yup...I'm addicted to film... have a few questions

Peeb · Feb 13, 2016

cgw said:
How long do dslr shutters/electronics last? Most makers rate them between 100,000-150,000 actuations. Some live longer, others don't. If it's the latter figure, that's a bit more than 4,200 36-exp rolls. Many cameras can hit, exceed or die short of those MTBF figures in 2-3 years. Some owners take depreciation in stride by regularly trading up to newer models in order to avoid breakdowns or to benefit from newer technology. But there are still costs involved. Know any CPAs? If so, ask one.

Or worse- actuaries!

Derrel · Feb 13, 2016

I did some math earlier today. I did the SAME math a decade ago, after having shot $74,000 worth of film and processing equivalent using Ektachrome 100 36exp slide film and good lab developing as the baseline, using a Fuji S2 Pro d-slr that cost m,e $2,400 new.

Today's math went like this:

Fujichrome Provia 100F Professional transparency film is $9.75 per 36-exposure roll from B&H Photo. In a 5-count pack it is $48.75, or $9.75 per roll.

To save yourself hundreds of dollars in bus,train, or gasoline costs, let's use pre-paid mailers to have the film mailed in and mailed back as processed slides, at $10.49 per single-roll mailer.

1,000 images divided by 36 exp. requires 27.7777778 rolls of film (call it 28 rolls)

28 rolls of Provia 100F is $273.The 28 mailers at $10.49 costs $293.72 Slide storage pages for 1000 slides is $12.98 (ignoring filing cabinets/shelving/binders/other storage options).

$579.70 per 1,000 color slides of 100 ISO speed. Let's call that 58 cents per shot.

Now, let's take a $399, 24-megapixel d-slr camera from Nikon or Canon. Let's give it a conservative 100,000-shot shutter lifespan. 100k divided by $399 comes out to a per-shot cost of $0.00399. So, a little bit over ONE-THIRD of one PENNY per shot.

So, that inexpensive 35mm film camera you bought really isn't all that inexpensive when you want to shoot 1,000 pictures. It will cost you $579.70 per thousand pictures in consumables (film,developing mailers,storage for the film)

So, for 100,000 color slide film images made on 35mm Fujichrome, the cost is $57,970. And 100,000 d-slr images from a Nikon D3200 is $399.

Hard drives to store 100,000 24MP digital negatives and thousands of work/index images? $279 at today's prices.

My computer/software costs per year since 2007 have worked out to a little over $750 per year (Mac tower, then Mac iMac, Lightroom, PS CC). I am a "slow upgrader" though. I realize that the faster, better computers that could shave minutes off of a batch process are still limited by the slowest part in the chain--which is "me", a very slow, obsolescent, 1963 model.

cgw · Feb 13, 2016

How many here are content with a $399 dslr kit they intend to shoot till it breaks with no additional purchases? "Upgrade" and "investment" are arguably the two most frequently used words used in this site's many equipment discussions. Posters are constantly exhorted to buy stuff that blows their old gear "out of the water." Friends drop stacks of cash annually on gear. Stuff depreciates and breaks. Money lost that way, along with losses on trades and sales to fund those "upgrades," still needs accounting for. Doesn't matter whether the stuff is new or used. You're still spending the money. Cameras are the consumables now and they're not free.

limr · Feb 13, 2016

You make good points, but it's not the whole story and perhaps not a fair comparison. For example, you're using a bare-bones dslr with a kit lens and comparing it to slide film (more expensive) and commercial developing (more expensive.) I'd rather see a fairer comparison: bare bones digital vs bare bones film (bulk loading b&w negative film, home developing). Or do a more real-life comparison and figure in lens upgrades vs a mixture of film types with, for example, commercial C41 developing and home b&w developing.

At the end of the day, only one thing is known without any doubt: we have well and truly hijacked Marija's thread.

