Digital Camera Math
February 25th, 2006I got to thinking about all the photos we take and what it would cost if we shot film. This blurb should not be seen as anti-film. I love film. But the math of film is brutal. If you figure a roll of good film is around $5 US and the processing and printing (4″x6″) of that roll is around $15-$20 US, one could almost buy a digital SLR after the first week or so.
E.g., 1,100 photos taken on recent trip to Amsterdam. That comes out to about 30.5 rolls of 36 exposure film.
Cost for film: $152.77
Processing/printing per roll: $20. Total processing/printing: $610
Total cost: $762.77
That’s for one trip. That’s crazy ROI on digital. Consider you’d still have to scan for larger prints, there’s a time hit as well.
Maybe I can justify a second digital SLR for us. That sound you hear is Heather laughing. o
-
This entry is filed under photography. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
the difference between digital and film is that digital can look like film but analog cannot look digital.
same BLURB for recording.
the difference between digital and analog is that digital can sound like analog but analog cannot sound digital.
let go of the past dear jon, the future kicks it’s ass and it’s a really heavy burden to lug around. be free. be free.
Holy shitballs Jon, I heard her from here, eh!
Film is brutal. The Troll Baby, she is anti-film. She is also pro-budget. She doesn’t know why she is talking in the third person. She blames Jon.
It’s a strong argument. Let’s see who wins?
The math is correct, but I challenge the economics behind the article.
When shooting with film, the decision to take a picture is influenced by the costs of film and development. I’m pretty sure you would not have returned from Amsterdam with 30 rolls of film. More likely 4 or 5. And each shot would have been a (more) careful decision, also taking into account the pictures already taken. Does the next picture add enough – emotional – value to what has already been shot?
That’s the real strength of going digital: there should never be any regrets of pictures *not* taken, because there is no value-based decision-making required.
The thing is you would never take 1,100 pictures in a week with film. I really believe film inhibits the development of most peoples photographic skills. With film, people capture a record, but are unwilling to experiment creatively because of the cost. I have had my DSLR 3 years now and taken 4k-5k photos per year. When I look back at the pictures I took the first few months they are pedestrian snapshots. Now I feel like I can occasionally capture some actual works of art. Some of my favorite shots pictures I have taken purely because the bits are free. The ROI on that is beyond calculation.
I have a friend who is stuck on film and won’t make the switch. I’ll have to send him this link.
I think for me, the best thing about shooting digital has been how “freed up” I feel about taking pictures. I used to choose my shots very carefully, because I only had “one chance” to get it right. When I first got my digital camera, my pictures weren’t very good. Once I let go of trying to get that one shot just perfect, my photos got better and better.
And because I was only limited by my memory card, I started taking pictures of things that I wouldn’t have when I was using film. Some of my favorite photos are of things I wouldn’t have looked at before through my camera.
Jon, you should totally get the camera with Cofarb bucks earned by not using film.
Since you are waffling about the decision, I will assume you are not versed in the concept of Cofarb bucks, first developed by Charles Perrin. From someone’s 2004 explanation on alt.fashion:
“Cofarbenomics is a theory of economic relativity posited by one Cofarb, a long-standing [or, long-shopping as the case maybe] alt.fashion subscriber. The gist of Cofarbenomics is for every bargain dollar you save, you actually gain spending power. For example, if you bought a Fendi bag at discount for $150 when the actual MSRP was $300, you would earn $150 in Cofarbucks to spend in any manner you deem proper. In all, you just can’t lose.”
Are you considering another Nikon?
(Greetings from a long-time lurker)
Jaap and others: The artistic benefits aside, if I wanted to get 60 good shots, I’d have to shoot 10 rolls of film. Either way, the digital camera pays for itself over time. I agree that digital frees one to be looser, take more pictures, and refine the craft.
I’m with Papa Urchin. We’re lousy photographers, but we’ve shot 700 pictures since getting a digital and gotten 20 great pictures and we’re getting better. I’d add that the quick feedback from digital helps — you shoot and then see that your picture is out of focus, too dark/light, obscured by flash, whatever, and you try something different. Yesterday I took 30 shots of maple tree sap dripping from a stile in a tree in gorgeous; I got one (1) that doesn’t suck and learned a bit about why the other 29 do. I’d never do that with film.
Whatever you all did over there, you did right, because your pictures are gorgeous. Especially the ones of people taken in bars (in what I can only assume is really shitty lighting). Either you and Heather are even better photographers than I thought, or Amsterdam natives are REALLY good looking.
Interestingly, I still only take very careful shots with the D70 as if I were using film. I rarely shoot more than one or two in a row anymore, although I did start out shooting 15-20 in the span of ten seconds. Maybe that’s part of the learning curve of the camera.
But I point this out to say that those 1,100 (plus) photos we took in Amsterdam, at least the ones I took, were all very carefully considered. The value-based decision making part of my approach is that I don’t want to have to waste my time wading through fifty bad or mediocre shots in Photoshop.
I was basically going to say what Jon said.
When you use film you can’t gaurantee every shot is going to be good like you can with digital.
The fact that I can look at a photo I just took and see if it was good enough to keep or if I should delete it is priceless.
No more missed moments.
I’m sure everyone here has had an experience where they take a roll of film in to be developed and they tell you that the film is no good.
My husband and I went to France in 2002 with a film camera. After the first two days I decided to get our film developed because I am THAT impatient. We got the pictures back only to discover that the film my mother-in-law had given us had already been used.
We had NO pictures from our first two days in Paris. NONE.
And that is my overly long explanation for why I LOVE my digital camera.
Not to mention the fact that you avoid the whole film-processing procrastination phenomenon with digital. Dude, I still have like 25 undeveloped rolls of god-knows-what rolling around in my junk drawer, likely never to be processed.
Hey, try the Nikon D50…
The camera is a-ok, and about half the price of the D70 set up, still uses the same lenses… probably that flash you guys got too.
AND… it looks more like a regular film SLR with it’s smaller size.
Not bad at all.
I agree with ‘nobody’ — the quick feedback you get from digital allows you to take more risks, learn from your mistakes, and improve your technique more quickly than you could with film. Ever since switching from film to digital, I feel (and friends from my old darkroom have commented) that the rate at which I’m improving as a photographer has accelerated.
Nobody’s mentioned the other savings you get with digital: physical space. You only print the ones you love, and there are no negatives. I spent about 8 hours this weekend organizing a large, overflowing box of hundreds of old prints, many of which never would have been printed had they been digital.
Another long time lurker commenting…
You both have a terrific sense of what makes a great shot. For the aesthetically challenged among us, digital has been a god-send. I spent 45 mintues yesterday trying to catch my 3 month old smiling in order to email one picture to doting grandparents. Alas, the only one that was in focus and where she was smiling lopped off the top of her head. So while I’m saving money on film, I wish I could claim I’m learning those lessons “nobody” cited.
i had covered the cost of my first slr after one trip to italy, and covered the cost of the 20D within a few weeks of my sabatical. even considering the costs of storage and back up devices, digital is a way better investment for me. i haven’t shot a single frame of film since i bought a digital slr in 2004.
As much as you two both like to shoot, my advice is to get another digital! But I can always justify spending money on cameras, clothes and food, so I may not be the best person to say.
After two weeks in Japan, 15 rolls of film and countless dollars, I invested in my first digital SLR. My digi-love is now permanently attached to my right hand. How I love thee digi-love.
Like some others, I got a digital SLR in 2003 and haven’t so much as picked up a film camera since. I shoot sports, so I’m all about high volume.
And if you ever do figure out how to get your wife to agree to the purchase of a second SLR (or 300mm f2.8 lens), let me know how so I can try it too.
The cost factor is what turned me on to digital photography 5 years ago. I never would have been able to learn all the things I did using film, as I would have been pinching every penny, not allowing myself to make mistakes and learn about apertures and such.
Just got my first DSLR this week and I took 400 shots in the first two days. It’s a sickness.
Question, of those 1100 pictures, how many will you develop? I can’t imagine taking that many pictures on one trip!! And say you print 100 or 200, what do you do with the rest? Just leave them on your computer?
I use a good quality digital point and shoot (Nikon Coolpix 5400). When I bought the digital I figured Iíd use it for my day to day stuff and my film SLR for the more arty stuff. My SLR has sat in a closet for the last year. There are some limits to what you can do with a camera with a little bitty lens and 5 f/stops, but having a camera that fits in your coat pocket (I was climbing around on slippery rocks taking river pics today nice to not have it in the way) and doesn’t scream, ìHey look at me Iím taking a picture!î can be really nice. And Iím really impressed with what it can do.
One other nice thing about digital: no worries about film getting fried in airport x-ray machines.
I took a digital camera class the other day and the teacher said more or less the same thing. With a film camera, you are more careful with the shots. He also admitted that of all the films shots he takes, per roll, he is lucky to get 1 or 2 he can use and that he likes.
Using digital allows us to make mistakes and not have it cost an arm and a leg in processing fees. I have GREAT night shots from the Hong Kong Peak…if you like Black prints! One roll of film, wasted. *grr*
Not all that long ago, I’d have probably been saying the same thing as you. I got my first point-and-shoot digicam about four years ago and it truly revolutionized the way I took photos. No longer was I limited by the financial constraints of worrying how much the photos I was taking cost, I could just shoot and shoot and shoot some more and the only limits were my battery life and the size of my memory cards. When I think of all the amazing places I’ve visited and only taken a couple of shots because of how expensive it was to shoot film, I shake my head in sadness. The freedom to take more photos without adding to the cost has also improved my photographic skills. My ratio of good shots has improved dramatically, and digital is largely responsible.
However…as I got more interested in taking photos and started getting involved with a local group of photographers, I renewed my interest in film and began shooting with it again — something I hadn’t done seriously since high school. Now, over the past 6 months or so, I’m at the point where I’m probably shooting film 2/3 of the time and digital only 1/3 of the time. I love the look of film, the tonal quality of film — especially black & white film; a inherent quality that I find that I don’t get from my digital camera (a 20D). Sure there’s an additional cost, but there are ways to mitigate that. I’ve started bulk loading my own film, which effectively halves the cost. I’m also developing my own black & white — it’s easy and cost effective. I then scan the negatives in, so there’s no print costs. All in all, I can do a roll of 36 exposure B&W film for around $3-4.
Obviously, this isn’t for everyone. There’s extra time and effort involved at just about every stage (save taking the photograph in the first place); however, I feel it’s worth it. In my world film and digital are co-existing nicely, each complimenting the other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, so I shoot both and play to their respective strengths.
Torrie said “I’m sure everyone here has had an experience where they take a roll of film in to be developed and they tell you that the film is no good.” While getting a bum roll of film or accidentally exposing it are dangers, it’s not as though digital is free from different, yet equivalent or even worse issues.
I have another friend who on at least two occasions has been hiking in a spectacular, unforgettable area and had his digicam’s battery run out. Most film cameras, even without a battery, will still allow you to take pictures. Fortunately he was packing both.
As well, I have had at least two friends accidentally delete a folder that contained the only copies they had of digital photos. In one of these cases a (normally sensible, tech savvy, Linux using) friend deleted a folder that had every photo she had taken over the past 2 years, during which time she’d given birth to two children. All those photos — gone — with just the click of a mouse. To say she was inconsolable would be an understatement.
I’m not saying that this happens often (though neither do most film mishaps, for that matter) but both examples are areas where I would hazard to say that film is superior to digital. Of the two, I’d say the most troubling is the permanence of the media on which the photos are stored. Negatives I don’t really worry about once they’ve been processed. Digital, be it on hard drive, CD, DVD, etc. is a far more frightening prospect in the long run. Drives fail, disc media deteriorate, and so many people (sadly, myself included) don’t follow a sensible archiving routine.
Sorry to blather on like this, but I thought film deserved at least one (albeit long-winded) supporter. Mind you, you can have my 20D after you pry it from my cold, dead hands…or after I get a 5D, whichever comes first
I’m with filmgoerjuan. I have a small, inexpensive point-and-shoot digital, but my real babies are my Pentax K-1000 and ZX5, with which I exclusively shoot black and white. There is no way you can compare black and white film with converting digital shots to black and white.
A way to cut down on your film developing costs is to have contact sheets printed and then order prints of the best photos on the roll. It’s still expensive, but not quite as much as your calculations, Jon.
I do agree that the procrastination factor with film was the biggest factor for me in getting a digital camera. I love that I can capture and share photos of my kids more readily. But when I’m shooting “for myself”, I use film.