mackigator
Well-known
I'm feeling the pain on this issue - I love shooting slide film. And I love Fuji's new 400x. It's 8.49/roll plus processing. I have a great local pro lab that does same day slide, but it's nearly $10/roll for processing. Or I can mail it away to Dwayne's (pre-paid) and wait. Either way I scan my own.
Even going with Valdemar's route - which I often do, cheap film with budget C-41 processing - I've noticed the costs. My budget processors inevitably screw some frames up, but, when they do, most can be digitally fixed with the Coolscan. When I can afford it i have the good lab do everything.
It's one thing that led me to try out a Pentax K10D. So far I can't make the damn thing take a decent picture as compared to my Hexar RF and slide film. Now I'm shopping for a better lens for that thing (the K10D). In that respect, having a good photo is worth some cost - shooting a digi point and shoot, or any camera you don't like, to create 1000 "no cost" images is not a bargain if you can't get "the" shot. I'd rather have 1 picture I like from a roll of 36 (usually I get more). So its all about the resulting image for me - what's the most efficient way to produce the quality image? While that means I'm still shooting some film at the moment, I suspect the technology in both the M8 and D3 is going to change that eventually.
Even going with Valdemar's route - which I often do, cheap film with budget C-41 processing - I've noticed the costs. My budget processors inevitably screw some frames up, but, when they do, most can be digitally fixed with the Coolscan. When I can afford it i have the good lab do everything.
It's one thing that led me to try out a Pentax K10D. So far I can't make the damn thing take a decent picture as compared to my Hexar RF and slide film. Now I'm shopping for a better lens for that thing (the K10D). In that respect, having a good photo is worth some cost - shooting a digi point and shoot, or any camera you don't like, to create 1000 "no cost" images is not a bargain if you can't get "the" shot. I'd rather have 1 picture I like from a roll of 36 (usually I get more). So its all about the resulting image for me - what's the most efficient way to produce the quality image? While that means I'm still shooting some film at the moment, I suspect the technology in both the M8 and D3 is going to change that eventually.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
varjag said:If you buy a medium-class DSLR for $3000, proceed to take 3000 shots and trade it in for upgrade at half price couple of years later, it works out at 50 cents per shot. Or some $18 for 36exp.
I think that explains the urge of many digital amateurs to shoot as many frames as possible and brag about it to us film users
I don't know the exact number, but I probably shoot somewhere between 10,000-20,000 frames per year. And no, I don't do it by machine-gun spraying my shots by holding the shutter button down for 5 minutes. Most of them are shot on an R-D1, which only has a mechanical advance. I just find myself shooting alot more events because the processing costs are zero. I have a friend who is a theater producer and I shoot many of his rehearsals and almost all of his shows for free. This is not something i could afford to do with film, and he can't afford to pay me anything. I think this must make my per frame costs about 2 cents, based on your calculations and assuming I do upgrade my camera that often (which I don't).
/T
M. Valdemar
Well-known
All Kodachrome goes to Dwayne's Photo Lab now and they honor ancient Kodak mailers.
I even had one of those "drawstring" mailers from the 1940's, and I sent Kodachrome in it to Dwayne's, and they processed it without a peep.
On eBay, you can buy Kodak mailers very cheap if you watch your auctions, and they are good for E6 or Kodachrome.
So you can get away with Kodachrome for less than $2 per roll bought cheap and $3-$4 processing.
So there you are.
The above breakdown of digital costs are absurd, it's VERY cheap to shoot digital. Most people have a computer anyway, and you can download dozens of excellent graphics packages free. Memory cards and batteries are practically free or ridiculously minimal if you buy generic these days.
I manage to buy and sell my high end digital cameras at a profit and use them as much as I please, although others may not have the skill or inclination to do so.
I even had one of those "drawstring" mailers from the 1940's, and I sent Kodachrome in it to Dwayne's, and they processed it without a peep.
On eBay, you can buy Kodak mailers very cheap if you watch your auctions, and they are good for E6 or Kodachrome.
So you can get away with Kodachrome for less than $2 per roll bought cheap and $3-$4 processing.
So there you are.
