The Creative's Corner

Comment from Michael McGrath
Time: 2011/07/04, 2:31 am

You left out Digital Prnting: printer, inks, paper . I’d set that in my own case at a thousand a year. Michael.

Comment from Ted Harris
Time: 2011/07/04, 4:44 am

I’ve always thought that this was the case but had never bothered (or wanted) to put it on paper to see the actual numbers. You can lower the cost of film even more if you shoot black and white and do your own processing/printing. Not to mention the enjoyment of working in your own darkroom.

Ted Harris

Comment from Kevin Pack
Time: 2011/07/04, 10:51 am

Interesting comparison. I think that to make it equal you would need to add the computer and software for digital to the film as well since you are scanning the film.

I do both, film and digital and I will say that it is more expensive to maintain a digital camera than a film camera. The repairs for a digital camera are more expensive both in parts and time. My film cameras (Nikon 90s, almost bulletproof), will take more abuse, not that I try to abuse them, but when you are chasing firefighters in a fire, or an elk up a hillside you will eventually trip and fall and what is the first thing to strike but the camera, or the hand that is holding it for some reason the meters are better protected in the film than the digital. Also the pins in the cf slot are a lot more fragile than a film winder.

Overall I agree with the costs that you have listed but I think that maintenance costs should be included as well. At which time I think that your digital will get even more expensive than the film over its lifetime.

Comment from Bruce Heinemann
Time: 2011/07/04, 10:52 am

interesting article and cost comparisons, Jeff… however, what happens to the cost comparison when you compare medium and large format equipment, film, and processing? You are not quite comparing apples to apples.. The Canon 5DII is essentially a 22mp medium format camera… it is far superior in quality to 35 film in every regard, dynamic range, resolutions, etc… you’ve made a very weak and on the surface comparison. Besides, I wouldn’t doubt that film and processing will be phased out by their manufacturers before long.. But if 35 film and doing your own scanning works for you, then your comparison is accurate… You are right to the extent that digital technology has us over a barrel because its always evolving and requiring upgrades, but I think most of us pros see that as a very good thing.. just have to budget for those upgrades.. Good shooting to you!

Comment from Faye
Time: 2011/07/04, 11:00 am

Hi. I think you might be a little heavy handed on your calculations. For example: do you need to upgrade photoshop and lightroom every year? No, in fact CS2 is still an excellent solution to processing digital photographs. In fact, there are open source programs available that are free. Most of the pros I know are uncomfortable switching up their software too frequently. And your computer should last longer than 3 years. You have an argument for the monitor, you can’t use an old crappy monitor…and good calibration is a must! You don’t really need a graphics tablet, either. But you also didn’t put in any figures for actually printing some (the few worthy ones) of the pictures, for which you would need a quality photoprinter and paper, or go to someone else to print.

On the film side, if you need a scanner, wouldn’t you need a computer and a monitor? That alone ups the film budget $900, by your calculations. That makes film more expensive by about $500/year.

The real plus for digital is that you can see whether your image is worth printing, before you print it. For the film camera, this could cut your processing costs way down, if you didn’t have to pay for printing everything. You also have an excellent archiving resource with the computer.

All-in-all, you are right, digital images are not “free”, but they are not MORE expensive than film. Interesting article!

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/04, 4:19 pm

Hi Faye,

Yes, there is free software, and I’ve used Gimp on several occasions, but I really prefer Photoshop. Upgrades are not always necessary, it depends on what they did with the upgraded version. The new masking tool in CS5 would save me hours of work every week. It’s so much fun trying to grab every bit of blue sky showing through a Pine tree.

A computer can last much longer than 3 years. I spent many years working in IT, so I know. The problem is that upgrades tend to push the limits of computers, so you need to get faster, and more, chips and processors. My next computer will be a gaming computer for the faster processing speed.

You’re right about the scanner, so I upgraded the article by removing it. Keep the film just film. If a film photographer needs a digital image a local lab can give him a good scan for $5.

