Is digital really less expensive?

[nathangardner]

<p>Digital photography can be as expensive as you make it. Great cameras don't go obsolete, people just blow too much hot air on online forums, making you think they're worthless. The same camera that took Nat Geo photos 5 years ago will still click the shutter today. I would stop listening to people talk and go shoot. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I can appreciate Mark L's "bores the crap out of me" comment, because I feel the same way about a real stickshift in a car, vs. an autostick. There's a very tangible element of joy in the way the gears mesh and in the craft of the perfect shift that simply isn't there for me when I simply bump a shift paddle. I'm not saying I find digital boring. It's quite the opposite: I find digital photography far more exciting than film because of the postprocessing capabilities that are opened up to me. However, I can certainly understand fun in the process. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David makes the assumption that a labs prints would not be good enough to sell and would cost £50.</em><br>

Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I meant prints from a <strong>consumer</strong> lab wouldn't be good enough. On the rare occasion I have had prints made for London galleries rather than do it myself, I've ended up at Metro getting a great print but paying £50 a time. Trying to get art prints made at local pro labs (I live in East Kent GB) has proved a maddening experience - if I supply a perfect guide print AND literally stand over the printer while he/she is working, the results may be OK (although the process takes as much time as if I did it myself). I have heard many reports of labs that people are happy with but they never seem to work for me!</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Digital costs vs film costs depends on how much film you shoot and how often you intend to upgrade your digital camera. I really prefer the viewfinders in old film cameras over APS-C digital, although the 7D's viewfinder is a big step up for APS-C. My days of spending $50-70 a month on film and chemichals is over for now. </p>

<p>As for stick shift vs auto transmissions, I vastly prefer stick shifts unless I am on the beltway at rush hour.</p>

[seandepuydt]

<p>I would also like to throw out this observation. With digital we take many more photographs, probably many more than a film camera. Wouldn't the wear and tear burn up the shutter of a digital camera much sooner than that of a film camera? - Sean</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Yes, Sean, the shutter will wear sooner on a heavily used digicam, but shutter designs, innovations, and the use of more durable materials has also extended shutter life. Do a search on Google Patents for shutter designs for more info.:<br>

[<a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=camera+shutter+&btnG=#hl=en&tbm=pts&sclient=psy-ab&q=nikon+durable+camera+shutter+design&oq=nikon+durable+camera+shutter+design&aq=f&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=serp.3..33i21.181225.182443.1.183919.7.7.0.0.0.0.230.903.3j3j1.7.0.W7d42gcm4o0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=18dad8de718eb0e1">Link</a>]</p>

[matthew_moran]

<p>Personally I think the instant feedback from chimping leads to increased image picture quality. That increased quality justifies the increased cost, IMO. I may miss the joy of using a darkroom, but I haven't had access to a darkroom since I left school, so it doesn't really matter. I've never had any complaints about prints I've had made by online labs such as mpix or nationsphoto. The few photo printers I've owned have been very frustrating, expensive to operate, and not much fun at all.<br>

In short, since I switched to digital (using a lab to print my best pictures for display) the quality / price ratio has definitely gone up for me. And that doesn't even address the increased convenience of almost instantly sharing personal snaps with friends & family through social media. I used to pay for extra prints and then put them in the mail....<br>

So I'd say I "broke even" a long time ago.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I think football is boring. </p>

[tholte]

<p>Matthew, I just ditto what you said, perfect!</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Ross b needs to grow up:)</p>

[james_smith55]

<blockquote>

<p>With digital we take many more photographs, probably many more than a film camera. Wouldn't the wear and tear burn up the shutter of a digital camera much sooner than that of a film camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never heard of an amateur wearing out a shutter. Anyway if you buy lower end DSLRs like the digital rebel and upgrade ever two or three years you will always have a fresh shutter. Sell the old DSLR on ebay. If you sell it after only two or three years it will still be worth a few hundred dollars. I just don't see DSLRs as something you own for 30 years like analog cameras. But truth be told analog cameras have gotten so cheap now if my shutter ever failed I would just toss my 35mm camera and get another one.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I don't know if digital is 'boring' but, rather, not very special. So for me, the increased cost in film (if I shoot enough) will be worth it simply because film, to me, is special. It's a beautiful, beautiful medium and to a point I'll pay more for it. I intend to increase my film consumption and I've just bought a Pentax 645 with two lenses. Then I'll have to buy a scanner... ;-)</p>

<p>DSLRs only recently became worthwhile substitutes for 35mm (some applications exempted). I'm not impressed by anything less than a D700. In hindsight, some folk are regretting going to digital too early, being deluded into thinking that a D100 or 10D are a match for 35mm. But that is a separate issue...</p>

<p>But I'm not pretending - digital has many tangible advantages. Beginners should start with it.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I think football is boring.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ross b needs to grow up:)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it's true!</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I feel the same way about a real stickshift in a car, vs. an autostick. There's a very tangible element of joy in the way the gears mesh and in the craft of the perfect shift that simply isn't there for me when I simply bump a shift paddle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Over here in the UK we have the reverse situation to the US. Most people here drive manual - in fact, if you pass a driving test in an automatic car you cannot drive a manual until you take a further test.<br>

The fun we have over here when we borrow an automatic car is trying to remember that it doesn't have a clutch and screeching to a sudden stop when we try to change gear!</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I spend all day on a computer... ...it's a blessed relief to avoid a computer at home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not just relief. Blessed relief. If that were credible, the claim wouldn't even be here.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>There's probably other factors as to why one method is preferred. Not that there needs to be justification. Just that the one volunteered contradicts its own explanation.</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>Analog Photography - Client used to pay for films, processing, prints, contact sheets e.t.c .<br>

