Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Was the $10/month for a B&W darkroom, or one fully equipped for color processing and printing?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Digital at what cost?
- Thread starter Peter Mathews
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pentax k-1 samsung i7
I belive that digital really is cheaper... as for the upfront cost, your $1000 mark seems a bit arbitrary. The camera I've been using, an Olympus E-m10 is really a perfect tool for me as it's much more versatile with greater capability than any film camera I ever had and with a "kit lens" (which I've found very useful) I have less than $500 invested in it (I got the body separately from from the lens, which is off of another older camera). That camera has much higher IQ than what I was ever able to get with 35mm, so in some respects (for me anyway) it's much more like owning a medium format film rig.
There's also the fact that I shoot like mad, which is something that I didn't do with film... I believe that I still have some undeveloped film around from when I didn't have money to get it developed. For me the "careful" composition that film forces one into isn't really something that would be doing me any favors. I probably don't shoot digital as indiscriminately as other folks do, but I love the option to be able to experiment and not have to spend any extra money doing so. This factor has improved my photography much more than the "forced economy" of using film ever did... Add that to the fact that for someone like me who's interested in the whole process (not just shooting the photos), the processing end with digital is so much more accessible; I already own a computer and much of the software that I use is free. There's also the fact that I'm able to do so much more wit the processing part of it than I would in a darkroom and to even come close with a darkroom would be very very expensive and cumbersome... I'd need B&W as well as color chemistry, paper and enlargers and a host of other stuff. I don't really print my stuff (though I'm really getting to the point where I'd like to), but if I wanted to do that I could get a very high quality printer where I could make prints for less and with much more ease than I could with a darkroom.
Just because so many folks feel the need to upgrade their gear constantly ( and an old film camera like a K1000 seems to be less threatened by obsolescence) doesn't mean that we really need to do that in order to produce great photographs... Take away the need to buy a new high end camera, every couple of years (and for many, more often than not) and digital is most certainly more economical than film in every way.
Incidentally, I do really love the film process as well... but if I have to choose one, it's digital for the very reasons already mentioned. If I were suddenly to come into some money, if there was any left over after paying off my house, doing some refurb work and traveling the world, I might just buy some film gear and get back into that medium as well... Of course it would all be contingent on finding a decent rental darkroom (that part of it is essential for me!) that's got to be OK with me using B&W fiber based paper (and many only do RC). The truth is though that I have more than enough ideas for using digital to keep me busy though... so I'm not feeling the pull of using film so much, even though I have to admit that it is a lovely medium...
--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
There's also the fact that I shoot like mad, which is something that I didn't do with film... I believe that I still have some undeveloped film around from when I didn't have money to get it developed. For me the "careful" composition that film forces one into isn't really something that would be doing me any favors. I probably don't shoot digital as indiscriminately as other folks do, but I love the option to be able to experiment and not have to spend any extra money doing so. This factor has improved my photography much more than the "forced economy" of using film ever did... Add that to the fact that for someone like me who's interested in the whole process (not just shooting the photos), the processing end with digital is so much more accessible; I already own a computer and much of the software that I use is free. There's also the fact that I'm able to do so much more wit the processing part of it than I would in a darkroom and to even come close with a darkroom would be very very expensive and cumbersome... I'd need B&W as well as color chemistry, paper and enlargers and a host of other stuff. I don't really print my stuff (though I'm really getting to the point where I'd like to), but if I wanted to do that I could get a very high quality printer where I could make prints for less and with much more ease than I could with a darkroom.
Just because so many folks feel the need to upgrade their gear constantly ( and an old film camera like a K1000 seems to be less threatened by obsolescence) doesn't mean that we really need to do that in order to produce great photographs... Take away the need to buy a new high end camera, every couple of years (and for many, more often than not) and digital is most certainly more economical than film in every way.
Incidentally, I do really love the film process as well... but if I have to choose one, it's digital for the very reasons already mentioned. If I were suddenly to come into some money, if there was any left over after paying off my house, doing some refurb work and traveling the world, I might just buy some film gear and get back into that medium as well... Of course it would all be contingent on finding a decent rental darkroom (that part of it is essential for me!) that's got to be OK with me using B&W fiber based paper (and many only do RC). The truth is though that I have more than enough ideas for using digital to keep me busy though... so I'm not feeling the pull of using film so much, even though I have to admit that it is a lovely medium...
