Surprised at the price of film

D Cox said:

absquatulate said:

D Cox said:

absquatulate said:

It's no co-incidence that the last of the film cameras are the ones that go faulty. Most of my film cameras are 50-60 years old and still going strong, because there isn't that much that can go wrong with them.

Click to expand...

Black polyurethane film, used for light seals and to reduce mirror shock, turns into a sticky mess.

Click to expand...

Fair point, none of my cameras have that problem, I generally look for ones that have had the seals replaced, it's relatively easy fix anyway, I have a seal kit ready to go for my 67 if and when it needs one. The most common problem is curtains jamming, some models suffer worse than others.

I picked up a Pentax S1a from an auction with some other stuff, its mirror was jammed against the lens mount and the curtain was sticking. I removed the bottom plate, lubricated the gears with some clock oil and it sprang back to life, it works perfectly now. The worst cameras to repair are the Contaflex's, they were so over-engineered that if they go wrong they're usually toast unless you want to send them to the US and wait for ages for them to come back. I have two working models, they're beautiful solid cameras, as is my Bessamatic Deluxe, which also works perfectly, and is pretty rare, especially working.

The 6x9 folders get light leaks in the bellows but both mine are fine. They also suffer with stuck focusing rings, which is actually the old grease on the lens barrel solidifying. I took the lens out of mine and boiled it in a pan of water. That freed it and now it works perfectly as well. Many of these cameras can be restored to fully working order with minimal effort.

Click to expand...

If I were ever to take up film again, I would probably look for a 6x9 folder. I had nice results from my 6x6 folders.

Click to expand...

joe173 said:

DMillier said:

Just looking at B&H, a 36 roll of velvia 100 is around $12 compared to £15.99 in Jessops or £13.99 at WEX. Postage is variable but picking one in the middle, $10.

E6 processing seems to be about $10 + min shipping $5.

So total for a roll plus processing plus shipping is around $37 or a dollar a shot.

No doubt you can find ways to reduce some of those costs, and so could I with some messing around.

Even so, still pretty expensive per shot and we are talking about 35mm here 8-10MP worth at best unless you are using some kind of 8000dpi drum scanner at $100 per image...

Click to expand...

You can get a high resolution scan using Pacific Image scanner, either their 10000dpi (5300 optical dpi max--if you luck out and get a good one) 35mm scanner, or their Medium format Image scanner. Neither cost that much and get 20-30 megapixels worth of full color 16-bit information with no color moire, no digital artifacts from some films. You get less megapixels, but a lot more color information. That color depth, not resolution is primarily why scanned TIFF files are the huge size they are,

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

Member said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

Member said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

Member said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

Member said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

Member said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

Member said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

Member said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

Member said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

Member said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

Member said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

The Super Takumar 105mm F2.4, no its not possible to achieve that look for that fov on a 35mm sensor, it's a classic medium format look and one of the reasons l shoot 6x7 with that camera and lens. I also have 2 further stops to play with and reduce that dof.

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

Member said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

Member said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

Member said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

Member said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

Member said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

Member said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

Member said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

Member said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

Member said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

Member said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

Based on my back of envelope guesstimates - I think you get about 3 stops difference from 6x7 to full fat - so that's an f2 shot for full fat. Quite a lot of prime lenses will do that, or even f1.4.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong,

Nick

Click to expand...

You are wrong, as an example, please show me a digital camera that produces this effect, with this of size of subject and field of view at this sort of distance. Both of these were taken at F5.6, so I have a 2 further stops to enhance this effect even further. You can't even match the aspect ratio let alone achieve the exact same aesthetic.

Click to expand...

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

nick webster said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

nick webster said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

nick webster said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

nick webster said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

nick webster said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

nick webster said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

nick webster said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

nick webster said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

nick webster said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

nick webster said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

The Super Takumar 105mm F2.4, no its not possible to achieve that look for that fov on a 35mm sensor, it's a classic medium format look and one of the reasons l shoot 6x7 with that camera and lens. I also have 2 further stops to play with and reduce that dof.

Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts again - you said shooting at f5.6 you couldn't get the same subject isolation with full fat. You were wrong.

You do love going off at tangents

Nick

Click to expand...

