The future of photography

[bratkinson]

Just as CDs essentially destroyed the vinyl record industry (except for those with hearing good enough to discern the differences between vinyl and digital recordings...(ditto tube and transistor amplifiers), digital photography has pretty much wiped out film. And as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow, the cell phone industry is making major inroads on digital photography and following the same progression of megapixel and IQ improvement year after year.

Human nature is that people will almost always take 'free' over 'pay for it', regardless of whether it's food, clothing, or anything else. Too soon, there won't be any 'entry model' DSLRs once the cell phone people come up with 20+mp 'free' cameras and interchangeable lenses are $10 each. One need only look at online photos as well as the countless ‘photographers’ out there using cell phones to take pictures. ‘Good enough’ is good enough for them. Except for ‘us’ photographers, comparatively few realize there IS a difference between the simple snapshot with a cell phone and the photograph produced by someone able to use the exposure triangle and their equipment to the maximum. The masses are what drive a market…not the niche players…except at the high end.

Take the Kodak Brownie camera. Introduced about 1925 or so (I’m guessing, here), it truly made taking pictures available to the masses. While a roll of film and processing was reasonably cheap, compared to the bulky camera, tripod, film holders, flash powder, etc of the day; the simplicity of ‘the box’ is what made it sell like hotcakes! Nothing more than ‘point and shoot’ (and take/send the film to be processed).

20 years later or so, Polaroid cameras simplified point and shoot even further with point, shoot, wait 1 minute, and there’s your picture.

10-15 years later, came the Kodak Instamatic. Small (about the size of 2 packs of cigarettes), cheap, point and shoot, with ‘drop in’ film…no loose rolls to fool with…it was all contained in a cartridge. Throw in the ‘Flash Bar’ and later ‘Flash Cube’ for flash simplicity (it was 100% ‘auto&#8217 made it a HUGE seller. Again, cost and simplicity made it sell. With its tiny negatives (about 3/8” by 3/8” if I recall), image quality was ‘acceptable’ at best…about what cell phone IQ was 5 or so years ago. It didn’t matter. ‘Good enough’ was good enough.

Digital photography simplified that again…point, shoot, and instantly, there’s your picture on the LCD, or 30 seconds later on your computer, if it was handy. And no film cost. No waiting, no cost per picture.

Now, factor in getting a pretty-darn-good IQ camera at no cost in your cell phone…or Dick Tracy wrist watch/telephone/camera/computer of the future. What is the future of a DSLR? Except for the few ‘purists’ that can tell, can afford, and CARE about the difference between a cell phone picture and a DSLR picture, cell phone pictures will become the new normal (and preferred) method for photography. Carrying around a cell phone that takes pictures, or even a compact point and shoot camera beats carrying a 5D3 with lenses, etc in terms of size, weight, convenience, and ease of use every time. One has to be dedicated to quality photography to want to carry ‘it all’ all the time (or much of the time).

For the purists out there, the sound qualities of vinyl will always be better than digital. The same is true with tubes over transistors. No doubt, those that want or need to print extra large prints, super-size super MP DSLRs of some kind will be out there to make the pictures. But for fast, easy, and FREE, the masses will be quite satisfied to take their pictures with their phones…learning the exposure triangle and fooling with lighting and all that is/will become too much of a hassle for nearly everyone.

And remember, it’s the masses that make the market…not what is necessarily the better or ‘best’ product.

 

[jenko]

I think the economic advantages of digital over film are often exaggerated.

True, with film one had to buy the film, paper, and set up a darkroom, but we still have to pay for the digital versions of all these items.

A professional printer will take you out at least a grand on the low end. Then you have the paper to buy and the ink cartridges and those cartridges are expensive and do not last long at all. Professional prints are well over a dollar if ordered through a good online company.

Software for digital is always changing, and it is expensive. If one uses Photoshop they are now paying a monthly fee or having to use an older version.

One also needs the internet for PS, backups, and just general purposes.

