# Digital vs film. No brainer



## bobandcar (Aug 27, 2013)

So wife and I went to fort delaware last weekend. I used my t3i with 24-105 l lens.
She is into writing and not photography. I gave her a canon rebel 35mm camera with a sigma super wide 24 2.8 to play with.
She went thru 48 exposures. 2 rolls

I go to get it developed, $19.98. Holy crap!
Think ill get a old digital for her to play with. They go for less than $200

So 2 rolls of film and processing = approx $30.    Damn

Is that about normal price for stuff or is my area expensive? I priced 3 places. All within $1 of each other


----------



## Designer (Aug 27, 2013)

I can't give away my film camera.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 27, 2013)

That would be why I'm putting together my own dark room with the help of a forum member!


----------



## amolitor (Aug 27, 2013)

Some people feel that the fact that it costs money is a good thing. Slows you down. Film doesn't affect the picture much, but it affects the photographer a lot, and that's important.

No matter how you do photography, if you're spending much time thinking about dollars-per-frame you're probably doing something wrong. Unless you're shooting exotic large formats, the cost should be essentially negligible compared to everything else in your life.


----------



## KenC (Aug 27, 2013)

Most of the processing cost for film is the cost of prints.  If you have them develop only it will cost a lot less and then you can scan the ones that look promising.  Even if you have to get a film scanner it will pay for itself pretty fast.


----------



## DannL (Aug 27, 2013)

I exposed my last roll of roll-film about two months ago. That was a good 40 year run of shooting roll-film products. I did everything possible to reduce costs in processing and printing. Beyond processing my own B/W, I would send out color-film for processing and ask for no prints. Then I could pick and choose the frames to be printed. I think wallymart at that time was charging about $1.50 to develop only. Scanning the film is an option, and I really enjoyed shooting chromes which was another less costly option.


----------



## Ysarex (Aug 27, 2013)

Yep, back before I switched to full digital I was averaging $1500.00 per year for film and processing. That's not including any prints -- that was the cost of the film and film processing. I processed my own B&W film and had a lab process the color film. Printing was a separate cost.

So I went to the boss (wife) and said, I'm going to save us $500.00 a year by spending no more than $1000.00 per year on digital cameras. I saved up for three years before I bought my 5DmkII and when it arrived I showed it to the boss and said -- saved us $1500.00.

Joe


----------



## bobandcar (Aug 27, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Yep, back before I switched to full digital I was averaging $1500.00 per year for film and processing. That's not including any prints -- that was the cost of the film and film processing. I processed my own B&W film and had a lab process the color film. Printing was a separate cost.
> 
> So I went to the boss (wife) and said, I'm going to save us $500.00 a year by spending no more than $1000.00 per year on digital cameras. I saved up for three years before I bought my 5DmkII and when it arrived I showed it to the boss and said -- saved us $1500.00.
> 
> Joe



That's awesome!
Ill just grab like an canon xti or something and throw my nifty fifty on there for her to play with. She takes closer shots so the 50 on a crop is fine.

When we were shooting the rule was f2.8 if we were inside and f8 if we were outside! Easy enough when you don't understand what that means. Lol


----------



## lenny_eiger (Aug 27, 2013)

What are you trolling about? So, you go into a forum that's about film and you say "digital is better". You haven't bothered to ask "better for what?" For the kind of images you are doing, you probably shouldn't be using a camera at all, you are spending way too much money, a cellphone would suffice.

Before you can solve any problem you must define it. To determine equipment needs you have to specify the purpose of the photography. If what you are after is 5x7 prints of your vacation or your family, there is no reason to use an 8x10 camera, or anything with film. On the other hand, if you want the most exquisite prints regardless of cost, then even the most expensive digital cameras can't compete with film. A 4x5 piece of film has approximately 320 megapixels of info on it. Even if you give a hefty allowance for resolution issues, you are still way ahead. Further, at that level the sensor size, or film real estate is the real difference, where additional tonality is possible. 35mm digital can not do it.

35 digital point and shoot, or cellphones are just fine for family snapshots. Most of them won't get printed anyway. If you are a serious artist, film is still a highly respected tool in the arsenal, depending on the quality one is wanting for the prints.

Lenny


----------



## bhop (Aug 27, 2013)

Personally, I think the money I spend on film and developing is worth the costs.


----------



## limr (Aug 27, 2013)

KenC said:


> Most of the processing cost for film is the cost of prints.  If you have them develop only it will cost a lot less and then you can scan the ones that look promising.  Even if you have to get a film scanner it will pay for itself pretty fast.



Absolutely. My scanner has already more than paid itself off.

I pay $3 a roll for color, processing only. I don't get prints and scan the negatives myself. B&W is more for processing - about $6 - but I'll soon be developing my own so those costs will go down.

There's no doubt that digital is cheaper and if money is your sole concern (and if your wife really isn't that interested in photography and just wants to play), then yes - digital is a no-brainer for her.

Me, personally? I'd rather spend my money on film. I will probably eventually get a DSLR (Pentax, body only, used...won't cost me more than a couple hundred) just because there are things for which digital is more suited, but my heart is with film and so for me, the cost is worth it.


----------



## bobandcar (Aug 27, 2013)

lenny_eiger said:


> What are you trolling about? So, you go into a forum that's about film and you say "digital is better". You haven't bothered to ask "better for what?" For the kind of images you are doing, you probably shouldn't be using a camera at all, you are spending way too much money, a cellphone would suffice.
> 
> Before you can solve any problem you must define it. To determine equipment needs you have to specify the purpose of the photography. If what you are after is 5x7 prints of your vacation or your family, there is no reason to use an 8x10 camera, or anything with film. On the other hand, if you want the most exquisite prints regardless of cost, then even the most expensive digital cameras can't compete with film. A 4x5 piece of film has approximately 320 megapixels of info on it. Even if you give a hefty allowance for resolution issues, you are still way ahead. Further, at that level the sensor size, or film real estate is the real difference, where additional tonality is possible. 35mm digital can not do it.
> 
> ...



Not trolling. What is trolling??

I had this in digital discussion and it was moved to film. Idk why!

I have more than a few photos printed at 16by22 and I don't think a cell phone camera would do that very well. Do you?


----------



## KmH (Aug 27, 2013)

lenny_eiger said:


> What are you trolling about? So, you go into a forum that's about film and you say "digital is better".



The OP isn't trolling.

FWIW, the thread wasn't started in this forum. The OP main topic/questions are about the cost of film developing. That is why it was moved.

And where does the OP say "digital is better"? That's kind of a trolling comment from you.


----------



## limr (Aug 27, 2013)

bobandcar said:


> lenny_eiger said:
> 
> 
> > What are you trolling about? So, you go into a forum that's about film and you say "digital is better". You haven't bothered to ask "better for what?" For the kind of images you are doing, you probably shouldn't be using a camera at all, you are spending way too much money, a cellphone would suffice.
> ...



FWIW, I don't think you're trolling, but to be fair, Lenny never said that phone pics are good for printing 16x22.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2013)

Yes, film printing costs are somewhat expensive on a per-frame basis.

A little under a decade ago, I bought a $2499 Fulifilm S2 Pro d-slr. After owning it for a few years, I did the calculations as if I had been shooting E-6 slide film in 36-exposure rolls, and taking it to a decent but not over-priced local processing lab.

My calculations? Over the three years I had the camera, my $2499 camera cost allowed me to shoot the equivalent of $74,000 in E-6 film and processing. And that $74,000 figure did not include ANY costs for gasoline to go and buy film and return home with it, nor any costs to drop off film, drive home, go back to the lab and pick up developed slides, and then drive back home.

So, yeah...shooting film is expensive. There is simply no way around it.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 27, 2013)

What else would you have spent that $20 on? I mean, it's $20 - it's all relative, people seem to think nothing of spending a couple of thou on a digital camera, I've spent as little as $5 on an old film camera. I spend money on film and developing, everybody has their priorities as to what they choose to spend their money on. 

I think it depends on the purpose and how you'd use it. I enjoy shooting film, always have; I have one digital camera and umpteen film cameras from every decade of the past hundred years. They still work... But some people wouldn't be interested in old cameras and might prefer to have one digital camera and that'd be it. 

It seems to come down to which way you want to record an image, on film or a media card. And it's not that hard to go from film to a digital format which to me seems to be the best of both worlds.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Aug 27, 2013)

Yeah that computer is cheap as is the Photoshop used to "develop" your digital images. And we all know you can use them for at least 18 months before updating. My enlarger is 25 years old and still kicks out the same quality it always did. It's all depending on what you like.The end result is an image you like regardless of the process.

