The cost of taking [digital] pictures

You can get a 500GB hard drive for $140 at Fry's, and prices are still dropping. 300 gig is under $100. That's a lot of backup. I use an external USB and back up weekly, then store the hardrive in a different physical location.

Never in the history of photography has back up been so cheap, so fast, so convenient (I realize many people don't, but can't address that!0

I bought a Maxtor 250GB external HD at Office Max a couple of months back for $90.

I got the last one they had . . . I'd have gotten another one had they still had more in stock.

Speaking of which . . . I should probably backup my most recent photos to it right now!

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

James Arnold 1971 said:

I would be far more intersted in what you think the cost per keeper
that is those photos that you look at and are really satisified
with?

I suspect that a few of those 50000 images aren't worth much to you
or anyone else. I would also guess that you produce just about the
same number of good quality images as you did before but end up
shooting many more photos either side of the keeper?

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt that I'm producing far more keepers these days. Due to digital.

First, digital has helped me become a better photographer.

During the first two weeks of my first digital trip I could see my shots improving on pretty much a daily basis because I would sit down at the end of the day and review what I had captured while the memory of what I had been trying to do was fresh in my mine. And I could plan on how to do a better job the next day.

(I had been shooting film, trying to improve, taking classes, reading, etc. for over 30 years. Take a three month trip, get home, week later send the rolls for processing, couple of weeks after that see what I had shot 3-4 months earlier.)

Second, digital allowed me to experiment, to try new ideas and approaches without costing extra money.

Third, I can now edit my shots which I could not do with slides. Because of the ability to edit most of my "50,000" shots are worth a lot more to me. Most are now "keepers" - at the minimum, good memory shots that don't cause me to flinch when I look at them.

(I did buy a scanner and digitize my film shots during my transition away from film. Just not the same - as you must know.)

Now, cost per keeper/image....

I can't calculate that. I can do a rough comparison of what I was spending on photography during my film years and what I'm spending now.

It's about the same.

I was spending roughly $500 per year on film/processing/slide trays/projector bulbs. I'm not spending appreciably more than that now (adjusted for inflation).

The difference is that I'm buying cameras rather than film/etc. But it feels like the period of frequent camera turnover is coming to a halt. I've now got a dSLR that is much more capable than my fSLRs were. And I've got a compact that turns out some very excellent images.

I suspect that my cost per year will now begin to decrease.

Computer? Had one before digital. Would have upgraded anyway from the previous 486/W98 unit. Because of digital photography I've bought an extra gig of RAM and a couple of hard drives.

Bottom line?

I'm spending on digital photography about what I spent on film photography.

I'm taking 6x - 7x as many pictures.

I'm having way, way more fun with digital photography than I ever did with film photography. How does one put a monetary value on fun?

--
bob

Sleepers
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/Sleepers

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

BobTrips said:

I'm having way, way more fun with digital photography than I ever
did with film photography. How does one put a monetary value on
fun?

Click to expand...

I certainly like the convenience of digital capture. If you've ever had to spot a 4x5 film scan you'll know what I mean ;-)

Member said:

--
bob

Sleepers
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/Sleepers

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

Click to expand...

Member said:

James Arnold 1971 wrote:
First, digital has helped me become a better photographer.

(I had been shooting film, trying to improve, taking classes,
reading, etc. for over 30 years. Take a three month trip, get
home, week later send the rolls for processing, couple of weeks
after that see what I had shot 3-4 months earlier.)

Second, digital allowed me to experiment, to try new ideas and
approaches without costing extra money.

Third, I can now edit my shots which I could not do with slides.
Because of the ability to edit most of my "50,000" shots are worth
a lot more to me. Most are now "keepers" - at the minimum, good
memory shots that don't cause me to flinch when I look at them.

Click to expand...

I would have to agree, the very best part of digital is the learning curve is SO compressed! You can at least see immediately what you are doing. Consider this: I recently was experimenting with a Leica IIIf with no built in metering no auto focus etc. Even with a hand held light meter and shooting color film, it was hit or miss on the correct exposure (I am not a pro) and so I had to wait until Rite-aid developed the film and handed back my prints (+ - 3 hour process) With digital, you can instantly tell what adjustments you need to make. I am sure as you learn with film this cycle could be shortened, but the point is for amateurs the short cycle is a godsend.