Computers are not cheap. Need a good one if you want to run a program like CS6. iMac for the win.

An external drive will out you another hundred bucks. Backing up images can also get expensive.

SD cards, compact flashes. True, they can be erased and used again, but I always have to have a few extra. A fast 16GB compact flash will out you almost a hundred bucks!

 

[The_Traveler]

I think the economic advantages of digital over film are often exaggerated.

True, with film one had to buy the film, paper, and set up a darkroom, but we still have to pay for the digital versions of all these items.

A professional printer will take you out at least a grand on the low end. Then you have the paper to buy and the ink cartridges and those cartridges are expensive and do not last long at all. Professional prints are well over a dollar if ordered through a good online company.

Software for digital is always changing, and it is expensive. If one uses Photoshop they are now paying a monthly fee or having to use an older version.

One also needs the internet for PS, backups, and just general purposes.

Computers are not cheap. Need a good one if you want to run a program like CS6. iMac for the win.

An external drive will out you another hundred bucks. Backing up images can also get expensive.

SD cards, compact flashes. True, they can be erased and used again, but I always have to have a few extra. A fast 16GB compact flash will out you almost a hundred bucks!

I am hoping someone will make a spreadsheet to demonstrate the accuracy of this contention.

 

[Steve5D]

I think the economic advantages of digital over film are often exaggerated.

True, with film one had to buy the film, paper, and set up a darkroom, but we still have to pay for the digital versions of all these items.

A professional printer will take you out at least a grand on the low end. Then you have the paper to buy and the ink cartridges and those cartridges are expensive and do not last long at all. Professional prints are well over a dollar if ordered through a good online company.

Software for digital is always changing, and it is expensive. If one uses Photoshop they are now paying a monthly fee or having to use an older version.

One also needs the internet for PS, backups, and just general purposes.

Computers are not cheap. Need a good one if you want to run a program like CS6. iMac for the win.

An external drive will out you another hundred bucks. Backing up images can also get expensive.

SD cards, compact flashes. True, they can be erased and used again, but I always have to have a few extra. A fast 16GB compact flash will out you almost a hundred bucks!

If I were to lay all of the "bad" photos I've shot on film since 1976 (when I got into photography), I would probably circle the globe a dozen times. All of that paper cost a lot of money. Processing all of those bad photos cost a lot of money. Now, I just look at them on a $500.00 laptop and, if I don't like them, I delete them. Done. Over. End of story. There's no processing or printing to deal with. My computer is my darkroom.

When I need prints, true, I could go pay $1,00.00 or more for a good professional printer. Or, I dribble on down to Costco and let Noritsu do the work for me, and do it well. I think a 12x18" print costs $2.80. That's negligible when the print is selling for $300.00.

Software? I use Elements 10. I own it. I subscribed to nothing to get it. It's mine, and it does absolutely everything I need it to do. I think it was eighty bucks.

The bottom line is this: I got my first digital SLR in 2005. Since that time, I've bought three more bodies, lenses, CF cards (I've never spent anything approaching $100.00 for a card), external hard drives and a host of other things, and I've not spent what anything close to what I would've spent had I been shooting the same number of film frames, in those same eight years...

 

[Buckster]

Back when I was shooting film, my costs were easily $50 per week for film, developing, enlargements, etc. Per inflation calculators, that's over $100 per week in today's dollars. If I calculate just $100 X 50 weeks per year, that's $5000 per year I'd expect to have spent on film needs. I've been shooting digital for 11 years, so that's about $55,000.00 I would expect to have spent on film needs in those 11 years.

By contrast, my digital camera bodies and memory cards in those 11 years add up to about $8300.00. If I throw in photo-related software like PS and upgrades and plugins, my total cost goes up to about $11,000.00 but honestly, I probably would have bought those anyway for processing film images and, in fact, started buying and using those kinds of digital imaging software products before I made the switch from film to digital, which is pretty good evidence of my contention that it's not really an "additional" cost of shooting digital, at least not for me. Nonetheless, I'll include it for the sake of comparison here.

