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 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.