....nothing. I process film and scan....print what I want. I process digital files....and print what I want. </p>

<p>Ink costs and print costs have nothing to do with the issue of film vs digital for capture cost. Nothing. As well....don't upgrade your DSLR. I remember years ago people looking forward to their new 35mm SLR, or MF upgrade.....so much for upgrade envy being a new phenomenon. </p>

<p>I agree that film shooting can indeed be economical....but you need to compare the actual costs rather than dealing with side costs. I don't print every digital file, and I don't print every film one. You don't need to go and buy a printer to print digital photos....you can transmit them to a lab and voila....same printing costs as film prints from a lab.</p>

<p>Sorry, but your reasoning doesn't hold true.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Had I followed KR's advice on only shooting the keepers with film (lets assume some 10%), then film would have come down to a comparable level - if I only knew how to manage that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />You do it in exactly the same way as people used to do it (and still do). By not pressing the shutter so often!</p>

<p>"If you were shooting film are you telling me you wouldn't use PS CS5??"</p>

<p>Shoot with an 8x10 and 5x7, process by hand and contact print with hand coated platinum/palladium papers.<br>

No photoshop, no digital, no ongoing expense for constant upgrading.<br>

The camera and three lenses were paid for years ago. Periodic maintenance is mainly cleaning them. Every 5-8 years a lens checkup. Maybe a new camera bellows every 20 years or so?<br>

Darned Platinum and Palladium keeps going up in price.<br>

No, it is not the answer for everyone and for much work not commercially viable. But, it works and does the job I want. As for time I find I am better putting out a few very fine prints rather than a quantity of average ones.<br>

Digital has a lot of advantages for some work but alt processes and the traditional darkroom still have a place for some of us.</p>

<p>Paulie, do you think pt/pb printing is cost effective? And as an 8x10 sheet of film will run you between $5-$7 EACH for the film and processing, I don't think you're really being serious with this comparison....are you?</p>

<p>Lets run my numbers and see how it falls.<br>

Last weekend, I was in Yosemite (landscapes here). I used a M645 with a 80/2.8 all weekend - except for the single 4x5 I shot. So I'll run it vs. the comparable digital systems.<br>

M645 replacement cost: $100<br>

80/2.8 replacement cost: $80<br>

Film: $4.19/roll - Delta 100 120. That's $0.28 per shot. I usually go through 4 rolls a weekend. $16.76<br>

Processing: Chemicals run about $0.20/roll to develop. $0.80<br>

Contact sheet: 8x10 paper $0.38 each. Chemicals run about $0.05. Light bulb use is negligible.<br>

Lets say 25% keepers.<br>

Enlarger replacement cost: $25 (I bought 4 6x7 enlargers last year for $100)<br>

8x10 prints: $0.38 + $0.05 x 15 + 15 for test strips, etc. $12.90</p>

<p>Totals: Hard costs = $205 w/ a 20 year life. Or $10.25/yr, simple depreciation<br>

Soft costs = $30.88 for 15 8x10 prints.<br>

If I could go shoot 26x/yr, yearly costs would be $813.13</p>

<p>Comparable system:<br>

Mamiya DM40: $17,495. Useful life = 5 years. Comes out to $3,499/yr<br>

I think you can see where this is headed...<br>

Computer: $400. Useful life = 5 years. $80/yr. Of course that should only be a fraction of the cost of the computer, it's used for a lot of other things beyond photography...<br>

Software: Lightroom: $250. Useful life = 3 years. $83.33/yr<br>

no contact sheets, no proofs<br>

8x10 prints $1.49/ea.</p>

<p>Averaging 15 keepers/outing, and 26 outings/yr totals for digital are:<br>

$4243.43.</p>

<p>In order for digital to make economic sense in this case, I'd have to shoot 2056 keepers per year. Well within a wedding shooter's or maybe a portrait studio's numbers, but, IMHO, not a landscape photographer's.</p>

<p>Dave Luttmann wrote: "I agree that film shooting can indeed be economical....but you need to compare the actual costs rather than dealing with side costs. I don't print every digital file, and I don't print every film one. You don't need to go and buy a printer to print digital photos....you can transmit them to a lab and voila....same printing costs as film prints from a lab."</p>

<p>Only a true statement if you are talking about prints from digital images, optical prints from negatives cost more than a wee bit more than prints from scans. And if you want a large print from 135 film, a $100 flatbed isn't going to cut it in the scanning dept.</p>

<p>Dave, if Paulie's "keeper rate" is 25%, odds are his costs are very low relative to the gear head who just dropped $5k+ on a system to make him great photos. :)</p>

 

<p>People who are into horses, boats, or photography probably shouldn't be picking apart costs. I don't look at my best work and say "gee, I'm so glad I saved money on that shot!"</p>

<p>Or golf. :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You do it in exactly the same way as people used to do it (and still do). By not pressing the shutter so often!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That approach will give you fewer images - but I don't see how it assures that all those are keepers.<br>

I see your point with static subjects (for which I am not pressing the shutter often either), but action is a different beast. In my avian photography, I am often glad I fired off a burst and have a few images to select from - if only for the reason that in one or two, the bird blinked; and those might have been the only ones had I pressed the shutter less often.</p>

<p> </p>