I don't shoot film, I'm not rich enough...

[wgerrard]

Sure, but I can get a used M6 for just over $1000. Where can I get an M9 for that price? Oh, you wait, you mean I'd have to spend 6 years worth of film costs to get the M9 now?

Apple and oranges.

At any price point, film has a recurring cost that digital does not. Personal preferences about frame size, etc., don't affect that. That's been my point. Arguments that someone wants to buy a digital due to some reason inherent in the nature of a digital, or vice versa, have nothing to do with the recurring costs that are unique to a film camera.

So, returning to the theme of this thread, it seems pretty obvious to me that someone with X amount to spend might decide that the long-term costs of film are too high.

 

[rxmd]

Sure, but I can get a used M6 for just over $1000. Where can I get an M9 for that price? [...] The staggering upfront cost to get a full frame digital rangefinder is obvious and undeniable. Not all of us hobbiests can drop that kind of money all at once.

In my lazy lurking on this thread, this is what I have been thinking the whole time. Thanks for putting it into words. Full frame is very important to me, since I like shallow depth of field and true wide-angle lenses.

Honestly I don't understand what your problem is. Can't afford it? Do without it, or save up on it. It's what the buyers of used $1000 Leica M6 cameras have been telling Zorki buyers for years. It's not like complaining about the price of stuff is going to make anybody happy or drive prices down. Leicas, shallow depth of field, true wideangles, and full-frame digital rangefinders are a luxury. All you guys are saying is that you can afford some types of luxury, but not others. So what?

Relatively speaking you're now in the position of the guy who can afford only a FED-2 and a Jupiter-12 for a wideangle. The FED guy may lust for faster and wider lenses, but they're unattainable, so either he works hard to attain them, or he learns to take good pictures without them. That's all there is to it. Your complaining about M9 prices sounds like the FED guy if he were to complain about M6 prices. Having gone through the FED-plus-J12 phase at some point is probably a tremendous help in not getting worked up about digital rangefinder prices. For some of you this may be a new experience, but it's essentially the same anyway.

Your M6 is the equivalent to a FED ten years ago. So welcome, guys, to FED land. It's a nice place, there are some excellent photographers around. It's normal that there are some things you can't afford. Nobody cares about it, not even Leica, because they still sell all the M9s they can make. Complain about M9 prices, and everybody will be bored. Take good pictures with what you have, on the other hand, and everybody will be happy. So what's the big deal? Eventually, you might even find out that shallow depth of field and extreme wideangles are overrated and no guarantee for better pictures in the first place.

 

[Mcary]

Pros don't set prices based solely on the cost of film.

I'm flummoxed by the number of people who seem to deny the recurring costs of using film. If I buy a film camera for $1000 and a digital for $1000, all I need to buy for the digital is one memory card. In my part of the world, buying a roll of C-41 and getting it processed costs about $15; a roll of E6 and processing will cost about $20. Add five dollars to those numbers if I send the film out. So, if I shoot just one roll of C-41 or E6 per week, that is a $750-$1000 annual cost for using film that the digital user does not have. Two rolls per week, obviously, gets you to at least $1500-$2000 per year.

The recurring costs of film are obvious and undeniable.

Yes it not like there some magic way out there that a person could shoot film and not have it cost $750-2000 a year for just 100 rolls or 3600 frames. You know some kind of film that only cost $2-3 dollar a roll and then some way to develop it at home for $.50 to $1.00 a roll.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Honestly I don't understand what your problem is. Can't afford it? Do without it, or save up on it. It's what the buyers of used $1000 Leica M6 cameras have been telling Zorki buyers for years. It's not like complaining about the price of stuff is going to make anybody happy or drive prices down. Leicas, shallow depth of field, true wideangles, and full-frame digital rangefinders are a luxury. All you guys are saying is that you can afford some types of luxury, but not others. So what?

Wow. That was a strong reaction.

Actually, I'm quite happy with my setup. The only digital camera that I want is an M9. I can't afford it, but it's not the end of the world. I was just saying that this is the reason I continue to shoot film. I don't recall "complaining" in my message.