I would have still bought new bodies, though they would likely not have been as expensive as the digital bodies I did buy over those 11 years. Along the way, I would have continued to buy new lenses, tripods, stands, lights, modifiers and so on as always, so that's a wash - no additional cost. I would also have built or bought high-end computers regardless of whether I used digital cameras, as I have since the late 70's-early 80's, so that too is a wash on cost. Same with internet access costs - nothing additional there.

So, when it's all said and done, my calculations tell me that I saved about $44,000.00 over the past 11 years by switching from film to digital. And that's a calculation based on the number of film images I shot back in the day, which was FAR less than the number I shoot now that digital has unleashed me from the cost per shot that film always had me mentally tethered to while shooting it.

YMMV

 

[Steve5D]

So, when it's all said and done, my calculations tell me that I saved about $44,000.00 over the past 11 years by switching from film to digital. And that's a calculation based on the number of film images I shot back in the day, which was FAR less than the number I shoot now that digital has unleashed me from the cost per shot that film always had me mentally tethered to while shooting it.

YMMV

Yeah, but not by much...

 

[jenko]

First off, I never said film was cheaper than digital. I just believe the low cost of digital is exaggerated. It is made to sound as if digital is free, when in fact, it also costs money.

Expenses again: good computers, updating and buying software, DSLR shutter life, storage, memory cards, backups, online portfolios and websites, printing, etc. These are some expenses to consider.


There are a few who believe digital is actually more expensive than film. I am not one of them. But I think their argument is worth considering.

A few links:

The Creative's Corner » Digital Photography Costs More Than Film Photography --This one has a breakdown and price list.

Fact or Fiction: Digital is Cheaper than Film - Lomography

Digital versus Film Photography Myths ? Which is Cheaper?

Google for more ...


Again, I do believe digital is cheaper. I just don't think it's as cheap as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Buckster]

Expenses again: good computers, updating and buying software, DSLR shutter life, storage, memory cards, backups, online portfolios and websites, printing, etc. These are some expenses to consider.

Most of those expenses are incurred whether one shoots film OR digital, so they're a wash. See my post above for clarification.

 

[Steve5D]

Again, I do believe digital is cheaper. I just don't think it's as cheap as everyone makes it out to be.

Well, then let me include a qualifier: IN MY EXPERIENCE, digital photography is far less expensive than film photography.

In my 5D, a 16 gig CF card will hold 965 images. That's 26.8 (call it 27) rolls of 36 exposure film. I paid about $30.00 for the card. One roll of film would cost me about five bucks. Five bucks, mulitplied by 27, equals $135.00, or $105.00 more than the CF card.

Once I get done shooting those rolls of film, I have to go buy more film to shoot another 965 images. That's another $135.00, versus no additional cost for another CF. I just reformat the one I've got and away I go. In fact, with the $135.00 I just saved, I can go buy an external hard drive to store all my photos on, and I'll still be well ahead of the game.

This is just looking at the film aspect of the comparison. I paid $500.00 for my laptop, and $80.00 for Elements. The equipment in my basement darkroom, in 1978, easily set me back $500.00. NOw add to that the cost of chemicals which need to be replaced relatively often.

As I said, from my experience, it's not even a close comparison. The long range cost of digital is far lower than for film...

 

[Gavjenks]

And remember, it’s the masses that make the market…not what is necessarily the better or ‘best’ product.

This is very rarely true with luxury products. Diamonds being a perfect example. De Beers pretty much just invented the entire demand for their otherwise fairly useless product.

Good photography is a luxury item. People may be satisfied on a day to day basis with camera phones, but they still can SEE the difference to a pro photo. They aren't blind. It's just that they don't really need it to survive, so the demand doesn't get generated automatically.