When I used film cameras, I never printed everything. I had the lab make contact sheets for negative film, but I usually shot slide film so all I needed was a loop and light table.

Thanks for your comments.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/04, 4:21 pm

Michael, I originally had printers in the mix, but since film and digital would both do printing I figured it would be a wash and left them out.

I spent about $150 on ink a year, and another $100 on paper. My $200 Epson 1400 should last me for several years.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/04, 4:23 pm

Ah Ted, the joys of developing your own black and white. I did my own B&W developing and printing for years, and loved it. But I wasn’t too crazy about the yellow staining of my fingers.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/04, 4:27 pm

Hi Kevin,

Other people have comments on the scanner/computer issue. I updated the article by removing the scanner, keeping film just film. If a film photographer needs a digital images, he can get it from a lab for about $5.

I too find digital to be more fragile. My old Nikon FM cameras and lenses were made of metal, my Canons are plastic. Seeing a plastic lens barrel for the first time was a real shock.

I do landscape, forest fires, nature, lightning and more, so I know how Mother Nature can grab your feet at the worst possible time. I’ve learned to usually tuck the camera into my chest and let my body take the abuse. At least my body is self-repairing, usually.

Thanks for the comments.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/04, 4:33 pm

Hi Bruce,

I didn’t want to deal with large and medium format for several reasons, including trying to compare digital cameras with digital backs. I just wanted to do 35mm as that’s what most digital photographers use.

I would still have to disagree that any 35mm digital camera equals film, mainly concerning latitude. But with the constant upgrades you are talking about, it should happen soon. It problem for the manufacturers is passing along their cost without hitting a cost barrier that the consumer won’t cross.

Upgrading digital products is indeed a good thing. I spent many years in IT, and know that upgrades are good, usually.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Kyle Racki
Time: 2011/07/05, 3:45 pm

Since everybody has a monitor and computer nowadays, that cost really shouldn’t be included as a cost of digital images – also photographers who used to shoot in film still had their negatives scanned and still needed a computer, monitor and photoshop.

A very skewed, biased article.

Comment from Jim bunstock
Time: 2011/07/05, 6:22 pm

The item I have a problem with is the lifetime assumption for cameras. Yes, I realize there is a shorter finite life for DSLR sensors, but I also do not know many serious working photographers who have stuck with with one film body for 20 years as their front-line camera. It seems to me that both film and digital SLRs are going to turn over at about the same rate based on feature creep, at least.

Comment from Cheri Wilson
Time: 2011/07/05, 8:45 pm

Great article!!!! I laughed out load at your comment about the number of images being shot now days. I remember with medium format thinking “One Dollar” with every shot. So I made each one count! I watch some of the so called greats in my area on auto bracketing and motor drives shooting thousands if images a minute. I wonder, are they thinking with every shot…”if I take enough I should get at least one that works?” Anyway, keep up the great work.

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/05, 11:25 pm

Hi Cheri,

Even when I was shooting 35mm film, I felt the cost of every shot.

month I read a question on a photography forum. The “photographer” had a camera that could only bracket five exposures, and he wanted to know if there was a way to have his camera bracket twelve exposures. I just shook my head and went to the next person’s question.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/05, 11:31 pm

Hi Jim,

I stayed with the same cameras for twenty years (Nikon FM2′s). I have always shot in manual mode, so there was no reason for me to upgrade to a model with more bells and whistles. If I could find a digital camera that had only manual mode, I would buy it without hesitation. But most people don’t feel this way. To each their own

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Paul Walters
Time: 2011/07/05, 11:37 pm

Interesting article. For sure, I used to use Hasselblad gear which would last for years as oposed to the plastic cameras used today. Plus, you have brochure production exec pressing you to buy the latest models which don’t produce any better images than the last one. Just one point about the 3-4 images from 10,000 comment, I used to shoot 12 on 120 film and you were expexted to produce at least 6 usable images from these. I used to avaoid using 35mm as you tend to get carried away with the ammount of frames available and I think it can be worse with digital. Perhaps theres a 21st century name for this syndrome. Perhaps ‘ Digital Diarrhoea’ might suit!

