Photography Economics

[Calzone]

I think Phil's post reminds me that one of the alluring aspects of film is that it does not necessarily mean you need to spend a lot of money. But another problem for me, Phil and others is that so many great cameras are available at low prices that already have depreciated to the point that certain cameras like Rollies, Leicas that Jan mentions above can only remain as assets that either retain value or can appreciate at this point.

Bargains of a lifetime compells certain persons like me to be greedy and buy great film cameras at crazy low prices. In this manner film due to GAS can make analog photography expensive. Basically greed is having more than one needs.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Dear Cal,

if you print, especially if you print big, you agree to me.
Then we are sitting in the same boat.

I think I've clearly written it:
Spending thousands of dollars for a 12, 18, 24 or even 36 MP cam and then only using a 1-2 MP computer monitor, the worst viewing medium with lots of limitations, is a waste of money.
Because you cannot fully exploit the potential of your cam at all.
If you print big, then it's fine.
That's the case when higher MP cams make sense.

Cheers, Jan

Jan,

The purpose of my post was to point out there are monitors and then again there are hardware calibrated displays which I was rather specific was required to fully utilize current digital technology.

Then the second purpose was to show that what is required to fully support what you stated. Costs to build out a system that fully utilizes current digital technology gets mighty expensive.

Yes we are on the same page. Few people fully exploit the digital medium. In a way it could be said that with film few people fully exploit the analog medium.

Cal

 

[HHPhoto]

Well, computer manufacturers had to deal with the same thing years ago.

No.
There was never a situation when sales decreased by 2/3 in only 4 years.
The problem is: 80% of the camera manufactuer business has always been compact cameras. And that is very likely almost going away in the next years.
Camera manufactueres at Photokina told me that they expect that market segment to be down to only 5-10%.
If you are loosing 90-95% of your backbone business, which was about 80% of your whole sales, in such a short time, then you have an existential problem.
And the DSLRs sales are siginificantly declining too.

Do you think that Nikon and Olympus should start going back to making film cameras in huge numbers? That would be an even worse idea.

What I think doesn't matter at all. I don't have any position in the camera industry.
Fact is that Canon and Nikon at last Photokina talked to the major film manufacturers because they are already internally discussing introducing film cameras again.
They probably have looked at the instant film boom.
And at the Vinyl revival.
Lots of new turntables are produced again. From cheap ones too expensive high-end dream machines. All what you want is available again.
Camera manufacturers are probably thankful for every profitable niche now when their main business is so fast decreasing.

I've said it many times here in the forum: My personal view is film will of course be a niche in the future compared to digital.
But it will be a growing niche in the future. And we will see new products.

If I would have told you that Leica will introduce a new film camera at Photokina, you probably would have said I am crazy 😉

I get it, you are PRO-film.

I've used digital almost exclusively for some years.
Then I came back to film. I am using both, but currently more film.
I am convinced that a photography world with both media is much much better than photo world with only digital in the future.
If we have more options, we can be more creative.

But what I am very tired of is this ridiculous "film is dead, digital is always better" nonsense.

Your bias shows this by your comments. However, film is not going to replace digital in any mainstream form.

I've never said that. Just the opposite. Digital will remain mainstream, film will be the niche. But this niche will be bigger in the future.

Cheers, Jan

 

[jsrockit]

Fact is that Canon and Nikon at last Photokina talked to the major film manufacturers because they are already internally discussing introducing film cameras again.

That will be interesting to see...if it pans out. I would imagine that would mean there is going to have to be more companies manufacturing scanners and darkroom equipment for individual users and a lot more film processing locations worldwide? I haven't seen a lot of talk regarding that aspect of the chain to be honest.

They probably have looked at the instant film boom. And at the Vinyl revival. Lots of new turntables are produced again. From cheap ones too expensive high-end dream machines. All what you want is available again.

