The Digital Trap (A Rant)

[20droger]

The manufacturers of digital camera tout very highly the fact that there is no film cost, hence digital is cheaper. Once the camera cost is compensated for, the images are free!

BUNK!!!!

A digital body costs well over $1000, where an equivalent film body only a few hundred dollars. But, as they say, the difference in body price is quickly offset by the cost of film and processing. I'll grant that this is true. But only in theory!

Digital is much easier than film, so other factors apply.

When on a casual outing, such as last weekend's trip to Bosque del Apache in New Mexico, we took well over twelve-hundred pictures. If we had been using film, we would have taken a dozen rolls or so at best. That's approximately a 3:1 difference.

Assume that in a given shoot about 20% of the shots are worth printing. With digital, we would be (and are) printing about 220-250 pictures. If we had used film (Ektachrome), I would be exposing and developing about 80-90 Cibachrome prints.

The cost of developing the Ektachrome slides and producing the Cibachrome prints in-house would be less (considerably less) than the ink and paper to make the digital prints.

These "free" electronic images are bankrupting me!

[Tony-S]

I'm certain that, accounting for inflation, the cost of my Canon A-1 was substantially higher than the cost of my 30D, and the 30D has many more features. The principal expense for digital seems to be ink, computer, and additional hard drive space.

Whether the costs are less using digital, I cannot say, but value-wise it seems that you get more for your money, particularly when you consider how much easier "dodging and burning" are wiith post processing. Pluse, once you have the image as you want, you can reproduce it exactly on the printer as many times as you like. Time is money.

[scrane]

Wow!
What do you do with 250 prints?

[René Damkot]

I had my 10D 'payed back' in 1 year, solely based on the savings in film and processing...
I don't print more images nowadays, but the ones I print are better.

[RikWriter]

I print out very very few of the images I shoot. I no longer print out 4x6s to put in photo albums---my photo album is my computer. If I want to share shots with friends or relatives I put them online or on a CD or DVD. So digital saves me a buttload of money in that way, although since I have gotten into photography as a serious hobby, I have spent much more on a 5D than I would have for a serious film camera.

[gryphonslair99]

The manufacturers of digital camera tout very highly the fact that there is no film cost, hence digital is cheaper. Once the camera cost is compensated for, the images are free!

BUNK!!!!Since you went ditigal what film costs have you incured? They are right about this one. I have yet to see an ad from any major camera manufacture that states that the images are free. That is a preception we develop and has been passed on by sales people for businesses.

A digital body costs well over $1000, where an equivalent film body only a few hundred dollars. But, as they say, the difference in body price is quickly offset by the cost of film and processing. I'll grant that this is true. But only in theory!In 1970 the cost of a Nikon F2 body was easily the equivelent of a $1000. The cost of that body was almost three times the monthly payment for my parents 1500 square foot ranch house. It cost $19,500 and they bought it three years after it was built from a Doctors family. That same house would now sell for a minimum of $210,000. My father was a CPA making $14,000 a year. A good salery back then. They now take as much out of my check for taxes each month as his gross monthly paycheck was back then.

Digital is much easier than film, so other factors apply.The same fundimentals apply to digital as to film when taking a photograph. If you are well grounded in the basics and have good techniqure film is no tougher than digital. The post process is more cost effective but not necessarly easier.

When on a casual outing, such as last weekend's trip to Bosque del Apache in New Mexico, we took well over twelve-hundred pictures. If we had been using film, we would have taken a dozen rolls or so at best. That's approximately a 3:1 difference.When it comes to shooting digital or film, the amount of photos you take should not a product of the format. Take the time to take the photograph you want the first time just as if it was film. The fact that there is not developing cost is no excuse for poor technique.

Assume that in a given shoot about 20% of the shots are worth printing. With digital, we would be (and are) printing about 220-250 pictures. If we had used film (Ektachrome), I would be exposing and developing about 80-90 Cibachrome prints. Why would you be printing that many photos? Do you have a gallery showing? If you are using a digital camera why are you not embracing the value of digital? Print what you NEED. Store and show the rest in a digital format on a computer or TV. In 30 plus years of shooting film I developed my own most of the time. I only printed the photos I needed/wanted, not every photo I shot.

The cost of developing the Ektachrome slides and producing the Cibachrome prints in-house would be less (considerably less) than the ink and paper to make the digital prints.
Again, why are you printing that much? As with anything else, self control is a must. Print what you need. Save all the images. The file cabines, negative sleves, storage envelopes, I have full of negatives were expensive at the time. I could have bought hundreds if not thousands of cd's/dvd's for storage for the same money.

These "free" electronic images are bankrupting me!


"Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure."
Errol Flynn.

[boclcown]

225-250 prints per outing? That is rediculous. Beyond rediculous. Absolutely stupid. What could you possibly, possibly need that many prints for? What is wrong with keeping all of the "better" pics in a folder and having that be your "good picture" folder. Ever heard of Flickr? Photobucket? Myspace?

