Does digital actually save you money?

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
1:17 PM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,427
IMHO,

hell no!

I suppose it would if I used my D2 body like a machine gun and ripped off several hundred images each day, but that is not photography to me. I am much more selective when it comes to making images.

Ruth Bernhard once said:

"If you can't make the image bigger or more important than what you see, then don't push the button".

It amazes me that people rip off thousands of images with their digital cameras...do they ever spend the time to go back and look at them?

Very few of my images are actually printed to be hung on the wall. And I don't shoot thousands of images a month, just a few rolls of film and a couple of hundred digital snapshots of the family. So, printing is not much of a problem for my budget. Film cost is low as well.

I use photoshop in my job everyday and there is a place for it. But for me, I spend much more on digital equipment than I ever have with my film gear.

How about you?
 
i've heard of wedding photographers shooting 1000 photos in one event. How much is saved from not buying film and processing costs? But you still have computer post processing to do, and as they say in some professions time is money.
 
I don't use digital to save money, so the question never crossed my mind. I use digital because it expands my possibilities as a photographer. I love both film and digital and use both mediums daily.
I am sure there are some people who get into digital for cost saving reasons and when I see ho wmost of my non-serious photography friends are using their digitall cameras, it is probably true. Which average person still prints pictures these days?
 
Don't forget for digital you have to buy the computer, the editing software, the paper, the printer, and the ink.:bang: I guess you could exclude the printer and ink but if you don't have the computer and the editing software what is the point of shooting digital to pair down the photos you want to print to save money. So how many film prints can you make for say $1,500 for the computer and $200 for the software? A heck of a lot, and don't forget you need to update your computer every few years. You probably need to update the camera too because digital cameras become obsolete.
 
Most people I know already have a computer, so that cost is not a factor for many.

I bought a second hand D70 1.5 years ago and, yes, it has 'paid for itself' in film and processing. It's also very useful for gig photos where I can download, sort and send off a CD the next day without having to spend £'s on developing.

Before that I bought a Canon G5 when I started to get into photography and it pulled me in more than if I'd used film for the simple reason that I could see what I was getting pretty much immediately and wasn't spending £6 per roll for processing and because there was no 'cost per click' I photographed everything and learnt.

Both of those cameras are as 'fit for purpose' as when I bought them (the G5 was given away mind), my CS2 hasn't lost any functionality since CS3 came out and my 2004 computer runs all of these as well as it always has. The biggest cost with digital is upgrade GAS.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if I tap my ruby slippers together three times while saying "There's nothing like film, there's nothing like film, there's nothing like film," I'll be magically transported back to the world where digital cameras were just toys.

It's over, my friend. Get over it. Seriously. Enjoy your film - I do. But get used to the idea that digital is here to stay and there is no argument you can raise that will change that.
 
Money probably not, but it does save me time. With digital I don't have to go to Costco and drop off film and wait an hour and then buy a whole lot of stuff at Costco I think I need but don't. Hmmm maybe digital does save me money.
 
bmattock said:
It's over, my friend. Get over it. Seriously. Enjoy your film - I do. But get used to the idea that digital is here to stay and there is no argument you can raise that will change that.
Click to expand...

I WILL not get over it! No! No! No! :mad: :mad: :mad: (stomping my feet on the ground as a walk away in a sulk).
 
marke said:
I WILL not get over it! No! No! No! :mad: :mad: :mad: (stomping my feet on the ground as a walk away in a sulk).
Click to expand...
Marke, don't cry, you have a swell website with lots of great shots.
 