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/05, 11:41 pm

Hi Kyle,

Actually, I have several friends who either have no computer, or who have older models that won’t even run CS3. When I shot film, I never scanned an image. It was common to give the original slides/negatives to the client. If I wanted a copy of an image I had taken for a client, I either made a print, or had a duplicate slide/negative made for myself. As for the monitor, you need to get a decent one. The ones you usually get standard with a computer (desktop or laptop) are not really made for the requirements of a professional photographer.

I never used a computer for my images, or used Photoshop, until I went digital three years ago.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/06, 12:31 am

Hi Paul,

Digital Diarrhea sounds great to me. I love it.

Thanks for the comment.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Stefan Steib
Time: 2011/07/06, 9:12 am

Jeff – I´m sorry but you are doing a funny comparison here – first the camera body- why should an identical shutter on an analogue camera last longer than on a digital camera – 10x ??? As well as the other parts of mechanical filmtransport wear out etc.pp. Now 130 rolls of film with 36 images equals 4680 images in how long did you say 20 years ? that´s 234 a year not even one a day – well if I did 8×10 inch maybe that´s a number we could discuss (not even then if you are using this professionally) but this is nonsense. I shoot 500-800 images on a wedding easily or maybe several hundred as a sport photographer or several thousand a day as a fashion shooter. I think you should go to a nice and calm place and think about this comparison twice and then delete it.

Sorry for speaking such frank words, but you err – completely.

Your calculation would only work for a person who does not use the camera or nearly does not use it.
Sure that´s cheaper with film. You are right.

regards
Stefan Steib hcam.de

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/06, 2:36 pm

Hi Stefan,

I don’t know why digital shutters don’t last as long; I just used the numbers the manufacturers supplied.

The 130 rolls of film was per year, not 20 years.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Terry Garlow
Time: 2011/07/09, 10:09 am

Interesting, but not really a fair comparison for a few reasons.

First on the digital side you include computers and software. This is fine but it assumes you will be post processing the images. To make this fair you need to include the equivalent on the film side which would include a complete darkroom set up. Assuming you want to make this full color that would not be cheap, and would swing the costs way the other way.

Second you assume replacing the camera when the shutter gives out, for a few hundred dollars the shutter can be replaced and the life of the camera is doubled or even trippled if you consider multiple replacements for minimal cost.

Lastly in your comparisons you have 3000 x 26 = 78,000 images for digital and 130 x 36 = 4680 images for film. This represents a huge difference in throughput. To properly compare you really need to bump up the film count to match. Again a huge advantage to digital.

I have been doing photography for many years and have had the color darkroom and now have all of the digital equivalents. Digital is definately cheaper on an image by image basis. Digital is also far more versitile and allows one to experiment with creativity far more cheaply than film ever could…but that also is another subject.

Comment from Terry Garlow
Time: 2011/07/09, 10:38 am

One other thought….Shutter/camera life.

The huge difference in image counts makes me think that the shutter life for film and digital cameras are about the same. It just took a lot longer to click the film camera 150,000 times because the cost was too prohibitive. Thus the life of the film camera is 20+ years while the digital only lasts a couple.

Another clue that film is more expensive.

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/11, 10:16 am

Hi Terry,

Film and digital photographers shoot differently. The “cost per shot” is hidden with digital, while a film camera reminds you every 24 to 36 shots of the cost of using the equipment. Film photographers are reminded constantly about the cost of shooting, so they learn to make every shot count. Most digital photographers don’t recognize this cost, thus take far more photographs because there’s no immediate consequence for being a bad photographer. So even if the shutters in both cameras were identical, it’s still cheaper to shoot film, because film photographers take fewer images than 99% of digital photographers.

It’s the same for any product, you must consider how a specific group of users will use the product. That’s why if an 18 year old man drives the same car as a 45 year old man, the 18 year old will pay more for insurance. The insurance company knows that the 18 year old doesn’t drive as safely as the 45 year old. Same car, but it’s cheaper for the better driver.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/11, 10:31 am

Hi Terry,

Processing – I have never seen a digital image (a photograph or scanned image) that didn’t need to be post processed. Digital images are usually flat, and need other processing to like like they did in the field. Slide film (used in the comparison) doesn’t need post processing, at least I never did any. You either have a properly exposed slide, or you don’t. When I shot slide film, I picked it up from the lab, and I was done.

Replacing camera – Yes, I assumed the camera would be replaced when the shutter died, but I did this for both cameras, so the comparison is valid.

Throughput – Film and digital photographers shoot differently. The “cost per shot” is hidden with digital, while a film camera reminds you every 24 to 36 shots of the cost of using the equipment. Film photographers are reminded constantly about the cost of shooting, so they learn to make every shot count. Most digital photographers don’t recognize this cost, thus take far more photographs because there’s no immediate consequence for being a bad photographer. So even if the shutters in both cameras were identical, it’s still cheaper to shoot film, because film photographers take fewer images than 99% of digital photographers.

It’s the same for any product, you must consider how a specific group of users will use the product. That’s why if an 18 year old man drives the same car as a 45 year old man, the 18 year old will pay more for insurance. The insurance company knows that the 18 year old doesn’t drive as safely as the 45 year old. Same car, but it’s cheaper for the better driver.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Paul Clark
Time: 2011/07/19, 3:55 am

I agree with the majority here, a good discussion point, but very flawed. You are adding post production to the digital files – yet your emulsion based workflow is off to the printers. Take the card from the camera and send the files ‘as is’ would be fairer comparison which removes all the software and associated IT equipment. Alternatively you need to consider the costs of purchasing a colour darkroom soloution to give the same control over your workflow as digital. I spent far too many years working in the dark to ever want to go back to those days. Ten 8gb cards too? Why ten? thats a hell of a lot to shoot in a day. They can be erased and reused – unlike emulsion

Comment from Terry Loewenberg
Time: 2011/07/19, 5:20 am

Hi,
This comparison is silly. You assume in your analysis a bunch of computer hardware that wouldn’t exist were it not owned to process digital photographs. Did you ever hear of shared assets? Most people own at least one computer and it’s not dedicated to photography. Ditto for a monitor. Also, as mentioned by another poster, it’s not necessary to update software every year. Yeah, I acknowledge simplicity in my comment but like a lot of comparisons like this, you’ve applied assumptions that don’t pass muster. For the vast majority of people using digital, it’s more cost effective and all the convenience far outweigh film.
TL

Comment from SK
Time: 2011/07/20, 10:49 pm

I think I agree more with Terry.

First problem: You are comparing a digital photographer who produce 5 – 6 good photos after spamming thousand of shutters to you. The issue here is the digital photographer has already lost the basic of visualizing his photos before framing with his viewfinder. I use both analog and digital and when I bring my DSLR out, I don’t spam shutters like more than 1K per day. Also I don’t think that only 5 – 6 of my photos are good out of that less than 1K photos.

Second problem: The cost of scanning and post processing (which will in the end includes Photoshop) isn’t included in the cost for film. Most pro archive their photos digitally in the event the negative is damaged. Even in darkroom print, if you compare cost of printer + ink + paper to darkroom equipment + paper + chemical for color prints, the cost of film is much much more higher. (Even more in places like Sinagpore where you have to ship material in as they don’t have it locally)

Third problem: Most pros sell off their camera after a year for newer model with top up of around 100 – 300. In this way, shutter won’t be of an issue and total cost in 2 years after their first camera is around 200 – 600.

The issue with pro isn’t about cost, but rather the workflow and ease of use. A layman example will be to compare 8GB memory card with 36 exposure canister. The post processing is suppose to be included in the time factor as well.

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/22, 10:55 am

Hi SK,

#1 – The issue isn’t how many good photographs a photographer creates, but how many images they take. Even shooting 1,000 images a day, like you do, is a lot of images. The cost for digital isn’t in taking the image, but the wear and tear on the camera from taking so many images.

