Was this photographer wrong?

[Josh66]

For digital its all on the computer and thats free.

Mine wasn't. Where did you get your's?

Granted - almost everyone will already have a computer, even if they don't even own a camera ... but there is the cost of software, memory cards, more expensive bodies (that don't last as long), external drives or some other way to back everything up, etc...

I would probably agree that digital is a lot cheaper than film, but it's not free.


I've seen this video before, and I think I remember reading in the comments that all of his gear survived the dunk.

 

[Garbz]

I bet that was the most expensive bath that guy ever took.

Depends. Do you make it a point to not insure equipment which may provide your soul source of income? If I did that with my camera and it died as a result it would cost me a whole $200, and that's definitely not the most expensive bath I've taken (don't go swimming in the ocean with expensive sunnies)

 

[burgo]

I have nothing against the guy being up in their face like that. Everyone has their own style. But I agree 2 or 3 shots up that close would have been ample and then he could have ducked back and used his telephoto lens. But if he had reccied that place properly he should have known how many steps it would be to that baptismal. Maybe he got carried away with it at the time. But you would feel like a real goose if that happened to you.

 

[Big Mike]

The gear though, collateral damage, but I think its covered under homeowners.

Not for professionals.

 

[Bram]

Lawl at him for taking his "Holy bath" epic fail.

 

[Bynx]

For digital its all on the computer and thats free.

Mine wasn't. Where did you get your's?

Granted - almost everyone will already have a computer, even if they don't even own a camera ... but there is the cost of software, memory cards, more expensive bodies (that don't last as long), external drives or some other way to back everything up, etc...

I would probably agree that digital is a lot cheaper than film, but it's not free.

Ive had a computer long before I had a digital camera. Photoshop is older than digital cameras. So I wouldnt call that a cost at all. I might if I was only considering to buy a computer, printer etc strictly to do photography. Camera costs are about the same be it film or digital. Ive taken over 45,000 shots in 3 years. Thats 15,000 shots a year. At the cheapest price quoted thats 15,000 x .2 = $3000 per year over 3 years which is $9,000. Thats more than the total cost of my computer, software, printer, internet, camera, and all the equipment that goes with it. And it would leave me with about $6,000 left over. So even $.20 is way way way too high a cost per print. Now if we want to talk about the $.50 price, well thats just plain nuts. At most Im sure there is not a greater cost than $.01 or $.02 which still seems high to me. The only cost is batteries which cost me $1.00 for every 350 shots. Thats just over 1/4 of a penny per shot. I think I can live with that.

 

[Josh66]

Camera costs are about the same be it film or digital.

Are they? A top of the line 35mm body will run you $3-400. Can you buy a top of the line digital body for that? Can you buy any digital body for that?

You wouldn't consider Photoshop a cost? Did it come pre-installed on your computer. It didn't on mine... (Even if it did, the cost would be built in.)

I'm not trying to say that film is cheaper or anything like that (the opposite, actually) - but I think it's kinda ridiculous to say that digital is free.

Just because you might not see the costs every time you take pictures doesn't mean they aren't there.

All you're proving is that the cost per print price that whoever you pulled those numbers from was not accurate for you. That doesn't necessarily mean anything... My cost per print might be dramatically different than yours. I've never actually sat down and tried to figure it out (have you?).

I don't spend a whole lot of time wondering how much each photo might be costing me, I just enjoy making them.

 

[Bynx]

Im agreeing with you OlllllO, Im just saying its no way near 20 cents or half a buck per shot. Im saying its closer to 1/4 of a cent.

 

[kundalini]

I'm not trying to say that film is cheaper or anything like that (the opposite, actually) - but I think it's kinda ridiculous to say that digital is free.

Digital photography is the most expensive (legal) hobby I've ever had.

 

[Josh66]

I'm not trying to say that film is cheaper or anything like that (the opposite, actually) - but I think it's kinda ridiculous to say that digital is free.

Digital photography is the most expensive (legal) hobby I've ever had.

I hear that! :thumbup:

Not exclusively digital either...

 

[Bynx]

I think there is a joke there somewhere but I dont get it. Why is digital photography so expensive? I bought a camera. All the accessories from my 35mm camera are used on my digital. I only print the shots I like, but I can see everyone I take on a huge 42" digital screen in HD. I consider that viewing free. So please explain the cost? Now if you figure time is money, then thats another story. Im sure we all spend too much time clicking that sucker.

 

[Buckster]

Probably varies widely from person to person. On one end of the scale, someone who only has a few hundred bucks invested; On the other, someone who has many thousands.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

The gear though, collateral damage, but I think its covered under homeowners.

Not for professionals.

Ummm....TWO cameras and one big ass dangling white Canon lens. Yikes.

 

[Garbz]

Digital photography is the most expensive (legal) hobby I've ever had.

I hear that! :thumbup:

Funny statement from someone's who forum nickname is the front of a Jeep. When I think about what some of my friends spend on their cars I hug my camera

 

[Bynx]

Probably varies widely from person to person. On one end of the scale, someone who only has a few hundred bucks invested; On the other, someone who has many thousands.

This is true about photography equipment in general, but has nothing to do with making ridiculous price comparisons as has been made between digital and film images. If you want to see a film image to even see if its any good or not then you have to print it. There is a cost. To see a digital image you can look at it in incredible detail for no cost at all. Digital images are much easier to 'fix' before printing while film images are difficult and time consuming at best before printing again. This is about the statement that digital images cost 1/5 to 1/2 the cost of a film image. If that was true, I couldnt afford to pick up my camera. Or if I'm wrong, Im a lot richer than I think.