| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/01/2004 10:24:46 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
So no - digital cameras don't make you a bad photographer. Being a bad photographer makes you a bad photographer. |
Many excellent points, but I think I'd rephrase this last one as "Bad photographic practices make you a bad photographer."
Digital also makes possible a lot of opportunistic shots I'd never try if I had to pay for film to see how it comes out. I archive every frame, so my per-frame storage costs run somewhat higher, but I still figure it at about 1-10 cents each. With film I think it would be between $0.50-1.00.
When I took the shot I used for Newspaper, I was at a stoplight, reachng across the car to shoot obliquely rearwards out the passenger-side window. I certainly had an idea of what I wanted the composition to look like, but even with a low level of reliability it would come out that way, it was worth pushing the shutter. As it was, I got the shot level, the major subject in the frame, and decent exposure and focus under the prevailing conditions. I could never afford that kind of experimentation with film. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 10:27:09 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by BikeRacer:
Does the ease of taking hundreds or thousands of shots per day lower your quality per shot in a measurable way? |
Digital has made me lazy, but has improved my overall results, because I can take so many shots. The beauty is in the "odds." |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 10:34:18 AM · #28 |
As a complete novice, who previously used film in a little Samsung Maxima Zoom 105 XL, and I think the previous film camera was a Kodak Disc, I have to say that being able to take digital pictures has really allowed me to afford the opportunity to experiment. Before, with just the film, I knew I only had a certain amount of shots in the camera. I had to get whatever I was aiming to get in one or two shots. Now, and especially since joining here and participating in the challenges and such, I know that I can take 200-300 shots at a time while looking for the right angle, the right DOF, the right exposure, etc. I know I don't get it right all the time, and I know I won't be quitting my day job to do this, but I love the flexibility and the inexpensive nature of the beast. I can really try to get something special, even if it is my children, a cat, a flower, a frog, or what-have-you, and know that I can always shoot more and not worry about expense or time.
I hope that made sense...I'm rambling here! LOL ;o)
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 10:39:35 AM · #29 |
The reason I take so many shots is I have kids. It takes more than one shot to get a good picture of them. They are just snapshots, but I still like them to be well taken.
If I am out taking pictures of a flower or sunset, I will only take maybe 10 shots and call it good. And in those 10 shots I will try different lighting, composition, and mess with my settings. Pretty much just expermenting with the different results I can achieve.
I couldn't imagine having a film. I would be broke. yah I think I could get a good shot, but it wouldn't be as fun.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 10:44:10 AM · #30 |
Just from own experience :
With film I only took one or two shots of a subject and many were not good at all.
When I started with digital I often took 20 to 30 shots of a subject and found my best ones were at the end of a series, each time improving on the previous image.
Now I find more and more my best shots are at the beginning of the series, often within the first 3 shots.
Therefore I think digital has helped me to become a better photographer.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 10:54:40 AM · #31 |
I keep hearing this idea that with film people would shoot less - because it was so expensive.
Yet you've spent likely more on a digital camera than you ever would spend on film....
I think it really is a personality thing - you could be as good shooting film, you'd just have to take more shots. There isn't anything about digital that makes it actually cheaper - it is just a perception because you've already paid for them.
Film cameras should be sold for $500, with a 1000 rolls of film...
The instant feedback and opportunity to learn more quickly, with the meta data, in a tight feedback loop is fantastic with digital though - in fact I believe it can make you a much better photographer, much more quickly, if you are prepared to learn from the results and willing to study the failures.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:01:08 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I keep hearing this idea that with film people would shoot less - because it was so expensive.
Yet you've spent likely more on a digital camera than you ever would spend on film....
I think it really is a personality thing - you could be as good shooting film, you'd just have to take more shots. There isn't anything about digital that makes it actually cheaper - it is just a perception because you've already paid for them.
Film cameras should be sold for $500, with a 1000 rolls of film...
The instant feedback and opportunity to learn more quickly, with the meta data, in a tight feedback loop is fantastic with digital though - in fact I believe it can make you a much better photographer, much more quickly, if you are prepared to learn from the results and willing to study the failures. |
got click happy there :D
I've shot about 2500 images with my rebel and so far. That works out to be about 70 rolls of 36 exposure. approx $4 per roll x 70=$280.00
plus single 4x6 prints developed, about $10 per roll x 70=$700.00
Total $980.00
I think I would disagree, given other expenditures it will take longer to really make up the cost difference but I believe that digital is cheaper.