Digital Photography - Photographer pays it all but charge less in comparison to analog photography. Cheers !</p>

[rossb]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ross b needs to grow up:)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I suppose your are talking about the beer belly's that football people grow up. Being an avid cyclist it is just not something I would want but I do hope you sport a fine protruding abdomen since you are such a fan and all. They say it makes a fine perch for your Bud Light while laying back in your comfort chair. </p>

 

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose your are talking about the beer belly's that football people grow up. Being an avid cyclist it is just not something I would want but I do hope you sport a fine protruding abdomen since you are such a fan and all. They say it makes a fine perch for your Bud Light while laying back in your comfort chair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my world there is room for both. 51 miles, hilly, windy round-trip bike commute 4X/week and a huge NFL fan. And... no one who really likes, appreciate beer drinks donkey pi$$ like Bud lite. At least, no one I know, or will ever know. ;)</p>

<p>Back to the OP -- Digital is quite a bit more expensive than film. Naively, 12 years ago, I thought the opposite. Computers, software, camera bodies, more large prints than ever... but at least digital is a bit "greener".</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Lite and beer should never appear in the same sentence. I still can believe they did that. :)</p>

[rossb]

<p>Ken you are right I believe. Depends on your life and how it's made up. I had free time today as I took a vacation day. The way it went was Doctors appointment at 10:30, lunch at the Wharf in Monterey with my wife. Off to the Wheelman Bicycle store to price out a Mavic Pro rim and spokes for a rebuild and then home. After chatting a bit I took off on a bicycle ride and did the Cienaga Valley loop which is 35mi through lovely hilly wine country. I start the ride from my home. Now I am back home and could watch football if I wanted (assuming it was on). However I do not watch football or any sport on TV. But it does not mean I do not know what is going on as I read the sports page every day. I know about the Bronco's switching quarterbacks and all that and other main facts about football, baseball and such. </p>

<p> Here are my priorities in life summed up. Work hard and bring home the money for my family. Educate my 6 kids and save for the future. I am very good at all of those. Quality family time is the most important aspect of free time. There is no room in my life for TV sports. </p>

<p>Anyway I don't mean to change the topic so I will not say another word about it. <br>

However back to the topic and that is photography cost money. You can spend a lot or not as you please. Many people need the latest expensive items and others do not. Myself I can use any camera and achieve results that I am pleased with. </p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Digital is the alternative to film; not its replacement.<br>

Firstly film and digital are different in quality (film usually can bring higher quality, in terms of tonality, texture, and brightness range)<br>

Secondly, film photography is different wherein one still has to imaging (previsualize, a la Adams) the outcome, whereas in digital one comes to ideal picture through try-and-error (take-check-take-check-..).<br>

Thirdly, digital ends up more expensive because every other year you have to buy new set of gears.<br>

And lastly, film photographers already do have the best cameras that mankind has (and will have) made, while digital photographers are always envyous of higher of this and more of that.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Secondly, film photography is different wherein one still has to imaging (previsualize, a la Adams) the outcome, whereas in digital one comes to ideal picture through try-and-error (take-check-take-check-..).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be more inclined to listen to you and care about what you're saying if you spoke for yourself instead of speaking for others. You may work that way in digital (without previsualization and using trial and error), but a lot of us don't. To my mind, you're simply showing your own laziness and superficiality about how you shoot or would shoot digitally, not really saying anything that's pertinent to me.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Nozar Kishi,</p>

<p>"Secondly, film photography is different wherein one still has to imaging (previsualize, a la Adams) the outcome, whereas in digital one comes to ideal picture through try-and-error (take-check-take-check-..)."</p>

<p>In spite of Fred's objection, I think you have said something important. No matter how any particular individual shoots, it is well understood that rapid reiteration is often claimed as a benefit of digital photography. It's been claimed as a benefit in at least one recent post on this forum.</p>

<p>Rapid or instant reiteration is a different conceptual process than prolonged or studied visualization. Not better, not worse, but different. These different styles or processes of shooting surely do affect the outcome of images.</p>

<p>This is just an anecdote - but when I shoot a subject, I have to wait a day or two to see my results as I develop the film. Now, during that time I am thinking about the subject and image to come. When it comes, I am very ready to evaluate it. If it is not what I expected, I will be returning to the subject on a different and new day, making another attempt. Well, right there we have a potential for a much different outcome than if I had performed all the reiteration on the first day. Again - I am not claiming this is superior, it is merely different.</p>

<p>I think Mr. Kishi made an interesting observation.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>"Secondly, film photography is different wherein one still has to imaging (previsualize, a la Adams) the outcome, whereas in digital one comes to ideal picture through try-and-error (take-check-take-check-..)."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That's just a dopey statement. Not dope, "dope" would be a good thing. First of all, in unknown lighting, it's a huge advantage to be able to see. Somehow, glorifying a lack of information seems like a ridiculously worthless pursuit. Second, a lot of people don't look at their images. I rarely do, once I know what the lighting is. So the statement is pointless.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rapid or instant reiteration is a different conceptual process than prolonged or studied visualization.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Hardly, as you indicate, mutually exclusive.<br>

<br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it is not what I expected,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Something we will never know, since you seem to hide your photos. Oh, other than a couple pictures of passing trucks, hard to understand why anyone would post those. Sort of like posting test patterns.</p>