Was this photographer wrong?

[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.

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.

I understand your position and your argument. You want to reduce it to the lowest common denominator, as though since that's all it takes, that's all the cost there is to ANYBODY, which simply isn't true.

It can be done on the cheap, no doubt. So can film photography - I've done it, as have many here, especially those of us who started out long before digital cameras or even personal computers existed.

Having invested in modern digital equipment from several thousand dollars worth of camera bodies, another several thousand dollars in modern lenses for those bodies, another several thousand dollars in my computers and digital backup systems, another several thousand in cards, cords, monitors, calibration devices, printers, ink and all the rest, combined with the fact that I don't machine-gun out thousands of photos per week, but more like a couple hundred per month at most, I simply don't agree with your take on the cost per image - especially not the cost per final printed image.

There's no right or wrong here. It's simply a different cost for each person, depending on the ratio of cost of gear they've invested in versus how much they shoot and print. Yours is low; Mine is high. No biggie.

 

[Josh66]

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

I actually had to sell all of my Jeeps... lol

Couldn't afford to keep it up after 2 kids.

Eventually, I plan on getting one or two to play around with - but I don't think that will be very soon.

But, yeah - they were much more expensive than photography...

 

[Bynx]

I have a $250Cdn Fuji point and shoot camera and a $7,000 Nikon D1X. I prefer the Fuji for convenience and ease of handling. Now there is a fair difference between the cost of the cameras, but the difference in image quality is very little. Im not getting a $250 dollar image from the Fuji and a $7,000 image from the Nikon. So how do you justify spending thousands on a camera which gives an image of perhaps $50 better than a $250 point and shoot? If you do spend thousands on that camera then you cant really project that cost onto the number of prints you take. Can anyone produce a formula that would work for all of us to be able to figure out our cost comparison between digital and film? That cost cant be different for each and every individual depending on what camera, flash, tripod etc they own, and whether they have a computer or not. There must be a basic cost that will apply to each of us.

 

[Josh66]

There must be a basic cost that will apply to each of us.

Assuming that you are going to scan the film and make it digital (I know that thought really bothers some people), the printing costs would not be any different.

The cost of the actual film is easy enough to calculate down to a per shot number. I wouldn't even really know where to begin trying to do the same for digital...

I guess you would have to factor in the life expectancy of the camera body (film and digital), and the cost of the body.

Not really sure how to do that either...


I don't think there's any doubt that digital is much cheaper, but it certainly isn't 'free'.

 

[skieur]

Backing up while shooting is not to be recommended. Most pros have their own horror stories of their worst backing-up and shooting disaster. I certainly do.

skieur