Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital photography is more expensive, not less.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 1, 2004 1:29:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> ... digital photography isn't actually cheaper than
> film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

Yeah, but your clothes don't smell after a day
working on pictures.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

I don't bother printing 6x4s at home. I upload them to a local drugstore
that makes 6x4 prints for about .30 cents Canadian which is .13 UK pence
If I upload them in the morning, I can run down and pick them up by lunch.
It's a 5 minute drive. There are cheaper places, but I like the convenience
of them being so close by.

I bought a digital camerea because I already had a computer. I think most
people are in this boat. I've been upgrading every few years since 1986
and didn't get into digital photography until 1999. Again, I'd be upgrading
even if I didn't have a digital camera.

The cameras are still relatively expensive compared to film counterparts,
but the fact you don't have to pay for film and develop every photo you take
they even out in the long run. I take lots of shots that never get
printed for things like web pages and emails..
Related resources
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

IF you insist on printing your all your pictures, and on your own
printer. When I want more than one or two pictures printed, I take the
flash card to Wal-Mart/Sam's (surely you have similar stores in the UK),
and they print them for about $.14 each. That's cheaper than developing
and printing 35 mm pictures. Of course, you CAN spend more, but it is
not necessary.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, paul <b@c.com>
wrote:

> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

Not if you count my time working the darkroom for hours.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net
- digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more
> expensive?

No it's not.
--
"Your money does not cause my poverty.
Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of
most bad economic thinking." --P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.bobhatch.com
December 1, 2004 1:29:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
>a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge,

If you intend to print a lot of photos, it's usually much more cost
effective to simply take your memory cards down to a photo lab and get
them printed all at once.

The alternative is to refill your ink cartridges and use third-party
photo paper supplies. This gets your costs down to about the same as a
photo lab, but you get to do all the work - that can be good or bad
thing, depending how you view it. :) 

> and the 5X the cost of a film camera

Any new camera is going to cost money. The huge benefit to digital is
the instant gratification and the fact that once you buy it, you don't
have to buy any more film, likely ever. Since it's a one time cost, you
can snap away all you want, and just print the photos you want to keep.
No more selectively snapping off a roll of film, and then afterwards
finding you only want to keep half of them.

> 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
>camera,

???

Is that a special UK tax?

> plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>upgrading a computer costs over the years

Any relatively decent computer can handle digital photography. You don't
need to upgrade unless you're running ancient hardware.

> - digital photography isn't
>actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

If you don't have any kind of camera, then yes, the initial cost is
higher than equivalent 35mm film cameras. But the long term costs can be
substantially lower, and the pure fun of digital is a big factor in its
popularity.

I know I enjoy going to a social event and just snapping away without
worrying about wasting film. I love digital and will never go back to
film.
:) 
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:35:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo quality
> inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing a 35mm
> print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X the cost
> of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital camera, plus
> the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and upgrading a computer
> costs over the years - digital photography isn't actually cheaper than
> film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

It all depends how you look at it.

That film camera for 1/5th the cost might be appropriate for many, but my
guess is that, with digital cameras, people use them a lot more. With
greater utilization, the effective cost goes down... sometimes way down.

The computer may have been upgraded for other reasons, and a computer
capable of handling digital images from even an 8 megapixel camera isn't
very expensive these days.

Printing costs? Again, depends how you look at it. How many pictures do you
take, vs actually print? I don't actually print that many, since I can see
which are keepers on the screen. Even then I might not print the "keepers"
since the main reason for doing so is... well, it does make them easier to
show others, but how much of that is because we're simply used to viewing
photos printed on paper vs a screen? But there is no doubt that, at the
moment, there is far more detail to be had from glancing at a printed photo
than one on the screen.

But, if you had asked a different question- are digital cameras a plot by
manufacturers who sell ink? Absolutely!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
December 1, 2004 1:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo quality
> inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing a 35mm
> print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X the cost
> of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital camera, plus
> the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and upgrading a computer
> costs over the years - digital photography isn't actually cheaper than
> film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

It depends - You are missing off one of the most important factors of
digital printing.....

The scenario. I have over the last year and a bit taken over 1,000 pictures
(maybe just over 1,100 i think now)
I get my photos printed professionally but only print the pictures I want
hard copies. Often taken many pictures to get the shot I want. I have
printed around 150 MAX this year. Ignoring camera costs..

Digital Film ~ £30
Printing @ 17p per pint ~ £26
Total Digital cost ~ £56

Now to match that using 35mm I would need to be able to buy a 36 exposure
film & get it processed for £1.83 which I think is pushing it.

Of course if I don't by any more media in the next year you would need to
buy the 36 shot roll and get processing for 85p.

Oh and my camera is thinner than the size of a film roll :) 
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:52:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo quality
> inkjet paper,

Pop into Aldi and get 50 A4 sheets of 200g/m photo quality inkjet for
£4.99 - not the best paper I've ever used but its damn good for the price

>(already beyond the cost of buying and developing a 35mm print film)

True, but you only have to print what's good...

> add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge,

Shop around - unless you unfortunate to have a Lexmark printer (in which
case - where the hell do you get cartridges that cheap?) you can get ink
carts at much better prices - try eBay (but watch the cost of postage).