I agree digital = more keepers.

• Ned

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science...' - Albert Einstein



http://www.lightimpressions.smugmug.com

Film, digital, who cares just shoot and have fun.
--
geraldo

The sad thing about digital is that although it can be a great tool in learning and make it much quicker, there are many people that don't take advantage of it. So instead of a lot more good pictures, there seems to be a lot more bad pictures. But as bad as they are, they don't even compare to camera phones.

I attended my daughters elementary school play. packed auditorium. from 50 ft back, there must have been 4 or 5 people shooting away with their camera phone. It's like eating sushi with a fork. putting ketchup on sashimi.

For those that want to learn though, digital is awesome.

jefenniejr said:

I would have to agree, the very best part of digital is the
learning curve is SO compressed! You can at least see immediately
what you are doing. Consider this: I recently was experimenting
with a Leica IIIf with no built in metering no auto focus etc. Even
with a hand held light meter and shooting color film, it was hit or
miss on the correct exposure (I am not a pro) and so I had to wait
until Rite-aid developed the film and handed back my prints (+ - 3
hour process) With digital, you can instantly tell what adjustments
you need to make. I am sure as you learn with film this cycle could
be shortened, but the point is for amateurs the short cycle is a
godsend.

I agree digital = more keepers.

• Ned

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It
is the source of all true art and all science...' - Albert Einstein



http://www.lightimpressions.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

--
Brian

I care. Digital is a lot more fun to me. Instant gratification. Fewer mishaps.

I took my grandma to Japan a few years back. Early april. That means cherry blossoms. She was shooting away with her film camera. 40 pictures later, she asked me if it is normal to get 40 pictures on a 24 exposure role. She had failed to put film in the camera. She had fun taking the pictures, but was quite bummed out when she realized the mistake.

I wish I had had a camera when she picked up a glob of wasabi and shoved it in her mouth. I tried to stop her, but I was too late. I cringe to this day, but laugh at it as well.

geraldo said:

Film, digital, who cares just shoot and have fun.
--
geraldo

Click to expand...

--
Brian

James Arnold 1971 said:

I would be far more intersted in what you think the cost per keeper
that is those photos that you look at and are really satisified
with?

Click to expand...

Exactly.
Shooting digital can make a photographer "lazy" versus film because
its so easy to delete the duds. It's now a question of what so-so
pics do you keep versus the really good ones like in film when each
slide or negative actually costs money. Now it costs money to store
all those 'so-so images' that will prob never be printed!

Drebeler said:

James Arnold 1971 said:

I would be far more intersted in what you think the cost per keeper
that is those photos that you look at and are really satisified
with?

Click to expand...

Exactly.
Shooting digital can make a photographer "lazy" versus film because
its so easy to delete the duds. It's now a question of what so-so
pics do you keep versus the really good ones like in film when each
slide or negative actually costs money. Now it costs money to store
all those 'so-so images' that will prob never be printed!

Click to expand...

Got any idea what it costs to store those "so-so" digital shots? We're getting in the range of 25 cents per gig. Several hundred Jpegs can be stored in a gig.)

What's the cost of developing and printing those "so-so" film shots? 25 cents apiece?

--
bob

Sleepers
http://picasaweb.google.com/Bobfwall/Sleepers

The Blind Pig Guild - A Photo/Travel Club
http://www.jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/

Travel Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips

Brian said:

The sad thing about digital is that although it can be a great tool
in learning and make it much quicker, there are many people that
don't take advantage of it. So instead of a lot more good
pictures, there seems to be a lot more bad pictures. But as bad as
they are, they don't even compare to camera phones.

I attended my daughters elementary school play. packed auditorium.
from 50 ft back, there must have been 4 or 5 people shooting away
with their camera phone. It's like eating sushi with a fork.
putting ketchup on sashimi.

Click to expand...

How's that different from when they were using film? Remember those cardboard 35 mm disposals flashing away from 60 feet away at the rock concerts? People are whoever they are. Film or digital has nothing to do with it.

