The real cost of digital photography? I: Taking pictures: Can you figure it out?

We used to shoot just film and anticipate the image appearing in the darkroom as we agitated the developer above a print or lined up at the camera store or counter in Walgreens.

That was eons ago!

We all have moved to digital! Yes it's convenient. No reloading the camera or swapping film backs every 12-36 exposures! Pictures seem to cost nothing as everything is volatile and the slate can be cleaned with one click!

So what's the real cost to you? Are you indeed saving money? If you shoot a wedding, are you making more per job for less time?

So what is the real impact to you?

Cost to an enthusiast

Since I'm not a pro, the costs are all "out of pocket" with no (or almost no) payback, and no tax benefit.

So, for me, digital photography is a boon. It's not free, I still buy equipment, mostly used. I still print some of my pictures, some myself, some I have printed professionally. Of those I print, some I mat and frame to hang in my home.

No it's not free.

But, it's thousands of times less expensive than when I shot film.

So, from a business point of view, how much does it cost? That's a simple calculation;

This equation ignores the cost of the twice annual "photo expeditions" where I go to some destination just to capture images, in the hope of getting a few pictures.

If we calculate that equation, it costs tens of dollars for every print hanging in my living room, a dollar or two for every print that doesn't make it to the wall, and a few tenths of a cent for every image I capture.

Go Digital!

My dear friend, you're let the Ginnie out..

I came to US on a permanent basis in August 1997. I get my first (secured, $500) credit card in October. My *very first* credit card purchase was 0.2mp Ricoh RDC-350 digital camera. At the time I was only making $36K (family of four, clean slate), so it was a *huge* purchase - nothing in my whole household, except humans, did cost more. Many cell phones take better pictures nowadays. It has only an internal memory good for 40 pictures, and it have been going through its two AA batteries in 30 minutes, if not 25 (that is, without the flash). Yet I was happy. I was still using my 35mm P&S as a backup, but I tried to use my new toy as often as I could.
Then in the summer of 1999 I accidentally stumbled upon a review of the forthcoming Sony DSC-F505. I got an instant crush on it. When it came out, I sold my Ricoh on eBay and got me a copy of 505. Funny, I got it from France - it was cheaper than getting it in US.
Years went by. I replaced 505 with 505V, skipped the whole 7x7 generation, in 2003 got me Sony 828 (which was *almost* dslr, but not really), and finally in August 2005 get my first real dslr, Canon 20D. I have two Canon 30D now, getting ready for Mark III provided I can get the funds ready.

So, what did digital do for me?
First of all, it set me free. Free from endless spending on film, developing and proof printing. Let's see: I have shot about 28,000 frames from 1998 to this day (not a lot, I know, but bear with me. Just to get this proofed, I'd have to spend about $6,000.
I'm not even counting the total losers deleted from the HDD, they would probably make the proofing cost 30%..100% higher.
Another level of freedom - I was not afraid to "run out of film". So I took my shots where I wanted. No hold-backs "oh, I have only 3 frames left and no spare film with me".
Plus, of course, I didn't have to wait until the whole roll is done before I can check the results. In a studio environment this is priceless.
So, what did I lose? Shoe-boxes of proofs.
What did I gain? Freedom to experiment, freedom to grow, tons of money I didn't waste on developing/printing (and no silver/paper/chemicals wasted - talking "green" now
Digital is the future, baby, and it's here now

Don't forget the cost of disk storage and backups for digital images. That costs a lot. Also the cost of software and computers to process them.

I've easily spent $5-$6k on photography related computer stuff, excluding printing supplies. That's a lot for a hobbyist. It's also largely an up-front cost, rather than something you pay for over time.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have gotten back into photography if it wasn't for digital, so I can't really say it cost more than film.

Gonna hafta agree w/ Charles... as a hobbyist (or starving artist.. take yer pick). I would not be able to do what i do without didgital. Before I bought my D1x I could see it coming. Sure the up front cost can be huge, but I've shot thousands of images I wouldn't have otherwise. Plus I've got them all stored on computers and discs... much smaller in terms of real estate than shoeboxes...

I'd love to try 4x5, but the idea of spending $10k up front plus $5/shot isn't terribly appealling. If $10k bought a LF digital it would be a lot more tempting. Unfortunately not even scanning backs are available at that price point, much less a one shot digital back which would be orders of magnitude more than the current MF backs if they were even feasible.

I've taken more shots with my first digital camera, a Canon G2, then I ever did with my Rebel 35mm film body that I've had for many more years. I've taken far more with my 20D. Amazingly, enough that I worry about the shutter longevity. That was never going to be a concern for me with film.

I'd have a computer regardless. No, I wouldn't be buying Photoshop, plugins, Lightroom, etc. I wouldn't need to measure my RAM requirements in GB or worry that CD-Rs only hold 650MB. Those are incremental costs though that allow me to pursue this hobby.

My career as an engineer allows me to afford these expenses. It would be tough to get out of school with the idea of becoming a pro photographer and have to cough up $20k for a pro-level digital body, a batch of lenses, a high end computer, software, etc. Film would look pretty good until you find out that your customers demand digital files so the only thing you didn't have to buy was the digital body, but you had to buy a scanner or pay for scans. I suspect the ROI calcs would very quickly tell you to sink your money in digital.

Interesting discussion. Just don't tell my wife.

The cost for me has been minimal, although I am just starting. Even as an "affordable" pro photographer, I have been able to purchase all immediately necessary equipment and pay for it with sales in less than a year. I don't have the finest of studio equipment as I started with the most basic set-up, but being that I am not an engineer (smile), I cannot afford to buy 20k worth of the very best photography equipment right away.