Turntables were always available... DJs / Audiophiles used them throughout the period where vinyl was supposedly dead. I've already quoted the numbers of vinyl albums sold vs. digital / cds. It's a revivial, but not significant to anyone other than fans of vinyl. It's cool though.

Instant film is most likely used by the selfie crowd more than for serious photography... once people are bored of selfies, then...we will see. I use two instax cameras. They are fun, but not exactly the medium you want leading the way in film's revival.

I've said it many times here in the forum: My personal view is film will of course be a niche in the future compared to digital. But it will be a growing niche in the future. And we will see new products.

If I would have told you that Leica will introduce a new film camera at Photokina, you probably would have said I am crazy 😉

No, I'm well aware of Leica. If any company was going to put out a serious film camera in 2014, it would be them. Now your prediction that Nikon and Canon will soon follow, I say that is crazy talk (though I'm all for it).

I am convinced that a photography world with both media is much much better than photo world with only digital in the future.
If we have more options, we can be more creative.

I can agree with you there. I started with film and have been influenced by many film photographers. I don't want to see it fade away of course.

But what I am very tired of is this ridiculous "film is dead, digital is always better" nonsense.

I generally see the opposite... film lovers dissing digital.

 

[jschrader]

Nice discussion going on here, lots of good arguments.

For me personally, the expensive point is printing. I scan my negatives and although I don't think I am too talented, my digital printing costs exceed the film and developer costs by far.
I should mention, I agree that a photo on screen is nothing.

So, my financial calculation goes like this:
- costs of film and developer (when doing film) vs.
- value loss of a digital camera (when going digital).

That's the financial reason why I am with film.

 

[daveleo]

For some people "film is dead". Okay, for you, film is dead. But not for everyone.

For some people "digital sucks". Okay, for you, digital sucks. But not everyone sees it that way.

Some folks need to stop trying to convince the world that their viewpoint is "the right answer", you know.

Round and round she goes. Where she stops nobody knows.

 

[Pioneer]

Before digital appeared the only "high end" camera I could realistically afford was my Pentax K1000. I did not develop my own film and 95% of the prints I made came as 4x6 prints from the lab. The exceptions were almost always family portraits.

Now I own Leicas and Nikons that were far outside my budget, not too mention the medium and large format cameras that I was only distantly aware of back then. I have tons of developing equipment and chemicals. I scan my negs and I optically enlarge and print with a big Beseler that can handle film from 35mm to 4x5.

The entire reason that all this is possible at all is because of digital. Thank you digital. 🙂

 

[Calzone]

For me personally, the expensive point is printing. I scan my negatives and although I don't think I am too talented, my digital printing costs exceed the film and developer costs by far.

I agree. Printing is where the time and money goes. Film and developer cost are kinda low at least for me (B&W only and I develope). With color costs are much higher for film and developing.

The image I see on a $2.3K 27 inch hardware calibrated display is 13x19 and it matches my print pretty closely. Not all displays are low resolution. If you want to see a nice image on a display you have to pay for it.

I think not everyone or everybody prints. Jan made that point. Printing even just B&W can get expensive rather fast in both digital and analog.

Cal

 

[Phil_F_NM]

In the film vs. digital debate I have moods in favor of each.
I've been a serious photographer since I was fifteen and a hobby shooter since I was eight. I bought my first digital camera in June 2003, a Nikon D100. It was the most expensive thing I'd ever bought aside from a car. Since then I've been a digital photographer. Before that I was using a Nikon F4 and F3. Before those, a Contax RX and before that, a Pentax ME Super, the camera I'd had for about eight years.

Since that first D100, I've owned a Canon, Leica, Fuji and Nikon digital bodies. All this time I was looking for a tool that fit me perfectly. I straddle the divide between digital and film, having learned and grown up during the late film era (before digital was "affordable") then became a professional during the digital era.