 

[rxmd]

1. So what do pros base their prices on? There is obviously a cost in their time also, but isn't there less time involved in digital? Or are they simply charging what the market will bear?

Do you think that when they shot film, they charged anything else than what the market would bear? It's not like a professional photographer is a charitable operation.

There are some investments involved in a digital workflow, these cost money, but overall it's so much more convenient and flexible that it's worth it. Professional photographers are usually competing pretty hard; you can be sure that (a) prices are usually as low as they can be, and that (b) if using film was in any way worth it, they would be, or in fact are, doing it.

 

[wgerrard]

1. So what do pros base their prices on? There is obviously a cost in their time also, but isn't there less time involved in digital? Or are they simply charging what the market will bear?

Let's do some very rough math. Doesn't mean much, but it is telling.

Assume it costs a pro $20 to acquire, shoot and process a roll of E-6. (Yes, costs go up for other kinds of film.) So, for a roll of 36, that's about 55 cents per shot. To bring in revenue of $100,000 per year (that's revenue, not profit) if price is based on film costs, that pro would need to shoot and sell more than 180,000 frames in that same year.

Obviously, a pro's real costs per roll are much lower. But even if they drop by two-thirds, that's still amounts to shooting and selling 60,000 frames per year to generate $100k in revenue.

 

[wgerrard]

You know some kind of film that only cost $2-3 dollar a roll and then some way to develop it at home for $.50 to $1.00 a roll.

Sure. The numbers are different, but the recurring costs remain. Some people can't afford, or don't want to afford, film at any cost.

 

[rxmd]

Actually, I'm quite happy with my setup. The only digital camera that I want is an M9. I can't afford it, but it's not the end of the world. I was just saying that this is the reason I continue to shoot film. I don't recall "complaining" in my message.

That's fine. I guess if you really wanted a digital rangefinder, but could afford "only" a $2200-or-so M8, you'd probably find that you could take decent pictures with one as well. Looking through your flickr photostream I'm pretty sure you could; there aren't that many ultrawideangle shots in the first place, nor does DOF seem to be a problem.

I didn't really mean to address you specifically with the "complaining" bit, but rereading my message I find that it was pretty easy to understand it that way.

 

[Kent]

But preserving highlights for me is priceless (hence I shoot mainly film)

Or expose correctly and shoot in RAW.

Shooting film or digital is not only a matter of costs, but costs for shooting and developing film have gone up considerably here in my area as well.
I mainly shoot digitally, but I sometimes shoot on film for fun reasons (for no other, really), to shoot with my nice old cameras. One thing that spoils that is the deteriorating quality of lab work in my local lab. I often get fingerprints, lines and other things on my negatives!! That's a PITA!
And even if you can convince them of giving you replacement film rolls, the pictures are ruined.
They do not earn money with that anymore so they do not care about their lab work anymore.

Yes, you suggest to build up your own lab. All the things you need you get for little money, right. But honestly, I do not have the time to do lab work on my own, because if I start a lab in our basement, I would like to make some prints as well. And from past years, I know how I can get: "No, that's not quite good enough. Let's try another print."
This would also be getting expensive then!

 

[user237428934]

What disturbs me REALLY in such discussions is the point that so many state that digital is equivalent with shooting hundreds of photos of one theme. Who does that? When shooting film I need more film-frames for a person than with digital. After two shots with the digital I look at the monitor. If it looks good and the person has the eyes right I am ready. With film I take 5-10 frames just to be sure that I have one perfect frame.

Talking about cost is not useful I think. You can always tweak such a calculation in the direction you want.

Edit: it probably sounds here like I hate film. No. Just began developing. Like it for other reasons.

 

[Brian Puccio]

Apple and oranges.

How is comparing an M6 or M7 to a M9 apples to oranges? They're both rangefinder cameras by the same manufcaturer (and hopefully of the same quality) for which I can put my 50mm lens on and get the same field of view. On so happens to use film and one so happens to be digital. That's the only real difference. And since this thread is comparing film costs to digital costs, the comparison of M6/M7 to M9 are completely apt. On the other hand, if my comparison of M6 to M9 is so far off, maybe you can come up with a better one?