--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
Last edited:
That depends.
Almost certainly not.
Storage is cheap, Facebook is cheaper.
Let's test that theory.
IIRC a roll of 35mm film is around $5. It's another $5 to process. Cheap film processing + scanning is $11 per roll.
Let's say that you get 1 excellent image per roll, whereas with digital you get 1 excellent image per 120 exposures. Next, you buy a top-notch film camera and lens $500, whereas with digital you spend $4500. In both cases, you have to pay for storage and prints.
In that scenario, digital and film break even after 10,000 exposures.
Low-volume shooters will do well in that scenario. However, they are also the most likely to rely on smartphones, which are basically free. In which case, film loses immediately.
I suspect that for most enthusiasts, and for most pros, digital offers substantial advantages in both cost and functionality.
noflashplease
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,497
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,196
You must have bought your K1000 used because film cameras weren't all that cheap back in the 1970s and 80s. I was shooting film at a time when the cost of the 35mm color film and mainstream commercial developing were at historical lows and it wasn't as cheap as modern digital photography.
Of course, digital photography is very expensive for someone who switches systems every year, as some of the most vehement gearheads do. In the film era, I kept a camera for a very, very long time, but I also wasn't shooting tens of thousands of frames per year. On vacation, I shot many hundreds of frames over the duration of the trip. In the digital era, I shoot thousands on a single day of a holiday. Times change.
chipmaster
Senior Member
My total expenditures for digital maybe about 20K total between stuff owned and stuff sold off after usage and loss.
But oh man the pictures I captured, yeah shot a lot and discarded most, and printed so few, but the memories and moments captured, priceless.
Wouldn't have had it any other way.
People really want to go back to dial up phones and the ways of the 70's really.
Moore and digital changed everything and for the better, you can have the better with/out some change compromise to some great things.
We of course suffer in the world of instant now. Never have we had so much information at fingers and never have we been more stupid.. but again I'd not traded it for the 70's. You can't go back only forward.. now the question are the leaders of technology and countries got their act together, LOL
But oh man the pictures I captured, yeah shot a lot and discarded most, and printed so few, but the memories and moments captured, priceless.
Wouldn't have had it any other way.
People really want to go back to dial up phones and the ways of the 70's really.
Moore and digital changed everything and for the better, you can have the better with/out some change compromise to some great things.
We of course suffer in the world of instant now. Never have we had so much information at fingers and never have we been more stupid.. but again I'd not traded it for the 70's. You can't go back only forward.. now the question are the leaders of technology and countries got their act together, LOL
n3eg
Senior Member
Really? E-PL5 with kit lens $399, Kodak S-1 with two kit lenses $280, GM1 used $250, GM1 kit lens $120. Vintage 50mm f/1.8 $5. Vintage 135mm f/2.8 $5.
Film: 30% to 75% keepers. Digital: 100% keepers on the card, because any screw-ups are instantly deleted. Then even if I keep 5% when I get them on the laptop, they are better than anything on film because I have more to choose from. PP is easy, even for someone who hates it like I do.
And then there's the factor that ease of use means more use. The camera goes everywhere now.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Not true at all. 1 or even 2 generation old cameras can take great photos. Something like a used D5200 kit will cost like $400. You don't need a $1000 kit to take good photos, and in any case in my opinion a brand new $1000 kit is a really bad value. That's an older crop body, a 3rd party 2.8 general zoom, and 1 of a wide range of specialized lenses.
Plus you are not factoring in inflation- from what I'm seeing now a roll of film is $4-10, and getting it processed at Walgreens is $13 + tax. That's about $0.60/shot... I will come back to that later.
Again not necessary. I process my photos on an old off lease computer I bought for about $200. I have a small SSD for programs and a cheap HDD to store photos, as well as I think 8GB of RAM? It's fine for processing 24MP raw photos and even panoramas. Hell I process panoramas just fine on my used i7 laptop. Only place I'm thinking to really spend some money is a 4K monitor and video card. But again, you don't need a $1000 desktop to process photos.