#2 – In my comparison, film is film and digital is digital, and they don’t cross over. When I shot film for clients I never scanned an image, thus no post processing. The client was given the film after it was developed. If you want to scan an image for archival purposes you can use a scanner and do it yourself. No Photoshopping is needed for these scans until you need to use that scanned image, which is hopefully never. I also used Ektachrome slide film in my article, so printing isn’t needed as it would be for print film.

#3 – Wow, buying a new camera every year seems ridiculous. What could a camera manufacturer possible do to a camera that would make annual upgrades necessary. A camera is only a light-tight box that records an image on film or a sensor. Upgrading to get a few more bells and whistles is just silly. But an annual upgrade still adds a lot of cost to digital photography.

A pro is most certainly concerned about cost. Any person who wants to run a successful business is concerned about the cost of running that business. Workflow is important too, but you can have the best workflow in the world, but if your costs are too high, your business will fail.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/22, 11:04 am

Hi Terry,

Yes, most people own computers, but if you get heavy into Photoshop you can’t use just any computer. The processing needs for large images often requires a high end computer. The computer I’m about to buy costs $1,000 more than what I listed as a price in my comparison. And a professional level monitor is about $1,500, and not the $100 that comes with most computers.

Digital is convenient, but so is film. In fact, film is much more convenient than digital. Digital requires post processing, large capacity storage devices and more. With slide film, you take the picture, drop it off at the lab, pick it up, and your done. No post processing, and it comes in its own storage device (the box). I find digital to be far more work intensive than film ever was.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/07/22, 11:14 am

Hi Paul,

I don’t list post processing for film because in the 30 years that I shot film (Kodachrome) there was no post processing. The film was developed, handed over to the client and I was done. The only post processing I did was to make duplicate slides if I wanted to send them off to a magazine. But I have never seen a raw digital image, made with a camera or scanner, that didn’t need some kind of post processing to look presentable. And as for control of the printed image. The lab I used in California did an amazing job on the few prints I did make.

Yes, you can delete images from the card, but do you really look at the images on your camera’s little screen and decide which ones to delete? Or do you look at the image on your nice, big computer monitor. I would never delete an image based on what I see on the back of my camera.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/24, 10:46 pm

How much longer film will be around is unknown to anyone. Many photographers still use film, or are going back to film.

As for the point of this post, it’s to wake up digital photographers that keep saying the digital is free, and show them the real cost of digital. It’s far from free.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:03 pm

Hi Iris,

I couldn’t agree more.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:07 pm

Hi Nameisis,

It seems that with any electronic device, new models come out almost every year, and keeping up can be very expensive.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:10 pm

Hi Jayson,

I agree. People who haven’t shot film often don’t have the discipline that you learn shooting film. And yes, film and digital both have good and bad qualities.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:18 pm

Hi John,

Thanks for the kind words.

I too miss the slower pace of shooting film, watching a black & white print magically appear in a tray, and dumping all the grunt work on the lab tech.

I had three Nikon FM2 bodies and used them for over twenty year. The only reason I stopped using them is that they were destroyed during a move. Even a Nikon can’t be left in a moving van for a week during a 115 degree Arizona summer without liquifying all of the lubricants.

Enjoy your film shooting. I’m thinking of trying it again too.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:24 pm

Hi John,

I agree with your comment on monitors. With electronics you usually get what you pay for, and a pro needs a $1,000 plus monitor.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:30 pm

Hi Joe,

Yes, I agree, it depends on how you shoot. I tried to choose equipment in the comparison based on a one-person freelance business that uses a lab for film and printing. Photography has so many fields that I’ve had comments from one-person shops, and photographers who had their own pro labs with six employees.

And the old metal bodied film cameras seem to last forever, compared to the digital cameras with plastic bodies and lens tubes.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/08/29, 6:34 pm

Hi Sean,

I chose that lens because it fit on both camera bodies so that the lens for film and digital would cost the same when compared. And you really do need a good external monitor to get great digital images.

