The Digital Trap (A Rant)

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.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2772747
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.

Bob_A wrote in post #2772603
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.

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.

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

http://www.thinkgeek.c​om/electronics/cameras​/898a/

There ya go save some money and pass that around.
or this one...
http://www.thinkgeek.c​om/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.

Jeff Solenberg wrote in post #2773039
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.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation

Jeff Solenberg wrote in post #2773039
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!

#655321 wrote in post #2773095
They'd call it EOS-1V and it would cost just a bit more than a 30D would.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation

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?)

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.

condyk wrote in post #2772739
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

Jon, The Elder wrote in post #2773742
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

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...........

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2772867
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

Jeff Solenberg wrote in post #2773689
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?