Again, unless you use your web service for nothing more than accessing Creative Cloud, which you also don't need to process photos, then this is not true either. There are free photo processing programs, and similarly if you look hard enough free internet too.
Why? Those 50/1.8s are only $100-200 today.
If your ancient K1000 film camera still takes good pictures, why would you need to constantly update a digital camera that can take even better ones? An old Pentax K-50 will blow your K1000 completely out of the water. What more do you need?
The user experience, not cost, is what drove digital to overtake film.
The immediate feedback in the form of an image display on the back of the camera soon after pushing the shutter release; having access to almost any desired ISO at a moment's notice, the ability to share images with family, friends and the wider public without having to pick up prints at the photo booth...these factors made digital photography a vastly improved user experience than film for most people.
By the same token, it is the improved user experience of making, editing and sharing photographs with a smartphone that has been driving the migration of photographers from digital to mobile devices, the last several years.
The immediate feedback in the form of an image display on the back of the camera soon after pushing the shutter release; having access to almost any desired ISO at a moment's notice, the ability to share images with family, friends and the wider public without having to pick up prints at the photo booth...these factors made digital photography a vastly improved user experience than film for most people.
By the same token, it is the improved user experience of making, editing and sharing photographs with a smartphone that has been driving the migration of photographers from digital to mobile devices, the last several years.
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
That's a pretty hefty generalization you're making, though I suppose it may be true for markets as a whole.
The cost of film and processing caused me personally to quit photography rather than go digital about 12 or 13 years ago. I only returned three years ago this summer, and while there are some things I enjoy about the digital shooting experience, it is far from a universal improvement for me.
And the thing I like most about it is the free "film".
The cost of film and processing caused me personally to quit photography rather than go digital about 12 or 13 years ago. I only returned three years ago this summer, and while there are some things I enjoy about the digital shooting experience, it is far from a universal improvement for me.
And the thing I like most about it is the free "film".
Last edited:
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Digital "film" is only free if you don't save the image.
If you want to save the image, the storage medium costs money.
Frequently the cost of the storage medium is less than the cost of film, so you still come out ahead with digital.
Buy slow 16GB SD cards, and you can store RAW+JPEG images at less than 1¢ each.
That's less than when it cost me to shoot Tri-X in the 1970's.
In order to save money, I would buy Tri-X in 100' rolls and load them into the cassettes myself. I would develop the film and make a 8x10 contact print with all 36 frames on it. At the time, my cost was about 5¢ every time I pressed the shutter button (that covered film, developing and the contact print).
With digital, that's down to 1¢ for each image saved on the SD card. An that's 1¢ in 2016 dollars for digital vs. 5¢ in 1975 dollars for film.
Today, you're going to pay 14¢ or more for each frame of undeveloped film (assuming $5 per 36 exposure roll).
Digital is much less expensive than film.
$499 spent at B&H gets me a new DSLR camera, a lens, carry bag and enough storage for 2700 JPEG images (that's about 18¢ an image). For an extra $13, I have enough storage for 8,100 JPEG images. That brings the cost down to 6.5¢ per image (including the cost of the camera and lens!). That's 1/3 the price of that much film (not even counting developing and the cost of the film camera).
P
Peter Mathews
Guest
I think there is a misunderstanding.
My premise was not that film was/is cheaper than digital. It may or may not be, depending on what gear you buy and how much you shoot. Maybe I didn't make that point clear, it's literally impossible to get all the thoughts down in one post.
My premise is that there are hidden costs with digital and it may be much more expensive than we are led to believe. In the past, I could buy a camera and lens and shoot a few rolls a year, more if I was enthusiastic. If I ran out of money, I stopped shooting and the costs subsided. At some point, I could sell the camera and keep all the prints in archive. Eventually, I could scan them and put them on a DVD or other digital media.
With digital, the costs are much less obvious.
#1. Not everyone has a PC. It's easy for us to forget that. In addition, PC's are dying off faster than digital cameras. Look at the sales numbers. Of course you want a high quality image, that's the reason you got high quality gear (DSLR right?), then you need a good PC, simple as that. Try running PP or LR on a 32 bit machine. be honest, how many here have been forced to upgrade their PC to handle ever larger files and more complicated post processing software? C'mon, lets see those hands.
