| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/17/2005 06:02:45 PM · #1 |
I've been doing some research regarding the cost of film versus the cost of digital and I made an interesting discovery today which I thought I should share...
Processing for a 36-exposure roll of film, including single 5x7 prints of each exposure, is $7.25 at Clark labs (including shipping).
One 5x7 print created by uploading a digital photo to Clark online costs $1.78 (including shipping).
One Film 5x7: $.20 (including shipping)
One digital 5x7: $1.78 (including shipping)
For the price of one digital 5x7 print, you can get basically 9 film 5x7 prints. Tell me that isn't highway robbery.
Another addition to my many reasons why film is less expensive than digital.
-Nick
Message edited by author 2005-05-17 18:03:15. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 06:08:26 PM · #2 |
| never mind that 4 rolls of 24 EXP film costs $8.96. so that's 24x4..... darn math.... 96 pics. on one 256MB xd card I can get over 402 2MP pics. The card was $46 when I bought it.... sooo let's see here.... ew math again... 96 film pics for $8.96. 402 digi pics for (first time use) $46. that's..... $.093 per film pic, and $.11 per digi pic. HOWEVER you can re-use the card.... reusing film pretty much doesn't work. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 06:08:58 PM · #3 |
As long as you usually print everything and you like how the lab processes your film.
I only print a few (at home) and I like doing the processing myself so for me, digital is cheaper.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 06:11:29 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jewellian:
never mind that 4 rolls of 24 EXP film costs $8.96. so that's 24x4..... darn math.... 96 pics. on one 256MB xd card I can get over 402 2MP pics. The card was $46 when I bought it.... sooo let's see here.... ew math again... 96 film pics for $8.96. 402 digi pics for (first time use) $46. that's..... $.093 per film pic, and $.11 per digi pic. HOWEVER you can re-use the card.... reusing film pretty much doesn't work. |
the quality of the film makes it more valuable. those 2mp shots can't hold a candle to the quality of the film shots. I guess we could argue this issue in a million ways. :)
You could buy a disposable camera at the local pharmacy for two bucks and create images that have better overall quality than the 2mp shots from the digicam. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 06:13:28 PM · #5 |
| was just using the 2MP pics as an example. I use both film and digi, I relly like film as well, but the re-usability of the mem cards makes digi cheaper by FAR in the long run. Camera's and lenses not entering into it of course. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 07:17:53 PM · #6 |
If 5x7 is your cup of tea, more power to you.
I've never bother to get prints smaller than 8x10. My latest source is winkflash where they are $1.99 plus $0.99 S&H per order. How much are 8x10's of your film shots costing you?
If you choose to shoot in film rather than digital, I respect your choice. But I think you have picked out a tough roe to hoe if you are going to try to convince dpc users that film is better or cheaper than digital.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 07:20:02 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
I've been doing some research regarding the cost of film versus the cost of digital and I made an interesting discovery today which I thought I should share...
Processing for a 36-exposure roll of film, including single 5x7 prints of each exposure, is $7.25 at Clark labs (including shipping).
One 5x7 print created by uploading a digital photo to Clark online costs $1.78 (including shipping).
One Film 5x7: $.20 (including shipping)
One digital 5x7: $1.78 (including shipping)
For the price of one digital 5x7 print, you can get basically 9 film 5x7 prints. Tell me that isn't highway robbery.
Another addition to my many reasons why film is less expensive than digital.
-Nick |
Nick,
While I applaud your decision to go back to film, your cost analysis above makes absolutely no sense. Although I did not sign up on Clark's website to verify your numbers, you are not comparing Apples to Apples.
#1. You took a price for developing and printing a 36 shot roll of film (including shipping) and divided it by 36 to get a per shot price. You did not follow the same method for digital. It appears you took the price for a single digital print (with shipping) and multiplied it by 36 for your per shot digital price. I am sure that if you submitted 36 one shot rolls of film to be developed and printed on separate orders, you would come up with a similar, if not more expensive cost per shot for film.