A little story - On new years eve, my wife an I donned snowshoes and took a short hike - we were out for a couple of hours, and it was glorious. We each brought cameras with us - I brought a 35mm SLR (sorry, I know that I am on RFF) - a Minolta XE-7, with a 35mm lens on it. My wife brought a new (purchased in October) Canon SD800 digital point and shoot. As we were getting close to home on the way back, her camera stopped working, and we assumed that it was the batteries that had run down quickly because of the cold. My camera was still going strong, and I had shot about 3 rolls. When we got back, I went down to the darkroom and started processing my film, my wife started charging her battery. With a fully charged battery the camera still failed to work, so we sent it back to canon for warranty repair. It turns out that it got condensation on the inside of the camera, and canon deemed it to have been abused, and it was 'not economical to repair'. It is now valuable as a paperweight. As a hobbyist where the cost of my equipment is not negligable compared to my cost of film, the fact that I can get excellent results from 30 year old mechanical cameras which are still in the early part of their lifetimes, whereas digital cameras- if they survive that long, are rarely useable after a few years makes digital far less interesting to me.
 
You might as well ask if the introduction of the automobile has saved drivers money instead of buying horses. There is no point to this. As a pro you don't have a choice, as an amateur t is typically NOT about the money. I do it because I enjoy it.

As another poster stated, allmost everyone has a computer today and the huge majority of people do not post-process their pictures at all. The camera is being plugged into the TV, family gets together, watches once and THAT's it. A friend of mine did not even download his pics to the computer, but just bought new cards every time his' was full - seriuously. We, who are so caught up in our hobby, tend to forget how most people use this stuff. They don't care about calibrated monitors, photo-printers, archiving, etc.

Digital is here to stay. Film will survive, but on a much smalle scale and it will become much more expensive (buy a freezer and fill it with your favorite films - it'll pay off).
 
Hey, there are still people upset over the 2000 US elections. Some people cannot move on, they're stuck in quicksand. I am done with this thread. Seriously.
 
Making digital pictures saves money if I compare the costs of filmrolls, processing, printing, scanning vs. SD cards and backup harddisc; but I'm not shure if I effectively saved money, or if I spent it on more gear :~)
Didier
 
sitemistic said:
Sauerwald, had your wife been using a digital camera comparable in modern equipment with your old XE-7, the digital would not have failed. You are comparing a point and shoot to an SLR.
Click to expand...

Granted the XE-7 is/was a top of the line camera, but her P&S would probably be comparable to my Canon GIII QL-17, or Olympus Pen, both of which were marketed to what was then the P&S crowd, but a look at the build quality on those cameras vs their modern counterparts shows a huge difference. Also, I cannot imagine something like condensation getting into the canon RF rendering it 'not economical to repair' when it was still a new camera. Part of what horrified my was the fact that the camera was so susceptible to damage, and part was the attitude of canon where they value their own products so little.
 
The vast majority of what I shoot is railroad action; digital has been a huge boon for me. I shoot more and am much more likely to shoot in iffy light - the cost of Kodachrome and processing always used to give me pause when I was presented with tough light. Now I shoot, chimp, adjust - and get great keepers. If I shot as many film frames as I do digital, I'd be in the poorhouse.

Pardon the DSLR image, but with film I would have *maybe* popped one frame of this which may or may not have captured the delicate lighting:

58949561.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ugh, yet another "The way I prefer to work makes me better than you" thread. Enough, already!
 
Taking into consideration most folks already have a computer and printer, that adequate software for the hobbist can be downloaded for free (thinking Picasa--I love it!) or purchased for a hundred bucks or less and that the cost of an entry level to "prosumer" DSLR can be about the same as an upper mid-range 35mm SLR, yes digital does save money in the long run. I still love my black and white film, my Leicas and various other film cameras and I enjoy making real silver-based prints in my darkroom but I admit there is an economic benefit to digital. 'Course economics have never really been a priority for any photo nut I've ever known.
 
I think the real advantage is teh ability to instant feedbacka nd the ability to share pics via the internet.

As to machine-gunning it. I have two small kids, and with all their gyrations and facial expressions, it takes 40-50 pics to get one that I really like.

I consider digital and film to be differnet. ALmost like drawing versus painting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom