Digital Imaging VS. Film Imaging Cost

[pgriz]

There are other "costs" that can considered.

The cost of a lesson lost. The quick feedback with digital can mean a much shorter learning time (if one is trying to understand or learn something).

The opportunity cost. If you came upon a one-in-a-lifetime scene, and shot film, you may have gotten it, or you may not have - you won't know until later. With digital, you can verify on the spot, and re-shoot if you screwed something up.

The cost of sharing. With digital, you can shoot a family event and give everyone copies on CD before they go home. Can't do that with film.

The cost of mistakes. We're all human. We all make mistakes. With digital and RAW, you can clean up a lot of bone-headed mistakes and come away with a usable image. Harder to do with film and slide.

I still have all my film gear. But my photography skills increased dramatically once I started to shoot digital. Quick feedback helps.

 

[Village Idiot]

Most DSLRs have rechargable batteries.

But then you have to figure usage. I don't believe a straight up comparison is fair either. I can go through 300 exposures easy at the local race track panning. A lot of those are throw aways that are going to be erased. I took the photo though, so it counts as an exposure. 300 exposures would be about 10 rolls of film. I know I wouldn't be shooting at 3-5 FPS and I wouldn't shoot 300 exposures of film within a matter of 30 minutes.

 

[usayit]

This is a pointless argument to have without clear set of boundaries.

Yup... cost of digital versus film .. Your Mileage May Vary.


How many of the working professionals here who have shot since the days of film are now tired of the perpetual rat race of technology? Do you feel compelled to play along in order to stay competitive? Any different from film?


I've never worked as an independent photographer always choosing to assist others instead and worked the retail counter. I have seen a quicker cycle of local photographers coming in for upgrades (computer and equipment) over and over again. Much more than in the film days... This change is the reason local shops had rethink their strategy on keeping the balance sheet in the black with MORE retail and slightly less services. Same reason why local electronics stores saw the change and began to pickup digital cameras. From my limited viewpoint, digital world "seems" more expensive. Again... that's just my observation.. no data.. and no study. Too many variables (as Garbz pointed out) and no boundaries defined.

It would be interesting to see expense reports for equipment and consumables from a leading news source (New York Times ... etc) from both times when they were completely film based versus now when most are completely digital.

Some well known photographers (film days) shot with a single camera almost their entire life as a professional. Don't think that's possible these days.... maybe in the future but not lately.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Some well known photographers (film days) shot with a single camera almost their entire life as a professional. Don't think that's possible these days.... maybe in the future but not lately.

Agreed. Except for one camera that got blown up, the 35mm gear I have today and used for years is basically the same I started with.

But you forgot to mention the second half of the photo equation: the darkroom.

I had two of them. The first one, which I called my "darkroom in a suitcase" because that is how I carried it around the world, I used for 12 years. I could have used it longer because there were no problems with it but when I switched to commercial work, I also got a 4x5 enlarger, bigger trays, etc. This one lasted me for over 15 years until I got out of the business.

How many computers (today's darkroom), how many versions of PhotoShop will people go through in that same span of time?


But let's get back to gear for just a minute. I see wedding photogs here and on other forums spending thousands of $ on bodies, lenses, and other gear. When I shot weddings I had 1 body, 1 lens, 1 doubler, 1 flash and 1 flash bracket. I also had a few backs. In my area I was told I had to shoot in MF because 35mm just didn't look pro enough so I shot a Hassy, but only because that was the best deal I found that week

One Full Frame DSLR costs at least twice the value of my gear. Add the cost of the back up gear, the fast lenses, etc and you've paid for quite a few films (cost of processing included.) I mean you are looking at four to 5 times what I spent and the bodies will not last nearly as long.


This debate is as useless as the Canon/Nikon, Mac/PC, Ford/Kia one. There is truth on both sides, get over it.

 

[Village Idiot]

But lenses and such shouldn't be considered in the equation. If I was shooting film professionally, I'd mostly want the same lenses and lights I currently have.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

But lenses and such shouldn't be considered in the equation. If I was shooting film professionally, I'd mostly want the same lenses and lights I currently have.

Yes they should because they add to the cost of the equipment. My point may not have been clear enough but it was that if we, old farts, did it with much less gear, how come you can't do any better without spending so much more?

I don't see any difference in quality in wedding photography today and yesteryear. The main difference I do see is that wedding photogs today shoot, on the average, over 3 times as much as we did. Not included the second shooter...

That gives them that much more work PPing all that stuff (my PP took me less than 5 minutes. Time enough to address the envelope to ship the films to the pro wedding lab) which they seem to do themselves. And as I've said before, I make more money shooting than I do PPing so why would I want to waste my time PPing?

And I seriously doubt that people are buying anymore photos of their wedding today than they used to buy back then. There used to be lists of the "must have" shots and, if I remember correctly, they were less than 2 dozens of those. So, we used to shoot about 300 fillers and, now, photogs shoot about 1,000 fillers. You call that progress?

Not only do I not but it also takes a toll on your bodies... and your time.

There are two wedding shots hanging in my house. Both from my parents' wedding, both shot with even less gear than I used but both a hundred times better looking than what I have seen recently.

 

[usayit]

Not to throw in yet another variable into the equation but I this also came to mind:

How about the "cost" or "loss" in profit from the overwhelming ease of copying and redistributing of digital images?

Some smaller photographers had it tough as their "lower end" business of event photography was quickly overtaken by the ease and accessibility of digital (and Best Buy)

 

[Derrel]

Not to throw in yet another variable into the equation but I this also came to mind:

How about the "cost" or "loss" in profit from the overwhelming ease of copying and redistributing of digital images?

Some smaller photographers had it tough as their "lower end" business of event photography was quickly overtaken by the ease and accessibility of digital (and Best Buy)

Offsetting the "cost" or "loss" of image distribution is the speed and ease of transmitting images digitally: postage on Do Not Bend items is through the roof these days...UPS, Fed EX shipping, US Postal Service costs, plus cost of film, cost of processing, cost of proofing and contacts, cost of filing pages for film negatives and transparencies, the old $75/hr retouching fees...

The cost of shooting a wedding or other event back in the early 1990s, on film and processing and proofing was VERY much a large part of the cost basis for wedding shooters. That's why most weddings were handled with 200-300 frames in total--because 120 rolls of VPS were so costly, per shot, and developing and proofing and shipping was also rather costly...

Same with 4x5 transparency for small product shots, which I used to do in the early 1990s...I do not miss the price of Ektachrome and E-6 processing one bit. Nor do I miss the considerable expense of Polaroid film for test shots...

The lower-cost flatbed scanners from Umax, in the mid-1990's, were the beginning of the end for the "old" business models where proofs were somewhat "safe" in outside hands...it changed the business dramatically!

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Not to throw in yet another variable into the equation but I this also came to mind:

How about the "cost" or "loss" in profit from the overwhelming ease of copying and redistributing of digital images?

I think that is a very good question. And unfortunately the only answer is to raise the shooting fee. Raise it to a point where it seems totally insane. And that is why I think that retail photography is the biggest loser today.


Offsetting the "cost" or "loss" of image distribution is the speed and ease of transmitting images digitally BS! Nothing is really going any faster today. That is just something we want to believe and the myth is created and kept going by the photogs themselves. Which, frankly, means they are screwing themselves.

...postage on Do Not Bend items is through the roof these days...UPS, Fed EX shipping, US Postal Service costs, plus cost of film, cost of processing, cost of proofing and contacts, cost of filing pages for film negatives and transparencies Never had much of a problem with that. It was all passed on to the customer/client.

...the old $75/hr retouching fees... Never paid a penny for retouching. I don't know where or how you worked but my wedding lab did 99% of the needed retouching and the other 1% was never noticed by the client.

The cost of shooting a wedding or other event back in the early 1990s, on film and processing and proofing was VERY much a large part of the cost basis for wedding shooters. That's why most weddings were handled with 200-300 frames in total--because 120 rolls of VPS were so costly, per shot, and developing and proofing and shipping was also rather costly... Wrong! We kept it at, myself anyway, 300-350 shots because that was all that was needed to make the greatest looking album. Nobody needs or wants 10 shots of the bride's shoes, 25 shots of the cake, 500 shots of the party, etc.

A wedding album today does not require any more shots than it did 15 years ago. No wedding guest today is going to buy any more shots of a wedding than he/she did 15 years ago.

Weddings are a thing of the moment. And in that moment, most of the guest are somewhat out there, if not totally. Tomorrow, they either don't care or don't want to be reminded. Get over it