True Cost of Photography

[w.slayman]

I am not sure if this is the right forum and if not my apologies.

I was sitting here watching a football game on the tube and seeing the super-telephotos on the side lines got me wondering if anyone has done an imperical comparision of the total costs of 35mm Film and DSLR Photography? The "conventional" wisdom and "everybody knows", is that the cost of film and processing is much higher. But I wonder what the results of a study computing all costs would be.

Such a study would have to assume equal print results for high quality enlargements at 8 X 10 or 11 X 17. Some factors to be considered would be the cost of all equipment, cameras, lenses, dark room costs or custom lab costs, computers, memory, programs, scanners, storage media/devises, printers and supplies, upgrades for computers and programs, and maintanence of equipment. This study could even compare Manual Focus, Auto Focus, and Digital by using the current costs to purchase cameras and lenses, all of the same major manufacturer.

Hummm could be an interesting exercise.

Bill

[Dylan8i]

the biggest factor you forgot is number of photos taken. ie camera and lenses cost about the same so they negate each other. so digital has a computer and program to use while film has film and printing costs. so if you take 10 photos obviously a computer is goign to cost more, but if you take 1,000,000 photos the computer would cost less that the film/printing fees.

[Franglais]

Each person's calculation would be different. Those super-telephotos are used by professionals and are bringing in revenue.

I made a quick calculation before buying my first DSLR five years ago:

- I was shooting about 150 films a year.
- The film and development of the film alone was enough to buy a good DSLR every year
- I scan all the films myself. Huge saving in my time
- All the images are on disk so storage is the same
- No lab prints - I do all my printing myself so that's the same
- I have to have the computer and printer anyway for my work so there's no difference
- Digital or film you have to have lenses. APS-C lenses are cheaper than the film equivalent

Even five years ago it was an easy calculation to make. Photography was an expensive hobby and digital has made it cheaper.

[jetrim]

Dylan makes a good point. My last film camera, a Minolta Maxxum 7 cost about the same at my Fuji S-5 and I used the same array of lenses also around the same cost, so to this point, everything is flush.

The last Airshow I shot w/ film was at Jacksonville NAS took 10 rolls (ASA 400/36exp) so 360 shots
$70.00 film
$40.00 processing
$30.00 transfer to CD
$140.00 total

First Airshow with Digital, Homestead AFB last month
Took 2 4gb cards and recorded 912 shots.
$50 2 CF-II cards ($25ea)
$20 software upgrade to latest version of PSP (earlier this year)
$20 card reader
$1 DVD to burn backup images onto
$91 total

Cost per image - film = $0.38
Cost per image - digi = $0.09 if I threw the cards/reader/software away after this single shoot. But since they are reusable, the cost per image goes down as the number of images shot goes up, at least to the point where the equipment needs to be replaced.

For prints, I went to a pro lab then, and still use one now, so that cost has remained fixed also (I haven't been able to justify the expense of a printer that renders truly professional grade prints)

[w.slayman]

Error on post. Deleted

[w.slayman]

I am not trying to say that film is cheaper or that digital is cheaper, just wondering if ALL costs are considered what would be the imperical cost per print.

To be fair, and complete I think the following should be considered.

FILM SYSTEMS
Cost of Film, and "Keepers" per roll I use a 10% rule of thumb to estimate "Keepers" for candid / action photos.
Cost of Darkroom with Equipment (If Used) depreciated over 10 years
Cost of normal maintance (Light bulbs for enlarger / safe lights) etc.
Cost of chemicals / paper
Developing and Printing Contacts Sheets
Printing one 4 X 6 for each Keeper
Printing one 5 X 7 for each 10 Keepers
Printing one 8 X 10 and one 11 X 17 for each 20 Keepers
Cost of normal maintance (light bulbs for enlargers / safe lights etc)
Cost of Processing in Custom Lab (If Used) for the same processing as above.

DIGITAL SYSTEMS
Normalize to one year the following costs.
Cost of Computers (If not dedicated use prorated cost) depreciated over life expectancy.
Cost of All Programs including Photo Shop depreciated over life expectancy.
Cost of Upgrades / Updates depreciated over life expectancy.
Cost of Printers depreciated over life expectancy.
Cost of Scanners depreciated over life expectancy.
Cost of Storage Media, Cards, Hard Drives, etc. depreciated over life expectancy.
Add in the following costs.
Photo Paper and Ink for Prints as outlined in Film Systems or
Custom Lab Charges for the same.

A huge variable factor will be the number of Keeper Photographs, so the total annual cost of photography should be computed (using "10% Keepers" for Film) for the following numbers of photographs per year: 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 500 and 1,000.

It should be an interesting exercise. If a digital person is interested I will do the film portion.

Bill

[jetrim]

I really think this is an exercise in futility. There are far too many variables in calculating digital true cost. With darkroom equipment it's easy, it can only be used for one thing. I don't have a separate computer dedicated for photo processing and have no plans to log percentage of use day to day. There are also other factors that can cause great disparity. When I shoot in the studio, sometimes there's a make-up artist, sometimes not. Does her pay figure into the cost per image? I ask because when there isn't, I am proficient enough in post processing that I can *make* keepers out of shots that would have been lost in the days of film - do I figure my post processing time into the equation? If so, at what rate per hour?

It's an interesting question, but it's like comparing apples to lawn furniture...

[Franglais]

You are assuming that people still make small prints to stick in albums. I certainly don't do this any more.

- I make the occasional large print to put on the wall for a few months. The final test for if a photo is good is if you can live with it for a while
- My collection of images is in electronic format. I have them on my PC, my laptop, my ARCHOS mobile video player, on my PDA and scattered around Internet (like in my User Gallery here).
- When I show people my images it's on one of these media
- When I give people images its on CD/DVD or from a share on Internet

Prints aren't part of my economic model. Am I unique or not?

[w.slayman]

It sounds like there is no interest in this project, maybe it a bad idea / exercise in futility because there are too many variables.

Thanks for your input

Bill

[CaraRose]

I agree with Jetrim. The variables are very complex and there simply are too many of them to come out with a 'generalized' calculation. Every individual can do that calculation for themselves (long run, in my case, I believe digital will come out cheaper), but you can't apply that calculation to any other person.

[draymorton]

Too much in either case. Digital or film, photography ain't for the poor.

[drg]

There was a "Informal Self-Processing Cost Survey" that I started in January of 2008 in the Film Photograph Forum you might find interesting.

It was based on earlier forum discussions and that at that time with an increase in the demise of film processors doing business, that more and more photogs were doing their own.

The differences between film and digital were long ago pretty much debated out in terms of cost as digital wins within a very short period of time on a per image basis. So much else is identical (gear) or not comparable (software upgrades vs. different film emulsions) that they, film and digital, have truly diverged.

The cost for an individual, pro or not, can vary more widely now than ever before because of the modern technology component. Many people I know only have the photos in a 'device' iphone, digital frame, computer, etc. They may not even take them out of the camera except to transfer them to a gizmo.

Printing options are so diverse both geographically and quality/cost wise that it is a discussion worth only having most likely about certain segments at time.

If there is a good sub topic one might be the cost we assume or allow for as an annual upgrade total. Or how often do we replace or buy newer technology?

Just musing . . .

[Frog]

Anyone who is a sport hunter or fisherman knows that whatever you are lucky or skilled enough to bag costs way more than going to the market and buying meat.
The passion or lack thereof should also be taken into account.
Face it....those of us who are passionate will spend whatever we can to obtain what we need to fulfill the passion. Some of us have deeper pockets and some learn to make the most out of what they can afford.
I used to be a hunter and still fish on occassion but any hunting, fishing equipment and related costs would go long before I'd get rid of any of my photo gear and I certainly spend much more time on the photography.

[byjamesderuvoDHQ]

I remember the film days when my wife would automatically order double prints of everything. We tossed a lot of them. Not only the bad ones, but ones we didn't use in the photo albums. I'd say we kept 20% of them. She gave the second set to her mother if the images were of our son, etc. Since we went digital, we don't do that anymore and our prints costs are WAY down since we only print the ones we're going to make into photo albums. And mostly, I've just been burning them to CD to view on the TV or sync to a digital photo album.

So in the end, digital has saved us a TON of money. Especially since we don't have to pay for images we don't want to print.