I couldn’t find a cost for loss of a human soul, or I would have included that too.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/09/05, 3:32 pm

Hi Barrie,

Good for you. I’m glad you found a format that you enjoy. If you don’t like taking pictures, in whatever format, it will show in your images. And I must agree that the slower pace of film is nice in today’s fast paced world. It’s nice to get some recognition for you choice from a group of digital shooters too.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/09/09, 1:00 pm

Hi Scott,

Yes, the 10,000 number seems amazing, but that is what I’ve seen in a couple of articles that interviewed photographers. I’ve seen about a dozen articles where photographers boast about shooting 3,000 images a day. I even saw a blog post where a photographer was complaining that his camera only bracketed 5 exposures up and down, and did anyone know how to change it to 8. So bang, he would have 17 exposures in a few seconds. It’s really sad.

I shoot between 200 and 300 images a day, even when I’m out shooting for 9+ hours.

Wastefulness is indeed the product of the photographer, but this type of shooting in rampant in digital photography. I never knew a film photographer who would shoot more than 360 frames in a day, but I know a lot of photographers that shoot that much in an hour or two.

Thanks for commenting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from George
Time: 2011/10/29, 3:00 pm

Hi there,
I’ve found your article very interesting, it might not be completely accurate, but yes, digital is not free, adding all the stuff behind it.
3 years ago I wanted to take photography a bit more seriously (having a digi P&S isn’t enough). The thing is that I was, and still am a young student; Shelling out $500 in a DSLR was too much of an investment, and there was the extra factors of cost you discuss, plus I’m not a PP fan. I wanted an olympus 4/3… 3 years now, the system is obsolete. Take that.

I tried my dad’s old cheap plastic nikon SLR shooting portraits at a family reunion. I was delighted with the results of the cheap kodak film. SO I decided to take it further… I loved the olympus E system predecessor… The OM-1. So found a seller who sold them CLA’d. For 140$ got it. The camera is still the same, and didn’t even need to replace the battery!

But, I’ve gotten much more enjoyment out of this old SLR and it’s kit 50mm than I would of that E system DSLR. Something I’m very proud of, being a 16 year old kid and having shot Kodachrome on it’s last whisper, in 2010.
Perhaps digital is better for learning, dunno, but I’ve found slide film to have forced me to learn the theory and applicate carefully. Having had only 12 months to shoot a few rolls of KR64 and being the first slide film to have ever shot is tough, but I did fine. It forced me to take care with the technical and artistic factors, and I think the only roll I used for documenting my environtment (used the others for a trip) is the best one I shot. Still, it took me 8 months for 38 exposures… (unintentionally I’ve just mentioned that with care you can get 2-3 shots more than advertised!).
Oh, and about Kodachrome… It was to me more convenient and cheap to shoot than E6! (being in EU).

Also, I found the previewing of images in monitors to be rather mundane compared to a print or slide (this last one is great). Sure you can print digital, but… No one does it, really. And post processing, man, that’s a torture to me, it doesn’t excite me at all. I like the way slides come from the lab, always brilliant.

There’s the archival factor. I’ve been telling myself to do a backup of 6 years of snapshots I’ve got stored in 2 PCs… It’s such a boring process for me as well. And, an HDD doesn’t secure the files for ever.

On costs, I’m a VERY slow photographer. (specially lately), It can take me 2-3 months to shoot a roll of film, I’m the kind of photographer that only takes the camera when needed. I’ve shot about 15 rolls in these 3 years. count 10€ per roll and it’s up to 150 €.

Something I regret, but too much, and very much, is having spent big bucks on filters. Damnit, that was a really bad thing I did, 100$ for 3 B+W filters. I really regret that buy. I could have bought more film or a back-up camera.

I’m very happy with film. It makes me feel a bit more of a photographer, and I like more the process. Still, I gotta try darkroom printing, but there’s no space at home for an enlarger; mom would kill me.
Digital is very convenient and adequate media, but to me, the lack of physical format it’s a disadvantage. I appreciate tangible photos.