When I started to learn photography, I used my high school graduation money to buy a Canon Rebel 35mm, and I still own it for those times that I truly miss film. After working part time in a studio and seeing the wonder of digital, I realized my passion, purchased a used 10D on ebay and got started. Unfortunately, in the middle of a shoot the 10D quit on me and I was forced to buy a 30D last October, which I am in love with.

The cost, although expensive, is greatly outweighed by the pleasure of photography, and I believe that any true lover of photography would agree.

Jamie
www.viewtimeagain.com

Film vs Digital

When I took my first photography workshop about 5 years ago we shot E-6. 24 or 36 slides in a day and we paid $15.00 a roll for developing so we could review them the next day. It took about 45 minutes using the light table and loupe to see what was decent.

Last week, there were only 2 people using film. They only got two review sessions. They did not really participate with playing with studio lights since the timing and cost of the film played into the equasion.

I probably shot 100 or more images a day. No matter if some were bad - we were just playing with studio lighting. One of the days I forgot to change my White Balance - no problem. Just a quick correction with the Canon DPP software. We could afford to take silly shots and things just to see what would happen if we moved a light or added a modifier - who cared? No real cost. I actually loaned my camera to one of the film girls so that she had the benefit of play too.

We got to learn a lot more because of the freedom of digital.

Kathy Rappaport said:

-snip-

We got to learn a lot more because of the freedom of digital.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my photography has improved more in the last year than in all the years before (and there are many), primarily because of digital. I think nothing of shooting a couple of hundred pictures a day on digital. With film, I was lucky if I could afford a couple of rolls of B&W a day.

Digital accelerates the progress up the learning curve in several ways:

• it's easier to get the exposure correct - I look at the histogram immediately after every shot. If it's not right, I can reshoot immediately.
• it's easier to get the framing correct - If I don't like it when I see the thumbnail on the camera display, I can reframe and reshoot
• the feedback loop from shooting to seeing is so much shorter
• the range of image adjustments is greater w/ digital - in the color darkroom I often had to make multiple prints before I got the color balance correct

Aaron Strasburg said:

I'd love to try 4x5, but the idea of spending $10k up front plus $5/shot isn't terribly appealling. If $10k bought a LF digital it would be a lot more tempting. Unfortunately not even scanning backs are available at that price point, much less a one shot digital back which would be orders of magnitude more than the current MF backs if they were even feasible.

Click to expand...

You can get a large format camera rig WITH scanning back for $10k.

See my "new to large format journal 4" post in the medium/large format forum. Total cost for everything in my bag is probably $3k or less, and that's with buying almost all of it new.

$5/shot is the cost for slides, but polaroids and black and white negatives are both cheaper, especially if you develop your own black and white ($1.25 or less for b+w). I haven't priced color negatives.

Now, whether I was better off buying large format or buying a 5D is a different question. I know which gives me more definition, but there's something to be said for convenience and portability.

We can't all be rich engineers, fortunately.

No doubt one can start off cheaper than $20k. I started with the G2 for less than $500, then moved up to the 20D with the kit lens for <$1500. I added a used Sigma 28-70/2.8 for about $200. With that and the old Sigma 70-300 from my film days I shot over 10k images in a year or so. Then I added the Canon 10-22 for about $700. Then the Canon 24-105/4 for about $1100. Can't forget about the ever popular 50/1.8 for $70. I've been seriously tempted by the Sigma 30/1.4, as 50mm is mighty long on a 20D. There's another roughly $400. 580EX for $400. Slik tripod and Acratech UBH, a bit over $400. That's no where near $20k, but I don't need a backup body or lenses, a studio, a 1Ds2 to impress the natives, etc. I don't need to promote myself, create a website, get business licenses, set up website, etc. If you can feed your hobby by word of mouth, great. But I envy no one trying to start up a photography business fresh out of school whether they choose film or digital. It would definitely be exciting. Unfortunately most will struggle with the business side. My congratulations to all who make it work, because they will have earned it.

It surprises me that, as Kathy mentions, someone would travel to a workshop then cheap out on film. If you want to shoot film it seems like you'd better be bought into it 100% or else you've thrown away a lot of money on your workshop. Why would you do this? If you've got SLR lenses already the cost of a new consumer DSLR body is less than the cost of the workshop regardless of the brand. It's not that tough to burn $600 in film and developing in a week long workshop. Digital storage becomes a cost, too, but it's another investment to be amortized.

Charles has it right on the learning curve, too. You can experiment with digital in ways that you can't with film. Read Alain Briot's essay on his digital star trails. Reciprocity failure and color shift make that sort of thing tough with film.

And Erik, I have one thing to say to you: STOP IT! I need no more temptations.

All hail King digital

Well I have been digital for 5 years, Canon D30, D60, 1DS, 1DSMKII. Left my Hasselblads & 1 series canon film & Leica bodies behind. I reckon the money I have saved on film & processing would have paid for the digital gear.....(printers included)
I am making awesome prints on my 4800 so there is the added pleasure of producing fine art in the studio......& CHARGING for it.

BUT.....guess what....there is one way I am making a shitload more cash. Well, weddings in days of film I take 200 shots. Digital I take 1200, my album sales have increased dramatically in size. Iguess I am getting an extra $2k per wedding. Cool eh. This is ongoing, forever.
& of course, because I have now developed my photoshop skills I am creating amazing photos not possible when I was shooting film. Where does it stop, I could list even more benefits.
Bring on the MKIII........both versions.

Cheers,

Paul