One of your jobs as a pro photographer then is to make that demand, by top notch marketing. I suspect this is probably at least as important as photographic skill alone.

And keep in mind that you don't have to create a demand for pro photos on a daily basis. At no point in history did the masses go in to get professional photos every day, yet photographers have flourished just fine. You only need to convince them to come in every once in awhile, like for special events, to have a business model. Which still seems eminently doable.

First off, I never said film was cheaper than digital. I just believe the low cost of digital is exaggerated. It is made to sound as if digital is free, when in fact, it also costs money.

Expenses again: good computers, updating and buying software, DSLR shutter life, storage, memory cards, backups, online portfolios and websites, printing, etc. These are some expenses to consider.

If you take the equivalent of a roll of film a day, your shutter will cost you a few hundred dollars a year, let's say $400 for even a full frame DSLR.
The computer, the software, the backups, the websites and the printing don't count, because these really have nothing to do with digital / film has the same equivalent costs exactly (you would scan film and back it up and put it on websites and do most editing digitally anyway today if you were cost conscious). If anything, the only difference is that the scanner costs you hundreds of dollars if you go film.

So all we are really comparing is the cost of the shutter & the cost of the storage medium.
Per shutter activation: film camera deterioration will cost you 0.4 cents vs. full frame DSLR deterioration will cost you 1.6 cents
Per shutter activation: film itself costs around 14 cents vs. deterioration to your memory card will cost you around 0.2 cents (if shooting a roll a day and getting a new card every year)
Per shutter activation: getting film into your computer costs a good 15 cents developing and then several cents scanning (depending on your value for your time). vs. no cost in digital.

Total Film = 32 cents or so per shot
Total Digital = 1.8 cents per shot

Making digital 18x cheaper (that is including the investment in the body, remember)






The cost sheets on the websites you listed are laughably ridiculous. Examples of flagrant bias in order to make a good story:
* Citing the entire cost of a computer and monitor as photography investments. Nearly everybody in the industrial world (at least those taking up photography as a past time) own a computer already. At best, you can cite the cost of a slightly better processor.
* Requiring digital to have backups in TRIPLICATE, but not mentioning the cost of backing up your film AT ALL (they cite the cost of both onsite and offsite backup, but do not triple the cost of film processing to match this, or cite the cost of a scanner in $ and time). wtf? Last time I checked, film isn't fireproof.
* Citing the cost of photoshop, but not citing the cost of a darkroom with full equipment that would be necessary to do the same edits on film. This is an uneven comparison. If film is fine just straight out of the generic walgreens lab, then digital must be assumed also fine straight out of camera. They need to either add up the substantial darkroom costs, or add scanning costs and then also add photoshop to both tables.
* I don't even know what a "monitor calibration" is. I assume for precision professional color rendition accuracy? Again, this is preposterous to compare to film developed without even using a darkroom at all.
* I've never seen a modern computer that didn't come with a built in card reader in the last 6 years or so.
* Their "lifetime" estimate of 2 years for a digital camera is absolutely ridiculous. They include a budget for 4,680 shots of film per year. Okay. My Canon digital 6D has a lifespan of something like 100,000 or 150,000 shutter activations. That = 21-32 years lifespan for my digital camera, not 2, if you shoot at the same rate they are suggesting here.

Or, if you want to compare the cameras at a higher rate of shooting, then that's fine too. But now you have to multiply the film costs substantially. A lifespan of 2 years implies 50,000 shots a year. In terms of film, that would be $23,000 in film costs at their price points... (or $46,000 if you fairly require backups in triplicate like they require for digital)

You have to choose one or the other for a fair comparison.

 

[jenko]

Yes, Buckster. Thank you.

But I'm not talking about shooting film now. Yes, if one shoots film now, they need most of the digital equipment because we live in a digital age. However, in 1985, they would not have needed the digital equipment. Their expenses would be film, paper, chemicals, darkroom equipment. That is what they would have used to make an image, a print.

