In a current thread here on this forum we were discussing the decline in DSLR sales and dedicated cameras in general and then someone mentioned that people shifted from film to digital because it was cheaper to use a digital camera.
It is cheaper for most people. But "cheaper" isn't the main consideration; the main consideration is convenience, utility, and versatility.
I'm just wondering if digital photography is really less expensive than film (was) and I'm also speculating that the true cost of digital cameras and all the equipment required to share images with friends and family (apart from the obvious smartphone option) may have a significant impact on camera sales.
"All the equipment" to share images? You just need an email address, USB key, CD, DVD, or the like to "share" your imagery. Basically it shouldn't cost you much of anything to share 100,000 images with friends.
If you look at the cost per image, digital may have an edge but that also implies that more images are taken using the more recent technology however, I think the cost per "keeper" has sky rocketed.
Why are you even caring about the cost-per-keeper? Whether or not you "keep" a shot taken with an 8x10 view camera, doesn't have any bearing on you having to pay for the film, likewise any other photographs taken on any size film. You had to buy it, in order to shoot it, and whether or not you "keep" it or not isn't relevant.
When I bought my first SLR, I got a Pentax K1000 used, for about $60 and a roll of film was $2 and getting 24 prints made was about $4.
I still use a K1000 (wonderful manual camera). The "cost" isn't just about paying for film, but also having to get in the car, travel across town to buy film, traveling to submit the film for development, and traveling to pickup the film. It's that much more time in traffic, waiting in line, having to sort through slides or prints to weed out the ones that I don't have to pay for, etc... I don't like doing that. I'm not even going to go into detail on having to order, load, mail out medium format film with notes about processing, then picking up the prints only to find they're jacked up, having to pick up do-overs, etc..
Processing the film yourself? hahaha... never liked it and I hope I never have to experience it again.
Now, the average "good" digital camera with kit lens is about $1000.
Fair enough... but you would've spent a lot more than that shooting medium format film back in the 1980's. with less over all latitude than you'd have now with a Canon 7D and kit lens.
A 64 bit PC running an Intel i7 processor with a 1TB hard drive and good specs is also near the $1000 mark.
Huh? What are you talking about? i7? What are you processing, video? I easily process 50mp files, from a medium format digital camera, each file hundreds of megabytes. I can be often found in a Starbucks, sipping a green tea frap, processing those files on a 12" Apple Macbook, 2.2, 8gig ram, 512 ssd, photoshop CS6. I can process using a $500 HP from WalMart running some slow "efficient" processor as well. While I generally use a much more powerful 27" iMac or a HP workstation when I really need to speed things up or doing heavy duty processing; it's a luxury, not a requirement.
Then I have to pay $50/month for web service and $10 for Adobe Creative Cloud.
That's because you want to, not because you have to. A person doesn't even remotely need CC to do photo processing. I use CS6. Other than the initial outlay; doesn't cost me a dime and I don't need the CC "updates".
Of course, I need some faster lenses because modern kit lenses are slow, not like the 50/1.8 primes they used to put even on cheap SLR's back in the day so, another $1000 for a good lens or two.
Again, you're talking about wants, not needs. Whether I'm shooting film or digital, I'm going to buy premium FF lenses. So that isn't a digital or film dependent expense.
Holy cow, that's $3000 right out of the gate and that doesn't include the recurring monthly expenses or upgrading every so many years due to technology obsolescence. On the other hand, I still have my K1000 and it takes pretty pictures.
My K1000 doesn't allow me to switch from 100 iso to 12800 iso at the twirl of a button... does yours? My Canon 5D2 at 3200 iso looks better than 3200 iso film in my opinion- what do you think?
Given the fact that in film days, we shot less frames with greater care, is digital photography really less expensive? And if not, may that be at least one reason people aren't buying as many units anymore?
I've a client at 5:45am. I'm shooting on the side of a building. ISO 100-3200. We move to the Gulf of Mexico, and I'm shooting with a 6 stop ND filter on the lens... subject in whispy surf. Next I'm indoors; light pouring in from side window through curtains, subject is on a staircase, I'm at iso 100-1600, 3200, and at times 12800 depending on the location in the house and whether or not it's practical to use a tripod... there is absolutely no way, do I ever want to go back to having to rely only on film.
I'll still shoot some film today because digital just can't match the look of film without going to great lengths. However, I am so thankful to have digital technology at my fingertips as it totally changed not only my photography, but that of most people generally speaking. I don't shoot faster just because I have a digital camera no more than I'd shoot faster with a Nikon F6 with a grip and 8fps at my disposal.
Digital isn't "better" by default, but it is "better" generally speaking for most photographers.
--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com