At any price point, film has a recurring cost that digital does not.

Of course it does. I never said it didn't. Film costs money every time you take a picture, digital requires you to have the money up front and right now before you take a single picture. That's all I was saying.

Arguments that someone wants to buy a digital due to some reason inherent in the nature of a digital, or vice versa...

I did not mention a preference to shoot film or digital based upon the qualities that these different mediums impart upon the photos. This is a thread about cost and I'm simply mentioning opportunity cost.

So, returning to the theme of this thread, it seems pretty obvious to me that someone with X amount to spend might decide that the long-term costs of film are too high.

And it was my point that unless you had $7000 or felt like selling your lenses and buying others to make up for the change of field of view that is involved with the M8, that the entire issue was moot. If you've got $7000 right now and nothing better to spend it on, then yes, you'll save money. Assuming you didn't promise yourself or your SO a nice vacation or a new car or something else.
Besides, the long term you speak of here is very long term, something like 36000+ pictures later will your investment pay for itself.

Honestly I don't understand what your problem is.

I wasn't aware I had a problem. Nothing seems to be wrong. No bleeding, no missing limbs, everything seems intact. How about you, doing OK?
Really, I'm not here to shake my fist at Leica, wage some class-warfare, or anything. I've got no problems.

Can't afford it?

Nope, bit short on funds right now. Just moved last month to a place on the beach. I love running down the boardwalk every night and the girlfriend goes swimming in the ocean every weekend. Plus we're 5 blocks away from a train that takes us to midtown NYC in a little over half an hour. Plus we're leaving next weekend to spend two weeks in Austria (got a handful of tickets to the Salzburg Music Festival where we'll be ahearing the best orchestras in the world) and Germany. So the money is there, it was just spent on other things.

Do without it, or save up on it.

Certified financial advisor and photog in one?

It's what the buyers of used $1000 Leica M6 cameras have been telling Zorki buyers for years.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was telling Zorki buyers anything.

It's not like complaining about the price of stuff is going to make anybody happy or drive prices down.

There were no complaints. Just the observation that I cannot by an M9 for the price of an M6 and based on that, M9's are out of the price range of many people who shoot film. This is, after all, a thread about the price of digital versus film. And my point was simply that even if digital is cheaper after 100k frames, that digital still needed all of your money right now while film let you get started much sooner.

Leicas, shallow depth of field, true wideangles, and full-frame digital rangefinders are a luxury. All you guys are saying is that you can afford some types of luxury, but not others.

Agreed, some people have some money, other people have some more money. Considering 36 million people die each year either directly or indrectly from hunger, I think I'm doing pretty awesome.

So what?

I don't know. I thought this was a thread where people were comparing the costs of film versus digital. So I was just pointing out what's called opportunity cost.

Relatively speaking you're now in the position of the guy who can afford only a FED-2 and a Jupiter-12 for a wideangle. The FED guy may lust for faster and wider lenses, but they're unattainable, so either he works hard to attain them, or he learns to take good pictures without them. That's all there is to it. Your complaining about M9 prices sounds like the FED guy if he were to complain about M6 prices. Having gone through the FED-plus-J12 phase at some point is probably a tremendous help in not getting worked up about digital rangefinder prices. For some of you this may be a new experience, but it's essentially the same anyway.

As far as I see it, everyone's got their own money to worry about. I've got a nice job, a nice place to live, I'm paying for myself to go to school and I'm happy with where I am in life. If I cannot afford the Lotus Elise and instead drive a Mini Cooper, I'm not suffering.
(I would be suffering with the M9 and it's horrible performance with super wide lenses. I'm not paying $7k for a camera that color shifts in the corners.)
And hey, last year I had a Bessa. It wasn't bad, but with my glasses, I couldn't shoot with my 25mm, so I traded it in for an M6. Was I suffering? No. Did I grumble about spending more money for a light tight box? No. I knew the pros and cons of each and how much money I had. I'm happy with it. There's no complaints that I cannot afford an M9. There's just pointing out that given my priorities in life (live on the beach close to NYC with nice food to eat every night) that I cannot have an M9 if they figured out how to handle wide angle lenses.