Out of all the cameras I have my Nikon F5 is the one I'd choose if forced to go with only one.


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 27, 2013)

bobandcar said:


> So wife and I went to fort delaware last weekend. I used my t3i with 24-105 l lens.
> She is into writing and not photography. I gave her a canon rebel 35mm camera with a sigma super wide 24 2.8 to play with.
> She went thru 48 exposures. 2 rolls
> 
> ...



Did you get prints for all of them, and are you including that in  the price? Because that would be silly. prints cost the same for digital  images... So shooting 48 shots on your digital camera and ordering no  prints for them and then getting prints for the other and going "zomg so  expensive" doesn't make sense.


DEVELOPING costs alone are  usually like 3-5 dollars in my experience for a roll of 36 exposures.  Sometimes less for 24. And you're paying somebody else to do work for  you.

Just like going out to a convenient restaurant instead of  cooking at home, there's therefore also a huge difference versus  developing yourself. Developing 2 24-exposure rolls yourself could cost  as little as about *$0.16* in chemicals and maybe 30 minutes of your time.

Then you can look at the negatives yourself in the light and decide which ones look like nice sharp quality pictures of interesting things that are well exposed, and *only print those*.



Now all of the sudden you 48 exposures that you develop yourself and only order prints for 15 shots of ends up being maybe like $7.50 compared to $7.34 for the same 15 prints from digital, or whatever.


----------



## bobandcar (Aug 27, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Did you get prints for all of them, and are you including that in  the price? Because that would be silly. prints cost the same for digital  images... So shooting 48 shots on your digital camera and ordering no  prints for them and then getting prints for the other and going "zomg so  expensive" doesn't make sense.
> 
> DEVELOPING costs alone are  usually like 3-5 dollars in my experience for a roll of 36 exposures.  Sometimes less for 24. And you're paying somebody else to do work for  you.
> 
> ...



This hit the nail and made me think!
That includes the prints. I have not stopped to pick them up yet.
I have not gone thru my photos from the day and decided which of them are keepers/printers/and such.

If I printed every photo than it wouldn't seem like such a difference!

My thought process when starting this thread was that I have shot about 9000  shots with my digital and what would that had cost me in film and such. I NOW realize that's not the way to think because I do not print all of my photos. Prob 1 or 2 for every 50-100.  Very loose numbers there, I know.

If I had only had them developed would I then jut use a flat scanner? Or a special film scanner?


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 27, 2013)

The lab I work at charges this.....
35mm or 120 dev. $4.50 color $8.00 BW....x2 for 220.
4x6/4x5/5x5 prints 36 cents first set 18 cents for 2nd set.
Scan to CD....$4.95....each scan at 8x12" at 256 res.....15MB.
Join the Gold club $15.95 yearly and get your CD's for free.


----------



## bobandcar (Aug 27, 2013)

webestang64 said:


> The lab I work at charges this.....
> 35mm or 120 dev. $4.50 color $8.00 BW....x2 for 220.
> 4x6/4x5/5x5 prints 36 cents first set 18 cents for 2nd set.
> Scan to CD....$4.95....each scan at 8x12" at 256 res.....15MB.
> Join the Gold club $15.95 yearly and get your CD's for free.



Is your lab local? Or national?

I think it's $3.99 for develop we're I go. Don't know if there's a difference if I join there club, I know last year I joined and the discounts on 8x10's paid for itself in that one visit.


----------



## limr (Aug 27, 2013)

bobandcar said:


> If I had only had them developed would I then jut use a flat scanner? Or a special film scanner?



For your own personal use? Flatbed film scanner. I use a Canon CanoScan 8800. The newer model (the 9000) is about $150-160 on Amazon. Another common scanner most will mention is the Epson V500 or V600 (the V700 is also popular but the price also jumps from around $200 to around $60-700). My usual scans are at 1200dpi and I've printed up to 11x14 from 35mm negatives at that resolution. At the highest resolution and medium or large format, you could go crazy big with the printing and still stay sharp.

As for printing, I'm actually currently taking advantage of a sale at Adorama - 8x10 for $1 and 11x14 for $2.

Film can be expensive, yes. But it doesn't have to be as expensive as $20+ per roll!


----------



## gsgary (Aug 27, 2013)

Yes no brainer film wins hands down, i shoot about 4-5 rolls of B+W every weekend and develope at home, just scanning some now
here's one from last weekend (Agfa APX100) developed in Rodinal







and one from this weekend 25 years out of date Tmax100 shot at iso400 and developed in Rodinal with 12 grams of sodium sulphite added and stand developed for 1 hour


----------



## limr (Aug 27, 2013)

Oh the Jag...so pretty...


----------



## gsgary (Aug 27, 2013)

limr said:


> Oh the Jag...so pretty...



Cheers, bought loads of Agfa APX100 for my holiday


----------



## Gavjenks (Aug 27, 2013)

> If I had only had them developed would I then jut use a flat scanner? Or a special film scanner?


You don't have to do anything with them. You can just hold onto the negatives, which is pretty much the equivalent of saving something in a folder on your computer and never sharing it with anyone.

If you want to put your photos on facebook or whatever, then a flatbed scanner is probably fine.  If you want to make huge, high res versions of your photos to I dunno, sell to a stock agency or show off on flickr, then you will need a much more expensive scanner or a tricky macro lens setup with glass plates and diffuse flash, or sending them to a digitizing service that does high quality for maybe $1 a neg.

For people who share all their photos digitally, good ones or not, that's when film would probably start to get more expensive, or at least time consuming, tohave to digitize them all.


----------



## timor (Aug 27, 2013)

So, how much should we spend on hobby ? How much will cost us satisfaction ? Is there any point of talking about the costs of it ? If one think bill is too high to have a satisfaction, he/she shouldn't go for it and do something else instead. Prices are market driven, nothing we can do about. Sadly.


----------



## timor (Aug 27, 2013)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh the Jag...so pretty...
> ...


Getting any ORWO ?


----------



## Nat. (Aug 27, 2013)

Photography seems to be unique in the intensity of the arguments over medium. I have yet to see painters go at it over the various virtues of acrylic and watercolour.

For my digital photography, I have probably spent about 300GBP for the camera (Nikon D3000), 350GBP for the lenses, 60GBP for extension tubes, and around 100GBP for Photoshop Elements 9 & 10. Which is...about 800GBP altogether.

My film camera which I use most (Minolta SRT-201) cost me $45, and came with a 50mm lens. I bought extra lenses for a total of $100. So that's about 90GBP. Film costs vary, but my most recent purchase was 5GBP/roll, and processing + CD is another 5GBP. So that's...something in the region of 70 rolls before digital becomes cheaper? 60, if Photoshop is factored in. So that's either 2520 frames or 2160 for the cost of my digital set up. And my digital set up is fairly low-end. And, of course, film is full-frame where as my DSLR is APS-C. A full frame digital camera would be probably at least 1000GBP.

Of course, I think the distinction between digital and analogue is meaningless nowadays anyway, because film is - for the most part - scanned digitally, and either printed from a computer or put up on the Internet.

But if you were going to talk about medium format, well, medium format digital cameras are very pricey. You could probably buy a Rolleiflex for a fraction of a fraction of the price of a digital medium format camera, and Rolleiflexes go for about 1200GBP.

That's what I think, at least. Perhaps I'm wrong (Probably).


----------



## gsgary (Aug 27, 2013)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Yes N74 is £60 bit more than i can get HP5 but UN54 is £45 all delivered free, i have about 80 feet of HP5 so will be getting some UN54 iso100


----------



## timor (Aug 27, 2013)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## terri (Aug 27, 2013)

Wow, this went on for three pages and people are getting heated.      This is why we have THIS in the FAQ's:
_
* No digital vs. film/traditional arguments or debates are allowed.   We  have separate forums where the virtues of both mediums are discussed.    No provoking comments will be tolerated.    _

People make their creative choices for their own reasons.   It is not for others to judge.    Photography is an expensive hobby, whether you spend thousands on the latest whiz-bang digicam, or have to pay Adobe now for the latest upgrades to PS, or pay others for film processing if you don't do it at home.     Digital can cost lots of money and film can cost lots of money.     It is not a cheap hobby, especially if you want prints!

This thread should have stayed where it was...moving it here with this title and being ultimately somewhat pro-digital can indeed be read as inflammatory in the Film section.    Regardless....closed.


----------