The above breakdown of digital costs are absurd, it's VERY cheap to shoot digital. Most people have a computer anyway, and you can download dozens of excellent graphics packages free. Memory cards and batteries are practically free or ridiculously minimal if you buy generic these days.
I manage to buy and sell my high end digital cameras at a profit and use them as much as I please, although others may not have the skill or inclination to do so.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
PS: I find it very easy to always have a few charged batteries and couple of extra memory with me all the time. Another absurd argument.
Tuolumne
Veteran
It is clear that film processing costs, including the price of film itself, have pushed people away from film and toward digital. That's one reason there are almost no corner 1-hour photo stores left when there used to be many in almost any town. The economics are taking it to the point that you have to very explicitly want to use film for a particular reason to justify its cost.
/T
/T
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I guess it's just a matter of looking for the right lab. I have a minilab here in Berlin that will do decent C41 developments within an hour or two, plus scan to CD, for under six EUR. The scans are actually pretty decent. When I was still doing E-6, I sent them to a lab in Vienna that did development plus scan for 9.80 EUR.
I do find myself doing medium format less and less, though, and this is one of the reasons.
I do find myself doing medium format less and less, though, and this is one of the reasons.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
rxmd said:
Medium format is a whole 'nother story. Purchase/develop for 120 film and 6x9 negatives is $0.90/frame for me.
You gotta love it to spend a buck every time you trip the shutter.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I’ve gone thru the cost analysis a couple of times and I think film is a competitive force on those terms. The initial set up costs of an equivalent digital camera and lens are at the front end. Film is pay as you play. Right now a Canon Digital Rebel XTi sells for about $850 +/- That’s a lot of film processing. Right now I’m paying $3.00 a roll processing and scanning for C41. Assuming I buy a $200 Yashica mat 124 my cost per roll is about $5/roll for the film and processing (Shanghai BW @ $2.00/roll) This equals 130 rolls of film, about 4 years of average shooting at 35 rolls a year as a recreational photographer.
The benefit of digital seems to be speed and that is why I believe pros have gone digital first. Additionally they can dump their cards into CS2 and be ready for formatting their shots for the press or whatever the client requires then email the images… speed is the driver. Film can’t match speed. Someone also noted that digital cameras like the latest Canon EOS 1DS can shoot 10 frames per second at 10MPX an image for 10 seconds! Obviously the photographic strategy is to shoot a burst and pick the best frame. Film can’t compete there either.
Film is for fans of film. Either you are or you’re not. That’s how I see it.
The benefit of digital seems to be speed and that is why I believe pros have gone digital first. Additionally they can dump their cards into CS2 and be ready for formatting their shots for the press or whatever the client requires then email the images… speed is the driver. Film can’t match speed. Someone also noted that digital cameras like the latest Canon EOS 1DS can shoot 10 frames per second at 10MPX an image for 10 seconds! Obviously the photographic strategy is to shoot a burst and pick the best frame. Film can’t compete there either.
Film is for fans of film. Either you are or you’re not. That’s how I see it.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Not at all.
skahde
V for Victory!
Another verse to that song could be "If you're a pro: use whatever pays your bills. If you'r e an amateur: use whatever scratches your itch." Not counting the in-betweens.jan normandale said:
best
Stefan
wgerrard
Veteran
Steve, I think the costs of buying into digital will vary from person to person. I also think that, for non-pros, we are seeing that the web is replacing the print as the preferred distribution medium. That eliminates the need to buy a dedicated printer, etc. Photoshop is needed only if you post-process.
wgerrard
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:
All forum participants, like all of us, are self-selected. The fact that we're here is evidence we're all loony.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
wgerrard said:All forum participants, like all of us, are self-selected. The fact that we're here is evidence we're all loony.
This also explains why manufacturers don't just give "Us" what "We" want.
We are not representative of the buying public at large...just a small, sick, pathetic subset.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
@ MikeH.. I was told the downtown SDM is dropping processing this month. Processing costs for 135 C41 x 36 is $2.99 for film + thumbnail sheet + CD of 1.0mb images. If you have some of their $2.00 discount coupons it’s $1.00 for the package.
@Tuolumne … 20,000 images a year! That’s a lot… it’s over 6 shots an hour, eight hours a day for 365 days a year! I’m knocked out thinking about that. Yeah you better go digital at that volume.