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 11:07:39. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:06:09 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I keep hearing this idea that with film people would shoot less - because it was so expensive.
Yet you've spent likely more on a digital camera than you ever would spend on film.... |
Not true for me, even including some 16x20 and 20x30 prints. In four years, I've bought the camera, card-reader, a couple of 64mb cards, Archos 20gb Jukebox (also my backup drive and MP3 and movie player), and 1-200 CDs. All the prints are "good" under these circumstances.
For the number of photos I've shot in that time, I'm pretty sure film costs would have been in the thousands, not hundreds. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:17:10 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by superdave_909:
got click happy there :D
I've shot about 2500 images with my rebel and so far. That works out to be about 70 rolls of 36 exposure. approx $4 per roll x 70=$280.00
plus single 4x6 prints developed, about $10 per roll x 70=$700.00
Total $980.00
I think I would disagree, given other expenditures it will take longer to really make up the cost difference but I believe that digital is cheaper. |
I'm assuming you haven't printed every digital shot you take, nor would you print every film shot you get developed. Film is dirt cheap in bulk, certainly nothing like $4 for 36 exposures - that's probably the total cost of the film+ developing. I'd argue that 2500 frames is more like $300 on film.
It works out roughly the same, particularly given the rate most people seem to be upgrading their cameras, GenE obviously excluded as ever.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:21:13 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm assuming you haven't printed every digital shot you take, nor would you print every film shot you get developed. Film is dirt cheap in bulk, certainly nothing like $4 for 36 exposures - that's probably the total cost of the film+ developing. I'd argue that 2500 frames is more like $300 on film.
It works out roughly the same, particularly given the rate most people seem to be upgrading their cameras, GenE obviously excluded as ever. |
That's true, I don't print everyshot. If I did I would agree with you. But then even still with digital you won't print the one with camera shake because joe blow next to bumps your elbow as you take the picture. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:21:25 AM · #36 |
The medium doesn't make you lazy.. you allow yourself to BECOME lazy.
I shoot,, most of the time,,, to fill the frame,, I try and compose in camera, just like I did with film. I use the histogram feature on 1 or 2 test shots, if possible, to check exposure.
As with most technology,, the tool is only as good as the one using it. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:25:54 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm assuming you haven't printed every digital shot you take, nor would you print every film shot you get developed. Film is dirt cheap in bulk, certainly nothing like $4 for 36 exposures - that's probably the total cost of the film+ developing. I'd argue that 2500 frames is more like $300 on film.
It works out roughly the same, particularly given the rate most people seem to be upgrading their cameras, GenE obviously excluded as ever. |
I am inexperienced when it comes to dealing with film in any other way than dropping it off and getting prints back, but these numbers still sound fantastic to me.
2500 frames @ $300 would be roughly $0.70 per 36 exposure roll, undeveloped. Where on earth is film that cheap?
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 11:26:20. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:25:59 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by superdave_909:
That's true, I don't print everyshot. If I did I would agree with you. But then even still with digital you won't print the one with camera shake because joe blow next to bumps your elbow as you take the picture. |
Urm - but you assumed you'd print them all in your original calculation - that's what I'm disagreeing with - you basically doubled the costs by assuming you'd get a 4x6 print of everything you shot on film.
In bulk, film costs are about $2 for 36 exposures for colour professional film - more than half that if you wanted to shoot B&W - then just print what you want to print. It works out remarkably close to the cost of a digital system over a year or two - least I've found that with my last two digital cameras, shooting over 40,000 frames - digital costs me about 10c per frame, and film costs about that too - the obvious difference being that film cost goes up the more I shoot and the digital cost goes down the more I shoot.
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 11:27:32.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 11:44:31 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm assuming you haven't printed every digital shot you take, nor would you print every film shot you get developed. Film is dirt cheap in bulk, certainly nothing like $4 for 36 exposures - that's probably the total cost of the film+ developing. I'd argue that 2500 frames is more like $300 on film.
It works out roughly the same, particularly given the rate most people seem to be upgrading their cameras, GenE obviously excluded as ever. |
I am inexperienced when it comes to dealing with film in any other way than dropping it off and getting prints back, but these numbers still sound fantastic to me.
2500 frames @ $300 would be roughly $0.70 per 36 exposure roll, undeveloped. Where on earth is film that cheap? |
Assuming you are shooting to learn - so you could use cheap film for the most part - black and white film works out at about $1 in bulk for 36 exposures, if you load your own. $20 for a 100' roll(Roughly 18 36exposure rolls) . Colour film is closer to $2 for 36 exposures.