Now I have both mediums to work with for certain reasons. Color duties go to my Nikon D3. Infrared to my D70IR. Everyday carry to my Fuji X100. At the same time, I'll shoot my Mamiya 6s or my Nikon SLRs. I now have a 2.1cm Nikkor O which is a special lens that needs a special camera. Tools for the job, folks; tools for the job.

Limiting oneself to one tool is a great way to study the depth of creativity you can bring to the use of that tool but at the same time using just one tool or one medium limits what you can produce. I have the tools I want to use and I hope that I can financially supply myself with film as well as the extra equipment I need to shoot digital for a long time.

My economic part in this discussion is that I can't afford to buy any new equipment, nor do I want to. My D3 is close to getting long in the tooth but it still produces fantastic images. The same goes for many older digital cameras that are just as usable today as they were ten years ago, often times more-so. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's bad. If that were the case, some photographers wouldn't be doing gum bichromate or platinum prints. The economics of this whole thing comes down to what tools we learn to live with and if we're ok just using them or wish to continue to consume.

Phil Forrest

 

[lynnb]

Jan, thanks for the link for film outlets here in Oz.

Back to my earlier reference to comments by Thom Hogan, his latest article "Did 'Good Enough' Win?" mentions:
"...Some of you wonder why I keep harping about workflow. Now you know: convenience will eventually win the market, even the high end.. ...Camera makers think that cameras exist only to take photos. Everything else is your problem. Which is why you post your vacation photos from your smartphone. QED. Checkmate. Game over."

There's more to the article than that, but I think he's reading it correctly. I used to think smartphones would only replace p&s. I'm not so sure of that now. It's probably just wishful thinking on my part that that might result in a (small) drift towards film for people who want something different from a smartphone.

There is potential for film to become cheaper for US buyers with the continued appreciation of the USD. Do you have any data for film demand by country? If the US market is significant, this could be good news for Ilford and other Euro manufacturers.

 

[HHPhoto]

That will be interesting to see...if it pans out. I would imagine that would mean there is going to have to be more companies manufacturing scanners and darkroom equipment for individual users and a lot more film processing locations worldwide? I haven't seen a lot of talk regarding that aspect of the chain to be honest.

There is a long and detailed article about that in the current issue of the high-quality German film photography magazine "PhotoKlassik" (www.photoklassik.de) :
They reported about all things film at Photokina last year.
Demand for scanners is already increasing. That's why Reflecta introduced two models, and Epson updated their current range.
German enlarger manufacturer Kienzle made the statement that this Photokina was "their best ever Photokina", huge demand for their products.
Enlarger manufacturer Kaiser said slightly increasing demand for them.
Rodenstock has increasing demand for their enlarging lenses.
Already two years ago Jobo introduced their new CPP3 developing machine. So far they sold much more of them as expected.
Jensen introduced a new medium format slide projector for all 120 film formats up to 6x9. They offer 6x8 and 6x9 slide mounts, too ( http://jensen-diaprojektoren.de/index.php/de/ ).

Turntables were always available... DJs / Audiophiles used them throughout the period where vinyl was supposedly dead. I've already quoted the numbers of vinyl albums sold vs. digital / cds. It's a revivial, but not significant to anyone other than fans of vinyl. It's cool though.

But that were only the US numbers.
Vinyl had its global demand bottom 1993. Since then the production increased by a factor of 20x (!!).
Will we see such an increase in film, too?
Who knows......
But what is quite certain: Film has fallen so far that it has now a growth potential again.
Digital has no growth potential anymore. It is mainstream.

Instant film is most likely used by the selfie crowd more than for serious photography... once people are bored of selfies, then...we will see. I use two instax cameras. They are fun, but not exactly the medium you want leading the way in film's revival.

No, not selfie. Very popular in Asia by women for their "Poesiealbums".
Then at weddings (I am using it at w., too).
Excellent for entertaining young children.
Popular in the fashion industry by the designers for documenting changes during the design process.
And used in the logistics industry when damages occur.
And lots of creative enthusiast photographers discover the potential of that medium.