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2011/10/29, 6:43 pm

Hi George,

I too prefer film. Digital and film each have their advantages and disadvantages, but I had so much more time when I shot film. No post processing, just throw the slides into a slide page and I was done. Now I spend a lot of time post processing, and I have a backlog of thousands of images.

Thanks for responding.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Dave Schaffelburg
Time: 2012/02/14, 10:33 am

Comparisons are always difficult. Keep the digital camera for 3 years and keep the film camera for 10 years instead of 20 and your figures show a digital cost of $2606 and a film cost of $2670. Shoot less film or get some slides or print film pictures printed and print somme of the digital images and again the costs shift. I have many thousands of slides from past years and will finally digitalize them for more money spent. So cost is as you do with your film or digital images and cameras. Best to just enjoy either film or digital images.

Dave

Comment from Brian MacDougall
Time: 2012/02/14, 10:51 am

Whoa, whoa. At the end of these two processes you’ve described you have very different results. In the digital workflow you have images that can be color corrected and distributed; they are production-ready. In the film workflow you have a box of slides. What are you going to do with the slides? At the very least, you’d have to add the cost of a loupe and a lightbox for the slides or a carousel projector, but that still won’t get those photos distributed. (Try sending a slide to a publication and see how far you get these days.) Seems to me to be fair, you have to set a standard of production for both; like estimate the cost to get the photo into a distributable modality. So, for the film totals, you’d have to add in a scanner or scanning service, calibrating monitor, software, etc. Or, you can just cut off the totals at acquisition (which is effectively what you’ve done with film), in which case there are no entries in the digital category after memory cards. In either scenario, you no longer make your case that digital is more expensive. Worse, you’ve furthered skewed your totals by throwing in specious purchases and upgrades for both Lightroom and Photoshop. C’mon…you don’t need both, and you certainly don’t need upgrades, and you certainly don’t need upgrades every year. The Adobe cycle is 18 months. So, you throw the kitchen sink at the digital side of the ledger, but you don’t even include slide sleeves on the film side. Tsk, tsk.

We get that you like film; that’s great. But it’s disingenuous to make your case the way that you have.

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2012/02/14, 4:54 pm

Thanks for commenting Dave. Yes, there are many variables in digital and film shooting. The main purpose of this post was to get the attention of those people I constantly run into that say digital photography is free because you don’t shoot film. No matter how you shoot digital, it isn’t free. Happy shooting.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2012/02/14, 5:18 pm

Thanks for commenting Brian. Lets address your comments.

“In the film workflow you have a box of slides. What are you going to do with the slides? At the very least, you’d have to add the cost of a loupe and a lightbox for the slides or a carousel projector, but that still won’t get those photos distributed.”
When I shot film I was working for a client. All they wanted was a box, or several boxes, of slides. Distribution wasn’t an issue. And before digital I can’t tell you how many loupes I was given by various companies. I have three sitting on my desk right now that were given to me. I was also given several light tables. Film related products were cheap and companies loved to hand them out. I never owned a carousel projector.

“Try sending a slide to a publication and see how far you get these days.”
Many publications still accept film, including Arizona Highways and Outdoor Photographer.

“Seems to me to be fair, you have to set a standard of production for both; like estimate the cost to get the photo into a distributable modality. So, for the film totals, you’d have to add in a scanner or scanning service, calibrating monitor, software, etc.”
Film is distributable and you don’t need to scan it. You can scan it, or make duplicates if you want, but it depends how you plan to use your photographs. If you’re just selling prints, you don’t need anything but a lab. And if you’re shooting for a specific client, the film is all you need.

“C’mon…you don’t need both [Lightroom and Photoshop}, and you certainly don’t need upgrades, and you certainly don’t need upgrades every year.”
Every pro photographer I know has both, but I have been reading about many photographer dropping Photoshop and just using Lightroom. It depends what you need to do with your digital images. Do you need to upgrade whenever a new version comes out? No, but I would advise it.