Derrel · Feb 13, 2016

cgw said:
How many here are content with a $399 dslr kit they intend to shoot till it breaks with no additional purchases? "Upgrade" and "investment" are arguably the two most frequently used words used in this site's many equipment discussions. Posters are constantly exhorted to buy stuff that blows their old gear "out of the water." Friends drop stacks of cash annually on gear. Stuff depreciates and breaks. Money lost that way, along with losses on trades and sales to fund those "upgrades," still needs accounting for. Doesn't matter whether the stuff is new or used. You're still spending the money. Cameras are the consumables now and they're not free.

Yeah,yeah, yeah...for the past few days you have been parroting Thom Hogan articles here. Your comments in this thread sound like maybe you might even BE Mr. Hogan; as some might recall, I've wondered aloud here in the past if you're him. I see you parroting Hogan's exact phrase, "Cameras are the new consumables".

Say you want a $1,299 camera. That cost divided by 100,000 images works out to $0.01299, or let's call it just under one and one-third of a penny PER SHOT.

Say you want a higher-end Nikon that costs $2,699, then the cost goes up to $0.02699 PER FRAME, so a whopping two and two-thirds pennies per frame.

Let's go hog-wild and drop $6,400 on a high-end flagship digital camera, one with the now-standard 400,000-actuation shutters, but let's still just THROW IT AWAY the second it his 100,000 clicks, mmkay? $0.064 per frame fired. So, just under six and a half pennies per click with that top-shelf big black Canon or Nikon. And remember--we're THROWING THIS THING IN THE GARBAGE at 100,000 clicks.

Now, the 35mm 100-ISO slide film images are costing you $0.05787 each….let's be generous and call that "only" fifty-seven pennies per click. We could say 58 pennies per click, but WTF, right?

So, what kind of actual math was that one fellow doing when he challenged us,in this thread, to actually "put pencil to paper"…what was he thinking when he said we were ,"spinning your wheels" if you dare to state that digital imaging costs less than film imaging?

Hogan is full of crap on this point that cameras are a prohibitively expensive "consumable". He needs a serious reality check. He also needs an editor to bounce his crackpot ideas off of before published them on the internet, so he doesn't make a fool of himself by over-exaggerating mythical upgrade costs to the tenth power.

Please enlighten us how 57 cents PER SHOT is so much better a value than under a penny, a penny and a third, or two and one-third pennies, or even six pennies per frame?

cgw · Feb 13, 2016

Let's go hog-wild and drop $6,400 on a high-end flagship digital camera, one with the now-standard 400,000-actuation shutters, but let's still just THROW IT AWAY the second it his 100,000 clicks, mmkay? $0.064 per frame fired. So, just under six and a half pennies per click with that top-shelf big black Canon or Nikon. And remember--we're THROWING THIS THING IN THE GARBAGE at 100,000 clicks.

You'd be out the depreciated value. Then you'd buy another camera for the going rate. Quite a hit to the old cash flow, eh? But when did numeracy--or reality-- ever count for much around here?

Derrel · Feb 13, 2016

The idea of comparing BULK-loaded black-and-white film home developed is not a reasonable comparison; a COLOR image from a digital camera can make a gorgeous color image OR a lovely black and white image. Black and white film is always B&W, no color, less-versatile than color slide film.

Color slide film can make a color image AND/OR a B&W image, which makes it well worth its cost.

Color slide film factory-loaded and bought in volume offers a well-sealed film cannister that will NEVER break open when dropped, unlike any type of reloadable cartridges I've ever used. Bulk film is subject to possible scratching, possible light leaks, and so on, at multiple points. I have shot tons of bulk 35mm film, both color Ektachrome and also Kodak B&W films, and have developed literally thousands of newspaper rolls of bulk Tri-X from up to eight or nine shooters per shift in reloadable cartridges...the biggest drawback with reloadables is scratches, light leaks, and accidental droppages causing the reloadable cart to pop open, ruining the entire roll.

I grew afraid to use a reloadable cartridge for any more than four rolls...after that many uses, they begin to develop bent lips, and light leaks increase pretty badly. This was in both my personal and newspaper use, where we went through film cartridges at a pretty good clip because,well, they are disposable, and have a very definite ability to ruin an entire roll of images very easily.

