Your Cost to Make One Photograph

[Majeed Badizadegan]

The film days are over! Digital photography is so much cheaper now! Wait, hold on minute...

This is a concept-driven query. With all the threads out there about the cost of doing business, why photographers charge what they do, and how these underlying costs break down, it got me wondering:

What does it cost you to make one photograph: one RAW file? How much does it cost you to create one digital image, when you factor in all your costs and variables? The variables are going to be astronomically different for each person's situation, but it would be interesting to know.

I'll start with my situation (Note that I've purposely omitted "time" as a variable, since I haven't kept track of that figure. Note that I haven't included liability insurance, since I'm not taking paid work).

Costs:

I'm going to try to be thorough and scientific here, but there's no guarantees . This is a cost analysis for 18,669 photos I've captured since Apr 20, 2012. During that time I have acquired some of this equipment. Some of the equipment was acquired earlier, but I'll still factor it in as a cost.

Here are some gear costs factored into the equation:

Canon 60d w/18-135 (initial purchase)	$870.00
Canon Ef-S 10-22mm used	$550.00
B+W 10stop filter	$130.00
Gear Bag	$40.00
Tripod 055xPROB Manfrotto	$180.00
Vanguard SBH-250 Ballhead	$90.00
Remote Shutter	$20.00
Memory cards 5x16GB	$100.00
MiniUSB to HDMI	$20.00
Sensor cleaning supplies	$65.00
Lens Rental	$88.00
total: (rather a puny total compared to many)	$2153.00

Software/Hardware costs

Modern computer with 3 monitors (approx)	$2000.00
Adobe CS5/LR4 (approx)	$800.00
Photomatix	$100.00
Various Plug-ins CS5 (approx)	$600.00
Subscriptions (web pay services, photography related fees)	$50.00
External drives (total 5tb) for backup	$350.00
total:	$3900.00

Factoring in misc. other costs:

Gas to locations (Very rough estimate)	$650.00
Dining out, food at locations (Very rough estimate)	$200.00
Insurance (equipment coverage)	$60.00
total:	$910.00

This brings me to a total of $6963.00 to acquire 18,669 photos since Apr 20, 2012 or an average cost of $.37 per RAW image + time at location + time in post. So those big shooting days (800 frames) averaged out to cost me $297.00 + time at location + time in post!

But wait, there's more...

I'm also fortunate to have some various equipment on loan from a gracious friend. Another $4,700 worth (if I bought everything new from Amazon today). So Lets assume I own all of this equipment, and since I've used it to acquire many images in this time span, let's add that into the equation. $6,963.00 + $4,700 = $11,663.

This brings me to a total cost of $11,663 to acquire 18,669 photos since Apr 20, 2012 or an average cost of $0.62 per RAW image + time at location + time in post! Whoa!

What about your situation? I'd be interested to know.

 

[Canuk]

The above exercise, although an interesting read, does not equate to a cost per image. Out of those 18K + images how many were keepers or used for projects or printed for that matter?
To me images on disc are not the same as prints. So if I was to figure out a cost per print it would be very expensive indeed, but on the other hand my prints from film are relatively cheap in comparison, lol.

 

[pixmedic]

yup...thats a pretty thorough breakdown. but if you throw out the number of photos you deleted, the cost per file goes way up im sure, and if you factored in how many you printed, you add in a few more costs. printer, ink, paper... probably makes them a little more expensive.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

The above exercise, although an interesting read, does not equate to a cost per image.

per my definition OP, it does:
What does it cost you to make one photograph: one RAW file?

Out of those 18K + images how many were keepers or used for projects or printed for that matter?
To me images on disc are not the same as prints. So if I was to figure out a cost per print it would be very expensive indeed, but on the other hand my prints from film are relatively cheap in comparison, lol.

yup...thats a pretty thorough breakdown. but if you throw out the number of photos you deleted, the cost per file goes way up im sure, and if you factored in how many you printed, you add in a few more costs. printer, ink, paper... probably makes them a little more expensive.

I agree.

To avoid confusing matters, the "making of a photograph", as intended in my post for future responses, is the creation of one RAW file and the ability to view/handle that file in post. It doesn't matter if the image is deleted/discarded/not edited. That's not quite what I'm after.

I'm after the ca-ching per click.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Your analogy assumes we will be creating one image for that total cost?

One helluv an expensive pic! Be sure and set the lighting, right out the gate

Man if you would've added lights and modifiers,,,,,,,

 

[pixmedic]

The above exercise, although an interesting read, does not equate to a cost per image.

per my definition OP, it does:
What does it cost you to make one photograph: one RAW file?

Out of those 18K + images how many were keepers or used for projects or printed for that matter?
To me images on disc are not the same as prints. So if I was to figure out a cost per print it would be very expensive indeed, but on the other hand my prints from film are relatively cheap in comparison, lol.

yup...thats a pretty thorough breakdown. but if you throw out the number of photos you deleted, the cost per file goes way up im sure, and if you factored in how many you printed, you add in a few more costs. printer, ink, paper... probably makes them a little more expensive.