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

nick webster said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

nick webster said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

nick webster said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

nick webster said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

nick webster said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

nick webster said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

nick webster said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

nick webster said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

nick webster said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

nick webster said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

The Super Takumar 105mm F2.4, no its not possible to achieve that look for that fov on a 35mm sensor, it's a classic medium format look and one of the reasons l shoot 6x7 with that camera and lens. I also have 2 further stops to play with and reduce that dof.

Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts again - you said shooting at f5.6 you couldn't get the same subject isolation with full fat. You were wrong.

You do love going off at tangents

Nick

Click to expand...

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

nick webster said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

nick webster said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

nick webster said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

nick webster said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

nick webster said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

nick webster said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

nick webster said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

nick webster said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

nick webster said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

nick webster said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

Based on my back of envelope guesstimates - I think you get about 3 stops difference from 6x7 to full fat - so that's an f2 shot for full fat. Quite a lot of prime lenses will do that, or even f1.4.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong,

Nick

Click to expand...

You are wrong, as an example, please show me a digital camera that produces this effect, with this of size of subject and field of view at this sort of distance. Both of these were taken at F5.6, so I have a 2 further stops to enhance this effect even further. You can't even match the aspect ratio let alone achieve the exact same aesthetic.

Click to expand...

Of course I can match the aspect ration - that's what cropping is for. You might as well say you can't achieve a 3:2 aspect ration with a 6x7 camera. Both statements equally fatuous.

Click to expand...

nick webster said:

And yes you can achieve that look with full fat if you are using f5.6 - which is what you were saying. If you had asked about shooting with a larger aperture why didn't you ask that in the first place ?

As ever when wrong you just move the goalposts so I will bid you adieu once again

Nick

Click to expand...

xpatUSA said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

xpatUSA said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

xpatUSA said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

xpatUSA said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

xpatUSA said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

xpatUSA said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

xpatUSA said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

xpatUSA said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

xpatUSA said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

xpatUSA said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

xpatUSA said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

The Super Takumar 105mm F2.4, no its not possible to achieve that look for that fov on a 35mm sensor, it's a classic medium format look and one of the reasons l shoot 6x7 with that camera and lens. I also have 2 further stops to play with and reduce that dof.

Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts again - you said shooting at f5.6 you couldn't get the same subject isolation with full fat. You were wrong.

You do love going off at tangents

Nick

Click to expand...

Although it is possible to guess what "full fat" means, I am curious as to where the word "fat" comes from...

Click to expand...

nick webster said:

xpatUSA said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

nick webster said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

DMillier said:

I'm hardly going to post all my pictures on dpreview, be reasonable.

What I am hearing from you repeatedly is an argument based on your highly selective circumstances. It works for you, fine.but my argument is generic.

Click to expand...

My circumstances aren't highly selective, most people who shoot film do it the same as I do, if it was so expensive the interest in film would have died already, instead it's holding its own with new people moving into it all the time. Of course it will never be what it was, but it's more popular than many people realise.

nick webster said:

if we both started totally from scratch today, your 400 shots a year would still cost you more per shot as long as I bought a used digital. Basically you could not build a medium format system plus film for £200. You just can't. Even for just 400 shots. It's impossible. A £200 digital is easy to find. My 400 shots would cost 50p each even if through the camera away. No way you match that even processing your own (I wonder what happened to my 4x5 developing tank? In the attic maybe).

Click to expand...

You don't need a system, my 6x9 folder cost £40. Of course I'm not quibbling that in terms of volume digital wins, but if you don't need that volume ( and I certainly don't ) over the years film isn't going to be expensive, in fact it isn't, because that's what I do. What can be expensive is GAS, there's so much great film gear available, though prices are climbing quickly now.

nick webster said:

I accept the possibility of your wedding photographer example though. None of my costings include staff costs. Different scenario.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

OK, so you buy a 100 year old £50 camera with a 2 or 3 element uncoated lens (I have something like that, a Kodak Autographic. I believe you can open a door a write on the film - an early databack!). That leaves you with £150 for film and processing. Can you shoot medium format for 35p a shot? Unlikely, even with the most ridiculous compromises. And even if you could, you'd have to fork out the same amount every year whilst I could shoot another 50,000 shots completely for free.