> and the 5X the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a
> digital camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

Depends - I've lost count of the number of films I've effectively wasted
getting that one-shot-that-works per film.. for me its a damn sight
cheaper.. and less messy.. and less smelly.. and I don't have to keep
changing the spare room between darkroom and bedroom.. and my other half
gets to see more of me as I'm not locked in the darkroom for weekends trying
to get the color balance _just_ right.. hmm.. ...that might be more of an
advantage than disadvantage though :) 

...
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:57:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I can select which digital pics to print after Photoshoping at my local Costco
store for 0.19 cents each for 4x6 prints on Fuji Crystal Archive glossy or
matte paper (66+ year archival life). Printed on Noritsu (320 dpi) printer. One
hour service.

Print only the 'winners'.

Best,

Conrad
Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
December 1, 2004 3:21:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since you can get colour prints made from digital files for the same price
as colour prints from film your analogy is, in fact, completely invalid. If
you want to compare printign digital at home to anything compare it to
printing colour film at home -- starting with the room that can only be used
for printing as the chemicals involved stink and are hazardous to children,
pets, and the actual photographer. I think you'll find that digital printing
is no more expensive than film printing and when it comes to getting prints
at a lab - of course you don't have to have all the duds printed to find out
they are duds, so it would be a lot cheaper.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:27:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

Paul, you have some valid points, but most don't apply to the majority of
people who own digital cameras. The respondents have made many good points,
and the best one is that most people already own a computer. It's not like
we are buying this equipment just for the digital camera. In fact, I have
both a digital camera and Voice Over IP (VoIP) telephone service. The
camera requires a computer, and the VoIP service requires broadband Internet
service. I have both regardless of whether I have a digital camera or VoIP
service.

As far as printing is concerned, it is all done by White House Custom Color.
They are a premium printing house - not the cheapest, not the most
expensive, but dam good. As Conrad said, I only print the winners. I take
tons of pics and filter through them to get the best. While I'm not the
best photographer in the world (or USA for that matter), I do produce some
very good prints for family, friends and a few business acquaintances. Yes,
I are an amateur.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:39:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:01 GMT, paul <b@c.com> wrote:

>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
>a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
>the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
>camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
>actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

I remember shooting a roll of 36 exposures and getting one or two
shots worthy of keeping. Downside to film is the cost of the frames
that don'y pan out. This cost is reduced to zero with a digicam. I'm
never going back to film.
December 1, 2004 6:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo quality
> inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing a 35mm
> print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X the cost
> of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital camera, plus
> the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and upgrading a computer
> costs over the years - digital photography isn't actually cheaper than
> film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

I have 30GB of pictures since I have got my Canon 300D. I print very few
pics. I do print 12x18 if I really like it; US$0.19 for 4x6 and US$2.99 for
12x18 at Costco. Ah, I am glad that I can pick up DVD+/-R for US$0.40 a
piece to archieve the pictures.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:43:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Assume $5 per film for 36 exposures. How many pictures can I make with my
D70 (for $990) until I get my money back? 7128. No? I got this camera since
five months. I made just about 1700 pictures. (Yes, I know I am barely using
my D70.) At this rate, I will have made more than 7128 exposures within two
years. So, after that, I can just dump my D70 and buy the next model. And
remember, I am only casually using my D70 while others have already more
than 6000 shots on their counters.

Hence, if you really like photography as a hobby and you did not just buy
your DSLR as a dust collector, digital photography is less expensive for
you, not more.

BTW, the price for your inkjet paper is irrelevant since there are studios
that very competitively print your digital images on paper. Regarding inkjet
paper, I just pay $13 for 100 sheets of 4x6 (Epson, premium glossy).

Gregor


"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo quality
> inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing a 35mm
> print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X the cost
> of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital camera, plus
> the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and upgrading a computer
> costs over the years - digital photography isn't actually cheaper than
> film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 9:02:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <b@c.com> wrote in message news:<Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

Apart from all the valid points that others have already pointed out
(a lot of which also applies to me), the bottom line in my case is
that a digicam has made photography a much more rewarding and
enjoyable experience compared to what I was limited to with film. I
doubt I would be even half as interested in photography in general if
I didn't have a digital.

But speaking to your point, I don't think it's more expensive if you
consider the ratio of good vs. bad photos that get printed, which is
considerably better with digital (close to 100%) vs. film.

Terence
December 1, 2004 10:50:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

with digital you shoot more, often a lot more, and edit quite a bit, at
least you should.

digital is faster, and time is money for a lot of people.

digital on photo paper at the lab costs the same as photos on photo paper,
less as I don't pay for custom prints, I don't pay for retouching, (though I
do pay and pay and pay with my own time.)

OTOH, archiving is costing quite a bit. I burn a CD of each 512 CF card,
straight without looking at the results, burn a CD of the edited and
adjusted files, burn a CD of the monitor/slideshow files, burn a CD of the
print order, a CD of the album order.

All these files are on my HD, and they get echoed to a USB drive. And its a
couple drives a year just for backup, just incase, besides those racks of
CDs.
December 1, 2004 11:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Paul!

First, if I print 4 x 6, I do it on a 8½ x 11, using Qimage. I get 120
sheets of 8½ x 11 at Costco for a ridiculously low price. Then, I only print
certain photos, very few as a matter of fact. I see these through the screen
saver of my computer mostly.