A digital photographer also needs certain equipment to make a print or an image. Their darkroom requires a decent computer and PS or some other software. They must also pay for prints and updates on their software. They need storage, backup etc.

I still think digital would come out as being cheaper than film, but the cost of digital is hardly free in comparison to the "old days of film." That is where I see it as being exaggerated.

It is true that I would most likely still have some of the things I need, like a computer, even if I did not do photography. In the "old film days" you would only have a darkroom if you needed one. Today, most people have a computer. But I bought my computer specifically to work with photography. If I just wanted to surf the net and write emails, I would have picked up something a lot cheaper than a 27" iMac. I would not be paying for Creative Cloud or monitor calibration or external HDs or cloud storage or other software and updates.

It' worth it to pay for all of these things because I enjoy photography, but in no way shape or form do I believe what I am doing is cheap or free.

 

[amolitor]

A digital photographer doesn't need anything. They already have a smartphone with a camera and a data package. They can spend 0.99 on some apps for this and that if they want to, but $10 will get in you everything you need, there.

That's a different kind of digital photographer than many of you are thinking, but the kind I mean is a lot more common than the kind you're thinking of.

 

[gsgary]

I would say photography is going down the pan, in the future there is going to be a big hole in documentary photography because hardly any amateur photographers get prints done. I'm exhibitions secretary for our club and have a hard time getting people to print for exhibitions another thing i read today is that one of the biggest photography shows in Europe has shut its doors
FOCUS ON IMAGING 2013 » Blog Archive » Must-see top-end demonstrations from Karl Taylor

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, Buckster. Thank you.

But I'm not talking about shooting film now.

Well you should be... now is when the digital camera revolution is happening. All those people buying digital cameras and/or using cell phones are making decisions in comparison to the cost of film right now. They aren't making purchasing decisions compared to the cost of film 37 years ago...

And right now, today, the cost of shooting digital per image is at least 10x cheaper than film, even with the software etc. added to both sides of the fraction, and that's talking about DSLRs.

For cell phone images that aren't post edited, it is literally free, because many cell companies don't even sell non-smart-camera-phones anymore as an option. You MUST buy a camera phone if you buy a phone, so it doesn't represent any additional cost. And the storage is not extra, either, and most people upload to instagram or facebook, which already acts as a cloud backup for your images, using a data plan (or a usb cable) that come with their phones.

10x cheaper is damn cheap. Free is free.
Again, I link you to the following graph I made:
View attachment 48304

How do you explain that trend without admitting that digital is VASTLY cheaper to the point of being (or literally being) free, compared to film?

 

[peter27]

I paid 30 euros for my K1000 Body and 65 euros for the 50mm prime I like to use with it. I've just ordered another K1000 body (in near mint condition) from a dealer for 95 euros. I have a number of lenses I bought second hand at various prices, totalling around 100 euros. I have a light meter I paid 25 euros for, a tripod that cost the same and some other small items of equipment that cost, say, 50 euros in total (cable release, lens hood, filters, etc,). Not a great deal of outlay, which is as well since I'm on quite a tight budget. On average it costs me 9 euros to buy and develop a roll of 36 exposure colour negative film (9x13 prints, high quality scans and CD included), which means I have a frame for frame cost of around 25 cents.

I use the family computer and printer, with free software, to run off any extra prints, or larger, nicer quality prints that I want. I use 3 types of paper for this: the 10x15 that comes free with the ink cartridges, a matte paper in A4 size that costs €13.99 for 50 sheets, and a satin matte paper, also A4, that costs €9.99 for 20 sheets (only for special occasions). The ink is quite expensive: about €25 for the multipack with the free paper, or €8 for individual colours.

I don't have all that much money to spend on the hobby I love but get a real kick out of using what I have. I couldn't even dream of buying the sort of digital cameras and high IQ lenses I pass on my way to picking up my paper and films, but I'm happy. For me, the future of photography is analogue whether I like it or not. Happily, I love it.