#2. You did not take into account the cost of the film itself. Shouldn't this cost also be rolled into a per shot cost basis? Film is not re-usable, Digital memory is reusable and the longer you use it, the lower your "per shot" cost becomes. If I wanted to push the matter, I could also say that the cost of film is actually higher than it initially seems since you also have to take into account your time and transportation costs to replenish your film more frequently.
#3. Waste: Every shot you take may be perfectly focused, the right color balance, lighting, composition, etc.. Mine are not. In a roll of 36 shots, I may only have 5-6 that I even want to print. Using your analogy, I would be wasting 30 x .20 on each roll. Or, 7.25 for 6 5x7 pictures =$1.20 per shot.
#4. Creativity: If you want to do something creative with your photos, Let's say, fix some lighting issues, color balance, selective de-saturation, burning, dodging, etc. (I'm sure there are more, but I am no expert) In the film world, you either have to find a lab that understands your vision of the photo and can produce it for you, or buy your own darkroom equipment and setup a darkroom to do this yourself. Even if the costs of setting this up were insignificant, it isn't always practical. A digital darkroom is much easier to achieve for most people. Sure PSCS2 is 600.00, but you can get it cheaper. PS Elements has quite a bit of functionality for 79.00. Pretty achievable for most people. There are other tools available free and for a price, to enhance your creativity. I think this going to be cheaper by far than buying darkroom equipment, setting up a darkroom, buying chemicals, disposing of old chemicals etc. It is also a far more cost effective way of being creative. If I don't like my results in digital, I delete, or better yet, Undo them, and start over. In a real darkroom, you print it and if you don't like it, you throw it away, (more waste) and start over.
I think we can effectively throw cost out the window when it comes to which method is cheaper per shot. Digital wins, hands down.
That said, who the heck really cares about the cost to produce a nice photo? Most of the people here who are using digital cameras are doing so because it gives them several advantages over a film camera:
1. Instant gratification. (Probably the biggest seller) The ability to see right away if someone was blinking, or if the monument shot was in focus. (Chimping?)
2. Convenience. All I have to worry about it having the battery charged up. I don't have to worry about running out of film as often. When was the last time you saw a consumer film camera that could hold a 500 shot roll?
3. Creativity. The ability to have total control over the final output. For me, this is the biggest asset of digital. I control how I want the final picture to look. I can manipulate and make all of the adjustments I need to the photo, then either print it myself, at home, or send the file off to be professionally printed.
There is no question that you have a much higher resolution available on a 35mm film camera than on most if not all Digital cameras. You may have some techniques that work better on a film camera. You may also find better textures, colors, "feel" to a film camera. If you want, and need these things, by all means, use film. Digital photography is for the rest of us, those that enjoy taking photos, may need to take 20 shots of a subject to get one good one. Those of us that want to have full control over final output without having the expense or complexity or space available to have our own darkrooms. I used to spend an average of 4 hours a day, 5 days a week in the darkroom when I was in school. I would be there every spare minute I had. I loved it. There are times when I still miss it. It just isn't practical for me to have darkroom now. I for one am thrilled to use a digital camera. Even if it cost me more per shot, I don't think I would go back to film. It isn't about the cost to me, it is about the FUN. It is about creativity for the average person.
"Steps off soapbox"
I don't mean to offend anyone, I just think the film vs. digital is like the Nikon vs. Canon, or the PC vs. MAC debate. They each have their benefits and disadvantages. People have to make up their own minds what is most important to them and choose accordingly. Digital is my camera of choice. My film cameras are sitting on a shelf in my closet and will probably remain there until I sell them or turn them into a wind chime. And just in case you couldn't tell, I'm also a Nikon owner with a PC. Thats just the way the cards fell in my case, If I had been born 2 days later, it might have been film with a MAC.
"Steps away from the platform and runs for cover!"
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 07:26:12 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
..If you choose to shoot in film rather than digital, I respect your choice. But I think you have picked out a tough roe to hoe if you are going to try to convince dpc users that film is better or cheaper than digital. |
Well said! Trolling is a pastime for some people...