Regards,

Marcel

"paul" <b@c.com> wrote in message
news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:58:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:52:00 -0000, "Rob" <robREMOVEME@convery.me.uk>
wrote:

>Printing @ 17p per pint ~ £26

Wow! I wish I could order a pint of printed photos for 17p. ;-)

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:58:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:uauqq05al3kqipacf9k5snhqegce6e9j8o@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:52:00 -0000, "Rob" <robREMOVEME@convery.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Printing @ 17p per pint ~ £26
>
> Wow! I wish I could order a pint of printed photos for 17p. ;-)
>
> --
> Stephen Poley

You can get paper by the pint...then you need a screen and felt pads and a
press...but you get some wonderful papers this way and people spend a lot of
money for them. It might destroy an ink jet printer though.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 12:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:01 GMT
paul <b@c.com> wrote:

> digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's
> more expensive?

Mike summed it up well, and I'm a good example of taking more
shots and printing less... Living on a tight budget, we could
only really afford a roll of film and developing once a month or
so, so we'd have the camera on hand most of the time, but not
take many shots - just in case the kids did something we wanted
a picture of later. Then, once film was developed, there's only
about half that are really keepers anyway (My wife is a Point n
shoot type person, I'm slowly learning to compose a decent
shot).

We managed to get the money for a Canon A95 - We've had it
about 6 weeks, possibly less, and taken about 1500 shots with it
so far. We'll print a few of them at 40c each for the album
(40c each is $9.60 for 24, so cheaper than film anyway!), and to
give to rellies, but we'll only be printing the good ones that
we want, rather than shots that are blurry, or blinked, looked
away, had a fly on the face, you get the picture...

If kids are doing something, we just keep snapping, and worry
about picking the good ones later. If there's a nice sunset, I
grab the camera and snap away, and I don't have to worry about
the wife complaining I'm wasting film later. It's just so much
more convinient to not worry about how many shots are left, and
if we can afford developing this week.

As far as our needs/usage go, Digital is waaay cheaper!

-Chris D
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 12:43:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> If kids are doing something, we just keep snapping, and worry
> about picking the good ones later. If there's a nice sunset, I
> grab the camera and snap away, and I don't have to worry about
> the wife complaining I'm wasting film later. It's just so much
> more convinient to not worry about how many shots are left, and
> if we can afford developing this week.

Another advantage to digital is that, since it may encourage you to take
more pictures, you start taking *better* pictures since, during the
reviewing process, you see what makes something worth keeping. Even though
there's little cost associated with taking a zillion photos, the time spent
reviewing them is still an incentive to try for a bit more quality with each
one.

Darn, one more thing. The immediacy, being able to see the photo later the
same day, is also an advantage. How often have you taken a photo and, seeing
it later, wondered "Why did I take that?" Less likely to happen with
digital, and the shorter feedback sequence means you learn more easily too.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 1:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:xdmdncNaN9ECiDDcRVn-tg@golden.net...
> The huge benefit to digital is the instant gratification

I don't think it has much to do with instant gratification.
How many of you have taken one (or more because you are not sure the first
one worked) photos only to find upon developing and printing that the result
is disappointing and that the event can not be recreated!
Digital lets you see the result straight away, and you can shoot another to
fix up you stuff ups!

Gerrit - Oz
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:41:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:01 GMT, paul <b@c.com> wrote:

>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
>a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
>the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
>camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
>actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
I think you are correct. For casual photographers, digital may be
economical, buf for most "serious" photographers, digital is more
expensive. Moreover, it's not just the day to day operating costs. You
mentioned the "technology tax" and added computer costs, but there is
also the cost of continually upgrading the camera.

I have film cameras that I used continuously for over 25 years. New
features were included with more modern cameras (like autofocus and
auto detection of film speed, for example), but the older cameras
still produced images as good as those from newer film cameras.

Digital cameras, on the other hand, are more like computers in that
the technology is improving rapidly. For many of us, I expect the
useful life of a particular digital camera is just a few years. My
first digital camera was an Olympus C2500L. It was a decent camera,
but I still took a lot of film pictures. Now, my main camera is a Fuji
S2. I haven't taken any film pictures since I got it. Subjectively, I
like it better than my 35mm film cameras.

However, if I honestly ask myself, "will I still be using this camera
twenty five years from now?" ... I'm pretty sure I won't be. Within
the next few years, the technology will have moved far enough that
I'll be buying another camera body...Something with a full-frame
sensor and higher resolution, perhaps...But, I digress...

Closely related to this is the fact that digital cameras lose their
value very quickly. The film cameras I own are worth far more relative
to their initial purchase price than a digital camera that is only a
few years old.

It's certainly true for me that digital photography is considerably
more expensive -- initial and ongoing investment as well as the cost
of "supplies." Despite that, even though I've greatly enjoyed
photography for a long time, I'm having more fun with photography now
than I ever had in the past in large measure because of what I can do
with digital.

I didn't get into digital photography to save money. I'd sure be
embarassed now if I had! ;-).