@Tuolumne … 20,000 images a year! That’s a lot… it’s over 6 shots an hour, eight hours a day for 365 days a year! I’m knocked out thinking about that. Yeah you better go digital at that volume.
siberia37
Newbie
Steve Bellayr said:
Battery is a very good point. Digitals are very reliant on lithium or NiMH batteries and most of these batteries fail rather quickly after a few hours in winter conditions. When I go hiking and I know I'm going to be out hiking in the cold for a while I take a film camera because they are much more reliable (or even better take a batteryless rangefinder).
Tuolumne
Veteran
jan normandale said:
Hmmm...I'm going to have to find some way to count my digital files in 2007. Even I don't believe I shoot that much. But when I am shooting theater, I shoot more like 250/hour, or about 4/minute on average. There's alot going on and it changes very rapidly.
/T
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i think digital is better because filmis better because digital sux because film sux.
This semms to be again the direction where we are going, i feel.
Anyway, to answer the original question: No. I sometimes briefly thought about it, at the moment of paying, usually. but simply there's no digital camera right now on the market that I could afford and that would have the interface to my liking. The quality...let's not discuss that.
And especially since i soup myself the black and white (that was the bigger cash-sucker) i don't think i shoot enough to consider this argument at all.
This semms to be again the direction where we are going, i feel.
Anyway, to answer the original question: No. I sometimes briefly thought about it, at the moment of paying, usually. but simply there's no digital camera right now on the market that I could afford and that would have the interface to my liking. The quality...let's not discuss that.
And especially since i soup myself the black and white (that was the bigger cash-sucker) i don't think i shoot enough to consider this argument at all.
ncd_photo
Nikon Fanatic
If I want prints I tend to shoot film, if the end product is a photo book I'll shoot digitally to cut out the scanning workflow. The cost seems to be similar either way from my experience.
I got into MF a couple of years back as a way of furthering my photography - about the time a lot of pros started switching to Digi, so the gear was getting very cheap to buy. I'd probably shoot a roll of 120 a month on landscape images and only trip the shutter when I was happy the image would be good enough to go on the wall - knowing each shot was going to cost over a quid really focuses the mind and as a result my photography improved dramatically.
Choosing 35mm over a good DSLR is tricky as the image quality is so good. Hence I only really shoot B&W film now and process myself so the cost issue doesn't really bother me - B&W is my hobby and far cheaper than when I played a lot of golf
For my commercial work its digital all the way - convenience, speed, quality etc
Horses for courses as they say...
I got into MF a couple of years back as a way of furthering my photography - about the time a lot of pros started switching to Digi, so the gear was getting very cheap to buy. I'd probably shoot a roll of 120 a month on landscape images and only trip the shutter when I was happy the image would be good enough to go on the wall - knowing each shot was going to cost over a quid really focuses the mind and as a result my photography improved dramatically.
Choosing 35mm over a good DSLR is tricky as the image quality is so good. Hence I only really shoot B&W film now and process myself so the cost issue doesn't really bother me - B&W is my hobby and far cheaper than when I played a lot of golf
For my commercial work its digital all the way - convenience, speed, quality etc
Horses for courses as they say...
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Tuolumne said:
Even at half that number, that's a lot of images and I can understand using digital if you are putting out those kind of numbers. I sure would
@ ncd.. totally OT.. nice Illy cup! I like that set.
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
T,Tuolumne said:
I shoot on average about 1-3 rolls per week, so your mileage *will* vary. That's about 100 rolls a year. I get them developed at the same minilab, sometimes the results are scratch free, sometimes they are not, but never have I get a roll back that is totally messed up. Ever.
Also, scratches can be removed using software, either automatically or manually. For photos that I am going to print big or for projects, I sure am willing to spend the time tidying it up manually. For others, I let the ICE function on my Nikon scanner do the job. I have to apply USM for when I resize the pictures anyway (to be published online).
You are welcome to peruse my flickr gallery, this set for example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mastaka/sets/72157601124943557/
to see if maybe my standard for acceptable development is sub-par compared to others
Edit: Must add to clarify, if I have to shoot 20,000 images per year, I'd use my DSLR too
Last edited: