Your Cost to Make One Photograph

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Problem is it's not accurate at all. You are figuring that every image you have already created to this point had to pay for the equipment. You are still using the equipment and it still has resale value, so...
The average life of a DSLR is something around 100,000 clicks. You have a LOT more clicks that need to be figured into that. Which brings your first figure down around .07 cents
Your second figure somewhere around .11 cents.
And lenses don't have a shutter life of 100K. If you care for them you will have them for the life of 2, 3, 4 or even more cameras, so they have to be figured differently.

I've taken an isolated slice of data and extracted findings from it, findings which are accurate to that slice of data. These findings do not accurately indicate future costs. These findings do not account for resale value. It's simply a representation what it's cost me to this point, and roughly what it will cost me every time I press the shutter in the near future.

Did you use the 100,000 shutter life # to arrive at the projected costs?

 

[MLeeK]

Yes. But I also used your figures for your lenses in there which is inaccurate because their life is even longer.

 

[bratkinson]

If you were to compute the costs like an accountant would, the camera, lenses, tripod, flash, memory cards, and computer are hard assets and should be treated as such. A lifespan for each should be determined, the resale value at the end of its lifespan determined, and the loss of value (depreciation) amortized over the lifespan of each. So, a $1200 camera body, with a lifespan (OK, length of years you plan to use it) of 5 years, and an estimated $200 resale value at that point would be (1200-200)/5 = $200/year depreciation. Of course, depreciation is treated as an expense. Perhaps memory cards could be treated as 'expendibles' like paper, etc. It's your call.

On the expendables side, items like gas used to/from shooting location, depreciation of your car and wear & tear, etc. should probably be treated like the IRS would...$.xx per mile. Meals & lodging while out shooting should also be counted. Throw in costs for paper, ink, photo albums, CDs for albums and/or backup and other miscellany such as "office use for part of your home" expense(Caution!!! IRS is VERY touchy about that one!!!), electricity for your computer, battery recharger, lights in your 'office', etc.

NOW...given all those expenses for a full year...NOW divide that number by the number of shots taken and you have a cost per shot. Of course, your post processing time is considered 'free'. Throw in $25/hr for your time into the cost, plus benefits, etc.

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY!

And that's BEFORE you find any customers!

Don't forget that other hobbies can be even more expensive...like fishing. Cost/fish must be astronomical! Or a private airplane, or a motorcycle...

Disclaimer: I am NOT an accountant/IRS employee/professional photographer/lawyer

 

[Garbz]

As much as I hate to add to this debate which seems to just argue with what is otherwise a very well thought out and interesting post, if your idea of making one Photograph = one RAW file, then you don't need to count the computer. The RAW file is made without any help from a computer at all.

 

[gsgary]

Good job you didn't spend much on camera gear

 

[unpopular]

This is such a weird way to look at it. So over time, by simply actuating the shutter, a photographer becomes more profitable?

This is a bit like saying the more you drive, the less gas will cost because somehow the initial cost of the car is offset by the miles you use it...

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

This is such a weird way to look at it. So over time, by simply actuating the shutter, a photographer becomes more profitable?

This is a bit like saying the more you drive, the less gas will cost because somehow the initial cost of the car is offset by the miles you use it...

Hmmm... Let me amend what you've said. Over time, so long as a photographer does not increase his net costs, his net expenses go down.

 

[unpopular]

Income offsets cost, not time.

 

[Judobreaker]

If you're trying to prove that shooting film is cheaper than digital there's no need to take lenses and camera accessories into the equation.
Lenses are the same for every camera (ok, the mount may differ but the idea is the same). Remotes and stuff like that are either the same or don't even exist for film cameras.
Gas dining and insurance is needed for both film and digital (unless you're planning to starve to death when shooting film).
So basically it comes down to the camera, the film/memory card and the processing equipment.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

If you're trying to prove that shooting film is cheaper than digital there's no need to take lenses and camera accessories into the equation.
Lenses are the same for every camera (ok, the mount may differ but the idea is the same). Remotes and stuff like that are either the same or don't even exist for film cameras.
Gas dining and insurance is needed for both film and digital (unless you're planning to starve to death when shooting film).
So basically it comes down to the camera, the film/memory card and the processing equipment.

What I have gathered from the responses here, is that my logic presented in this scenario has more holes than a spaghetti strainer . In other words, it leaves more questions than answers.

I can tirelessly defend the spirit of my initial post, or raise the white flag and concede the fact that my ideas here aren't flawless by any means. Hopefully it's an interesting read and thought-provoking. That's all I'm after.

Not trying to make any grand summations or anything along those lines.

 

[Garbz]

Hmmm... Let me amend what you've said. Over time, so long as a photographer does not increase his net costs, his net expenses go down.

So we're all effectively screwed then right? I mean surely there's not a single soul here who isn't saving for the next lens right ?

 

[bratkinson]

So we're all effectively screwed then right? I mean surely there's not a single soul here who isn't saving for the next lens right ?

Actually, I'm saving for and already allocated next years tax refund to buying a 5D3. I think I have enough lenses...for now.

 

[timor]

This is such a weird way to look at it. So over time, by simply actuating the shutter, a photographer becomes more profitable?

This is a bit like saying the more you drive, the less gas will cost because somehow the initial cost of the car is offset by the miles you use it...

If the car outlasts amortization period then virtually becomes free. It will not lower the gas cost, but an overall transportation cost. So it will be with clicking the camera, but I think in photography the highest cost is the time of a photographer so the question should be more how much on average cost me one finished image in whatever form (file or print). frame of time is up to the one, who wants to calculate.

 

[Derrel]

Did you figure in the cost of an outrageously undersized Arctic Circle hamburger...one that really was NOT worth anywhere near its purchase price?

 

[unpopular]

If the car outlasts amortization period then virtually becomes free. It will not lower the gas cost, but an overall transportation cost. So it will be with clicking the camera, but I think in photography the highest cost is the time of a photographer so the question should be more how much on average cost me one finished image in whatever form (file or print). frame of time is up to the one, who wants to calculate.

So if you pay upfront cash, the car is always "virtually free"?

The investment is the investment, regardless. There is no way to offset cost without income, and income is the only way to offset cost.

---

Oh, and BTW - I was saying I'm an ass on the internet, not you. Though, I do enjoy company - we could start an internet ass club.