Cheers,

Leonard
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:41:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Leonard Lehew wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:01 GMT, paul <b@c.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
>>a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
>>the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
>>camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>>upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
>>actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
>
> I think you are correct. For casual photographers, digital may be
> economical, buf for most "serious" photographers, digital is more
> expensive. Moreover, it's not just the day to day operating costs. You
> mentioned the "technology tax" and added computer costs, but there is
> also the cost of continually upgrading the camera.
>
> I have film cameras that I used continuously for over 25 years. New
> features were included with more modern cameras (like autofocus and
> auto detection of film speed, for example), but the older cameras
> still produced images as good as those from newer film cameras.
>
> Digital cameras, on the other hand, are more like computers in that
> the technology is improving rapidly. For many of us, I expect the
> useful life of a particular digital camera is just a few years. My
> first digital camera was an Olympus C2500L. It was a decent camera,
> but I still took a lot of film pictures. Now, my main camera is a Fuji
> S2. I haven't taken any film pictures since I got it. Subjectively, I
> like it better than my 35mm film cameras.
>
> However, if I honestly ask myself, "will I still be using this camera
> twenty five years from now?" ... I'm pretty sure I won't be. Within
> the next few years, the technology will have moved far enough that
> I'll be buying another camera body...Something with a full-frame
> sensor and higher resolution, perhaps...But, I digress...
>
> Closely related to this is the fact that digital cameras lose their
> value very quickly. The film cameras I own are worth far more relative
> to their initial purchase price than a digital camera that is only a
> few years old.
>
> It's certainly true for me that digital photography is considerably
> more expensive -- initial and ongoing investment as well as the cost
> of "supplies." Despite that, even though I've greatly enjoyed
> photography for a long time, I'm having more fun with photography now
> than I ever had in the past in large measure because of what I can do
> with digital.
>
> I didn't get into digital photography to save money. I'd sure be
> embarassed now if I had! ;-).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Leonard

Perhaps a better question is 'Is digital a better value?' For me, it
definitely IS.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> paul b@c.com wrote:

>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
>a 35mm print film),

And your point? If digital is too expensive for you, stay with film. It will be
around for a while. For myself, I print very little. I like the capability of
writing my good pictures to a CD-R (cost about 19 cents).
The computer is used for much more than just photography so adding it to the
cost is not applicable.
Paper can be bought at sales, online etc. for much less for example Epson Photo
Glossy at Office depot is $16.99 for 100 sheets (4x6) and less for the house
brand.
Rosita
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 5:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:08:14 GMT
"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:

> Another advantage to digital is that, since it may encourage
> you to take more pictures, you start taking *better* pictures
> since, during the reviewing process, you see what makes
> something worth keeping.

That's true as well - I'm having a ball learning... Take shots,
fiddle settings, take more shots, look at difference, decide
which is better, fiddle something else, repeat... All good fun
:)  I've learnt a few lessons about using flash even in broad
daylight for some situations, using exposure compensation to fix
overexposure caused by using flash in broad daylight, using
compensation to give a darker, richer colour effect in sunsets,
macro modes, depth of field, indoor macro using flash... The
list goes on. I've just learnt so much through having a digicam,
rather than a film camera, that it's paid for itself already as
far as I'm concerned!

Go Digital! :D 

Bugger it... http://www.riverland.net.au/~dicko/canon/
- very amature compared to other stuff shown off here (Bugger
you bret! :-P ), but I like'em :)  I'm amazed the A95 did such a
good job of capturing the sunset pics in there!

-Chris D
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 5:18:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:51:43 -0500
Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:

> > plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> >upgrading a computer costs over the years
>
> Any relatively decent computer can handle digital photography.
> You don't need to upgrade unless you're running ancient
> hardware.

Even "Ancient" hardware can handle it to some extent... We've
got a PI, 233 at home, with 96MB RAM, and for downloading the
pics, viewing them, doing some light editing, and writing to CD,
it's all the grunt you need, and that's a 7 year old computer,
which by todays standards is ancient!
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:43:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/12/04 7:50 am, in article nJerd.696420$8_6.34371@attbi_s04, "zeitgeist"
<blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> with digital you shoot more, often a lot more, and edit quite a bit, at
> least you should.
>
> digital is faster, and time is money for a lot of people.
>
> digital on photo paper at the lab costs the same as photos on photo paper,
> less as I don't pay for custom prints, I don't pay for retouching, (though I
> do pay and pay and pay with my own time.)
>
> OTOH, archiving is costing quite a bit. I burn a CD of each 512 CF card,
> straight without looking at the results, burn a CD of the edited and
> adjusted files, burn a CD of the monitor/slideshow files, burn a CD of the
> print order, a CD of the album order.
>
> All these files are on my HD, and they get echoed to a USB drive. And its a
> couple drives a year just for backup, just incase, besides those racks of
> CDs.
>
>

Five cdr's for one 521mb chip seems both excessive and very time consuming.
surely extra 'mirrored' hard-drives would work out faster, cheaper, take
less shelf space, and be re-usable.

Of course, you know your needs more than I do, so it's just a thought.
December 1, 2004 10:04:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Leonard Lehew <leonard-lehew@nc.EXTRASTUFF.rr.com> wrote in
news:6ecrq0po9b6ggphno4m91hbc84hsq9qeme@4ax.com:

> I think you are correct. For casual photographers, digital may be
> economical, buf for most "serious" photographers, digital is more
> expensive. Moreover, it's not just the day to day operating costs. You
> mentioned the "technology tax" and added computer costs, but there is
> also the cost of continually upgrading the camera.