Your M6 is the equivalent to a FED ten years ago. So welcome, guys, to FED land.

Is FED land bad? You talk about it like I'm living in some developing nation in the paste.

It's a nice place, there are some excellent photographers around.

I love where I am, even if it is FED land! As far as other photographers, I really don't care. You see, I don't take photos to make money. I don't read other photographers books so I can copy their style. I learn about photography as best as I can to make pictures that make me happy so I can remember what things look like. You see, I've got the opposite of a photographic memory, I can't remember how things look. My memory works in narration form. Which is great for college, but bad for the sunset last week on the bay or last month's vacation to San Francisco. So I take photos to help me remember and when they look beautiful, I print them 11x17 and put them in my book or hang them on my wall and there's probably two other things in life that make me that happy.
But if I see some other excellent photographer around in this FED land of yours, I'll be sure to say hello.

IIt's normal that there are some things you can't afford.

I've accepted that I will not have the wealth of Larry Ellison and that's OK, I'm happy just the same.

Nobody cares about it, not even Leica, because they still sell all the M9s they can make.

But I didn't write Leica a letter that they need to lower prices because I cannot buy one of their products right now. If I did write them a letter, it would probably ask them if they've figured out how to take pictures with a 15mm lens yet that didn't involve Provia.

Take good pictures with what you have, on the other hand, and everybody will be happy. So what's the big deal? Eventually, you might even find out that shallow depth of field and extreme wideangles are overrated and no guarantee for better pictures in the first place.

It takes until your last sentences for me to realize this, but we're both on the same page. I love the photos I take. I don't enter them in contests, I don't even post them here. Why? Well, I don't take pictures to make you happy or impress you or even to amuse you. I take them because they make me happy.
And if I had $7k to spend right now, it would be on either a Fuji or Linhof 6x17 camera, and the quality of the images on that would be amazing. But I'm still not sure if the photos would make me happier and if not, then I'm better off putting the money towards my Lotus Elise fund or maybe spending some of it helping out someone who doesn't have as much as me. Someone who does have a problem.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

1. So what do pros base their prices on? There is obviously a cost in their time also...

I imagine that pros primarily base their prices on fair market value of their photography. I don't think pros arrive at price in a cost-plus manner.

If a pro can get $10K for a particular shoot, he or she'll charge it. It's up to him or her to control costs so that he or she realizes a worthwhile profit.

If shooting digital costs less than shooting film, a pro won't reduce the price of a digital shoot; he or she will simply charge the fair market value of the work and pocket the cost savings.

Naturally, cost must be accounted for, but I don’t think it’s the primary driver of price.

 

[user237428934]

Besides, the long term you speak of here is very long term, something like 36000+ pictures later will your investment pay for itself.

You did such a nice calculation. You speak of 0.166$ per frame. Ok. Overall I need for the development of a film at least 60 minutes (preparation, development, cutting, quick scanning). Lets assume one of my working hours is worth 100$. Just for the interest, could you please calculate this with the adjusted cost per frame again? Thank you.

 

[Brian Puccio]

You did such a nice calculation. You speak of 0.166$ per frame. Ok. Overall I need for the development of a film at least 60 minutes (preparation, development, cutting, quick scanning). Lets assume one of my working hours is worth 100$. Just for the interest, could you please calculate this with the adjusted cost per frame again? Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'll have to bill you for that, since my time is worth money, too. It should take about 15 minutes, so PayPal $25 to brian@brianpuccio.net.

It will be an extra $50 if you need me to calculate how much time you spend in Photoshop/Lightroom to fix your M9 files (less dynamic range than color neg and B&W so you'll have to recover highlights and shadows, lacks the color of Provia/Velvia, etc).