I agree.

To avoid confusing matter, the "making of a photograph", as intended in my post for future responses, is the creation of one RAW file and the ability to view/handle that file in post. It doesn't matter if the image is deleted/discarded/not edited. That's not what I'm after.

I'm after the ca-ching per click.

$ per actual click eh... well, then you broke it down very well.
but at what rate are you calculating profit -vs- expense, i mean, how much of that $.62 per file equates to actual profit vs those expenses incurred?

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Your analogy assumes we will be creating one image for that total cost?

One helluv an expensive pic! Be sure and set the lighting, right out the gate

Man if you would've added lights and modifiers,,,,,,,

Just a different way to look at things. In the film days, I think it was a little bit easier to track costs. Today, with all that goes into the development of a digital file, I think the finer points of the actual cost can be hard to pin down.

$ per actual click eh... well, then you broke it down very well.
but at what rate are you calculating profit -vs- expense, i mean, how much of that $.62 per file equates to actual profit vs those expenses incurred?

What if you don't sell your images or make any profit? I don't. $.37 or $.62, whichever way you look at, is the approximate cost for me every time I click the shutter. Barring equipment failure, and as long as I don't buy any additional equipment/software, then my cost per click will slowly go down if I don't increase my base costs.

I suppose the profit/expense can factor in, and should, if you do generate profits. I'm most interested in this matter at it's very skeleton, which is the cost per click. I'm just curious what the cost is for some of you guys every time you press down that shutter button.

 

[The_Traveler]

That assumes everything goes up in smoke after that one click.
You can use all that gear for forever - or a couple more years at least.
And your cost per image is totally controlled by the number of clicks so a bad photog who takes lots of pictures with no few decent shots has a lower cost per image.

 

[Overread]

Wait there is a flaw in the math here possibly since your divide your total costs (which I notice only covers hardware and fuel only) by your total number of photos the cost per photo will ALWAYS decrease for each one you take. If you sat down and just held the shutter for a whole evening you're costs per photo would plummet!

Even if you work on it with keeper shots your model would still mean diminishing returns the whole time because you'd always be dividing by a bigger number.

It's a neat stat kinda, but I don't really see how its even lightly applicable to, well, anything much (aside from us all totalling up how much we spend on gear and - er - I did that once already and its a scary number I don't want to see again for a while!)

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

That assumes everything goes up in smoke after that one click.
You can use all that gear for forever - or a couple more years at least.
And your cost per image is totally controlled by the number of clicks so a bad photog who takes lots of pictures with no few decent shots has a lower cost per image.

I'm trying very hard not to "assume" anything. I have stated that the cost will go down as more pictures are taken (so long as base costs aren't increased). The spirit of this whole thing is really being questioned, when it's a fairly simple concept at it's core: What does it cost you to click the shutter on your camera?

Maybe you guys are too afraid of the number you'll find

Wait there is a flaw in the math here possibly since your divide your total costs (which I notice only covers hardware and fuel only) by your total number of photos the cost per photo will ALWAYS decrease for each one you take. If you sat down and just held the shutter for a whole evening you're costs per photo would plummet!

Even if you work on it with keeper shots your model would still mean diminishing returns the whole time because you'd always be dividing by a bigger number.

It's a neat stat kinda, but I don't really see how its even lightly applicable to, well, anything much (aside from us all totalling up how much we spend on gear and - er - I did that once already and its a scary number I don't want to see again for a while!)

Scaredness confirmed!

I'm aware that the math "changes" as you take more pictures, I've just taken a sample here and crunched the numbers to illustrate my own personal scenario.

As far as the utility of such data, isn't being a "neat stat" reason enough ?

 

[pic_chick]

ok I will play

Cannon 1100d ......gift
kit lens................gift
other lens I forget.gift
camera bag..........74.00
50mm .................115.00
tripod...................50.00
off brand flash........120.00
reflector white..........2.00
total 361.00

computer and software I will include but I already owned them.

Laptop.....496.00
dell monitor 150.00
Lightroom ....free
PS cs5 ........free
photomatrix...free
flash drives...40.00
total 686.00

To and from Loc.
In town maybe ..o.00 I bike
Ins.................I do not know clumped in with HO Ins
total 0

all together now 1047.00
I have taken 9432 photo.. 0.11 cost per click

 

[amolitor]

Cost per click is a nifty metric to try to get a handle on, sure. I can't, since my gear buying extends much too far into the past for me to enumerate it, or properly allocate clicks to equipment.

I do know that the out of pocket cost per final print is pretty high. It is nonetheless utterly dwarfed by the time cost, if I paid myself anything like a decent wage.

 

[JAC526]

Why would anyone want to know this?

 

[MLeeK]

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.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Why would anyone want to know this?

Why not?