Now your prediction that Nikon and Canon will soon follow, I say that is crazy talk (though I'm all for it).

I could not believe it, too, when I first heard it. But then it was confirmed by some other sources as well.
Well, the news is Nikon and Canon are discussing it. So far no definite decisions were made.
But if you look at their current sales numbers, and at the trends.
And at the numbers in 2-4 years. Then you see at once that these discussions make sense.

And of course it will be very interesting to see what kind of new film camera(s) will be introduced by them.
I can imagine for Nikon, but for Canon, I really don't have any clue 😉.

I can agree with you there. I started with film and have been influenced by many film photographers. I don't want to see it fade away of course.

If it would fade away an extremely important part of the photographic culture would be lost.
That would be bad for the whole photography scene.
It's like having only beer, and not vine and Scotch anymore 😉.

I generally see the opposite... film lovers dissing digital.

From my experience bashing film has been extremely widespread in the last years. It looks like it is getting a bit better recently.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Nice discussion going on here, lots of good arguments.

For me personally, the expensive point is printing. I scan my negatives and although I don't think I am too talented, my digital printing costs exceed the film and developer costs by far.
I should mention, I agree that a photo on screen is nothing.

So, my financial calculation goes like this:
- costs of film and developer (when doing film) vs.
- value loss of a digital camera (when going digital).

That's the financial reason why I am with film.

Hi Jürgen,

I've made digital printing, too.
And the much higher costs of inkjet prints compared to my wet darkroom prints were one reason to go back to film.
If you calculate the inkjet costs on a per litre base, you pay about 600 - 1000€ per litre ink depending on the inkjet printer you use.
My total costs for a 30x40cm inkjet print have been 2,5x more than the costs of my traditional fibre prints (RC prints of course being even cheaper).

Another reason for me for returning to the darkroom:
As an engineer I have to work with digital and computers all day.
The darkroom, and my slide projection (color and BW) are both such a nice recuperation from my daily work.

Concerning costs:
The cheapest for big pictures, but also delivering an outstanding and unsurpassed image quality, is slide projection.
When I project my slides (color and BW) onto my 1,50 meter width screen, these huge and impressive pictures just cost me some cents per image.
And it is such a joy after a hard working day to completely relax viewing my wonderful brillant slides in projection!

Cheers, Jan

 

[jsrockit]

No, not selfie. Very popular in Asia by women for their "Poesiealbums".
Then at weddings (I am using it at w., too). Excellent for entertaining young children. Popular in the fashion industry by the designers for documenting changes during the design process. And used in the logistics industry when damages occur. And lots of creative enthusiast photographers discover the potential of that medium.

Well, I would say that they are part of the selfie crowd no? Note I didn't say they were using them for selfies, but its all for social purposes... not for art. Where did you get the info that instax is used in the logistics industry? Digital makes way more sense in this situation.

Are you sure you don't take one off situations and extrapolate them to prove your point?

 

[HHPhoto]

Hi Cal,

I agree. Printing is where the time and money goes. Film and developer cost are kinda low at least for me (B&W only and I develope). With color costs are much higher for film and developing.

Color for film is even cheaper than BW. RA-4 paper costs much less than BW paper, prices for chemicals don't differ so much.
Using slide film and projection even further reduce the costs significantly.

The image I see on a $2.3K 27 inch hardware calibrated display is 13x19 and it matches my print pretty closely. Not all displays are low resolution. If you want to see a nice image on a display you have to pay for it.

But your extremely expensive $2,3k monitor cannot match the quality of a well made print or a slide projection.
The resolution is much much lower, with 4k monitors as well.
And LCD monitors all have the system immanent design problem that because of the discrete element structure halftones are suffering, and are worse compared to a well made optical print or a projected slide.

I think not everyone or everybody prints. Jan made that point.

