Film not as expensive as people think.

Discussion in 'Film Discussion and Q & A' started by ahelg, Jun 19, 2006.

  1. ahelg

    ahelg TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    I was out taking photographs yesterday using slide film and I realised that I'm not actually loosing all that much money on using film instead of digital. Heres what I figure.

    I want good quality photographs, so I have two choices.

    A) The Digital Kit:
    Nikon D70s with 18-70 mm lens: £669
    Nikon 35 - 300 mm lens: £300
    1 GB Memory Card: £50
    Total: Aprox £1000

    B) Analog Kit:
    Nikon F75 with 28 - 100 mm lens: £200
    Nikon 35 - 300 mm lens: £300
    Total: Aprox £500
    Money left for film and processing: Aprox £500

    Now if you shoot fujifilm Sensia 100 and purchase your film from www.fujilab.co.uk you can get a roll of film and processing, and digitizing to cd for £10.5. That means that for £500 you can shoot about 47 rolls of film which equals 1692 photographs (when i load my camera I usually get 37 photographs on one roll but I've used 36 in my calculation since that's what the box says). You will have both a slide and a digital copy of your photograph.

    Now take into account that you will probably buy a new digital camera about twice as often as you would buy a film slr and you'll see that digital photography is not much cheaper than film photography. If you replace your dSLR every 3 years that 233 pounds a year (presuming that you spend £700 pounds each time). Now a film SLR you can get for about £200 pounds and I doubt I will replace that for another 6 years. That's £33 a year. Now If we look at a period of ten years thats £2330 for digital gear and £330 for analog gear. The price difference is £2000 pounds which means that you can develop 190 rolls of film which is 19 rolls a year.

    Now my conclution is that digital probably is cheaper in the long run, but it varies very much from person to person. It all depends on how many photographs you take. I'm not saying that one is cheaper and/or better than the other. I'm just trying to defend us film users by saying that digital is not as cheap compared to film as many would want you to think, but of course it all depends on choice of gear and how much film you plan to develop.
     
  2. Torus34

    Torus34 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Tottenville, Staten Island, NYC USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I've never found film to be expensive at all. I work in B&W, bulk-loading my 35mm cassettes and processing both the 35mm and the 6x6cm film.
     
  3. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good points, and of course it works out even cheaper if you have a darkroom. The only thing I'd really take issue with is the bit about replacing cameras... I never replace them; I just buy more. :mrgreen:
     
  4. ahelg

    ahelg TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    Yes the replacing camera thing doesn't really apply to me either. I just thought I should take "an avarage users view" on the subject. I to buy cameras all the time. I love collecting them. So far I have a total of 12 cameras in my collection and I intend to buy a lot more when I go to england this summer.
     
  5. mysteryscribe

    mysteryscribe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,071
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    in the middle of north carolina
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    My wife bought me a camera yesterday to butcher for father's day. She paid 3.50 american.

    I have a house full of them. Every camera I own and all the film I own does not equal what my son in law has invested in two nikons.

    If I shoot two pieces of cut film and process it everyday for the rest of my life, I wont have the price of his one small camera bag full of nikon stuff.

    Plus I love my cameras, he still admits wet processed prints from a 6x6 look better but they aren't modern. Digital makes sense in a professional setting, but not in a personal one at least not for me.

    I make and now have started to market retro photographs. You cant show up for a retro shoot with a plastic camera. It just isn't done

    Anybody know where I can get an authentic panama hat.
     
  6. Don Simon

    Don Simon TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,484
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm rethinking my plan of getting a digital for convenience, in favour of getting into MF more while the prices are low. Sure I may have to reload every 12 shots instead of endlessly snapping, but it's satisfying to know I can get a massive metal monster and a few lenses for the price of one plastic body.

    .............................................
    .......................................................
    .................................................................. Panama?

    Sorry, I'll go sit in the corner :mrgreen:
     
  7. ahelg

    ahelg TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    I know what you mean. I would gladly buy a Mamiya 7 + 80mm F4 lens for £1350 instead of some expensive Nikon camera like the D2H.
     
  8. mysteryscribe

    mysteryscribe TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,071
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    in the middle of north carolina
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I personally liked that little fuji 645 rangefinder. I thought it was CUTE. never bought one but it was CUTE..

    Hat: I was hoping to find one a little more reasonable rofl
     
  9. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    And why didn't I read this thread BEFORE I wasted 3 grand on didital equipment? Huh? huh?

    This is so true. Digital only makes sense if you're selling your pictures. If not... then film is IMO superior.
     
  10. markc

    markc TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,237
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Rochester, NY Velocity: Unknown
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I definitely did not go to digital to save money. It's a huge up-front cost. I did it for control and ease of workflow, since I wasn't going to be spending any more time in the darkroom.
     
  11. ahelg

    ahelg TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    Then digital totally makes sense. I was just pointing out that if you prefer film, your not loosing conciderable amounts of money compared to going digital.
     
  12. Philip Weir

    Philip Weir TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia. The land of peace and sunshine.
    My only comment would be is. As a Professional Photographer, I used to spend a minimum of $1500 per month on film and processing chemistry, not counting the extra time for processing. Now I spend nothing apart from the time downloading, which is much less than the time processing. I must admit I spend more on camera changeovers, but nowhere near $1500 per month. I would advise you to purchase a top of the range digital camera which will last you for years.
     

Share This Page