Anyways, digital cameras were not made to simply be cheaper alternatives to film. They are much, much, much more complicated pieces of equipment. Though film may be of better quality (though now a days, that is hardly the case), it has no real advantages to digital on a technical standpoint. Digital cameras are just plain better and therefore justifiably more expensive.

[EcoRick]

The fact that I can change my ISO settings without having multiple bodies pays for itself.

[Tony-S]

225-250 prints per outing? That is rediculous. Beyond rediculous. Absolutely stupid.

It's really inapproriate to use such language. Hopefully, you'll edit or delete your post.

[bieber]

It's really inapproriate to use such language. Hopefully, you'll edit or delete your post.

You are joking, right?

[RikWriter]

It's really inapproriate to use such language. Hopefully, you'll edit or delete your post.

You can't be serious.

[Tony-S]

No, not joking, and yes, serious. Perhaps I should have focussed it to the "Absolutely stupid" part.

[Bob_A]

I have to strongly agree with the original post that for me (YMMV) digital is WAY more expensive than film. If I were a pro or semi-pro I would say the opposite ... but I'm not.

I didn't buy an SLR or a DSLR to view prints on a computer monitor. For me, images are for printing ... passing around the kitchen table, putting them in albums, hanging them on walls or my fridge. My Smugmug account is simply a better way to share my images with family and friends along with providing additional back-up ... it certainly doesn't replace the printed images for me.

My 20D is two years old. It gets a lot of use, but strangely it only has a bit over 6000 actuations. Why? Because I shoot like I did when I shot film and try to get the exposure right before capturing the image. I even use a light meter and dabble at using the zone system. Yes, I'm an old curmudgeon :)

With the above, and like many here, I also like new toys and technology. Given this I will be enticed to upgrade every couple of years, where with film I only replaced a body once to go from a fully manual OM-1 that I used for over 20 years to an Elan II that I still have, but now rarely use. Before my OM-1 I used cheap Kodaks or a hand-me-down Ricoh that had been in my family for years.

Even my darkroom equipment is 30-35 years old and still works perfectly, where I can now expect to replace photo printers every 4 years or so.

So, for me, digital is more expensive. But I don't care ... I like it anyway.

[Eagle]

Wow!
What do you do with 250 prints?

I haven't printed this many since I went all digital about two years ago.

I print out very very few of the images I shoot. I no longer print out 4x6s to put in photo albums---my photo album is my computer. If I want to share shots with friends or relatives I put them online or on a CD or DVD.

Same for me.

[Lord_Malone]

Film is dead? :shock:

[condyk]

I bought a nice photo printer and have printed 3 shots in 6 months. They are nice, but they are lying on a desk under a pile of papers somewhere. I shoot and view digitally. I also shoot lean and junk the rubbish so I don't have to waste money on huge HD's. It can be expensive but so can any hobby. It can also be pretty cheap. Depends on you. Film is dead ... I agree!

[Halliday]

...These "free" electronic images are bankrupting me!

Easy. Shoot less.

[Bob_A]

Film is dead? :shock:

Film will die when it doesn't make enough profit for the industry that manufactures it. It will have nothing to do with it being a better/worse medium or with it being a better/worse value than digital.

[CRE@TE]

I don't need no stinkin' digtal or film cameras. I've got a photographic memory.


J/K

:) :D ;) :p :rolleyes: :lol: :o :evil:

Cost isn't the biggest factor for me. Not that I have a lot of money. It's the fun factor for me.

Digital is a real joy.

[Bob_A]

I bought a nice photo printer and have printed 3 shots in 6 months. They are nice, but they are lying on a desk under a pile of papers somewhere. I shoot and view digitally. I also shoot lean and junk the rubbish so I don't have to waste money on huge HD's. It can be expensive but so can any hobby. It can also be pretty cheap. Depends on you. Film is dead ... I agree!

Dave, since you shoot and view digitally, why would the IQ of a lens be important for you? Also, wouldn't a 3 or 4 MP suffice?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start an argument, because I agree with a lot that you say on this forum. I also don't print everything, and a lot of what I do print is 4x6 proofs ... which also don't show off the capabilities of my equipment. Yearly I print several hundred 4x6's, a few dozen 5x7's, a couple of 8x10's and maybe 1 or 2 16x20's.

[Wilt]

Let's do some quick analysis...Assume you shot 100 photos in a day. Just using prices based upon ads in the Sunday newspaper, that is about $7 in film and $25 in processing cost (SF Bay area chain drugstore photoprocessing). $32.
Let us also assume $300 film SLR vs. $1300 dSLR...$1000 differential to be offset. That is only 31 days of shooting 100 photos a day! OK, so we have prints vs. no-prints in that analysis. So I would end up spending $19 per day to print all of my digital photos at the same drugstore...differential is $13. So in 77 days of shooting 100 photos and getting prints of all photos, the film+processing costs have equalled the dSLR cost of higher initial investment. Any more shooting that that, and digital is less expensive.

