Digital cost more than film
- Thread starter guitarboutique
- Start date
I am using both digital and analog and I would say that the link is highly inaccurate. The digital cost has included till the level of post processing while the film cost stops at developing. Darkroom cost isn't included, scanning the films will also require PP which boils down to Photoshop. The cost of film for 1 year is 1.04K which on today market, a roll of cheap slide from the shop cost around $8, cost of fridge for storage isn't even included (but nvm), so total number of rolls is 130 rolls which means 4680 exposure. So you mean your 5D MKII is going to break down in 2 years taking only 9360 images? Please man, if you take care of your equipment, it can go much much more than that, not to mention you can upgrade your camera with a top up after selling your old one to recover some loss. There are much more flaws than that, but I will stop at here.
The issue why pros prefer digital is due to the fast workflow processing and ease of use (Example: having to change another canister or camera after 36 exposure) which allows them to take more job rather than using darkroom or scan for every image.
The issue why pros prefer digital is due to the fast workflow processing and ease of use (Example: having to change another canister or camera after 36 exposure) which allows them to take more job rather than using darkroom or scan for every image.
if you seldom use your camera, analog is definitely cheaper.
some of people here, use his/her dslr like once every 2 weeks or once in a month, then leave it inside dry cabinet most of the time. after 2 year want to sell, also can't get good price.
some of people here, use his/her dslr like once every 2 weeks or once in a month, then leave it inside dry cabinet most of the time. after 2 year want to sell, also can't get good price.
If i'm not wrong, the link is comparing digital photos taken using digital camera and slide films taken using analog. digital photos are to be enjoyed on computer, slides are to be enjoyed on slide viewer. IMHO, both are fair in comparison.
So you mean getting a digital album and watching your photos in digital album? If the guy is talking about such high end stuff and replacing a DSLR every 2 years, I assume that he is taking about certain degree of a pro photographer. I don't think that they will ask the client to view slides on a slide viewer.
What about the results? I like and use film more, hence better utilization of my investment and hence lower cost. YMMV.
Between spending money developing color film, and sometimes black and white because I don't have time either sometimes, film can work out a bunch. One could easily spend like 1000 a year on film and developing alone.
If you burn through 3 rolls of film a week, you would probably spend 3*6*4 = 72 $ a month. Actually, probably that figure would increase now with the increases in price. Take that for a year, and you get a whopping 72*12 = 864$ a year. That does not count for development which will likely double that if one were to shoot color and slides. So all in all, you spent enough to buy a digital camera in one year!!!
Last edited:
Not really happy (I am ranting my unhappiness here and putting it on others), just lug my sinar up the ECP highway for the NDP rehearsal fireworks. Almost everything is great from composure, exposure, the range tone and the timing and amount of fireworks captured. But I short of a wider lens :cry:, a bit of the platform fireworks is slight cropped though the sky is good. (Can ask Kgston and Sweat100)
Going again this Saturday with some friends, if your are free can come along, I am meeting them at 4.30pm for early dinner, maybe you can reach around 6.30pm to find a good spot (Your Linhof needs more space) since fireworks starts at 8.
To add on, I just lost 116SGD to the dentist which is close to cost of 3 pack of E100VS (10 sheet pack). I just want to whine here though it has nothing to do with photography.
Oh yeah, interesting read, but it pairs a EF-S 18-200 mm lens with a Canon 5D Mark II and a film camera.
Bye bye credibility.
Bye bye credibility.
This is literally throwing in costs to prove the guy's point - never mind that he's paired a crop factor lens which is not compatible with both cameras he's using to compare;
He's also suggesting that:
1) Digital needs archiving on hard disks but there is no need to archive/backup negatives - I could just as easily ask him to scan the negatives for digitisation and he'd need both hard disks that he's thrown in, PLUS a good scanner AND the computer he's thrown in for the digital side
2) He assumes that photoshop and lightroom need upgrading every year, but film darkroom equipment that you have will never, ever break down - that's what you need to HAVE to have an equal comparison, because photoshop and lightroom allow you to adjust the image!
3) Why would you need 10 cards?
Another important point is that the computer in itself is a sunk cost, i.e. most people would have computers already. Same for the monitor. A better and more rigorous calculation would have considered INCREMENTAL costs, e.g. normal computer versus computer catering to Photoshop work; normal monitor compared to a IPU panel with decent enough specifications for working with digital photos.
He's also suggesting that:
1) Digital needs archiving on hard disks but there is no need to archive/backup negatives - I could just as easily ask him to scan the negatives for digitisation and he'd need both hard disks that he's thrown in, PLUS a good scanner AND the computer he's thrown in for the digital side
2) He assumes that photoshop and lightroom need upgrading every year, but film darkroom equipment that you have will never, ever break down - that's what you need to HAVE to have an equal comparison, because photoshop and lightroom allow you to adjust the image!
3) Why would you need 10 cards?
Another important point is that the computer in itself is a sunk cost, i.e. most people would have computers already. Same for the monitor. A better and more rigorous calculation would have considered INCREMENTAL costs, e.g. normal computer versus computer catering to Photoshop work; normal monitor compared to a IPU panel with decent enough specifications for working with digital photos.
Won't be in time. FYI digital cost far more then film in hi end side. Unless you are in commercial world. Or very loaded. Hee Hee
Hi everyone,
We can be both film and digital users. Depending on the situation, depending on the work nature and depending on the results wanted, we do have a choice.
It will be dreadful if there are only digital, or the other way round. We are pampered of choices, and we should count ourselves blessed!
Analog has developed for over 100 years, and it has its very strong points. Medium format and large formats still going on strong.
Digital open up a lot of new possibilities, flexibilities and also ease of operation and consistency.
And we can enjoy both.
For both professionals and hobbyists, both have a choice to suit their work flow and deliverable.
Analog comes with a price, and so does digital. The comparisons can never be fair.
Some people maximize their equipment to make money. Some people only shoot a few times then sell the camera.
Some people want it cheap and fast, some want it artistic and attention to details.
You need the right tools to do the jobs.
Analog film age and fade. I spend thousands of dollars scanning and archiving the old negatives. New scanning costs too.
Pictures album takes up space, and they fade also.
Not to mention some of the old scans done in 1999 was very bad, and need to rescan from faded neg+PS.
Digital files take time to manage, PS and can take time. Many do not understand how fragile the Harddisk is, and when the drive crash they lost everything!
(hard drives are now designed to be changed every 2 years. Note. Many leave the factory with a lot of bad sectors or media defects, crashing is only matter of time)
I keep 3 copies of my digital files, still some become unreadable after years. While many are computer savvy, not everyone into photography is savvy IT.
Especially the older generation of non technical people, all the technicalities are night mares for them.
While those complain about computer and software costs, setting up a traditional darkroom is also not cheap.
And most homes in Singapore do not allow that. Who else still have a complete dark room with an enlarger sitting around? Not many!
I enjoy shooting film, the process and the final results.
But most of my pictures in my computer were actually taken with a Nikon 5400! I have over 100,000 pictures from the 5400 since day 1.
Mainly family daily living pictures and also pictures of fishing/ golfing. Bring a SLR for fishing? Soak in sea water?
If my friends call me up for doing assistant job, I can choose between film and digital. And sometimes they do use me as an alternative form.
(they shoot digital, and a few shots get me to cover in MF; or vise versa)
And I always believe we don't need to buy the most expensive equipment to make nice pictures.
We can be both film and digital users. Depending on the situation, depending on the work nature and depending on the results wanted, we do have a choice.
It will be dreadful if there are only digital, or the other way round. We are pampered of choices, and we should count ourselves blessed!
Analog has developed for over 100 years, and it has its very strong points. Medium format and large formats still going on strong.
Digital open up a lot of new possibilities, flexibilities and also ease of operation and consistency.
And we can enjoy both.
For both professionals and hobbyists, both have a choice to suit their work flow and deliverable.
Analog comes with a price, and so does digital. The comparisons can never be fair.
Some people maximize their equipment to make money. Some people only shoot a few times then sell the camera.
Some people want it cheap and fast, some want it artistic and attention to details.
You need the right tools to do the jobs.
Analog film age and fade. I spend thousands of dollars scanning and archiving the old negatives. New scanning costs too.
Pictures album takes up space, and they fade also.
Not to mention some of the old scans done in 1999 was very bad, and need to rescan from faded neg+PS.
Digital files take time to manage, PS and can take time. Many do not understand how fragile the Harddisk is, and when the drive crash they lost everything!
(hard drives are now designed to be changed every 2 years. Note. Many leave the factory with a lot of bad sectors or media defects, crashing is only matter of time)
I keep 3 copies of my digital files, still some become unreadable after years. While many are computer savvy, not everyone into photography is savvy IT.
Especially the older generation of non technical people, all the technicalities are night mares for them.
While those complain about computer and software costs, setting up a traditional darkroom is also not cheap.
And most homes in Singapore do not allow that. Who else still have a complete dark room with an enlarger sitting around? Not many!
I enjoy shooting film, the process and the final results.
But most of my pictures in my computer were actually taken with a Nikon 5400! I have over 100,000 pictures from the 5400 since day 1.
Mainly family daily living pictures and also pictures of fishing/ golfing. Bring a SLR for fishing? Soak in sea water?
If my friends call me up for doing assistant job, I can choose between film and digital. And sometimes they do use me as an alternative form.
(they shoot digital, and a few shots get me to cover in MF; or vise versa)
And I always believe we don't need to buy the most expensive equipment to make nice pictures.
Just come straight to the point, your pentax is very cheap and good
.There is just one point that make me feel uncomfortable that he thinks all digital shooters are shutter spammer that spams thousands of photo per day producing only few good photos. Well, they might produce 3 times more photos due to no rewinding of films and as a safety shot for stuff like blinking of eye, it doesn't amount to 10 times the difference in shutter count and producing that little shots.
Thought of asking your help to loan a wider glass on that day
, fireworks starts at 8, what about 7.45pm?Digital will cost alot more for MF and above unless you shoot alot to cover the cost of the very expensive camera or digital back. But the link is comparing 135 format.
I have a 75 mm schneider but is a DB lens for sinar. ( no shutter) if you need, I will be around only this evening time.
Just come straight to the point, your pentax is very cheap and good
There is just one point that make me feel uncomfortable that he thinks all digital shooters are shutter spammer that spams thousands of photo per day producing only few good photos. Well, they might produce 3 times more photos due to no rewinding of films and as a safety shot for stuff like blinking of eye, it doesn't amount to 10 times the difference in shutter count and producing that little shots.
Pentax K-5 not cheap la, good is debatable, I'm just pointing out that the analysis and conclusion are done very haphazardly with the end in mind, rather than being entirely objective..
Actually ur slightly wider Fujinon might do the trick. I cannot move backward in the place as behind means people walkway as such, I do need a wider glass. But more of I do hope you can come along tomorrow.
Chill, joking only. I am only pointing towards the point of using have the wrong subject to compare which leads to highly incorrect data. Most of the stuff the guy pointed out are petty bias towards film user.
Similar threads