(FWIW I send my E-6 to a lab where I get my slides down for $5 a roll. I DIY my Adox CMS 20.)

 

[user237428934]

It will be an extra $50 if you need me to calculate how much time you spend in Photoshop/Lightroom to fix your M9 files (less dynamic range than color neg and B&W so you'll have to recover highlights and shadows, lacks the color of Provia/Velvia, etc).

The files I get out of the scanner don't look good. So I just neglect the time difference for optimizing files from film->scanner->mac or dslr->mac.

But you reacted just like I thought you would. This discussion clearly shows that it makes no sense to talk about the money here because everyone has his/her own preferences.

That's what I already said an hour ago.

 

[MartinP]

For a perfectly developed roll of negs, or a couple of sheets of 4x5, $20 is cheap-ish. The best Q-Labs are a long way higher in accuracy and consistency of results than the little shop on the corner with a one-hour machine. The difference, especially in consistency, is even greater with E6.

 

[Brian Puccio]

For a perfectly developed roll of negs, or a couple of sheets of 4x5, $20 is cheap-ish. The best Q-Labs are a long way higher in accuracy and consistency of results than the little shop on the corner with a one-hour machine. The difference, especially in consistency, is even greater with E6.

I'm going away next week and plan on taking a lot of photos. If you're saying that for these important photos that Samys won't do them justice, what should I look for in a lab? What's a good way to compare, should I shoot some test charts and send them to several labs and see which rolls come back looking best?

 

[Brian Puccio]

The files I get out of the scanner don't look good. So I just neglect the time difference for optimizing files from film->scanner->mac or dslr->mac.

But you reacted just like I thought you would. This discussion clearly shows that it makes no sense to talk about the money here because everyone has his/her own preferences.

That's what I already said an hour ago.

Hey Tom, I'm not going to go crunching numbers for anyone who asks. My initial post of $7k up front is a lot of money for someone who does this just for fun. The fact that you don't like how things look in the scanner is pretty off point here.

At the end of the day, even if it cost me $1 per frame (more than 6 times the amount below), it would still take thousands of photos for the M9 to pay for itself.

Besdies, if I invest $6k, I can get $300 a year worth of film just from the interest alone.

Will the M9 depreciate like the M8 did? What's the math on that one?

 

[wgerrard]

How is comparing an M6 or M7 to a M9 apples to oranges?

Bringing any $7000 camera, film or digital into a discussion of film vs digital costs is, I think, apples and oranges. The M9 is a luxury item. It's a bit like bringing a Ferrari into a discussion of hybrids versus diesels. Few trying to decide whether to buy a film or digital camera will even consider an M9 (and most of them won't even know it exists).

Film costs money every time you take a picture, digital requires you to have the money up front and right now before you take a single picture.

You have to have money up front for any camera. My point -- my only point -- is that if you spend X on a film camera, you will incur recurring costs to use it. That doesn't happen with a digital..

I did not mention a preference to shoot film or digital based upon the qualities that these different mediums impart upon the photos. This is a thread about cost and I'm simply mentioning opportunity cost.

It's a subject brought up several times in this thread. I was thinking about the attributes of the hardware, not the images. The point here is that if you can't afford to buy film, you can't afford to buy film. Nothing about the qualities of a Leica or the advantages of an RF or the charm of old Rolleis or the slickness of new digitals is going to change that fact. "Opportunity costs" don't come into play. Someone who can't afford film is not going to splurge on an expensive camera because it might hold its trade-in value.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I develop my B&W films, and the lab process all my color films, the prices for processing the film is cheap here comparing to you because we have only one lab so we have to accept his prices, and looking at the prices at the net i feel the prices are reasonable, so i save bucks by processing my own B&W film at home, and i do scan it by myself unless i need high resolution scans then the lab do that for me at higher price, in all cases i know that film will cost me for long time period, but i am not a pro at all and i never get paid of my work and i never care about how much i spend, film is expensive? Then what i can say about my digital Hasselblad that costing my 4 film cameras and 5 lenses with 400 film rolls, maybe more?!!!