The low cost of digital vs. flim?

[Thunderhawk]

As I have said in previous posts, I am a film shooter. I have been, over the last little bit trying to learn as much as I can about digital cameras. To this end Photo Camel has been an invaluable resource. Thank you all.

I keep hearing over and over about how much less expensive digital is compared to film. At this time, with my still limited knowledge, I will have to take issue with that line of though.

1. The better digital cameras costs well into the thousands of dollars, where it is my understanding that the T2 will produce the same quality print as the 1v if all things are equal, such as film, lens and the settings. The 1V of course has a much greater range of what it can do setting wise. Couple this with the huge loss in value that you suffer with the digital camera because the tech changes so quickly. To me, this is not good value.

2. Storage. The cost of high quality cards, HD`s ect. Coupled with the emerging evidence that the storage life of these is only around 5 to 10 years. Where film, if properly stored will last for decades.
3. The cost of photo quality printers and ink and paper… Or you still have to pay a lab to do the printing.
4. The cost of the computer and the related soft ware.
5. I have been told by more than one person that I know, that digital cameras eat batteries like they were potato chips.

Digital is here to stay and it has much to offer that is beyond the scope of film, but it is not at this time the cheep replacement for film that many are saying..

[Tom Swaman]

Thunderhawk,

Please forgive my arrogance, but I think you are missing the boat. Gear is gear and film cameras evolved much the same as are/have digital cameras. Today's digital cameras are very good and these rarely limit a good photographer's ability to produce.

I think the major point is that digital photography enables multiple image capture and near instant review at virtually very little cost compared to film and darkroom consumables costs. You can literally shoot a thousand or more images in a day with digital and look at these to decide what to keep and what to toss, back these up to a low cost hard drive and have a good noght's sleep without ever taking out your wallet for short term expenses. This cannot be done with film shooting.

The botttom line is that if you care to shoot film, so be it and if someone else cares to shoot digital images, so be them. Please do not think that electronic stored images up and vaporize in 5 to 10 years. This is just not the reality of image storage and protection. Stick around Thunderhawk, digital is here to stay for a while!!!!!

Tom

[Thunderhawk]

Tom I beleave that you have compleatly misunderstood the tenner and point that I was trying to make in my post.

As to the life of storage, this info comes from many diff and veried people. No they do not go 'poof' in 5 years, but the image quality starts to degrade.

P.s I and my wife were at a photo shop today (getting some cokin p filters) and met a guy that by his own words knew nothing about photo stuff. He has a little digital point shoot and was looking for a greater flash range. The lady, my wife and I all spent a good amount of time talking to him. And we all said that his best bet was to go with a digital Canon or Nikon. He saw that I had a Canon and asked me about it. I told him that even tho I shoot film and have a Canon, I thought that he would be better off with a digital. He ask should he go with a Canon, I said that they are both good cameras and the best thing would be to check them both out be for buying one.

[Tom Swaman]

Thunderhawk,

The image quality of many films degrades in 5 to 10 years also. Nothing is forever and digital image quality can be protected. I do not think Imissed what you were saying. I do think you may be trying to compare brussel sprouts and cherimoyas!!!!!

Tom

[Thunderhawk]

Ok.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

1. The better digital cameras costs well into the thousands of dollars, where it is my understanding that the T2 will produce the same quality print as the 1v if all things are equal, such as film, lens and the settings. The 1V of course has a much greater range of what it can do setting wise. Couple this with the huge loss in value that you suffer with the digital camera because the tech changes so quickly. To me, this is not good value.

Nothing about the camera changes over time. The loss in value is due to newer technology coming out, NOT degradation of performance. The same thing happened in film cameras: newer models come out, the value of the older models went down....but the image it took was STILL the same as when you bought it.

2. Storage. The cost of high quality cards, HD`s ect. Coupled with the emerging evidence that the storage life of these is only around 5 to 10 years. Where film, if properly stored will last for decades.

Tom addressed this already. Many of us have digital images that are well beyond 5 years old. The file itself has NO degradation, only the storage medium. Update the storage medium or use archival methods and this is not an issue.

3. The cost of photo quality printers and ink and paper… Or you still have to pay a lab to do the printing.

But only the printing and NOT the film processing. And it's still cheaper today than it's ever been. Plus, with digital transfer technology, it's faster with less chance of image loss (what happens if a negative goes missing?).

4. The cost of the computer and the related soft ware.

First, you've already got the computer or you wouldn't be here. And, unlike many pros, you can actually get by with some inexpensive applications. I'd bet that a frugal photographer could do about 90-95% of what a Photoshop pro can do for under $100 with the right selection of apps.

5. I have been told by more than one person that I know, that digital cameras eat batteries like they were potato chips.

I shoot a Canon 20D and 40D so I can only give those stats. My typical battery, without the built-in flash, will shoot 500-800 shots (500 if it's my oldest, 800 if it's my newer 2000mAh batteries). That's over 22 36-exposure rolls of film. I don't see the problem with that.

Digital is here to stay and it has much to offer that is beyond the scope of film, but it is not at this time the cheep replacement for film that many are saying..

I could probably run some cost/benefit studies on that one and prove it wrong...but it's Sunday, I'm tired, and I don't want to think until tomorrow.

[Thunderhawk]

Hmmmm. Well, from what you two are saying, most of the info that I have been given in person as well as some of what I have learned at this site is wrong, pertaning to the bottom line costs of digital cameras that is..

*sigh*.......Well, this is not the first time that I have been feed a line of mis info in my life,it seems that once again I have placed fath where it was not warented.

I`ll just stay in my little film corner of the world and leave the digital stuff to those both smarter and wiser than I.

[brian.austin]

Do what you want and are comfortable with...but never stop learning.

[cyclohexane]

It really depends on how much you shoot. I remember reading a breakdown by Thom Hogan on buying a Nikon F6 ($2000) + a monstrous quantity of slide film/processing/printing vs. the roughly equivalent D2X/S ($5000 when it came out, updated model was $4500 new upon release) + related costs, such as software/computers/printing. I think the post was on DPReview a year ago, but it basically said that if you shot significantly less than 10,000 shots a year, you wouldn't be saving money, while if you shot more than 10,000 shots, you'd be saving money.

I shoot significantly more than 10,000 shots a year, and my cameras weren't $5000, so I'm definitely saving some money over film, though I still use film for class- but the shots for class per quarter are in the hundreds.

4. The cost of the computer and the related soft ware.

Well, obviously, you already have a computer, and it's probably well capable of running Photoshop Elements. Photoshop Elements is in the $100 ballpark, and does 100% of what many shooters need. I like to occasionally edit in LAB color mode, so Elements does about 99% of what I need.

5. I have been told by more than one person that I know, that digital cameras eat batteries like they were potato chips.

It really depends on the camera; the older ones were pretty bad, but the new ones are more than respectable. I get 2000-3000 shots a charge on my batteries, and I personally need to eat potato chips before the camera needs a new battery. =)

[generic]

I'm not really qualified to say which costs the most per benefit.
It does seem though that as time passes the ratio will change and shooting film will continue to get more expensive. Technology continues to make advances.

Nothing wrong with shooting film in my opinion. But stay open to all possibilities by all means. Maybe buy a lower cost point and shoot just to kinda stay abreast of things.

If nothing else use it as if it were a polaroid to test composition, lighting, and just no value snapshots etc. Hey it's fun.

I think you'd find enough value in it that it would get at least enough use to justify it's existance. And, it would keep you somewhat abreast of things as they contue to change.

I say these things because I honestly liked film/processing too but I have been eagerly waiting for digital to overtake it and think it's getting pretty close now. And, because it's more convenient and easily serves more people and if not now 'will' eventually be cheaper. And, the internet is fast becoming the most common way to view/communicate/express ideas (including still/video etc) that digital is and will grow to the extent that it will overwelm film as a medium. While film/print may be around for many years it will some day be the exception if it isnt already.

I kinda see it like horses and cars. Horses are great but they cant keep up on the expressway. They served us well at a time when there were no cars. But there are cars now.

Please dont think that I feel anything but appreciation for film. I love horses. But I've kinda given up on horses/film. If I were more qualified in film to the extent I could be called a pro or if I could produce the kind of stuff that was worth real money no doubt I might feel differently.

I guess my point would be to 'add' some digital to your tool kit rather than just ignore it. But enjoy your photography either or both ways .

Gene

[jfrancho]

I didn't get into digital thinking I was going to save money/waste money. I did it because it is what is now. The other advantages far outweigh the price of admission.

[Thunderhawk]

I will be the first one to admit that I`m not the brightest bulb on the string. This has been made very clear by my lack of ability to get a cross the two points that I was sincerely trying to make.

1. When you add ALL the nessary equipment and it`s cost, ( whether you already have the computer and storage is besides the point, you must have it to do digital so you must add it in to the cost) quality digital shooting is more expensive than quality film. Esp when you are first starting out. This is not a better or worse thing, just something that should be (in my view) more clearly presented, esp to those new to the field.

2. I made it a point to stress that I do not look down on digital and that it is here to stay, that it offers things that are beyond film. If I did not believe this I would not have sugested to the several people that have asked me about cameras that they go with digital.

I regret my inability to more clearly state my points and the (to me anyway)
misunderstanding of them by most of those that responded.

I will take what I have learned from this thread and apply it to the best of my meager ability.

Thank you for your time.

[jfrancho]

I wonder what it would cost me to sit in my living room and shoot and develop several rolls of film as I learned the effect of aperture on depth of field. Multiply that situation by the 200 or so things I've learned since going to digital. Couple that with the immediate feedback I received that reinforced my growing knowledge, and I'm sure I saved thousands in classes alone. Consider that digital is a very effective tool for learning photographic theories and techniques, and the return on investment gets even better.

[Thunderhawk]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I wonder what it would cost me to sit in my living room and shoot and develop several rolls of film as I learned the effect of aperture on depth of field. Multiply that situation by the 200 or so things I've learned since going to digital. Couple that with the immediate feedback I received that reinforced my growing knowledge, and I'm sure I saved thousands in classes alone. Consider that digital is a very effective tool for learning photographic theories and techniques, and the return on investment gets even better.

A good and very valid point, thank you.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

1. When you add ALL the nessary equipment and it`s cost, ( whether you already have the computer and storage is besides the point, you must have it to do digital so you must add it in to the cost) quality digital shooting is more expensive than quality film. Esp when you are first starting out. This is not a better or worse thing, just something that should be (in my view) more clearly presented, esp to those new to the field.

High end compact/point-n-shoot: $400-$500
Computer: already have it
Adobe Photoshop Elements: $100
memory card: $50

You're done for $650-$700.

It's what you make of it.

Your film camera (the T2) retails for $250 right now, with a 28-90 lens. Assuming you did nothing more with the camera, use 36-exposure film, and it costs approximately $7/roll for developing/prints (cheap), that's enough left over for 40 rolls of film. After that, you're into the digital for less money.

For a Rebel XTi with the 18-55 kit lens, it's $700 on Adorama. That's 20 extra rolls of film.

I shot over 450 exposures during a 3 hour shoot on Friday evening. That's about 13 rolls of 36-exposure film....or almost 1/3 of the cost difference between film and digital with the numbers above.

Film has its place but for those that shoot a LOT, digital is much more cost effective.