--mamallama

I really cannot estimate how much my hobby is worth...no matter how much it is per exposure, I would still do...but back then in the film days, a roll would stay in the camera for maybe 6 months and just in the last weekend in a 2 day festival/parade, I shot 1697 frames totalling 5 GB.

--

UMAX AstraCam (Urgh!), Nikon 21OO (Mediocre), 54OO (Better), 84OO (Even better), Canon A51O (Expendable), Sony Ericsson P91Oi (O.3MP, for Pete's sake!), Panasonic FZ2OK (Sharp & Noisy), Fujifilm F7OO (...), F2O (Eye-Popping!), D4O (Love-Love Relationship).

jefenniejr said:

I would have to agree, the very best part of digital is the
learning curve is SO compressed! You can at least see immediately
what you are doing. Consider this: I recently was experimenting
with a Leica IIIf with no built in metering no auto focus etc. Even
with a hand held light meter and shooting color film, it was hit or
miss on the correct exposure (I am not a pro) and so I had to wait
until Rite-aid developed the film and handed back my prints (+ - 3
hour process)

Click to expand...

I would like to suggest a different photo lab . . . then you might have more 'keepers'!

I agree, though, that digital has made me go out and shoot more for myself!

Plus, it keeps the contol of the photo in my hands, not the photo lab tech.

I did a price comparison last winter using prices from my camera store, using the cost of a roll of 24 exposure print film, having it developed and printed (singles) assuming all 24 were printed . . .

Worked out to .58 cents (US) every time the shutter was pressed, regardless of whether the photo was any good or not.

That works out to $13.92 for every 24 shots you take with a film camera . . .

I just bought a 2GB San Disk SD card a couple of weeks ago for $25!

In my FZ50, thats about 440 shots for the same price as 48 film shots, but I will be able to use that memory card again and again, so the next 440 shots will be free, unless I choose to make some prints, which, at my store, digital prints (4x6) are half the price of reprints (4x6) from negatives.
--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Bob, Good points.

BobTrips said:

During the first two weeks of my first digital trip I could see my
shots improving on pretty much a daily basis because I would sit
down at the end of the day and review what I had captured while the
memory of what I had been trying to do was fresh in my mine. And I
could plan on how to do a better job the next day.

Click to expand...

Last spring I started to force myself not to look at each frame right after I took it. Instead I tried to re-learn (hadn't picked up an SLR in a really long time) the basics by waiting until I got home to review them much as I used to in a darkroom (sans the extensive note taking and film developing ). I found that the best way to use the digital experience as a learning tool.

Member said:

(I had been shooting film, trying to improve, taking classes,
reading, etc. for over 30 years.)

Click to expand...

Still a better way to learn IMO for a variety or reasons. Of course combined with experimentation.

Member said:

Second, digital allowed me to experiment, to try new ideas and
approaches without costing extra money.

Click to expand...

No extra money is true, but all the experimentaion used toward achieving an end result is part of the equation. If you are to determine the true cost of the end result. I am not saying that there isn't a cost saving in digital just that it seems to be very much exagerated.

Member said:

Third, I can now edit my shots which I could not do with slides.
Because of the ability to edit most of my "50,000" shots are worth
a lot more to me. Most are now "keepers" - at the minimum, good
memory shots that don't cause me to flinch when I look at them.

Click to expand...

50000 images is like a 13 hour slide show at 1 sec per photo..... I know what you are saying.

I to find myself keeping more. But if I view my work objectively its not because many of those extras will ever end up being reviewed by myself again or ever been seen by compnay. Its just easier to keep them and the tendancy is to not want to toss them.

Member said:

(I did buy a scanner and digitize my film shots during my
transition away from film. Just not the same - as you must know.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, it took the place of the print in that you only scan the photos you plan on keeping.

Member said:

The difference is that I'm buying cameras rather than film/etc.
But it feels like the period of frequent camera turnover is coming
to a halt. I've now got a dSLR that is much more capable than my
fSLRs were. And I've got a compact that turns out some very
excellent images.