Click to expand...

Well you could, but obviously memory cards go faulty, computers need upgrading, software needs upgrading etc etc. People on here pay £10 a month just for the pleasure of using Photoshop and Lightroom, that's £120 a year for a start. Your contention that digital is "free" once you have a camera and lens is just nonsense. I could sell a few cameras and pay for several years film if I wanted to. As it is I pay a few pounds a month to shoot film, some months nothing, big deal. You need a back up strategy for digital if you actually care about longevity. That involves hard drives or cloud storage, preferably both. The volume of film I shoot I can just burn to CD's as well as having the negatives. If you're shooting high resolution files and want to back them up then there's even more cost and time involved. There is no free lunch with digital, I know, I've shot with that as well.

Click to expand...

But you are not being reasonable again, this whataboutery deflection:

- any product can fail but I have never had a card failure yet and I have plenty of them.

Click to expand...

I've had several fail.

nick webster said:

- unless you work exclusively in wet chemistry, you need an even more powerful computer to deal with scans hundreds of megabytes in size. If you do wet chemistry you need a darkroom. I wouldn't be prepared to use the bathroom any more, takes too long to set up and tear down so you need as dedicated darkroom. Not cheap.

Click to expand...

My scans aren't hundreds of MB in size.

nick webster said:

- As I said before, I use a £400 computer that does a hundred other things as well so the photographic element is free

Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree on that one.

nick webster said:

- I use Windows 7 which is ancient and Ubuntu which is free and Lightroom 6 which cost £70. I have no intention to upgrade at any point as it is fast and stable

Click to expand...

Good look when your next camera is not supported in Lightroom and Adobe decide they don't wish to support a free dng converter anymore, a distinct possibility with their track record.

nick webster said:

- My backup strategy is prints, books and two external harddrives that cost £50 quid each.

Click to expand...

So there's more cost anyway.

nick webster said:

- if you used the low volume shooting argument with digital, the same benefits apply (not that I want to be so limited).

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but thousands of images per year isn't low volume.

nick webster said:

I just can't see how anything you have said adds up to economical film use. It's expensive per shot. Always has been, always be. Digital isn't free but over the life of a camera it very much approaches free.

Click to expand...

You pay as you go, that's the only real difference, the longevity of film gear is well established, you're only paying a modest amount for consumables as and when you need to.

nick webster said:

None of this is a reason for not shooting film but let's be honest about the costs and stop constructing artificial scenarios.

Click to expand...

I've given you the actual facts of how it works for me, why you insist I'm "making it up" is where I have the problem, because it's literally what I do.

nick webster said:

Let's stop now shall we? I'm bored with the repetition.

Click to expand...

I'm bored of you calling me a liar to be honest, what I've given you are the facts.

Click to expand...

You are trolling now. Let's have one last go at quoting actual numbers. I'll quote my digital costs, you quote your film cost and see what adds up to the most.

Here's the scenario:

- imagine both of us are newborn with nothing to start with. The goal is to do end to end costing of 4 years of photography.

- we will do two costings:

1. Your situation, shooting 400 shots per year

2. My situation shooting (say) 1500 shots per year

3. We will produce 10x8 prints

4. We will assume at the end of 4 years you can sell your gear for exactly what you paid for it while I throw my digital away for a total write off.

5. let's assume we have access to computers as they are common and the costs will be tha same for both of us.

Click to expand...

My costings (not including ink, which I update later when I can kick my daughter off the computer with the numbers on.

Part 1 Camera costs (brand new gear)
Panasonic Lumix FX1000 20MP sensor, 25-400mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens: £420 +£5 p&p
32GB SD card £7
Total yr1: £432

Part 2 Images for web use and sharing (no printing)
Total cost capture £432
@ 400 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.27 per shot

@1500 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.07 per shot

@10000 shots per annum Average cost per year over 4 years £432/4 = £108 per annum or £0.01 per shot

Part 3 Printing 400 prints

Equipment
Camera costs £432
Epson P600 printer £500 +£10 p&p
Total £942

Yr 1 cost
Equipment £942
Consumables:
Permajet matte plus 400 sheets £128 (prime)
Ink - check computer file