#2. You need an internet connection for uploading your images. Yes, many people already have internet connections for other things but uploading large image files requires bandwidth and gigabytes. ISP's are more and more starting to charge by the amount of data you use (especially uploads). This trend will continue as bandwidth is being squeezed by high demand. Right now, IPv4 has run out of physical addresses and IP's are being shared. The transition to IPv6 will be costly. ISP's are not stupid. They will be charging more for usage than now. Servers are not cheap. Memory is not cheap (despite popular belief). Data centers have huge overhead costs in clean power, security and environments. what was once free, you now have to pay for (directly or indirectly). remember YouTube before advertising or how about Pandora. Nobody makes money giving stuff away for free.
#3. PP is becoming expensive. DXO software is around $140 or so? LR CC is $120/year and so on and so on. Sure you can get some el cheapo software but you have to lower your standards and quality suffers. You bought a nice new digital camera and can't afford the good software? Didn't think that through maybe?
#4. JPEG vs. RAW. I'm constantly being told I have to shoot RAW for the best images. That's great but, I need a faster processor in my laptop/pc, more memory and constant upgrades because we're getting to the point now where the stuff they coded three years ago (as an example) doesn't recognize the new models of today. In addition, backups (you should have at least three) are becoming more time consuming and expensive.
#5. Smartphones are getting much more expensive and data plans are also getting more expensive. Like the proverbial drug dealer, the cell phone companies have gotten us hooked on smartphones, social media, music, Youtube, audiobooks and a host of other data consuming applications. They no longer upgrade your phone for free every two years and unlimited data is becoming a scarcity. Some of these phones cost more than good digital cameras now and you have to upgrade every 2-4 years. So now, even the cheapest form of digital photography has associated costs that are rising and rapidly.
#6. Printer ink. If you do actually want to print that "cheap" digital image, it will cost you a small fortune. Possibly more than a standard commercial 4X6 print. My Canon printer cost me $150 but the ink I have to buy every couple weeks or so is MORE THAN THE PRINTER! so good luck printing your own images for cheap. Did I mention the paper? Or how about the print head which only lasts a couple years, maybe.
Yes, yes and yes, you can buy a $100 digital camera and fill up a 32GB card with low quality JPEG's for next to nothing, borrow your buddy's PC or head down to the library or stick the card into some machine at the corner drug store and get prints for 14 cents a piece. If being a cheapskate is the name of your game, then you've won. Digital is your bag! But most people invest in expensive digital equipment for a reason and it ain't to save money.
My argument is that digital dedicated camera photography is not that cheap and convenient (dirty little secret), most people don't want to invest the money in cameras and lenses and the sales numbers would indicate that. For the moment, smartphones are being preferred for photography because they are perceived as being an inexpensive alternative and good enough for what most people use cameras for nowadays anyway but, the costs are rising, even in that genre.
You may not pay to see the image you just captured on the LCD screen of your digital camera but what you are looking at doesn't mean anything to anyone until you find a way to share it with others and that's when the register starts to ring-a-ding, cha-ching.
Being less expensive does not mean it isn't expensive!!!
My premise was not that film was/is cheaper than digital. It may or may not be, depending on what gear you buy and how much you shoot. Maybe I didn't make that point clear, it's literally impossible to get all the thoughts down in one post.
My premise is that there are hidden costs with digital and it may be much more expensive than we are led to believe. In the past, I could buy a camera and lens and shoot a few rolls a year, more if I was enthusiastic. If I ran out of money, I stopped shooting and the costs subsided. At some point, I could sell the camera and keep all the prints in archive. Eventually, I could scan them and put them on a DVD or other digital media.
With digital, the costs are much less obvious.
#1. Not everyone has a PC. It's easy for us to forget that. In addition, PC's are dying off faster than digital cameras. Look at the sales numbers. Of course you want a high quality image, that's the reason you got high quality gear (DSLR right?), then you need a good PC, simple as that. Try running PP or LR on a 32 bit machine. be honest, how many here have been forced to upgrade their PC to handle ever larger files and more complicated post processing software? C'mon, lets see those hands.
#2. You need an internet connection for uploading your images. Yes, many people already have internet connections for other things but uploading large image files requires bandwidth and gigabytes. ISP's are more and more starting to charge by the amount of data you use (especially uploads). This trend will continue as bandwidth is being squeezed by high demand. Right now, IPv4 has run out of physical addresses and IP's are being shared. The transition to IPv6 will be costly. ISP's are not stupid. They will be charging more for usage than now. Servers are not cheap. Memory is not cheap (despite popular belief). Data centers have huge overhead costs in clean power, security and environments. what was once free, you now have to pay for (directly or indirectly). remember YouTube before advertising or how about Pandora. Nobody makes money giving stuff away for free.
#3. PP is becoming expensive. DXO software is around $140 or so? LR CC is $120/year and so on and so on. Sure you can get some el cheapo software but you have to lower your standards and quality suffers. You bought a nice new digital camera and can't afford the good software? Didn't think that through maybe?
#4. JPEG vs. RAW. I'm constantly being told I have to shoot RAW for the best images. That's great but, I need a faster processor in my laptop/pc, more memory and constant upgrades because we're getting to the point now where the stuff they coded three years ago (as an example) doesn't recognize the new models of today. In addition, backups (you should have at least three) are becoming more time consuming and expensive.
#5. Smartphones are getting much more expensive and data plans are also getting more expensive. Like the proverbial drug dealer, the cell phone companies have gotten us hooked on smartphones, social media, music, Youtube, audiobooks and a host of other data consuming applications. They no longer upgrade your phone for free every two years and unlimited data is becoming a scarcity. Some of these phones cost more than good digital cameras now and you have to upgrade every 2-4 years. So now, even the cheapest form of digital photography has associated costs that are rising and rapidly.
#6. Printer ink. If you do actually want to print that "cheap" digital image, it will cost you a small fortune. Possibly more than a standard commercial 4X6 print. My Canon printer cost me $150 but the ink I have to buy every couple weeks or so is MORE THAN THE PRINTER! so good luck printing your own images for cheap. Did I mention the paper? Or how about the print head which only lasts a couple years, maybe.
Yes, yes and yes, you can buy a $100 digital camera and fill up a 32GB card with low quality JPEG's for next to nothing, borrow your buddy's PC or head down to the library or stick the card into some machine at the corner drug store and get prints for 14 cents a piece. If being a cheapskate is the name of your game, then you've won. Digital is your bag! But most people invest in expensive digital equipment for a reason and it ain't to save money.
My argument is that digital dedicated camera photography is not that cheap and convenient (dirty little secret), most people don't want to invest the money in cameras and lenses and the sales numbers would indicate that. For the moment, smartphones are being preferred for photography because they are perceived as being an inexpensive alternative and good enough for what most people use cameras for nowadays anyway but, the costs are rising, even in that genre.
You may not pay to see the image you just captured on the LCD screen of your digital camera but what you are looking at doesn't mean anything to anyone until you find a way to share it with others and that's when the register starts to ring-a-ding, cha-ching.
Being less expensive does not mean it isn't expensive!!!
Henry Falkner
Forum Pro
My last 35mm camera is the 3x zoom all-in-one SLR, purchase price NZ$ 1200.- (Olympus IS-2000). It was in constant use for about 4 years. I spent about NZ$ 30.- per week on film, processing and printing. In 2001 I started editing an amateur radio newsletter, so I already needed a computer and a scanner then. From 1998 until 2004 I also used a DV tape video camera, which cost NZ$ 1000.- (IIREC), plus tapes, typically NZ$ 30.- each.
Over the last 4 years I have bought 3 travel zooms at an average of NZ$ 500.- (Olympus SH-50, SH-1, SH-2). The first two are operational as backups, and they complement the current one, used simultaneously in some situations (time lapse on the SH-2, real-time video and stills on one of the others).
The travel zooms do the still photo jobs that the IS-2000 used to do, with more reach, plus video at no extra cost. I print about four 33x23 inch prints a year, NZ$ 45.- each, with lamination included.
Distribution of photos and videos is via web and email over broadband fiber, at NZ$ 109.- per month. This includes the phone landline and un-limited streaming video.
The equipment cost for stills and video is less on digital than for 35mm and tape video combined, because I only use one piece of equipment to do both.
The running cost is similar if I factor in the cost of broadband fiber - but that does a lot more work for contacts and entertainment, in addition to uploading pictures and videos.
Using 35mm and DV tape I could not possibly do all of Sandra's requests for stills and videos - IN THE TIME FRAME THAT SHE DEMANDS. Meeting the deadlines for the amateur radio newsletter is no longer hit and miss also.
I recently had to reduce the number of films and prints I keep, for space reasons. Some are irreplaceable, of course.
But there is no way that I would cart around a 35mm camera again. For one thing, on my 1987 two month trip through the USA, the processing and printing in New Orleans was shocking. The films went black by the time I got home to New Zealand, and the prints were streaky.
Henry
--
Henry Falkner - SH-2, SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner
Over the last 4 years I have bought 3 travel zooms at an average of NZ$ 500.- (Olympus SH-50, SH-1, SH-2). The first two are operational as backups, and they complement the current one, used simultaneously in some situations (time lapse on the SH-2, real-time video and stills on one of the others).
The travel zooms do the still photo jobs that the IS-2000 used to do, with more reach, plus video at no extra cost. I print about four 33x23 inch prints a year, NZ$ 45.- each, with lamination included.
Distribution of photos and videos is via web and email over broadband fiber, at NZ$ 109.- per month. This includes the phone landline and un-limited streaming video.
The equipment cost for stills and video is less on digital than for 35mm and tape video combined, because I only use one piece of equipment to do both.
The running cost is similar if I factor in the cost of broadband fiber - but that does a lot more work for contacts and entertainment, in addition to uploading pictures and videos.
Using 35mm and DV tape I could not possibly do all of Sandra's requests for stills and videos - IN THE TIME FRAME THAT SHE DEMANDS. Meeting the deadlines for the amateur radio newsletter is no longer hit and miss also.
I recently had to reduce the number of films and prints I keep, for space reasons. Some are irreplaceable, of course.
But there is no way that I would cart around a 35mm camera again. For one thing, on my 1987 two month trip through the USA, the processing and printing in New Orleans was shocking. The films went black by the time I got home to New Zealand, and the prints were streaky.
Henry
--
Henry Falkner - SH-2, SH-1, SH-50, SP-570UZ
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner
Last edited:
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
I use film because it ptovides an specific look I want. I don't worry about the cost as that is recouped in the sale to clients. If one is worrying aboit the cost of creating their art...they've missed the point entirely.
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
Well, with my 32 gig fast cards I got at MicroCenter for $13 apiece-- 2 to 3000 shots per card and reusable--and 2 terabytes of storage for finished work and another 2 TB to back it up for less than $200 for the whole thing and considering I only keep one out of every 100 shots, then I think it's functionally pretty much free. Or at least something you can pay for with the spare change in the coffee can.
I do miss contact prints, though.
I do miss contact prints, though.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
I disagree. Film is the land of hidden costs. One price for the film. Then another price for developing. Prints might be a third cost. Want something cropped? Be prepared for a special handling charge.
Today, I can crop for free right on the camera's rear screen.
You don't need a PC to shoot digital. Just as you don't need a darkroom to shoot film.
Digital creates a string temptation to use a PC, as a PC is far more affordable than a darkroom.
You don't need an Internet connection to shoot digital.
I can bring my SD cards to Walgreens and have prints made. Just like in the film days.
I can even bring the SD card to my local "pro" lab, and they will make huge prints for me, and do custom retouching.
Digital creates a strong desire for Internet connectivity because transferring images over the Internet is far more affordable than using Fed-Ex to move negative around.
Photoshop and other software is not a requirement for digital. In the days of film we did everything in camera (hence the popularity of "soft focus" lenses for portraits).
Digital creates a strong demand for editing software as $50 for something like Affinity Pro gives us the power to retouch in ways that would have cost $10 or more per image with film.
People tell me lots of things. Not all of them are applicable to my situation.
You don't have to shoot RAW. Shoot JPEG and you can quality that surpasses many 35mm films.
Some new cameras actually let you process the RAW files in camera. Shoot in RAW, and then you can go back and reprocess the RAW file with different settings to get an adjusted JPEG.
Digital creates a strong temptation to shoot RAW as RAW allows you to salvage images that would not have been salvageable at all with film, or to save an image shot with the wrong white balance.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your assertion that one "has to upgrade every 2-4 years" and that one has to use a smartphone. I know a number of people who are quite happy with their iPhone 4S. That's 4 generations ago (6s, 6, 5s, 5). They have no immediate plans on upgrading their phone. It does exactly what they want. Not everyone is swayed by sales hype.
As to point and shoots, a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W800 is under $100. While it may not be top of the line by today's standards, I think the images out of it as ISO 800 will be better than ISO 800 35mm film.
If I print at Walgreens, it's about 10¢ for a 4x6 print. 8x10's at CostCo are $1.49. Pretty much the same price as prints from negatives.
Yes, if I print myself, it costs a bit more. However, the prints from a digital printer still cost less than color prints from your own darkroom.
I disagree. It is to save money.
With film, many did use point and shoots, brought the film to the local drugstore and were happy with the results. Sure, one could do a lot more, but the costs were prohibitively expensive. We didn't call film shooters "cheapskates" because film was so expensive that people had to go the cheap route.
With digital, the costs are so low, that almost anyone can afford a "digital darkroom" with capabilities that would put most color darkrooms to shame.
If you want to call digital shooters without a PC "cheapskates", then I suspect you've been listening to a bit too much marketing hype.
The metric for what constitutes "acceptable" quality are the needs of the individual photographer, not what some marketing department tells us.
Yes, you can buy a 50 megapixel camera, but the vast majority of people have no need for anything about 8 megapixels (8 megapixels is enough for an 8x10 at 300 ppi). Remember, with 35mm film, it was tough to make an 8x10 with anything higher than ISO 400.
.
Let's look at this another way. When flat screen TV's came out, a 40" TV cost $30,000.
Today, I can buy a better quality flat screen for $180.
At $30,000 each, I spent a total of zero dollars on flat screen TVs. Today, I have more than one in my home.
To me, the cost of flat screens have gone down- from $30,000 to $180.
By your reasoning they have gone up. When they first came out, I spent zero on flat screen TVs. In the past year, I've spent a few hundred on flat screen TVs.
I disagree.
Digital is far less expensive, and therefore affordable. With film, people couldn't afford to spend the money and resources needed for a dedicated home color darkroom. With digital, most people can afford it.
The cost of Digital is so low, that the majority of the US population now carries a digital camera with them most of the time. The technology is not only affordable, but easy. My 70 year old mom edits adjusts her photos with iPhoto. Even when she was younger, the wet darkroom was too daunting for her.
.
It's not that digital has hidden costs, it's that digital has become so low cost, that it has become mainstream. We are now at the point where the value to most people is far greater than the costs.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Yes. Cost should not be the only factor in a decision. If digital isn't the correct tool for creating your art, then you should use something else.
Unless you are one of those people who buys a new camera every year, digital photography is much cheaper than film photography.
With film.... you bought a camera, paid for film, then paid for processing and having every shot printed. Then you might want to make an enlargement from one or two shots from a roll of 36.
With digital.... you buy a camera and a memory card. That's it. You are set. You don't pay anyone for film, processing or printing, UNLESS you want an enlargement. And that enlargement will cost you the same whether you are using film or digital. But since you are processing the digital images yourself you need to buy photo editing software.... unless you are happy with the free software that came with your camera.
Today an entry level DSLR costs about the same as an entry level film SLR cost, if you adjust for inflation. Cheap lenses were always cheap, and good lenses were always expensive. Nothing has changed there.
It doesn't matter if you take a few photos or a lot of photos. Digital is still cheaper.
And if you need retouching, you can do it yourself. No paying an expert to dodge and burn for you in a darkroom.