No...let's compare like for like: "virgin" film, known perfect film, with COLOR recording, developed properly, every single time. Color positive film versus Color Positive digital capture. Like for like--with the advantage that the color film can do double-duty and serve as BOTH a color shot OR a Black and WHite shot....in just exactly the same way as digital capture can.

I am trying to do a fair comparison...somebody else is trying desperately to swing the comparison back toward film.

There is utterly no conceivable way in this universe that ANY film can be shot for less than a penny, or for two pennies, per shot. No. Possible. Way. Even using a $6,400 professional d-slr camera, and throwing it AWAY once it hits 100,000 actuations, the per-shopt price is just over six pennies per shot.

Digital capture ALSO allows infinite ISO adjustment, at no extra cost; color and B&W films cost more and more as their sensitivity levels go upward. Perhaps somebody missed my ISO 100 film stipulation? If I had wanted to make film appear worse, I would have allotted a significantly larger cost for perhaps 20 percent of the frames, specifying more costly higher ISO film.

I set out to compare color positive capture with the potential for B&W conversion FAIRLY, and logically, and not bend over backwards to compare different things in a rigged manner: color slide film versus digital color capture. Like for like, with pretty comparable image quality, resolving ability, color richness, and potential for alternative B&W conversion.

spiralout462 · Feb 13, 2016

Frankly if cared one bit how much it cost to take a picture I would be doing something entirely different In my free time.

Derrel · Feb 13, 2016

cgw said:
Let's go hog-wild and drop $6,400 on a high-end flagship digital camera, one with the now-standard 400,000-actuation shutters, but let's still just THROW IT AWAY the second it his 100,000 clicks, mmkay? $0.064 per frame fired. So, just under six and a half pennies per click with that top-shelf big black Canon or Nikon. And remember--we're THROWING THIS THING IN THE GARBAGE at 100,000 clicks.

You'd be out the depreciated value. Then you'd buy another camera for the going rate. Quite a hit to the old cash flow, eh? But when did numeracy--or reality-- ever count for much around here?

So, 100,000 images made with a $6,400 digital SLR...is more expensive than $57,970 spent on film? And you question my numeracy? LMFAO pally!

Your inability to actually think is staggering! Perhaps you can find a Hogan article that re-invents the science of mathematics! Hilarious.

Oh....and that second camera to replace the first one...that would garner the photographer yet ANOTHER 100,000 images at roughly six cents each! So, for $12,800 the photographer could shoot 200,000 images, instead of paying $115,940 in film costs?

I'm sorry dude, but the idea of camera as consumable versus the cost of film as consumable is already a done deal...and is why a FujiFilm vice president, Toru Takahashi, told dPreview in an interview recently that the demand for their film products has fallen to less than 1% of what it was in 2000.

Digital capture won the battle. The cost of cameras as "consumables" is insignificant compared against the cost of film and processing and scanning, and will continue to become more favorable to digital shooters as digital cameras get better and better and cost less and less, and as the shrinking supply of film stocks grows smaller and smaller, and more and more expensive. Fuji just cut its film offerings and raised prices.

allanwelshssony · Feb 13, 2016

Stick your hand over half the sky just before shooting.. Ps. It's a wind up, but maybe it's not.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk

cgw · Feb 13, 2016

My sympathies to those made sad and angry here.

Film Diaries: Examining the costs of shooting film vs digital

Put another way, money isn't everything.

allanwelshssony · Feb 13, 2016

A truly beautiful picture is best appreciated when it is hit in one go; Rather than as a result of rapid trial and error. However, it is just ego at work, as the casual observer couldn't care less how you created the beauty....but you will always know.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk

allanwelshssony · Feb 13, 2016

I'm skint. I can buy a decent slr for 15 pounds, and a number of decent lenses at a tenner each. If the camera breaks, I can buy another for the same price. The experience of photography is achieved for a minimal outlay, with a demand for skill in order to achieve. In short, it is a sport. I enjoy it.
I find digital photography snobbish and unsatisfying. It is more successful, but involves less of me. I like to feel involved. Even if my involvement is a disadvantage.
My pictures are mine. Created with a camera, not by it. Most of them will be crap, but they are my crap and not the result of the whims of the designer of the micro processor.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk