Digital Cheaper than Film?

[m_kevin_johnson]

<p>Also as a side note to give thought as to "format" this is a real debate in the aerial mapping buisness as well but I am finding (and glad of it) that the bulk of people still prefer film. As a comparison at a scan of only 12um (2116ppi) from a 9"x9" aerial image you end up with a 1.2G photo in color at 8 bits or about a 2.5G photo at 14 bits. Try doing that every 1.5 seconds! <br>

The main savings comes in flight time though. You can be flying at the same altitude with the Digital Aerial Cameras to get the same 12um image but it is much smaller coverage area so you need to fly 4 times as many photos and lines and thus you spend a LOT more time flying and then the clouds pop and the day is done.<br>

I actually use both film and digital for my own use and both have advantages but the long and short is that it is what you prefer to work with and are used to maybe. It does help that I own a photo lab and in that photo lab I have a Chromira 50-5X though. It helps a lot when I want to make prints and I have a 40"x80" to print because I can make 10 - 8x10's along the edge of what would mostlikely get tossed anyway.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Digital has completely changed the way we use pictures. Most are only viewed on screen and transferred/sent instantly, since it's more convenient. Only few are ever printed.</p>

<p>For the vast majority of users digital is not just cheaper, but it's the only sensible and contemporary form of photography.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>The printer itself was about $700 I think.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>even if you multiply that a few times Ken it's nothing compared to getting a top notch darkroom with 2-3 enlargers, trays and lots of other paraphernalia, not too mention the cost of various chemicals and what not. I've spent a lot more on films over the years than I spent on CF/SD cards. The paper I used in the darkroom was more expensive than the Gold Fibre I use for my digital work.</p>

<p>In the end however it's a non issue. If you do commercial work you factor those costs in. If you don't you factor them in anyway. Photography is a costly pasttime, full stop.<br>

The only criterium is if you think it's all worth it. For that you need to look at the results, may they come from your darkroom or from your printer.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Most are only viewed on screen and transferred/sent instantly, since it's more convenient.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which makes a mockery of the constant drive for more resolution.</p>

[m_kevin_johnson]

<p>I am also finding with in this discussion that it should be pointed out that "end users" are taking e-mailed files that are made to be say 2 inches by 3 inches and printing them to 8 x 10's and saying how great they look. In all my years of working in a photo lab (over 28 professionally now) if I had handed one person those prints I would have been out of the business right then and there.</p>

<p>Perhaps it may be "Cheaper" at times because many end users are working and making it look Cheap. I think that the professional and many others know it may overall cost less but that there are also many expenses to recoope as well. I know 70mm roll stock is not as easy to get as it once was but I will say it seems when I shoot a special occasion for someone that most of the time they pick the photos I scanned from my Hasselblad over my digital camera. That may not be the case as often now that I have my D7000 but it is worth noting it anyway. I have never added up or even paid attention to my final costs. I figure the cost of putting a few hundred photos on a SDHC Card in RAW & JPG format will run me a little less than the film.<br>

<br />I always suggest to people to shoot on the SD card and save a copy to at least one Hard Drive as well as their "working copy". Then make a "Contact Sheet" in Photoshop and have it printed (or print it) and put them in a binder with the card and sheets numbered and get a new card. NOT to delete them and continue shooting just in case somethign fails you have the main file still. That is as valuable as the original film (WHICH I AM FINDING PEOPLE ARE TOSSING OUT NOW TOO). I offered the guy that shot my wedding $500 for the negs for 10 years and then finally I wrote a check and mailed it to him. He returned my check with a letter that he threw all his negs away a year ago...............<br>

So, there are times that a cost savings may not be..........</p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Digital is as cheap or as expensive as you want to make it. You can by a used DSLR, you don't need the latest and greatest to make decent photos. Nikon D80s or Canon 20Ds today sell in my local camera store for a little more than 200 euros. Thats hardly meg bucks for a DSLR. You can send your files to a lab to be printed and don't need to buy inks or printers. You don't need a new PC and photoshop elements or picasa would do just fine to adjust images for printing.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Neither method is inherently more or less expensive than the other. It all depends on each individual's situation and choices. If you're spending more now than you did with film the only conclusion that can be drawn is that for one person (you) digital is more expensive. But your experience means nothing to me or anyone else in determining which is more expensive for us.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Yes, I find film with the 5x7 and 8x10 to be less expensive than the digital route - for me.<br>

I shoot fewer images and more than half are destined for final prints. I don't shoot a numer of sheets of film of one shot. I mix my own chemistry and coat my own papers for pt/pd and do still make B&W contact prints on silver chloride papers. The size of the negative is the size of the print in 8x10 and usually with 5x7 - though I can enlarge 5x7 with the old Beseler enlarger I have had for 20 years now.<br>

Folks pay a premium for hand done work. The portraits are unretouched. The images the way I want them to look and the number limited mainly because of the work involved in printing.<br>

For me, it works OK. For some the darkroom is not fun or enjoyable.<br>

The digital work is a different animal. I would never try photographing a college football game with the 5x7 or 8x10 though an old speed graphic would still work OK - as long as it was only a few shots and not full coverage of the whole team during the game. For news events the big camera would be an event all by itself and at times upstage the event being covered, especially with small town events and politicians. Wouldn't want that.<br>

I shoot differently with the larger camera than I do with digital. Part is 30+ years of experience with the larger format and working much differently and more tightly with it than with digital.(or even 35mm/medium format) Knowing the end result is a contact print, and just a few of them has me shooting differently. I am not trying to get a pass catcher just as he grasps the ball while a linebacker is folding him in half. I am trying to get a feeling on film that will translate to the final image. When I set up and see it is not working as I want or envision - I take the camera down and move on. With digital I may try to force it a bit at times.<br>

One thing I really like with digital is image stitching for panoramics. Even with the 8x20 I could not get what I wanted way too often. Now I can plan and stitch and get what I envision thanks to technology - and I don't need a banquet camera to do it.</p>

<p>For me film costs less all the way around. Part of that is how I work. For others it would be more costly if they did not discipline themselves in their shooting to do more 'cherry picking' rather than shooting and hoping. Niether one is 'right', they are ways of working in a comfort zone that allows me to get the results I hope for with a minimum of fuss while having confidence in my working methods and my gear.<br>

Just hope the batteries on the 8x10 Deardorff don't die on me as I can't figure out where they are...</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I have mixed views on this subject. I'm fairly new to digital photography using a DSLR, but I'm not at all new to photography.</p>

<p>Many people make the claim that digital is cheaper than film, but to me the <em>cost</em> of getting into digital is extremely high -- much higher than film. I bought my DSLR two and a half years ago and paid $600 for it with a kit lens -- a bottom of the line Canon DSLR. But that was the <em>most</em> money I've ever spent on an SLR, and I've owned lots of SLRs. All manual focus, though, save a couple of mid-level EOSes. So I've owned, and still own, Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s and F3s and never paid anywhere near that amount to buy a pro quality SLR. Yes, as I indicated above, I also own an AF outfit -- a perfectly good camera that's 12 years old now (an Elan IIe) and just about worthless on the used market, plus a small handful of lenses. So when I bought my DSLR at least I had a small assortment of other lenses to use, which helped somewhat with the finances.</p>

<p>So, yeah, now that I've invested a hefty chunk of change -- well, for me, at any rate -- my additional digital expenses have been minimal. I already owned image processing software for processing both film and digital photos (even though the Canon DSLR was my first DSLR, it was not my first digicam), so no additional expenses there, either.</p>

<p>But I still own and I still use film gear. And I'm actively adding to it, since the prices for it are so cheap now. So the cost for my film gear remains minimal. </p>

<p>As for comparing film to digital images, yeah the digital images don't cost anything, although the cards do, and so do the drives or DVDs or whatever I'm gonna use to store all of them. And how permanent are any of them really? Whereas with negatives, as long as they're kept in a cool dry place, they should remain stable for many years. and a roll's worth of negatives takes up about as much room as a sheet of paper. The only additional costs I have associated with their storage is how much it costs me for the archival quality protective film sleeves.</p>

<p>Film costs? Well, I can buy 36 exp. rolls of Ektar for $5 or so, and if I shop around I can find slide film for not much more than that.</p>

<p>What about film developing costs? Well, I have my C-41 film done at Costco, where it costs me $1.79 per roll because I don't have prints made. If there are some really worthwhile images on the roll, then I can go back to Costco and have them printed out for like $0.13 each or some ridiculously low number. Slides? Well, yeah, they're more expensive, but I' gonna try Walmart and see how that works for me. They're pretty cheap from what I understand.</p>

<p>So what I'm getting at is, for me, an active amateur, the costs of shooting film are minimal. As are the costs of shooting digital, for the most part. But what I'm faced with right now is being very dissatisfied with the entry-level DSLR I own, and I want very much to move up to a better one. But having shot 35mm for so many years, the next DSLR is also going to be full-frame, which means a 5D Mk II, and once again I'm faced with the aspect of having to buy a camera that is many times more expensive than any other camera I've previously purchased. So for me, to stay <em>current</em> with digital is <em>very</em> expensive, whereas staying current with film seems to be getting cheaper as time passes.</p>