And with digital you get the added bonus of no toxic chemicals, cardboard boxes, or plastic film canisters polluting the environment. Imagine what the price of silver would be today if we were still using silver nitrate for billions of prints each year.
With film.... you bought a camera, paid for film, then paid for processing and having every shot printed. Then you might want to make an enlargement from one or two shots from a roll of 36.
With digital.... you buy a camera and a memory card. That's it. You are set. You don't pay anyone for film, processing or printing, UNLESS you want an enlargement. And that enlargement will cost you the same whether you are using film or digital. But since you are processing the digital images yourself you need to buy photo editing software.... unless you are happy with the free software that came with your camera.
Today an entry level DSLR costs about the same as an entry level film SLR cost, if you adjust for inflation. Cheap lenses were always cheap, and good lenses were always expensive. Nothing has changed there.
It doesn't matter if you take a few photos or a lot of photos. Digital is still cheaper.
And if you need retouching, you can do it yourself. No paying an expert to dodge and burn for you in a darkroom.
And with digital you get the added bonus of no toxic chemicals, cardboard boxes, or plastic film canisters polluting the environment. Imagine what the price of silver would be today if we were still using silver nitrate for billions of prints each year.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
When I first went digital I used to make "contact prints". 36 small images per sheet of paper (Photo Mechanic can do this, and label each image with the frame number /file name).
Today, I mostly view the contact sheets on the computer. I love that I can pick and choose which images should be included in a particular set to view.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Actually, with worldwide competition, it costs far less to pay someone to retouch a digital image than a film image.
I have people from all over the world competing to retouch my images. I can have someone halfway around the world retouch them as easily as someone across town. With film, geographic constraints reduced competition. Retouching was harder, and more expensive.
PCs are cheap and powerful now. You can get something capable of editing RAWs for around $400, including a monitor. Plus, it has a lot of other utility.
That's because people have PCs, and don't need to replace them often. They're mature.
Putting the entire price of that on imaging doesn't make sense.
It's not going to cost consumers anything.
You don't need a server in your home.
Yeah, it is. And you don't need 64gb of RAM to edit RAW images.
Cloud data services are dirt cheap for consumers, and far more secure than a hard drive at home.
No, it isn't. Almost every camera comes with software, and there are free options like RawTherapee.
That's not even remotely true.
You can edit RAWs with a $350 computer. You don't need increasingly fast PCs, unless you insist on buying monster hi-res camera bodies. And no, RAW files from 3 years ago aren't outdated.
No, they aren't. Smartphones get cheaper and more capable every year. Sorry.
1) Online print services are quite cheap. They're easily comparable to the old photo shop making mass prints, plus you can custom pick the images you want to print.
2) Darkroom work was NOT cheap. Photo paper was expensive, the chemistry sucked, you needed a ventilated room OR had to rent darkroom space.
3) Home printing on the high end is about control, not costs.
That's why the printer was only $150.
I'm using a much higher end printer, and the inks aren't cheap, but they also don't run out every 2 weeks.
Or, you can spend $600 on an outstanding digital camera and a nice lens -- less if you buy used. Cards are cheap. Hard drives are cheap. Cloud storage is cheap. Online printing is cheap.
Plus, back in the day, lots of things weren't cheap. High-end bodies, high-end lenses, Polaroids for testing, quality lab work, quality prints.... not cheap.
You're clearly exaggerating the costs. Not buying it.
It can be cheap. It can certainly be cheaper than film these days. E.g. a single piece of Impossible Project instant film is $2 or more. That is not freaking cheap.
There is no question it's more convenient. Immediate feedback. Easily switching from color to B&W and back again. Not stuck with a specific ISO for 36 frames. No more worries that the lab will screw up. I can shoot, edit, process and print in an hour or less.
sigh
People are uploading somewhere north of 2 billion photos a day.
Sales of ILCs are about the same over the years, dating back to the film era. What happened was smartphones basically wiped out the market for compact cameras, most of which weren't that expensive to begin with.
If you take photos with your smartphone and store them in the Cloud, that costs almost nothing. Most people don't edit them heavily on computers, they don't print them, they aren't incurring big costs.
By the way, if you think photography is expensive? Try painting. Or motorcycles. Or autos. Or sailing.