I think that your logic only applies to 'serious' photographers that don't
take many photos.

Can you use the same film camera for 25 years? Not really, you have to
replace one part on a constant basis (film).

I intend to replace my D-SLR after 5 years, but in that time I will have
saved 6x the cost of the body by not having to pay for film and processing.
In fact, even if I printed every shot taken (which would be crazy), the
savings from not having to buy film would still put me ahead.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
December 1, 2004 10:26:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lynrd.332$vE4.124@fe04.lga...
> >
> > I think you are correct. For casual photographers, digital may be
> > economical, buf for most "serious" photographers, digital is more
> > expensive.

The typical consumer, according to published articles, shoots something like
3-4 rolls per year. Clearly, a film camera will be far more economical for
this type of user.

But what about the more serious amateur that shoots 1 or more rolls per
week--at least 50 rolls per year? (and that would be at the low end of
usage--many of us shoot more). And don't forget the costs associated with
buying the film, dropping it at the photofinisher, and picking it up. Gas
and wear-and-tear on the car.

Finally, factor in the cost of paying for all shots on a roll of film,
versus printing only those digital images that are of acceptable quality.
Where are all the savings now?

There are good reasons to shoot with film, but the cost of film mounts up,
especially for those that shoot liberally.

Biggest intangible is the way that digital encourages the photog to take
more pics--pics he probably would not have taken if he had to worry about
exhausting his supply of film. I shoot many times more images digitally
than I EVER did with film. Not sure how to assign a dollar value to that,
but digital imaging has been a better value to me than film was.

I still enjoy film cameras--I just save that for times when I want to be
artistic, or utilize some of my excellent prime lenses.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:12:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message
<20041201141810.5f125fc7.dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au>,
Chris D <dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:51:43 -0500
>Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>
>> > plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>> >upgrading a computer costs over the years
>>
>> Any relatively decent computer can handle digital photography.
>> You don't need to upgrade unless you're running ancient
>> hardware.
>
>Even "Ancient" hardware can handle it to some extent... We've
>got a PI, 233 at home, with 96MB RAM, and for downloading the
>pics, viewing them, doing some light editing, and writing to CD,
>it's all the grunt you need, and that's a 7 year old computer,
>which by todays standards is ancient!

I am about to move, and this morning my mind started wandering into the
chronological threads of different aspects of my life. I've lived here
for 12 years, and moved in with my Commodore Amiga 3000 and 500
computers, and bought my first Wintel PC about two years later. It
seems so much longer than 10 years ago, relative to other aspects of my
life. I just pulled a jacket out of my closet the other day, which I
hadn't worn in a while, and there was a receipt in the pocket dated
1992. It seems like just yesterday I wore that jacket and stuck the
receipt in the pocket; yet it predates seeming aeons of PC use by two
full years.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 2:08:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cost of printing is not very expensive for me since ninety percent of my
photos are never printed.

One can view and see digital photos better on a large computer screen with
more satisfaction than in a large print. The prints I make are 4" x 6" dye
sublimation prints, and large 8" x 10" photos in a ink jet. I would be
crazy to print the hundreds of digital photos I take in one year. A flat
screen made to hang on a wall for viewing digital photos on a rotating
basis is something I would like to have.

Most of my old 35 mm slide film photos have never been printed, and most
were never hung on a wall. The 35 mm color film taken in 1953 is already
deteriorating. If the old 35 mm photos were digital and had been archived on
a CD, they could be printed now in original clarity.

One way we currently display digital prints is placing a line of prints in
frames on wall ledges in our bar with ceiling spotlights on the photos. It
is easy to rotate the display with different photos, but we do hang on a
wall, or show on a table, a few digital prints permanently.

We still like to hang oil paintings on our walls.

Robert
"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lynrd.332$vE4.124@fe04.lga...
> Leonard Lehew wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:01 GMT, paul <b@c.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>>>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing a
>>>35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X the
>>>cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital camera,
>>>plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and upgrading a
>>>computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't actually
>>>cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
>>
>> I think you are correct. For casual photographers, digital may be
>> economical, buf for most "serious" photographers, digital is more
>> expensive. Moreover, it's not just the day to day operating costs. You
>> mentioned the "technology tax" and added computer costs, but there is
>> also the cost of continually upgrading the camera.
>>
>> I have film cameras that I used continuously for over 25 years. New
>> features were included with more modern cameras (like autofocus and
>> auto detection of film speed, for example), but the older cameras
>> still produced images as good as those from newer film cameras.
>>
>> Digital cameras, on the other hand, are more like computers in that
>> the technology is improving rapidly. For many of us, I expect the
>> useful life of a particular digital camera is just a few years. My
>> first digital camera was an Olympus C2500L. It was a decent camera,
>> but I still took a lot of film pictures. Now, my main camera is a Fuji
>> S2. I haven't taken any film pictures since I got it. Subjectively, I
>> like it better than my 35mm film cameras.
>>
>> However, if I honestly ask myself, "will I still be using this camera
>> twenty five years from now?" ... I'm pretty sure I won't be. Within
>> the next few years, the technology will have moved far enough that
>> I'll be buying another camera body...Something with a full-frame
>> sensor and higher resolution, perhaps...But, I digress...
>>
>> Closely related to this is the fact that digital cameras lose their
>> value very quickly. The film cameras I own are worth far more relative
>> to their initial purchase price than a digital camera that is only a
>> few years old.
>>
>> It's certainly true for me that digital photography is considerably
>> more expensive -- initial and ongoing investment as well as the cost
>> of "supplies." Despite that, even though I've greatly enjoyed
>> photography for a long time, I'm having more fun with photography now
>> than I ever had in the past in large measure because of what I can do
>> with digital.
>>
>> I didn't get into digital photography to save money. I'd sure be
>> embarassed now if I had! ;-).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Leonard
>
> Perhaps a better question is 'Is digital a better value?' For me, it
> definitely IS.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 4:56:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