"Wait", you say, "I am not printing every photo"... in the case of film, you would be printing every color neg simply to see if a photo is worth enlarging or not. Or "shooting color slide, I don't have printing cost", but there is the greater processing cost per roll, plus the higher expense per roll of slide film. Yes, you can do color slide processing yourself, but the theoretical savings is lost when you do not process the full number of rolls of film before the color developer has oxidized and depleted itself and you go out to buy another color processing chemistry kit.

[condyk]

Well that is a very fine question sir ... and I don't know the answer. What I do know is that the shots taken with my 3-4mp P&S are not good enough, even tho' the compositions are just as good/bad as from my DSLR, and it is also totally clear that shots from a decent lens looks better than a mediocre lens on my monitor. I'm not really a techie, sorry! Also, I may print something one day. Who knows ;-)

[Bob_A]

Let's do some quick analysis...Assume you shot 100 photos in a day. Just using prices based upon ads in the Sunday newspaper, that is about $7 in film and $25 in processing cost (SF Bay area chain drugstore photoprocessing). $32.
Let us also assume $300 film SLR vs. $1300 dSLR...$1000 differential to be offset. That is only 31 days of shooting 100 photos a day! OK, so we have prints vs. no-prints in that analysis. So I would end up spending $19 per day to print all of my digital photos at the same drugstore...differential is $13. So in 77 days of shooting 100 photos and getting prints of all photos, the film+processing costs have equalled the dSLR cost of higher initial investment. Any more shooting that that, and digital is less expensive.

But Wilt, the point is that most of the amateurs that came from film didn't shoot anywhere close to 100 images per day. Most would be shooting maybe 100 images a month. For that group film is much, much cheaper, especially when you throw into the mix that a lot replace bodies every two years to get the latest and greatest.

When I first got my 20D I was shooting 1000 images per month because of the novelty. Now I shoot about the same as I did using film.

I shoot digital even though it is more expensive for the instant feedback, better control over the final product, and because I like techno-toys.

[JimAskew]

To me one of the real advantages of digital is that you get to see what you have captured before going to the expense of printing. With the last wedding I shot I ended up with 800+ shots, 200+ were keepers (as selected by the bride and her mom), and then we made 40 prints (4x6), 8 prints (5x7), and 2 prints (8x10). The bride's mom had one made into a poster and we went to www.mpix.com (http://www.mpix.com) for that. Except for the poster print I did them all on my Epson R800 using matte paper.

[Wilt]

But Wilt, the point is that most of the amateurs that came from film didn't shoot anywhere close to 100 images per day. Most would be shooting maybe 100 images a month. For that group film is much, much cheaper, especially when you throw into the mix that a lot replace bodies every two years to get the latest and greatest.

When I first got my 20D I was shooting 1000 images per month because of the novelty. Now I shoot about the same as I did using film.

I shoot digital even though it is more expensive for the instant feedback, better control over the final product, and because I like techno-toys.

I won't argue that point. It is very valid! On the other hand, such a person probably is well served with a $300 digital P&S rather than a $1300 dSLR! Spending $1300 on a dSLR is just as 'wasteful' as spending $1300 on a pro quality SLR for 35mm film, after all, if you are merely going to be a snapshooter.

Certainly I myself would find it very hard to justify a $2700 FF dSLR simply as a snapshooting device....20% depreciation on a $2700 is greater than 20% depreciation on a $1300 dSLR, and given the same number of photos taken on both, the cost per photo is doubled!

[Bob_A]

Well that is a very fine question sir ... and I don't know the answer. What I do know is that the shots taken with my 3-4mp P&S are not good enough, even tho' the compositions are just as good/bad as from my DSLR, and it is also totally clear that shots from a decent lens looks better than a mediocre lens on my monitor. I'm not really a techie, sorry! Also, I may print something one day. Who knows ;-)

I have to admit that I can see some small difference in IQ between a really mediocre and good lens on my crappy monitor, and the shallow DOF and low noise that you can get from a DSLR just can't be matched by a P&S. I just wonder why many that never print, and will never print, want cameras with more and more MP's instead of cameras with less noise and better colours. Good marketing by the manufacturers I suppose.

[tsaraleksi]

I print about 25 pictures a week on newsprint... for me the costs of film would be absolutely prohibitive. In a given week I might shoot between 300 and 500 frames, when you take everything into account (particularly things like basketball games...)

[Bob_A]

I won't argue that point. It is very valid! On the other hand, such a person probably is well served with a $300 digital P&S rather than a $1300 dSLR! Spending $1300 on a dSLR is just as 'wasteful' as spending $1300 on a pro quality SLR for 35mm film, after all, if you are merely going to be a snapshooter.