You can develop your own, or get developing done at a decent lab - certainly for a lot less than $10 per roll (you don't need to get prints made of every exposure after all - you don't do that with digital either)
Its an approximate thing - but by the time you throw in the cost of rechargeable batteries, compact flash cards, computer upgrades, new hard drives, DVD storage, new camera every couple of years etc - it is a relatively close run thing.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:00:32 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm assuming you haven't printed every digital shot you take, nor would you print every film shot you get developed. Film is dirt cheap in bulk, certainly nothing like $4 for 36 exposures - that's probably the total cost of the film+ developing. I'd argue that 2500 frames is more like $300 on film.
It works out roughly the same, particularly given the rate most people seem to be upgrading their cameras, GenE obviously excluded as ever. |
I am inexperienced when it comes to dealing with film in any other way than dropping it off and getting prints back, but these numbers still sound fantastic to me.
2500 frames @ $300 would be roughly $0.70 per 36 exposure roll, undeveloped. Where on earth is film that cheap? |
Assuming you are shooting to learn - so you could use cheap film for the most part - black and white film works out at about $1 in bulk for 36 exposures, if you load your own. $20 for a 100' roll(Roughly 18 36exposure rolls) . Colour film is closer to $2 for 36 exposures.
You can develop your own, or get developing done at a decent lab - certainly for a lot less than $10 per roll (you don't need to get prints made of every exposure after all - you don't do that with digital either)
Its an approximate thing - but by the time you throw in the cost of rechargeable batteries, compact flash cards, computer upgrades, new hard drives, DVD storage, new camera every couple of years etc - it is a relatively close run thing. |
That still looks like comparing apples to oranges to me, and it still feels like a lot of waste. In order to be cost effective you would need to roll your own film cannisters (no thanks - I am still trying to decide if cutting my own mats is such a hot idea), probably do your own developing, and then once this is all done you are still left with the task of converting these negatives into something worth looking at for the purposes of analyzing your results. I would think this would mean a negative scanner, which brings back in another cost factor (for a good one) and even more time spent waiting for the results.
For a lot of people the computer issue is not there either - I am upgrading or replacing my PCs every so often for reasons unrelated to photography - it would happen anyway.
I am not saying that film is more expensive than digital in the long run - but I am saying I think this looks like a very underestimated dollar figure to me.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:11:57 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Urm - but you assumed you'd print them all in your original calculation - that's what I'm disagreeing with - you basically doubled the costs by assuming you'd get a 4x6 print of everything you shot on film.
In bulk, film costs are about $2 for 36 exposures for colour professional film - more than half that if you wanted to shoot B&W - then just print what you want to print. It works out remarkably close to the cost of a digital system over a year or two - least I've found that with my last two digital cameras, shooting over 40,000 frames - digital costs me about 10c per frame, and film costs about that too - the obvious difference being that film cost goes up the more I shoot and the digital cost goes down the more I shoot. |
I'll take you word for the savings of using bulk. I don't buy bulk
because I don't have the equipment to load it. So I buy a 36 exp roll, as I would bet most do. This drives the cost up. Also I, like I'm sure most people, do not develope my own film. (mostly cuz I don't trust myself) That again drives cost up. And even if I did, I would still want to look at a positve image to compare images not negatives, so I would have to print most of them. Although you could pick out the pic where joe blow bumped you and not print it :)
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 12:14:11. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:14:15 PM · #42 |
Actually though, if you wanted to shoot film and learn - slide film is the way to go. You'll actually have to learn exposure properly - (something that many seem to avoid with digital - thinking that levels and curves in photoshop, or RAW capture can compensate for a crap exposure - it doesn't) and you can just view them on a light table - which is a great way to look at a good exposure - or project them.
Thinking about it - I think dependency on photoshop makes many people bad photographers, rather than digital cameras making them bad photographers. I know it took me a year or two to stop saving pictures and start trying to get them right in the first place - its amazing how much better a photo can look when you don't start with a terrible exposure or composition and try to save it with adjustments or cropping or cloning. GIGO as ever.