I suspect that my cost per year will now begin to decrease.

Click to expand...

I suspect you will just find new ways to spend the money on the photography I mean youd be mad not to really

Member said:

Computer? Had one before digital. Would have upgraded anyway from
the previous 486/W98 unit. Because of digital photography I've
bought an extra gig of RAM and a couple of hard drives.

Click to expand...

The real caculation should be based on how much the computer is used for phtography, + whatever specific hardware you had to purchase exclusivley for photography. Thats just my opinion, saying it doesn't count because you already had it doesn't remove it from the workflow and therfore not out of the equation. Do you use the value of the computer depreciation in your taxes?

Member said:

Bottom line?

I'm spending on digital photography about what I spent on film
photography.

I'm taking 6x - 7x as many pictures.

I'm having way, way more fun with digital photography than I ever
did with film photography. How does one put a monetary value on
fun?

Click to expand...

For me this is what makes the diference. I don't believe I am producing more keepers because of digital per mission. If I set out capture a picture of tulip, a picture of a tulip is the result. the waste is just that waste (more of it now but more environmentally friendly) I may shoot a virtual roll of 124 frames instead of 24 that doesn't mean I saved on the cost of all that processing it generally means I produced more waste (this is largely a frame of mind thing).

But I feel free to go out on more missions which leads to more end results.

Cheers
J

Hmmmm; but with film I'd get 37 or 38 from the cassette and throw away 2 or 3 slides as US. And only take 2 or 3 cassettes with me for the holiday. It was dear but you thought carefully and planned it all. And my old Leica is probably worth more now than when new but allowing for inflation?

So cost per 10 or 12 day holiday would be more sensible (that's 2 or 3 cassettes of slide film) and then digital well, say 600 or 800 and how many printed?

And it gets worse, I printed the picture of the ink in the thing before I went on holiday last year and think I could have printed 30 or 40 pictures for the ink used cleaning it out when I got back but it was a hot summer.

And, I know I'll have to throw away or give away the cameras, profiles and printer sooner or later. Who wants old digital stuff? And servicing printers...

And as we are talking big firm prices for slide development, how about pricing ink at big firms prices (say £13 a cartridge)? Or should I say 800 photo's per holiday converted commercially to slides?

And so on, and so on.

I think the point has to be made that there are just too many variables and too many ways of pricing as well.

Regards, David

At 3 squares per wipe, has anyone here figured out how much it costs us to go to the bathroom?

That's right, also got to figure in the water per flush . . . electricity usage when the light is on . . . air freshener per spritz . . .

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

MusicDoctorDJ said:

At 3 squares per wipe, has anyone here figured out how much it
costs us to go to the bathroom?

That's right, also got to figure in the water per flush . . .
electricity usage when the light is on . . . air freshener per
spritz . . .

Click to expand...

That depends on whether or not you're a single spritzer, or a multi spritzer ;-)

MusicDoctorDJ said:

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Click to expand...

Also, whether or not the TP is 1-ply or 2-ply! LOL

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

I think you may have slipped the decimal point for the G6, maybe $0.80. I pay 8 cents just for the paper for a 4x6 and this is getting Iliad for $25/100 8.5 x 11 from Sam's Club.

Figure it costs, maybe 12 - 20 cents 4x6 at a lab plus all the other stuff you included is much more than 8 cents per photo...

Jim

If you are looking for the lowest cost 4x6 printing at home, the Epson PictureMate series printers will probably bring you the closest to photo lab prices. *

I understand that the Kodak Easyshare printing prices are getting close as well. *

Not counting purchase price of the printer, you can print 4x6 prints at home for .25 cents each (buying the big pack of Epson PictureMate paper, which also comes with enough cartridge for the paper in the box).

Inkjet 4x6's, on average will cost between .50 - .70 cents per print (or more) due to paper waste, time spent and cleaning injet heads.

• This is not an endorcement for this product, but since I sell cameras and printers daily, I am familiar with prices of the different paper and ink products.

Read an article in a photo mag (Peterson's, I think) a year or so ago where they did a breakdown.

--
J. M. Daniels
Denver, Colorado
Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!