Message edited by author 2005-05-17 19:36:55. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 07:36:36 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by 2Shay:
.There is no question that you have a much higher resolution available on a 35mm film camera than on most if not all Digital cameras. |
Absolutely not true. Digital has surpassed 35mm film way back in 2000 with the Canon EOS D30and now with the Canon 1Ds II medium format film has been surpassed. That's an old myth that Digital is worse than film. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 07:39:26 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Processing for a 36-exposure roll of film, including single 5x7 prints of each exposure, is $7.25 at Clark labs (including shipping).
One 5x7 print created by uploading a digital photo to Clark online costs $1.78 (including shipping).
One Film 5x7: $.20 (including shipping)
One digital 5x7: $1.78 (including shipping)
|
Lets redo that BS math
36 Film 5x7: $7.25 + $1.75 (cost of film) = $9
Assuming 25% success: 9 good prints
Per Print: $9/9 = $1.00
9 Digital 5x7 = 9x0.79 + $1.5 (shipping) = $8.6
Per print: $8.6/9 = $0.95
I dont see any highway robbery.
Of course, you might get 100% success with your film photography, and get a $0.25 cost per print. My success rate is more like 15%, as I take atleast 5-6 shots of the same subject, with varying exposure/DoF
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 07:52:54 PM · #11 |
I'm not sure to what end, but you've played pretty loose with the math. I checked out the Clark Color Labs pricing page and found out the following:
First, your price for a digital print, you include the price of one print, $.79, plus the price of shipping for 1-5 prints, $.99. The price of shipping gets lower as the volume goes up. So to order 36 5x7 prints would actually be 36 x .79 = $28.44, plus $2.26 shipping, for a total of $30.70. That price can be further reduced by purchasing in bulk: 50 prints for $27.50, or $.55/print. That brings the price for 36 prints, with shipping, down to $22.06.
Then, on the price of developing and printing your 36 film prints, you neglected to add shipping - $1.30, making your total cost $8.55.
So total per print cost in this case is $.61 for digital vs. $.24 for film. Certainly still an advantage.
Except, of course, as was already pointed out - there is the cost of film. I haven't bought film in a while, so just going by Clark's cost for a 36 exposure roll of 200 film, that would add $3.50 to the film cost. So now you're looking at $12.05 for 36 film prints, or $.35. So now we're at less than a 2 to 1 price advantage.
Ah, but to find out which ones of those film exposures were keepers, and which were out of focus, under/over exposed, just plain not as interesting as they looked at the time, etc., you have to pay for the entire 36 exposures. Sure, maybe you were more careful when shooting and got more keepers, but I doubt that, all else being equal (assuming all the variables were the same, and discarding the general question of whether film is intrinsically better than digital), that for any 36 exposures you would ever take, given the option of previewing the results first, you would print out all 36. Or even 20. Maybe not even 10. But with film, you've got to pay to play.
And then there's reprints. 5x7 negative reprints are $1.00 each ($.75 if purchasing 5 or more). Black and white are $1.50 (with no quantity breaks).
I hope Grandma never wants a copy. :)
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:04:11 PM · #12 |
| A small point that I don't think has been brought up but when I shot film it seemed I always had about 4 or 5 shots left before the roll was done. A desire to see what I originally was shooting I would 'waste' shots to complete the roll. This always guaranteed me some bad shots. Digital is done when you want. ISO can be changed on the fly with digital, no extra bodies or manually changing your rolls in the middle to get ISO changes. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:20:31 PM · #13 |
| I actually used to be a Clark user back in my film days but something terrible happened to Clark and their quality of paper and color balance now is for the birds. Personally I don't use them anymore. I have some friends and family that feel the same. Just my 2cents. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:43:05 PM · #14 |
Film is cooler than digital. That's all I have left to say. Thanks you guys for the other analyses of the Clark pricing. Helpful and more realistic than my trolling. :) Ten years from now our film cameras will still produce great prints. Ten years from now, the latest digital camera will look like a disposable from the supermarket.
-Nick
Message edited by author 2005-05-17 20:48:54. |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:50:38 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Film is cooler than digital. That's all I have left to say. Ten years from now our film cameras will still produce great prints. Ten years from now, the latest digital camera will look like a disposable from the supermarket. |
Why are you here?
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:53:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
Originally posted by nfessel:
Film is cooler than digital. That's all I have left to say. Ten years from now our film cameras will still produce great prints. Ten years from now, the latest digital camera will look like a disposable from the supermarket. |
Why are you here? |
Because I love photography and there are some great resources here at DPC. The people here have a lot of knowledge and I try to impart my knowledge to people who need it as well. I just learned the difference between an incident meter and a flash meter the other day thanks to DPC.
-Nick |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:54:30 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Because I love photography and there are some great resources here at DPC. |
Then best not to bite the hand that feeds you.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:55:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
Film is cooler than digital. That's all I have left to say. Thanks you guys for the other analyses of the Clark pricing. Helpful and more realistic than my trolling. :) Ten years from now our film cameras will still produce great prints. Ten years from now, the latest digital camera will look like a disposable from the supermarket.
-Nick |
Ten years from now you will have a hard time finding film for your 35mm; and it will cost you plenty.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 08:56:05 PM · #19 |
| unfortunately I gotta agree with ahaze, I mean this IS Digital photo challenge right? personally I love my film camera, it's not the greatest, but it's what I want. I ALSO LOVE my digicam. But this is a website devoted to digital photography, so if all you do is complain about the supposed disadvantages of digital, what purpose do you have for being here? Opinions are one thing, but simply dissing digital photography can hardly be considered constructive.... ok, I'm done.... |
|
|
|
05/17/2005 09:02:36 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Jewellian:
unfortunately I gotta agree with ahaze |
There's nothing unfortunate about that :)
|
|
|
|
05/17/2005 09:04:02 PM · #21 |
| it's just that I hate griping about other people, it's unfortunate that this had to be said.... I think that's what I meant.... :) |
|
|
|
05/18/2005 08:42:16 PM · #22 |
My Nikon D1H was recently serviced and it came back with a report that the shutter has fired off 54,000 frames..... Do the math on that figure and calculate just the cost of puchasing that amount of film (without the processing costs) and you will buckle at the knees. I am still using the original Kingston 512Mb compact flash card that I bought with the camera, cost $99.
Message edited by author 2005-05-18 20:44:48. |
|
|
|
05/18/2005 08:46:00 PM · #23 |
| My 12000 clicks with my Rebel would cost me $2000 worth of film :-) |
|
|
|
05/18/2005 09:01:45 PM · #24 |
| I'm more interested in how many time you'd have to be dumping the contents of that 512MB card after 54,000 frames...... *head spins* |
|
|
|
05/18/2005 09:05:00 PM · #25 |
Wal-mart 4x6 prints... $0.29 each...
*shrug*
"Ten years from now our film cameras will still produce great prints. Ten years from now, the latest digital camera will look like a disposable from the supermarket."
Sorry, I love film. But 10 yrs from now buying film will be like buying audio cassettes. Sure, you'll be able to do it. But only at a few select locations - worse...used film won't do you any good.
And guess what...a Canon 1Ds Mark II already gets better photos NOW than most film cameras do. So in 10 yrs...that 1Ds could still be taking great pictures. But yes, you are absolutely right. The POINT & SHOOT digitals might take even better ones by then. I've hypothesized that as ISO sensitivity and noise levels continue to drop - that within 10 - 20 yrs many cameras will not even need a flash.
35mm film...will be far surpassed in quality.
-------------------------------------------------------
#1 advantage of digital over film (and it's usually over-looked in these debates)
"archivability"
It is much easier to archive digital prints for later re-production.
a) digital archive will not degrade and can be perfectly replicated to new and safer storage
b) digital archive can be stored in multiple locations (unlike negatives...one fire ALL GONE)
c) prints re-produced from a digital archive look as good in 40 yrs as the day they were taken (possibly better). Negatives will not...
-------------------------------------------------------
nfessel - you seem very jaded. I am sorry that digital was not for you. I am sorry that you will not have a choice in 10-20 yrs. And if you think you will. I would like to ask you "just how many photoshops still develop and print true B&W film?" as compared to a couple decades ago? |
|