How about looking at it this way? ...

If digital had come first, who would be switching to film when it came
out?


--
Alan ............
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 5:56:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
> a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
> the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
> camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
> upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?

Assuming you print every photo you take, yes, digital would cost more.

I've shot over 2,000 images in the few months I've had my Digital Rebel
and only actually printed a handful of them. Many I need in digital
format anyway, so going through the regular film routing would cost far
more after having dozens of unneeded shots printed, then either put on
CD by the photo lab, or taking my time scanning them.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:50:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terence wrote:
> paul <b@c.com> wrote in message news:<Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>...
>
>>It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
>>quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and developing
>>a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge, and the 5X
>>the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax' imposed on a digital
>>camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>>upgrading a computer costs over the years - digital photography isn't
>>actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more expensive?
>
>
> Apart from all the valid points that others have already pointed out
> (a lot of which also applies to me), the bottom line in my case is
> that a digicam has made photography a much more rewarding and
> enjoyable experience compared to what I was limited to with film. I
> doubt I would be even half as interested in photography in general if
> I didn't have a digital.
>
> But speaking to your point, I don't think it's more expensive if you
> consider the ratio of good vs. bad photos that get printed, which is
> considerably better with digital (close to 100%) vs. film.
>
> Terence

Since buying my DX6440 in February, I have taken 1500 pictures. Before
digital, I would have only taken 150 or so pictures in that time. If I
paid for developing and printing 1500 pictures, it would be a financial
load I wouldn't contemplate. The bottom line is that I don't print more
than 1% of my pictures, and thus digital is vastly cheaper per picture
than when I used film, and it saves me time scanning, running to the
processor, and handling all those rolls of film, and pictures, AND I can
look at any one of the pictures at any time I want. I know where they
are, and each one is instantly available. I couldn't put a price tag on
that convenience.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:53:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
> In message
> <20041201141810.5f125fc7.dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au>,
> Chris D <dicko-news@riverland.AAARRGNOMORESPAM.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:51:43 -0500
>>Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>plus the god knows how many hundreds of pounds buying and
>>>>upgrading a computer costs over the years
>>>
>>>Any relatively decent computer can handle digital photography.
>>>You don't need to upgrade unless you're running ancient
>>>hardware.
>>
>>Even "Ancient" hardware can handle it to some extent... We've
>>got a PI, 233 at home, with 96MB RAM, and for downloading the
>>pics, viewing them, doing some light editing, and writing to CD,
>>it's all the grunt you need, and that's a 7 year old computer,
>>which by todays standards is ancient!
>
>
> I am about to move, and this morning my mind started wandering into the
> chronological threads of different aspects of my life. I've lived here
> for 12 years, and moved in with my Commodore Amiga 3000 and 500
> computers, and bought my first Wintel PC about two years later. It
> seems so much longer than 10 years ago, relative to other aspects of my
> life. I just pulled a jacket out of my closet the other day, which I
> hadn't worn in a while, and there was a receipt in the pocket dated
> 1992. It seems like just yesterday I wore that jacket and stuck the
> receipt in the pocket; yet it predates seeming aeons of PC use by two
> full years.

Maybe you need to get out more. Time sure flies when you are having fun.
December 2, 2004 6:41:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <b@c.com> wrote in news:Nu6rd.115$1Q1.28@newsfe2-win.ntli.net:

> digital photography isn't
> actually cheaper than film photography is it, in fact it's more
> expensive?
>

Your analysis is flawed. You have compared a "digital darkroom" with no
darkroom. For a fair comparison, you should compare the cost of getting
film prints made to the cost of getting digital prints made. These costs
are very comprarable. The cost of the camera will offset the cost of the
film over time.

Now if you choose to add the greater control that a PC and your own
printer might give you, then the comparison should be to buying an
enlarger and finding a place to set it up.

Bob
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:41:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:56:56 +0000, Alan Terry
<alan@successful.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>How about looking at it this way? ...
>
>If digital had come first, who would be switching to film when it came
>out?
>
>
>--
>Alan ............
>
might be poular with cro-magnum man
December 2, 2004 7:49:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:56:56 +0000, Alan Terry
> <alan@successful.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >How about looking at it this way? ...
> >
> >If digital had come first, who would be switching to film when it came
> >out?
> >

There's a compelling argument that hasn't been raised before!

Touché!
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 11:58:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Terry <alan@successful.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>How about looking at it this way? ...

>If digital had come first, who would be switching to film when it came
>out?

While I agree, I think that they cannot be directly
compared. For instance I take many more problematic
shots with my digital. With film I would not because
of the cost. Few of these shots come out digitally,
but I've gotten some very nice ones this way.

Film was a great way to learn, because one learned to
be careful, compose, take the background into consideration,
etc. Digital is, in my experience, cheaper. I developed
all my film shots -- one has to. (I used slide film so
there was no printing involved.)

With digital I look at all of my shots and print very very
few.

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:29:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <_ACrd.5916$Va3.4487@fe07.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>Maybe you need to get out more. Time sure flies when you are having fun.

Time does fly - in some aspects of my life. In others, it drags its
feet.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:49:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <convku$kh4$1@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
<gans@panix.com> writes
>Alan Terry <alan@successful.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>How about looking at it this way? ...
>
>>If digital had come first, who would be switching to film when it came
>>out?
>
>While I agree,


Agree with what - I just asked a question.


--
Alan ............
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 2:55:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:26:08 GMT, "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:lynrd.332$vE4.124@fe04.lga...
>> >
>> > I think you are correct. For casual photographers, digital may be
>> > economical, buf for most "serious" photographers, digital is more
>> > expensive.
>
>The typical consumer, according to published articles, shoots something like
>3-4 rolls per year. Clearly, a film camera will be far more economical for
>this type of user.
>
>But what about the more serious amateur that shoots 1 or more rolls per
>week--at least 50 rolls per year? (and that would be at the low end of
>usage--many of us shoot more). And don't forget the costs associated with
>buying the film, dropping it at the photofinisher, and picking it up. Gas
>and wear-and-tear on the car.
>
>Finally, factor in the cost of paying for all shots on a roll of film,
>versus printing only those digital images that are of acceptable quality.
>Where are all the savings now?
>
>There are good reasons to shoot with film, but the cost of film mounts up,
>especially for those that shoot liberally.
>
When I wrote my response, I had two thoughts at the "front of my
mind." First, I have spent far more for digital photography-related
equipment in a few years than I did in 20 year or so of film
photography. Second, my capital outlays for digital photography
equipment will continue to be high relative to film photography,
because the useful life of digital photography equipment is more like
that of computer equipment than that of film photography equipment --
i.e., much shorter. (A good-quality 20 year old film camera can be
resold for a pretty good portion of what you paid for it. You can't
give away a 5 year old digital camera.)

Reading your response and others, several points come to mind -- most
of which support your assertion that I am wrong. ;-)

- A considerable part of my capital outlay for digital equipment is
for photo printing and film scanning. I did not have equivalent
capability with film photography.

- Another significant "chunk of change" is related to photo editing
and storage -- software, digitizing tablet, external hard drives, etc.

- My first reaction to your "50 rolls a year" is that I probably don't
shoot that much. Some weeks I take only a few shots. Of course, I also
often make trips for the specific purpose of taking pictures. On a
recent vacation of about 10 days, I took the digital equivalent of
about 25 rolls (aren't these big digital memory cards great!). I would
have taken about the same number of shots on film. Indeed, upon some
reflection (and a peek into the boxes of slides I have) I realized
that I probably take closer to 100 rolls per year than 50.

- Even using your lower figure of 50 rolls per year and a very modest
$20 per roll for film and processing, the cost is about $1000 per
year.

If I compare "apples to apples" and consider only the cost for the
equipment I need to do what I did with film (take pictures and get
someone else to process them), the higher equipment costs for digital
are roughly offset by the lower operating costs. The balance can shift
in one direction or another depending on what equipment you buy and
how many pictures you take.

The truth is that while I've spent a bunch more money on digital
photography, I've done it willingly to get capabilities way beyond
what I could do with film.
>Biggest intangible is the way that digital encourages the photog to take
>more pics--pics he probably would not have taken if he had to worry about
>exhausting his supply of film. I shoot many times more images digitally
>than I EVER did with film. Not sure how to assign a dollar value to that,
>but digital imaging has been a better value to me than film was.
I understand what you mean, but I don't really take more digital
pictures than I did film pictures. When I first started taking
photographs, I took a lot of pictures. After I got them developed, I
remember looking at the results and often being rather "surprised" at
the good pictures.

As I continued to take pictures, I found that I got a lot better at
knowing what the outcome would be before I snapped the shot, so over
the years I found myself taking fewer pictures but producing better
results. I haven't found myself taking a lot more pictures with
digital than I did with film.
>
>I still enjoy film cameras--I just save that for times when I want to be
>artistic, or utilize some of my excellent prime lenses.
>
I haven't picked up my film cameras in about a year now, but I must
admit that I miss that nice crisp 135mm prime lense that I used for
portraits. Hmmmmmm... looks like another opportunity to spend money.
My wife's not going to like this!

Cheers,

Leonard
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:31:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If digital was better value, (in other words, we pay less), then the
photographic industry would be losing money, wouldn't it? I can hardly see
them doing that in what is probably the most profound change in photography
since the invention of color film.

It seems that buying has reached fever pitch - even to the point of planning
to sell in order to buy a camera that doesn't even exist yet. Though I do
love the rationalization of it all - like, "it saves wear and tear on the
car if I have to take the film to the processor, and then to collect the
prints'. Classic!

Let's face it. This isn't as much a photography forum, (digital or
otherwise), than a buying club. Don't get me wrong, as I'm not knocking it.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:39:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3/12/04 12:31 pm, in article BDD60D0B.B93C%teflon@bluebottlefly.com,
"teflon" <teflon@bluebottlefly.com> wrote:

> If digital was better value, (in other words, we pay less), then the
> photographic industry would be losing money, wouldn't it? I can hardly see
> them doing that in what is probably the most profound change in photography
> since the invention of color film.
>
> It seems that buying has reached fever pitch - even to the point of planning
> to sell in order to buy a camera that doesn't even exist yet. Though I do
> love the rationalization of it all - like, "it saves wear and tear on the
> car if I have to take the film to the processor, and then to collect the
> prints'. Classic!
>
> Let's face it. This isn't as much a photography forum, (digital or
> otherwise), than a buying club. Don't get me wrong, as I'm not knocking it.
>
I'd like to add that, people are spending the same amount of money today on
a basic DSLR, that they would never have dreamed of doing so for a high
quality film camera two or three years ago. Work that one out!
December 3, 2004 6:19:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard Lehew" <leonard-lehew@nc.EXTRASTUFF.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7ekvq0h49lhnb1ejso74q53b0c5ld0jrps@4ax.com...
>
> The truth is that while I've spent a bunch more money on digital
> photography, I've done it willingly to get capabilities way beyond
> what I could do with film.
>

That says it all.

All those digital cameras did not fly off the shelves just because buyers
felt that they'd save money. In truth, many owners of digicams had not
formerly been interested in amateur film photography. Digital is something
new, and many folks want to participate in new technology. Just look at all
those Video recorders that have been sold--I wonder how many people really
used them much after the initial novelty wore off?

The truth is that the cost differential between film and digital is not
uniform for everyone. Clearly, the person that shoots only a couple of
times per year will do better buying disposable film cameras and having
their prints made through their local drugstore. But the more dedicated
amateur that shoots much (and who probably already has a computer) stands to
save on film costs. And the professional that shoots tons of film may find
that he can keep his expenses under control only with digital. How else do
you explain why those $20k digital backs for medium format cameras are
selling like hotcakes?

I believe that film will remain the medium of choice for the more artistic
stuff, but that digital clearly has compelling advantages for
photojournalism, news photography, business-related photography like
insurance claims documentation, police work and applications like home
inventory photos--in other words, those "utility-type" applications where we
want an image, we want it fast, and we don't really care about whether it
displays the ultimate in optical and artistic quality.

Those utility applications were a major source of film sales, and that is
what will kill film off as a readily-available commodity. The day is fast
approaching when you will be able to find only a couple of the most popular
emulsions at your local drug or variety store. The other stuff will be
found only in specialty camera stores or via mail order (When was the last
time you could buy a roll of Kodachrome at Walgreen's?)

How long before we no longer can get good quality 35mm professional film
cameras new? Manufacturers won't build these tanks if they can't sell them.
I read that the Nikon all-manual FM3a is selling very poorly, and that they
may pull the plug on it. Also they were talking about dropping their
Lite-Touch P&S film line a while back (they may have already done it).

The Great Unwashed is clearly going over to digital, leaving film for the
dedicated user. Reminds me of the fate of the LP record, or the Cassette.
They're still around, but they don't command mass-market appeal anymore.

When was the last time anyone manufactured a 78 RPM record . . . ??
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 6:42:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <b@c.com> writes:

> It occured to me today, if it costs £13 for 40 sheets of 6X4 photo
> quality inkjet paper, (already beyond the cost of buying and
> developing a 35mm print film), add to that £13 for an inkjet
> cartridge, and the 5X the cost of a film camera 'new technology tax'
> imposed on a digital camera, plus the god knows how many hundreds of
> pounds buying and upgrading a computer costs over the years -
> digital photography isn't actually cheaper than film photography is
> it, in fact it's more expensive?

No. I can get the 4x6 prints printed for the same cost from digital
as from film, at the same places; and still save the developing
charge and the cost of the film (which will eventually amortize the
cost of the camera and media cards).

Most people could cut the number of prints down by 10% by omitting
obvious screwups, and save even more.

But in fact, I keep my snapshot albums online now that they're all
from digital, so I also save the expense of the 4x6 prints.

Same thing for commercial work; I present proofs in a private web
page, rather than making little prints of them.

You greatly overstate the camera price difference. For example, a
Nikon F6 film body costs about $2300, a D2h about $3200. That's not a
5x difference. It's not even a 2x difference.

And at $15/roll for film plus processing plus proof prints, that $3200
is *completely* paid off (if you use it the way I've used my S2) in
just over 200 rolls, which is to say a year or two of serious use.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 6:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Harvey" <harvey@not.ntlworld.com> writes:

>> add to that £13 for an inkjet cartridge,
>
> Shop around - unless you unfortunate to have a Lexmark printer (in which
> case - where the hell do you get cartridges that cheap?) you can get ink
> carts at much better prices - try eBay (but watch the cost of postage).

*Each* of the 8 cartridges in the printer I have my eye on costs close
to that much. Which is why my previous printer had a continuous
ink-feed system.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
!