Certainly I myself would find it very hard to justify a $2700 FF dSLR simply as a snapshooting device....20% depreciation on a $2700 is greater than 20% depreciation on a $1300 dSLR, and given the same number of photos taken on both, the cost per photo is doubled!

For snapshooting certainly ... but I'm not talking about snapshooting. For myself, like a lot of others have shot film for years, we use a SLR for the flexibility you can get from the system, quality of lenses, and to get very narrow DOF for separation of the subject from the background. We just don't shoot 1000 images a day like a pro.

And a lot of the amateurs that shoot 1000 images a day are getting very few keepers because they use a pray and spray approach where the ones coming from the film ranks tend to take more time to set up because they are used to economizing. I'd argue that many of the ex-film users shooting 100-200 images per month fully understand their equipment and truly utilize a DSLR where the ones shooting 1000 images per day should have a P&S :) A good photographer shooting 100-200 images per month will also often have better product to show at the end of the year than someone else blasting away simply wearing their camera out.

I wonder how many images Yousef Karsh or Ansel Adam captured on average a day?

[condyk]

I have to admit that I can see some small difference in IQ between a really mediocre and good lens on my crappy monitor, and the shallow DOF and low noise that you can get from a DSLR just can't be matched by a P&S. I just wonder why many that never print, and will never print, want cameras with more and more MP's instead of cameras with less noise and better colours. Good marketing by the manufacturers I suppose.

Well get yourself a decent monitor. I tell you, the quality of the monitor determines the IQ of the shot. I seen plenty of my shots look soft and dull on one monitor and sharp and saturated on another

[CyberDyneSystems]

The advantage of digital over film is the ability to take as many pics as you want at ZERO cost.

The cost of printing those images remains similar to the cost of printing from film.

But, printing cost is totally different from "shooting cost"

With Film, shooting cost is still high, film cost and development for contact sheets ...
Again with digital that part is free after initial investment, and turn around on this required step for both media is a time investment. However the turn around time for Digital is essentially immediate and totally within the photographers control.

Shooting and film, after initial investment, is free with digital.

Printing still costs.

[DocFrankenstein]

I agree with you 100%

Computer upgrades, AF lenses I don't need, colorimeter, extra harddrive space, post processing time, software... With film it's easier - drop off the package and get the prints.

Too bad you don't understand it until you're over your head in it.

I feel your pain.

[DocFrankenstein]

The advantage of digital over film is the ability to take as many pics as you want at ZERO cost.
Actually if it's 200 bucks to replace the shutter, then just the shutter cost is about .1 cent per click. ;)

[Wilt]

And a lot of the amateurs that shoot 1000 images a day are getting very few keepers because they use a pray and spray approach where the ones coming from the film ranks tend to take more time to set up because they are used to economizing. I'd argue that many of the ex-film users shooting 100-200 images per month fully understand their equipment and truly utilize a DSLR where the ones shooting 1000 images per day should have a P&S :) A good photographer shooting 100-200 images per month will also often have better product to show at the end of the year than someone else blasting away simply wearing their camera out.

I wonder how many images Yousef Karsh or Ansel Adam captured on average a day?

It dismays me to hear of the number of people who have run 15,000 photos thru their Rebel in one year, leading to the failure of the secondary mirror hinge in that amount of time. It dismays me to hear of 'wedding photographers' who blast 3000-6000 photos during that one day...they might as well be cinematographers for all the skill they must be putting into practice for each shot.

[ssim]

Well said Wilt. I might shoot 10% more digital than I did in film. It is about getting "the" shot and not hoping that we get keepers out of the thousands that might get taken.

[Phil Light]

Can you imagine if the 1D Mk III had been made for film? At 10fps you would need an external bulk film magazine.

[strmrdr]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/898a/

There ya go save some money and pass that around.
or this one...
http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/cameras/8ad9/

Or one of the several hundred cheaper or more expensive ones out there.
Then the cost of portable display is down to 0 with a smallish initial purchase.

[DocFrankenstein]

Can you imagine if the 1D Mk III had been made for film? At 10fps you would need an external bulk film magazine.
They'd call it EOS-1V and it would cost just a bit more than a 30D would. :lol:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=269&A=details&Q=&sku=194454&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

[Wilt]

Can you imagine if the 1D Mk III had been made for film? At 10fps you would need an external bulk film magazine.

No, at 10fps, even with 250 shot bulk film magazines they would have run out in 25 seconds and had to reload! ;)

[Phil Light]

They'd call it EOS-1V and it would cost just a bit more than a 30D would. :lol:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=269&A=details&Q=&sku=194454&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Dang! You could go through a roll of 36 in 3.6 sec (I passed math class).

BTW - Welcome to the forum, noob! ;) (Uh, what's up doc?) ???

[Jon, The Elder]

Whoa...Lets back up a bit here before we get too far off the track.