Total cost for yr 1: £1070 + ink
Cost per print in first year: £1063/400 = £2.60 + ink costs

Yr 2
Equipment: £0
Consumables cost for yr 2: £128 + ink
Cost per print in second year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 3
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 3: £128 + ink
Cost per print in third year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Yr 4
Equipment: £0
Consumable cost for yr 4: £128 + ink
Cost per print in fourth year: £128 /400 = £0.32 + ink

Part 4: total costs over 4 years @400 prints per year

Re-sellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+128
+128
+128
+128

Total cost after 4 years £1450

Average cost per annum £1450/4 = £362
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 400 per year over 4 years = £0.90 per print

Part 5 Total Costs over 4 years @ 1500 prints per year

Resellable value of camera after 4 years £0

Total equipment + consumables cost after 4 years:

£942 - 0
+480
+480
+480
+480

Total cost after 4 years £2860

Average cost per annum £2860/4 = £715
Average cost per 10 x 8 print @ 1500 per year over 4 years = £0.47 per print

These figures show that digital is very close to free per shot if you don't print and if you print a lot, it's still cheap for a !0x8 print.

I don't think you'll get remotely near this low cost with film no matter how much wriggling you try. I think you know this and you will prevaricate and dodge the challenge but I'll leave it for others' benefit if there is still anyone following this debate.

Click to expand...

Brilliant, you skewed your own costs to make your own argument, you even picked a different camera to the one you originally mentioned, now go and claim victory, make sure you do a lap of honour, I still won't care.

Click to expand...

Look, it's not about whether you care, it's about actual facts, something you seem reluctant to address.

If you think I'm skewing costs by selecting a camera that costs double the price we discussed earlier, you come from a strange world.

I have deliberately tried to make my digital costs higher that is reasonable in order to bias this in favour of film. I deliberately excluded any trade in value for my camera and printer, while in reality I could sell those on for around £400 quid. I could have gone for a used camera at half the price and a used printer or a £35 all in one.

I have made a concentrated effort to provide reasonable and accurate figures, looking up all the numbers on the web. I have stuck with new equipment when I could halved the capital costs by going used. All you have done is wriggled and squirmed, ducked direct comparisons, brought in all sorts of extreme scenarios intended to reduce film costs however unlikely or inconvenient,deflected attention with whataboutery and done everything you can to avoid a direct, honest evaluation of comparable costs. Of course you have, it's the only tactic available to perpetuate that film is very expensive per shot, no matter what you do to reduce the cost. Just accept that you have selected a quite expensive medium and love it for what it is. No need to try and pretend it can be made remotely comparable on cost with digital if you apply exactly the same penny-pinching procedure to both. It can't.

Hopefully others can see that I have been fully transparent with the digital costs and can make their own mind up.

Click to expand...

No, what you've actually done is select your own specific use case, even using a different camera from the one you originally mentioned to skew a result designed to be as cheap as possible. There is no direct comparison, because in your world there is only the digital camera and no other costs except printing, which isn't how the real world works. I could just as easily take the EOS 50E I was given, create a scenario where I just shoot Kentmere or Fomapan film and develop it in Caffenol which I've made myself using vitamin C, cheap crappy coffee and some washing powder. I could also scan my negatives using my phone, fine for posting on the web, sell my camera at 100% profit and claim victory, and that is literally how some people shoot film. Film costs can be easily comparable to shooting digital, depending on how you do it, in fact it can be considerably cheaper if you want it to be, with your only cost being cheap film. So like I said, keep banging that drum and claiming victory based on your own carefully selected criteria, it means nothing, because anyone can play that game.

Click to expand...

So produce your costings....

Click to expand...

No problem:

Pentax 67 with 3 lenses - £750 - I'm being generous to you here.

400 shots on roll film - £400

Developer - £150 (That includes two Bellini C-41 kits)

Stop bath - water, so a few pounds a year.

Fix £20

Actually there's not much point carrying on at this stage...

6x7 or 6x9 digital camera - doesn't exist.