I think if you are a person who just uses the monitor for viewing your pictures, then don't waste your money on the current expensive high-end digital cameras.
Get a used 8, 10, 12 MP cam. instead. You save lots of money. And even these are complete overkill for monitor viewing.

If you have a 18, 24, 36 MP cam, then be consequent and make prints.
By the way, lot's of labs offer high-quality, reasonable priced Lambda / Lightjet prints on RA-4 and silver-halide BW papers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan, thanks for the link for film outlets here in Oz.

You're welcome.

Do you have any data for film demand by country?

AFAIK the countries with the highest per-capita film demand are Japan, Germany, Hong Kong, the UK.
In the US per-capita demand is lower, but as the US has 310 million inhabitants, the total demand is of course important (same is valid for China, of course).

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

I just cannot imagine who you are hanging out with, or you are reading too many online forums?

I've made the experience in
- in my surroundings (company I work, friends)
- in my photo club
- at local photo dealers who want to sell me the latest, expensive digital stuff ("film is worse; film is dead, who have to switch because in some years film will not be available anymore, digital is so much better" etc.)
- in all photo forums
- in all photo print magazines (except the rare ones concentrating on film, of course 😉)
- on lots of online photo sites / blogs.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

A legal color darkroom in my city would certainly cost anywhere from $30k to $50k USD to set up, assuming used stainless steel sinks and legal waste disposal. And that does not count the rent or purchase of the space, city permits and architectural costs. I built my last B&W darkroom in the city, and had to legalize it in 2000, which was exhausting.

Ask anyone what it cost to put in a new kitchen, even a cheap IKEA one, and you have an idea of the cost of a color darkroom.

Sorry, but that example has very little to do with the reality of those running their own darkroom.
Most of them just use a small room in their house. Cost them nothing. Equipment for color development is cheap, even new.
Costs fur used euipment are extremely low.
My costs (I've bought all new) for my little darkroom in my house have been less than 1300€.
And enlargers, lenses etc. can be used for decades. Even my children can continue to work with my equipment.
Not possible with inkjet printers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[jschrader]

Hi Jürgen,

I've made digital printing, too.
And the much higher costs of inkjet prints compared to my wet darkroom prints were one reason to go back to film.
If you calculate the inkjet costs on a per litre base, you pay about 600 - 1000€ per litre ink depending on the inkjet printer you use.
My total costs for a 30x40cm inkjet print have been 2,5x more than the costs of my traditional fibre prints (RC prints of course being even cheaper).

Another reason for me for returning to the darkroom:
As an engineer I have to work with digital and computers all day.
The darkroom, and my slide projection (color and BW) are both such a nice recuperation from my daily work.

Concerning costs:
The cheapest for big pictures, but also delivering an outstanding and unsurpassed image quality, is slide projection.
When I project my slides (color and BW) onto my 1,50 meter width screen, these huge and impressive pictures just cost me some cents per image.
And it is such a joy after a hard working day to completely relax viewing my wonderful brillant slides in projection!

Cheers, Jan

I do not think my prints were cheaper when I did them in the lab. Maybe I was just stupid but I wasted much paper to find the right exposure, not to speak of contrast. And to select negatives worth printing. Now, I just print what is all right after setting exposure and contrast and removing dust...

But that is not the point why I gave up wet printing. I just didn't find the time after our first daugther (some time ago, she is 14 now, so it was clearly no digital/analog conflict 🙄 ).

I just wanted to say that to me, the discussion of film costs are beside the point. But that is just for my amount of shooting and printing.

Everybody must calculate for himself, and I think most people do (although like in all hobbies, we probably cheat ourselfs also a bit...)

EDIT: I recently visited a friend and he has a 5x7 inch and a "normal" 6x6 enlarger and we spent the afternoon just playing with the machinery. I would love to spend my time there....

 

[paulfish4570]

y'all have made my head hurt. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

y'all have made my head hurt. 🙂

:you, George Osborn, Charles Ponzi and 6 others like this