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 12:14:45.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:15:57 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
I am not saying that film is more expensive than digital in the long run - but I am saying I think this looks like a very underestimated dollar figure to me. |
Absolutely - I pulled it totally out of the air. but as the digital figures are being very underestimated - why not ? :) Point is - there is a break even point somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 shots per year where digital is actually more expensive per frame than film. I'd ignore printing costs in either case as I only bother to print the good shots - film or digital and my printing/framing costs work out at about $300-$400 for a good final image - so either film or digital per frame costs fade in to nothing in comparision anyway.
Message edited by author 2004-07-01 12:17:52.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:16:54 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Actually though, if you wanted to shoot film and learn - slide film is the way to go. You'll actually have to learn exposure properly - (something that many seem to avoid with digital - thinking that levels and curves in photoshop, or RAW capture can compensate for a crap exposure - it doesn't) and you can just view them on a light table - which is a great way to look at a good exposure - or project them.
Thinking about it - I think dependency on photoshop makes many people bad photographers, rather than digital cameras making them bad photographers. I know it took me a year or two to stop saving pictures and start trying to get them right in the first place - its amazing how much better a photo can look when you don't start with a terrible exposure or composition and try to save it with adjustments or cropping or cloning. GIGO as ever. |
Now this, I completely agree with!
I kinda like not being good with photoshop, it makes continue
to work to get better with my camera! |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:17:10 PM · #45 |
Now, slide film is a whole different story. I have been wanting to break out my Elan and shoot some slide for some time now. I was at a few wildlife seminars recently and the colors and sharpness were just awesome in the stuff that they displayed. I just need to find the time...
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:18:34 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by richterrell:
I am not saying that film is more expensive than digital in the long run - but I am saying I think this looks like a very underestimated dollar figure to me. |
Absolutely - I pulled it totally out of the air. but as the digital figures are being very underestimated - why not ? :) |
Yeah, I hear you - in actuality, everything is a fortune because I shoot film and digital both, so the debate becomes moot for me at a personal level and I am usually left broke in the process :-)
|
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:24:36 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Absolutely - I pulled it totally out of the air. but as the digital figures are being very underestimated - why not ? :) Point is - there is a break even point somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 shots per year where digital is actually more expensive per frame than film. I'd ignore printing costs in either case as I only bother to print the good shots - film or digital and my printing/framing costs work out at about $300-$400 for a good final image - so either film or digital per frame costs fade in to nothing in comparision anyway. |
Ok,..., good point! I think I'm on the same page now. |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 12:30:12 PM · #48 |
I think it makes me a better photographer. When I used to shoot film, I would always forget what settings I used on a great photo and not be able to replicate it.
Now, with Digital, I can see all my settings in the exif and learn from my mistakes and accomplishments. And the more photos I take, the better I get... practice makes perfect, right?
Not to mention being able to enter challenges on DPC and get critiques... that also makes me a better photographer! Yay for Digital! :) PS. I do have a digital SLR though (so I may have an advantage over some) |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 03:44:51 PM · #49 |
For me, and I assume for most people here, I will always spend a lot of money on the things I enjoy, like photography. What I don't like, however, is the inconvenience of the pay-as-you-go process of film photography. I often don't have the money on hand to pay for film and developing at the times I am shooting. Vacations are a perfect example. With digital it is extremely nice not to have to worry about paying anything to shoot when you are already paying a ton of money already for the vacation. I have certainly spent a lot of money on my digital photography but having a choice of when I spend that money makes all the difference. Usually the real high costs involved in digital photography result from users wanting to upgrade their equipment quite often. So it is clear that a great deal of these costs are from want and not neccessarily need. This leads me back to my orginal thought about the amount of money we are all willing to spend on the things we enjoy.
T |
|
|
|
07/01/2004 03:48:56 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by timj351:
For me, and I assume for most people here, I will always spend a lot of money on the things I enjoy, like photography. What I don't like, however, is the inconvenience of the pay-as-you-go process of film photography. I often don't have the money on hand to pay for film and developing at the times I am shooting. Vacations are a perfect example. With digital it is extremely nice not to have to worry about paying anything to shoot when you are already paying a ton of money already for the vacation. I have certainly spent a lot of money on my digital photography but having a choice of when I spend that money makes all the difference. Usually the real high costs involved in digital photography result from users wanting to upgrade their equipment quite often. So it is clear that a great deal of these costs are from want and not neccessarily need. This leads me back to my orginal thought about the amount of money we are all willing to spend on the things we enjoy.
T |
Certainly for most people here - that's probably because it is a digital photography site :)
I've heard it described as digital being good for people who like to pay all at once, and film being good for those who want to pay a little amount all the time.
|
|