Out of the huge number of shots taken by the OP and printing say, 250 of them (by his estimate), Costco charges $0.15 each for 4x6's. So we have an expenditure of $37.50 for prints.

Not considered was how much to develop film? This being a neccessity to decide on what prints to order.
How many shots can be reviewed and deleted in camera when using film?

How do you change ISO in a film camera?

To TAKE an image and review it is FREE. After that and you wish to print (and reprint), then costs are involved.

I have seen no indication from any camera manufacturer, that PRINTS are free. This is an assumption that has come out of poorly thought through logic.

No film costs + reusable CF cards = Free images. Broadly taken, this is a true statement. Anyone who clings to this train of thought from that point on is at best quite naive.

The way that the film market and users are declining, this will soon be a non-subject for discussion.

[Bob_A]

Well get yourself a decent monitor. I tell you, the quality of the monitor determines the IQ of the shot. I seen plenty of my shots look soft and dull on one monitor and sharp and saturated on another

LOL Can't afford one, I spent all of my money on my camera gear! (j/k)

There you go. Another thing to buy to support my addiction to this hobby :)

[Bob_A]

The way that the film market and users are declining, this will soon be a non-subject for discussion.

The fate of film is in the hands of the marketing guru's and the manufacturers.

Fun issue to debate in the meantime :lol:

[poloman]

A lot of pros are presenting their work via a DVD slideshow. In some cases they are including full res images on the DVD so the client can obtain prints at any time in the future whether or not they still have contact with the photographer. The shooter charges more money for this but consider how much more efficient this kind of a system is. The quality is still there and a whole room full of people can share the memories at the same time. (Archival discs are important.) This also eliminates the problem of selling prints. There are plenty of people who feel satisfied just to look at the proofs or they will scan and photoshop the proofs just to save a little money. Real danger here when they show others the crappy product and tell them you took the pictures! Digital makes this kind of process simple. Also consider incorporating prints into publications of any kind. If you think about it the advantages are incredible. As a photographer, I also know I can burn the extra frames to get the right shot (especially with pets and babies) without incurring added film purchase and processing cost. I will have to use the delete key and recharge my batteries more often...........

[krazziecliff]

Actually if it's 200 bucks to replace the shutter, then just the shutter cost is about .1 cent per click. ;)

Miser!!! :P ;)

Digital is definitely more cost effective. 200+ prints is just insane, but look at the up side of you got 200+ printable shots, why oh why you may ask, because you can view and delete the bad ones thanks to this modern invention called the LCD screen.

Film would definitely turn out cheaper if you think about printing costs solely, but then how many keepers do you have?
Dont necessarily have to print all the keepers either.
DVD burner + DVD R/w = Cheap storage

[DocFrankenstein]

BTW - Welcome to the forum, noob! ;) (Uh, what's up doc?) ???
Nothing much...

It's just I've noticed that my typing on the forum is actually obscessive compulsive and I stare at the screen more than I actually shoot... It wasn't healthy and I've gone cold turkey by changing the email and the password for DocF user.

So I've been dissecting my brain for the last 2 weeks and after some cognitive behavioural therapy I think I'm ok now.

The mods caught up with me fast, since you can't have two accounts per person and CDS merged them together.

We'll see how it goes.

What did I miss besides the 1D mkIII?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well said Wilt. I might shoot 10% more digital than I did in film. It is about getting "the" shot and not hoping that we get keepers out of the thousands that might get taken.

Well based on how you shot at GMOS two years back, that would mean you burned through a LOT of film in the day Mr. Fully auto Machine Gun Man :lol:
(sorry Sheldon, I just can't forget us laughing in glee over 8.5FPS that weekend )

[CyberDyneSystems]

What did I miss besides the 1D mkIII?

there may have been something.. but I'll be damned if I can remember anything after that announcement :)

[Quad]

The mods caught up with me fast, since you can't have two accounts per person and CDS merged them together.

We'll see how it goes.

What did I miss besides the 1D mkIII?



Pity four accounts and I could argue with myself in public.

Beside the mark III? A new 580 flash, uhm ok build is better, a new 16-35 2.8, a lot seem to think it the best thing since the paper clip but then again with lenses there always could be problems as the lens in our minds are so much better than the one in the store. Still I love the early adopter, a friend to all.

Step out of the office for a sec and all hell breaks loose. Hope the brain feels better.

[20droger]

My goodness! (And that's assuming I have some "goodness" in me, which is highly suspect.) What an enthusiastic bunch of replies!

To cite myself...
When on a casual outing, such as last weekend's trip to Bosque del Apache in New Mexico, we took well over twelve-hundred pictures...
"I" don't take the pictures. "We" take the pictures. The half of us that physically presses the shutter is my other (and definitely better) half.

"I" merely drive the car/suv, download CF cards to the Epson 2000 in the field, recharge batteries, and (sigh) buy all the paper and ink--and other things.

"She" does all the editing and printing, and she likes to make prints to take to work, to friend's houses, to stores where friends work, and share, with everybody and his uncle! This often includes the giving away, and then reprinting, of prints.

I'm not going to change her. Nor would I try--I like her just the way she is. Toning her enthusiasm down to a few dozen prints for a major shooting trip is just not an option.

As for film, once I went 35mm, I shot almost exclusively Ektachrome for color, processed it myself, and printed to Cibachrome. I purchased the Ektachrome in 100-ft bulk rolls and stuffed my own 36-exp canisters.

My fist love, however, was B&W. Mosly Panatomic -X, occasionally Tri-X, on 6×6 medium fomat. Developing and printing was all done in-house.

I would love to find a truly operational "Panchromatic filter" for Photoshop (the one they have sucks pond water!) Replicating the effect of a Panchromatic B&W pint is a lot more than simple desaturization.

[DAMphyne]

I think time is the biggest issue when it comes to the Film vs Digital debate.
Digital takes very little time unless you are spending a lot of it with your computer to tweak your photos. Even that can be short compared to working in the darkroom.
Consistancy is another problem with film, just try to get the same print 2 weeks or months, or years down the road. Digital-- throw it at the printer or MPIX and get the same photo for your neighbors and friends. Even the local wally world has difficulty with consistancy in their film processing.
As for "amateur" shooting with digital vs film, my experience is that film cameras were stuck in a drawer except for 2 specific occasions, Christmas and birthdays. Maybe 1 roll per year. With digital, there may be an increase in use because of the ease and lower cost of printing at the local kiosk.
I shoot more with digital, get a lot better shots, and feel that I've saved a tremendous amount of money and time, over film.
On my trip to Central America, 10 days, We shot 22 rolls x 36 exposures, number of keepers, about 50-75, some marginal. Next time, digital all the way. The 50 - 75 prints I make to show will be knock-outs. I can't wait.

[Lonnie]

It dismays me to hear of the number of people who have run 15,000 photos thru their Rebel in one year, leading to the failure of the secondary mirror hinge in that amount of time. It dismays me to hear of 'wedding photographers' who blast 3000-6000 photos during that one day...they might as well be cinematographers for all the skill they must be putting into practice for each shot.

Why would it dismay you that someone puts 15K images through their digital Rebel in one year?

I didn't put quite that many actuations through mine, but I did take a TON more pictures than I would have with a film SLR. I also learned how to use my camera a lot faster than I would have learned on a film SLR. I was able to fiddle around with setting, bracket, shoot stupid stuff. Every now and then, burst to try to get "the shot".

Take two identical photographers. Let one take only one shot. Let the other take 15 shots, varying his focal length, exposure, composition, etc on each shot. Don't you think the guy that took 15 images will turn in the better shot almost every time?

[tzalman]

There is another factor that nobody has mentioned. I simply cannot conceive not editing my photos. I would not go back to the limited control I had over film. Choice of film, choice of paper, filters on the camera or in the enlarger, dodging and burning - they were like trying to pick up a pea with boxing gloves compared to the fine control available in any decent editing application. How many prints did I throw away because the dodge was not right or the color was off? How many test strips did I print before I was ready to do the whole print? How many hours in the darkroom? Send the prints to a lab? No way I'd go back to letting some other guy, or worse, a machine, do my editing. Masks, layers, local enhancements - I can't do without them. So add into the film side of the equation the cost of a good film scanner and cross out any differences in print costs.

[DAMphyne]

tzalman,
I think that is the best argument yet for using digital.
Now you can print what You want instead of what They think is right.

[Wilt]

Why would it dismay you that someone puts 15K images through their digital Rebel in one year?

I didn't put quite that many actuations through mine, but I did take a TON more pictures than I would have with a film SLR. I also learned how to use my camera a lot faster than I would have learned on a film SLR. I was able to fiddle around with setting, bracket, shoot stupid stuff. Every now and then, burst to try to get "the shot".

Take two identical photographers. Let one take only one shot. Let the other take 15 shots, varying his focal length, exposure, composition, etc on each shot. Don't you think the guy that took 15 images will turn in the better shot almost every time?

Yes, 'free' shots do help in the learning process. The problem is that too many simply point and shoot and hold the trigger down, rather than finding the decisive moment or the precise angle for best composition. Witness the number of people who mention that they used to machine gun, and how their photography vastly improved when they simply slowed down! THAT is the reason machine gunners dismay me...they spray, they don't learn as well as they might.

[20droger]

Speaking from personal experience, machine guns are best for frontal assaults, especially massed assaults.

I've never had a massed frontal assault of wildlife.

[Wilt]

Speaking from personal experience, machine guns are best for frontal assaults, especially massed assaults.

I've never had a massed frontal assault of wildlife.

M-16 in Auto...soldiers in the US are taught to do 3-shot bursts (kinda like bracketing!). Put it in spray mode, and you run out of ammo too soon!

[Hellashot]

Be as selective when taking picture no matter which medium you have - film or digital. Just because you have the ability to take pictures without burning film, doesn't mean you should. Just shoot as you would with film when you have digital.

And you should view your shoot at the end and FIRST thing you do is delete the non-keepers. I find my percentage of keepers is steadily going down because I have a higher standard for my work. This will soon result in myself taking few pictures as my decision making meets up with my post-shoot decision making.

[Andy_T]

I have to agree with what was said ... digital has been a lot more expensive for me than film.

Why?

Well, in film, I paid something like $ 1,500 (1985 prices, don't want to know how much this would be today!!!) on an initial outfit of a NOINK 601 AF, 3 rather mediocre zoom lenses (35-70 and third-party 24-50 and 70-210), a decent 50/1.8 and a flash.


Even more,
in the nearly 20 years I was using that outfit, I put maybe 40 films through the camera. Why? Because the time lag between taking the images, dropping off the film at the lab and getting back the results was not exactly conductive to the learning experience, so my feeling towards photography stayed rather 'lukewarm' and I never pursued the hobby very actively. Certainly, I took the camera with me when I went on holiday or for Christmas eve, but it would never occur to me to put the camera around my neck when I was going for a walk (today this is my first consideration).

That all changed when I got my G2. The simplicity of the process, to take the images and then immediately review them at the monitor, that alone did more to rekindle my love of photography than any kind of equipment. Too simply look at the EXIF information of an image and know WHY it came out either good or bad, that was the greatest learning experience of all. Sure, when I got my film outfit, I printed out little sheets with 36 separations where I could tick off aperture, shutter speed and focal length, but that quickly became too cumbersome to me. So I stopped that and only could guess later why a certain image was good or not. With all the changes applied without my knowledge in the lab I wouldn't have had a clue anyway.

So to compare ... before I had a hobby that did not cost me much money ... mainly because I did not really pursue it.
Nowadays I have a hobby that I very actively pursue when I have time ... and it costs me some money.
But hey, all the other nice hobbies I can think of (like getting myself a Ferrari) also would cost a lot of money :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Andy_T]

Be as selective when taking picture no matter which medium you have - film or digital.

I agree with that ... up to a point.

Rather than considering if I want to take an image at all, I now spend time on considering how I want to get it.

But if I don't try to capture an image I am unsure about in the moment I take it, I don't have the chance to learn from looking at the result.
I'm not at the stage yet that I know in advance exactly how a photo will come out and decide based on that whether it is worth it.
With a 24 or 36 exposure film, that was a very valid constraint for me.

Best regards,
Andy

[20droger]

M-16 in Auto...soldiers in the US are taught to do 3-shot bursts (kinda like bracketing!). Put it in spray mode, and you run out of ammo too soon!
Long predates the M-16.

There was no such thing as an M-16 when I did my bit.

[Andy_T]

Well, M-2 then :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Wilt]

Long predates the M-16.

There was no such thing as an M-16 when I did my bit.

Did they train to shoot machine guns (M-60) in 3-round bursts, too?

[20droger]

Did they train to shoot machine guns (M-60) in 3-round bursts, too?
Usually in "short" bursts, number of rounds unspecified.

My personal longest machine gun shoot ended when the barrel softened and sagged and the muzzle flew apart. And no, that is not how I was trained to use a machine gun. Necessity dictates actual use.

[CyberDyneSystems]

:shock: Whatever the necessity was Roger, I am glad you lived to tell about it!

[20droger]

:shock: Whatever the necessity was Roger, I am glad you lived to tell about it!
Me too! It was in Sunny Southeast Asia, as the recruiting posters said. A most unpleasant period in my life--twice. Left in a basket each time. Never want to go back.

My wife is also in favor of my having survived. Who else would buy her toys?

When we married, it was clothes.
Then it became jewelry.
Later, it became computer stuff.
Now, it's digital camera stuff.

It's all expensive.

[20droger]

By-the-by, CDS, what spcies of bird is that? Doesn't look like any we see in SE Arizona (at least, not that I've seen)?

[René Damkot]

The problem is that too many simply point and shoot and hold the trigger down, rather than finding the decisive moment or the precise angle for best composition.

I don't think it's the only reason I shoot more. (It does tribute though).
I do shoot a lot more nowadays then when shooting film. (Let's say about 12000 exp./ year on film, now about 3 times as much.) One reason is I've gotten more work, but another is, I shoot more of the same: Like a singer on stage for example: I used to think 'okay, I've allready got a similair shot', and now I think: 'This looks a bit better then what I've got'. I do end up with better images now.

Also a few things I used to do on MF slide, are now done on DSLR.

But if I don't try to capture an image I am unsure about in the moment I take it, I don't have the chance to learn from looking at the result.

Quoted for truth.

[Jon, The Elder]

20Droger, Wilt......In my day we poured in the powder, put in a silk patched ball, rammed in tight, poured powder in the frizzen, cocked, aimed and fired.

[Wilt]

I don't think it's the only reason I shoot more. (It does tribute though).
I do shoot a lot more nowadays then when shooting film. (Let's say about 12000 exp./ year on film, now about 3 times as much.) One reason is I've gotten more work, but another is, I shoot more of the same: Like a singer on stage for example: I used to think 'okay, I've allready got a similair shot', and now I think: 'This looks a bit better then what I've got'. I do end up with better images now.

I shoot more now than when burning film and drowning in processing costs, too! It is foolish not to take advantage of that, since sometimes the slightest change of expression means the difference of someone liking their photo or not. But that certainly is not the same as shooting 5000 shots for a one day wedding coverage! :)

In my day we poured in the powder, put in a silk patched ball, rammed in tight, poured powder in the frizzen, cocked, aimed and fired.

OK, you can step back into your time machine and go back to the Civil War, where you apparently originated your time journey! :) We'll send Mr. Gatling's newfangled thing along, and it might change the course of the war!

[DocFrankenstein]

Well, in film, I paid something like $ 1,500 (1985 prices, don't want to know how much this would be today!!!) on an initial outfit of a NOINK 601 AF, 3 rather mediocre zoom lenses (35-70 and third-party 24-50 and 70-210), a decent 50/1.8 and a flash.
That would be about 2500 USD of the year 2005

And with USD dropping in half in the end of 2005, it would be about 5 grand or so of the current USD. haha

Interesting. I guess you did pay for the rugged body of your camera just like you do it now. :confused:

[Bosscat]

I don't know why everyone is ragging on the original poster for printing that many images??

I would rather have an album of prints that I can take anywhere to show anyone ( Not everyone has a computer or DVD player, believe it or not ) then to make them sit in front of a screen like we did in the old days with home movies and slide shows.

The look of a print, even a 4X6 beats an image on a computer screen IMO. You can take a photo album to review anywhere, on a train, plane, automobile, bedroom, kitchen table, even the reading room, if your so inclined. Try that with digital media.

Printing will always cost money. Its how you get there that the cost difference comes into play.

[Eagle]

You can take a photo album to review anywhere, on a train, plane, automobile, bedroom, kitchen table, even the reading room, if your so inclined. Try that with digital media.

Laptop

[Bosscat]

Laptop

So you'd sit on the toilet with a laptop??

[Phil Light]

So you'd sit on the toilet with a laptop??

Is that wrong?

[DocFrankenstein]

So you'd sit on the toilet with a laptop??
You sit on the toilet looking at pictures?

[Bosscat]

You sit on the toilet looking at pictures?


I would hazard a guess that alot of single males have sat there looking at pictures. And they weren't pictures they took themselves. More likely pics taken by someone whose paycheque came from Heffner......LOL

[Eagle]

So you'd sit on the toilet with a laptop??
Why not? You sit there with a magazine or newspaper, what's the difference?

[Bosscat]

Why not? You sit there with a magazine or newspaper, what's the difference?

I also sit there staring out the window sometimes, its called old school.

Not everyone has a laptop either.

You probably are also one of those people I see in a car with 3 others, who are all talking on a cell phones at the same time.

I have looked at photos on a high def TV and think they look like crap. I am not nearly as impressed with an image on a computer screen as I am with a print of the same size.

I actually prefer a slide over a print any day of the week, but its not as convient as a print.

As I said, not everyone has a computer, contrary to popular believe and many prefer looking at a print over anything else.

[20droger]

20Droger, Wilt......In my day we poured in the powder, put in a silk patched ball, rammed in tight, poured powder in the frizzen, cocked, aimed and fired.
That explains the hat.

Tell me, do you remember Tearalong?

[20droger]

I also sit there staring out the window sometimes, its called old school.
You sit on the toilet in front of a window? How charming for the passers by!

Not everyone has a laptop either.
Not everyone has a lap!

You probably are also one of those people I see in a car with 3 others, who are all talking on a cell phones at the same time.
See these often. I wonder if they're talking to each other?!

[Wilt]

You sit on the toilet in front of a window? How charming for the passers by!


Not everyone has a lap!

Even worse, you could burn your (ahem) on the underside of some of these laptops with fast processors, when there aren't trousers to provide some insulation!

[Eagle]

I also sit there staring out the window sometimes, its called old school.Remind me to stay out of your neighborhood.

You probably are also one of those people I see in a car with 3 others, who are all talking on a cell phones at the same time.

Not here.

So you'd sit on the toilet with a laptop??
Yes, haven't yet but I was just responding to your statement and telling you how you can do it.
You can take a photo album to review anywhere, on a train, plane, automobile, bedroom, kitchen table, even the reading room, if your so inclined. Try that with digital media.