Andy K said:
You missed out ink, paper, computer, software, batteries. And the fact that to stay in the game ALL digital gear has to be renewed every couple of years or so.There is also the constant cost of backing up files in duplicate/triplicate/seperate locations.
No printer = no ink, no paper. Why do you keep insisting it is a required expense?
Computer = I'd have one anyway. I didn't buy 'bigger' or 'more' because I do photography. No extra expense there.
Software = I bought Vuescan once, get free upgrades for life. No cost for Linux/Gimp.
Batteries = Yep. Ferocious costs. I think I've spent maybe $100 over five or six years. Oooh.
Backing up files = I need much more space for my scanned film negatives (25 mb per photo) than I do for my 6 mp files (9 mb or so, tops).
As to upgrading digital gear. Yes. It is the current trend - to stay on top of the game a DSLR is essentially worthless after about three years and must be replaced. Like a PC in the business environment. That's why the IRS allows accellerated depreciation on these things. You amortize the cost and depreciate, and then sell them for what the market will bear when they're replaced with new.
This is different from a traditional film camera, which was built to a higher standard and was expected to remain in service much longer.
However, no one knows how much longer this trend will last. We do not know if we will hit a 'magic spot' in terms of photo quality where the market will no longer buy more megapixels, or if the trend upwards will just continue forever, as it does with the PC. If / when the market matures, I would expect manufacturers to compete for business on a more traditional basis - ie, quality rather than megapixels.
In any case, it is a cost of doing business, and compared to the ongoing cost of film and processing, I'd call it a wash. At most.
You also missed the fact that most pro's buy film and chemicals in bulk. That's a lot cheaper than your estiamate.
Hmm. Did you put the cost of a large fridge in your cost for buying bulk film? I think most pros who buy in bulk also have monster freezers, don't they? I wonder what those cost? How much electricity do they take? A backup generator? A UPS? Sounds expensive.
Home processing costs a hell of a lot less than a lab.
For B&W. I challenge that for C41, possibly for C6. It really depends on your volume. Many pros just don't shoot enough C6/C41 to justify keeping the chemicals in soup, and mixing small batches is expensive when they don't last long and have to be thrown out.
Enlargers are a once in a lifetime purchase.
Granted. Unless you move to a different format, or want to print on larger paper than when you started. But that never happens, eh?
You assume film users enlarge every negative, we don't, so paper costs are not as high as your assumption.
You assume digital users print every photo, they don't.
Also most people who use film and a real darkroom do not scan everything to computer, why should they? They already have the hardcopy.
For as long as no harm comes to their negative, like a house burning down, God forbid. Yes, I know, your house doesn't burst into flames on a regular basis, but lots of houses burn down somewhere every day. It's a regular occurance, that's why firemen are kept employed. And if it should happen to you, your work is gone.
Hard drives can crap out, files can be destroyed. Multiple copies mitigate the danger and spread the risk. A scanned frame of film is not as good as the original negative, but it is better than a film-to-film copy (which nearly no one does anyway), and it mitigates risk.
As for time taken, do digital users spend no time at all photoshopping, backing up, filing, printing etc?
Depends on ability and inclination, I guess. Geezers seem to struggle with technology. Newbies seem to struggle with processing their own B&W film. I'm sorry if you can't operate a PC well enough to get decent results in an acceptable amount of time. Please don't assume that everyone suffers from your lack of competence with Photoshop, et al.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