I think the main problem with photographers who have not shot film (I don’t know if this is your case or not Brian) is that they are so entrenched in digital that they can’t image how photography can be done without. Even with film they want to instantly digitize it, thus bringing all the digital expense and time into the equation. Film is a simpler process, and less time consuming, than digital. They both have their pros and cons, and you need to choose the right tool for the job. But don’t insist that film must be made digital or it’s not viable, because that isn’t the case.

Besides, the main purpose of the article wasn’t to bash digital, but to counter all those digital photographers who keep saying digital is free because it doesn’t use film. Digital is many things, but free isn’t one of them.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Brian MacDougall
Time: 2012/02/15, 11:23 am

Hi Jeff. Thanks for your considered response. I have no dog in the film vs. digital fight; I don’t insist on anything. Shoot what you like and may the road rise up to meet you. I grew up shooting Tri-x and Plus-x and Kodachrome, and I am as dismayed as anyone to watch the gutting of Kodak. But, I do feel strongly about comparing apples to apples and I just don’t feel you’ve done that here, with lots of questionable assumptions, chief among them the equability of the end product. If you don’t understand that, there’s not much more I can say. You burden digital with an expensing that results in a more dynamic, flexible product and call it even. Your thesis says that a box of slides is just as good as a cataloged, keyworded, color-corrected LR database, and cheaper to boot. I say bullshit. It’s like comparing a Tesla with a Yugo and calling it a wash on features.

Now, that box of slides may have the last laugh in 100 years when a LR database and it’s optical and magnetic backups are gone from digital rot or obsolescence. As long as that box of slides is Kodachrome. Oh, wait. Never mind.

Comment from John Rettie
Time: 2012/02/15, 6:44 pm

I’m late to the discussion. My epiphany for shooting digital came ten years ago when an editor asked me for a quick photo. I used a Nikon Coolpix 900 and shot just three pics. The art director was immediately able to see the image on the camera and okay it. I emailed it to him and I was done. If I’d used film I’d have shot a roll and then neither I nor him would have known if the image was acceptable until a day later. I find I shoot more with digital when shooting sports or models as the unit cost of each frame is almost zero. But when I am shooting something critical I shoot less with digital as I can immediately confirm I’ve got the shot. Of course digital is not free but the unit cost is way way less. Sorry Jeff I cannot agree with your methodology, it’s far too skewed. Digital has brought back the joy of photography for me after 40 years of shooting professionally as the cost of each extra shot is so low… especially when I use my iPhone 4S.

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2012/02/15, 11:18 pm

Thanks for commenting John.

Film and digital each have their own pros and cons. Like any tool, you have to choose the right one for a specific job. I find that I shoot the same number of exposures with digital as I did with film. The unit cost was not a consideration to me, getting the proper image was all I was interested in.

“If I’d used film I’d have shot a roll and then neither I nor him would have known if the image was acceptable until a day later.”
That really doesn’t make sense to me. When I would shoot with an art director he would just look through the viewfinder to check composition and framing. I knew how to expose the image properly so that wasn’t a consideration. If he approved the composition, I took the shot and that was that.

Have Fun,
Jeff

Comment from Jeff Colburn
Time: 2012/02/15, 11:42 pm

Hi Brian, thanks for coming back.

I too am shocked about Kodak. I never imagined that they would go bankrupt. And I too shot cases of Tri-x, Plus-x and Kodachrome.

“You burden digital with an expensing that results in a more dynamic, flexible product and call it even.”
I’m not burdening digital with extra expenses, it’s just that digital requires software manipulation and calibration.

“Your thesis says that a box of slides is just as good as a cataloged, keyworded, color-corrected LR database, and cheaper to boot.”
They are. I’ve been taking photographs since before there were personal computers. My slides and negs are still cataloged on 3×5 cards, and I have no problem finding any image I’m looking for. These 4×5 cards are my catalogue, and are keyworded. Slides don’t need to be color corrected either.

“Now, that box of slides may have the last laugh in 100 years”
I’ll let you check that out. I feel that I will be otherwise occupied in 100 years.

Have Fun,
Jeff