Largest medium format sensor digital camera (still not remotely close to 6x7, in fact not even as large as 6x45 ) - erm.....£29,100

Game over......that was easy wasn't it. If you want to compare the resolution your camera is capable of compared to a drum scan of 6x9 Ektar then go for it. If you want to compare the dof control your camera is capable of shooting at wider angles I most definitely wouldn't even go there considering I can isolate a large subject shooting at F5.6 10+ metres away. That is the whole point, I can get images that even a 29K digital camera will struggle to emulate, for a few hundred pounds a year, and you tell me film isn't comparable economically to digital? seriously? Shall I throw in £250 for my 4x5 intrepid just for good measure as well? which also costs me £1 a sheet and doesn't exist in the digital world? where do I need to stop? buy an 8x10 Intrepid for the massive sum of £450?

Click to expand...

On the topic of subject isolation what lens are you talking about for your 6x7 at 10m+ distance and f5.6 ? I'd be interested to see if it's possible to match the DOF with a full fat sensor ...

Nick

Click to expand...

The Super Takumar 105mm F2.4, no its not possible to achieve that look for that fov on a 35mm sensor, it's a classic medium format look and one of the reasons l shoot 6x7 with that camera and lens. I also have 2 further stops to play with and reduce that dof.

Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts again - you said shooting at f5.6 you couldn't get the same subject isolation with full fat. You were wrong.

You do love going off at tangents

Nick

Click to expand...

Although it is possible to guess what "full fat" means, I am curious as to where the word "fat" comes from...

Click to expand...

From full fat milk

I got fed up of people calling the 36x24mm sensor "full format" that I used the description for milk that has not had the best bits removed. As if that was the holy grail of sensor sizes. It all got a bit pretentious so I refused to take it seriously and the habit stuck.

Sorry for any confusion,

Nick

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello!

I'll bite, maybe we can all learn something here - please let us know your exact setting:

1. your desired camera distance to your subject that you place your point of sharpest focus on,

2. the distance from that focussed-on-subject to the nearest objects you want to isolate your subject from,

3. film size,

4. lens focal length and aperture used.

What traits exactely do you deem irreplaceable/unique when using other formats (shear DOF, the amount of background blur, the "sharpness", etc)?

Thanks and best,

Alex

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello!

Am I missing something here, or are you unable to specify what mojo you mean - btw, I was thinking about doing a few test shots in a controlled setup with the camera/lens you suggest and a few others, so that all can see what you mean. But hey, if you are not willing to back up your blabla, so be it.

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

SiFu said:

Hello!

More blabla - how hard can it be for you to name the settings you think will be most favourable for what you see (don't worry about lenses and all, I am in the lucky position to access a wide array to take the shots)?

Images speak louder than words sometimes and a set of controlled snaps should do the trick to open a few eyes, right?

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

SiFu said:

Hello!

More blabla - how hard can it be for you to name the settings you think will be most favourable for what you see (don't worry about lenses and all, I am in the lucky position to access a wide array to take the shots)?

Images speak louder than words sometimes and a set of controlled snaps should do the trick to open a few eyes, right?

Best,

Alex

Click to expand...

I just gave you a shot, what did you miss? it was shot at 10+ meters, F5.6 on the 105mm F2.4, so I still had two stops left in which I could increase the separation effect even further. Feel free to shoot any 35mm lens at 50mm and F2.8, in dull light at 10+ metres and demonstrate how you get the exact same effect, I look forward to it.

Click to expand...

Joris1632 said:

I've followed this thread with the horrid fascination of a rabbit for a stoat, some thoughts;
Pointless to compare outlay for an enthusiasm or hobby because it's impossible to quantify the satisfaction derived relative to expenditure and there is no credit side to the balance sheet.. Do you sell prints?
Photography was always an expensive hobby but a lucrative profession pre digital. Many amateurs used more expensive cameras than professionals (and probably still do) because for pros the camera was/is only a small part of business costs - think studio, lighting, etc.
For many, many years - pre I did all my own B&W printing and much colour neg. Making fashion illustrations I often only had the garments for a couple of hours, no time to draw live, so shooting the model, developing and printing had to be ASAP. I really resented that darkroom time.
Now I'm 100% Foveon and really grateful for digital ease but nothing replaces the sheer joy of watching an image slowly emerge in the developing tray ......

Click to expand...