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.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
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.
February 25th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 4:59 am
It’s a strong argument. Let’s see who wins?
February 26th, 2006 at 6:12 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:53 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:35 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 8:07 am
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)
February 26th, 2006 at 8:49 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:01 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:02 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:35 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:26 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:30 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:24 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
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.
February 26th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
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?
February 26th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
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.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:04 am
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*
February 27th, 2006 at 12:22 am
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
February 27th, 2006 at 7:15 am
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.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:34 am
I have to agree with Juan, I am on the film camera side. Because pictures shot with a digital are pretty much doomed to stay on your computer.
I bought a digital SLR 2 years ago, used it on one trip. It had it’s fun and cool aspects, I just didn’t find it as satisfying as using my old film SLR.
The thing is- it doesn’t seem that anyone ever prints out their digital prints. Or hardly ever. Whenever I go develop a roll of film (and yeah, you do have to figure out the most cost effective ways to this) - the anticipation and excitement of having 24 actual prints in my hands is amazing. I love to put them in albums and just how tactile and beautiful the prints can be.
Digital is fun, and I’ve seen some amazing stuff but I just think the process of loading your film, taking it, developing it yourself- the process of shooting a roll of film is really satisfying to me.
Also, the versatility of what you can accomplish with different films alone is reason to consider a non digital option. (ie- cross proccessing or whathaveyou)
February 27th, 2006 at 7:38 am
I’m curious, of all the digital SLR folk out there, do you also have a digital Point and Shoot? I’m guessing having both would provide the most flexibility.
If there were a camera fairy, I would ask for a newer, higher pixel Point and Shoot and the Nikon D50. Our P&S is 4 years old and only 2.5 pixels. I’ve been mostly happy with this camera in it’s ease of use and portability but the flash flattens everything way out, and the freakin’ DELAY before the shutter goes. MAN. Many missed moments that a better camera would have caught
(And as long as I am making up fairies, I’d like the micro-brew fairy to leave a six-pack of IPA, please)
February 27th, 2006 at 8:47 am
I just ordered and should be getting my Maxxum 5D on Wednesday. I can’t wait.
Will I give up my Maxxum 70 film SLR? Not a chance. There’s nothing I love more than snapping off a few rolls of film, sending them off to be developed and then being completely and utterly shocked at some of the most fabulous pictures I’ve ever taken.
The digital is all about instant gratification.
I’m with filmgoerjuan. I’m still a staunch supporter of film. There’s just some things you can’t replicate. I adore the richness of photographs from a roll of black and white film. I like going through boxes of photographs, instead of sitting at my desk flipping through a digital album.
*shrug* I dunno. Maybe I’ll feel different when I get my DSLR in my hands. As it stands right now, I’ll take my film SLR over my orginial Olympus digicam any day.
February 27th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Jon, I am thinking the same thing. I did a shoot at a bar a few weekends ago and the camera sort of got glitchy. I thought, I need a back up DSLR for Shaun.
Maybe if I sold all the digital cameras I bought before I bought the DSLR I could afford it.
February 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I almost cracked up when I saw your post. The past week or so I’ve been trying to convince my fiance that we need to splurge on the d70s.
I froogled the camera a couple of days ago and came up with a few places that were selling it for CHEAP (just the body, I already have a Nikon N90, so I can use the same lenses). I purchased it last night (after calling and re-calling the site to be certain that it really was new and not refurbished, etc, the price seemed too good to be true) and can’t wait for it to come in the mail.
I used to avidly take pictures of everything that crossed my path with my n90, but after a while the film costs just became way too expensive. I tried to just be more selective about the what I took pictures of, but all that wound up doing was making it seem like a pain to lug a heavy camera around for just a couple of shots a day. I was opposed to digital for a while, being a bit of a snob about it, but my ways changed after borrowing my parents’ digital point and shoot for a week and going back to the gazillions of pictures MINUS the developing costs. Awesome.
So anyway, my fiance isn’t into photography and doesn’t understand why one would ever spend so much money on a camera, so when I saw your post I just laughed and read it to him. He’s now convinced that I know you and somehow talked you into posting something so relevant. Heh
Thanks for your help with my cause 
February 27th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Pagalina,
Even though I have my Canon DSLR now, I’m going to keep my Nikon Coolpix 4500 until its sensors grind to a halt. I doubt that I could produce better macro results with my new camera than I did with the 4500. It justs kills in that category.
February 28th, 2006 at 8:23 am
MATH NERD!
Just kidding.
February 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Maybe it’s been said, but why not cut development costs and get the film developed straight to disc? I’ve found that the quality directly off of the disc is better than a scan and at my local developer(walmart) it is only $4.50 for the disc and nearly $7 for 4×6 prints. Also, where are you going to get your development done that you are spending $20 a roll? that’s amazing…
February 28th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
Many of you are not average photographers. This post was targeted at the average person buying good film and then going to a good processor to get prints made. I’m sure that Costco or Walmart offer cheap prints, but they won’t be as nice as some of the higher end shops or as cheap.
I’d probably want the film in one big strip, which makes it easier for a batch scan than film cut into smaller bits for a contact print. And that’s also an expense that I didn’t factor.
Either way, cheaper to experiment with digital. And with the savings you could justify a nicer camera to experiment with.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Jon,
Buying a second digital camera is surely tempting…but have you guys started to diversify in the lens department? I know the price point on digital SLRs is still pretty steep; but as with film, the glass is where the money is.
For example, those low-light shots in bars and dark alleys work better with a really fast lens.
Being a photographer whose photoshop skills are merely passable, I’d rather do as much of the work up front as I can. Having a variety of lenses helps me do that.