October 13, 2010
-
The Cost of Digital, vs Film…
There are two things photographers like to talk about when it comes to “the cost of digital”…
Some people talk about how digital is a never-ending money-hole, and how equipment is infinitely more expensive now with digital than it was with film. They talk about how with digital, you MUST upgrade your DSLR body all the time, you HAVE to always buy each new Photoshop upgrade, and hard drives, and memory cards, and so on and so forth. (Which is absurd on the face of it, of course, but you know how that argument goes already…)
Some people talk about how FREE digital is, how all you need to do is buy a camera and a memory card, plus the computer you already have, and you can take an “infinite” number of pictures for “free”…
I don’t know which is LESS true, the first idea or the second. Clearly you do NOT need to upgrade to every new digital camera that comes out, it’s just that many hobbyists choose to do so of their own free will. Equally as true but maybe NOT equally as clear, is the fact that when you shoot digital images you ARE paying a price. Time in front of the computer, new hard drives to store each picture, …it all adds up one way or another.
I find myself somewhere in the middle. I certainly don’t carelessly spend money on every single digital gadget that is announced, otherwise by now I’d probably own every current Nikon body in production along with a few Canon, Sony, Olympus, Sigma and Pentax DSLR’s. Yeah, I’m a geek, but not a fanboy.
However even though I’m not a “compulsive upgrader”, I’m still keenly aware of how quickly digital expenses can add up. Hard drives, memory cards, software, etc. etc… and of course, TIME. Each image I click is going to cost me X number of seconds to download, sort, and delete or edit. Especially as a professional freelance photographer, sometimes work piles up. And when I’m short on time, it starts costing me money. (out-sourcing color correction) …So one way or another, I pay for each image I click.
Why did I start this rambling post, you may ask? Because I was bored today at lunch, so I got out my calculator. It is always very dangerous when I get out my calculator. Okay, it’s an app on my phone, but you know what I mean. But I digress. Here’s the fact:
If every digital image I’ve ever clicked had been made on film instead, I would have recently passed the $100,000 mark in film+processing.
This very rough (but quite conservative) estimate can be really helpful if you sit and think about it for a while. Let’s start with the obvious discussions that always come first when someone does this kind of math…
* Clearly, if I DID shoot film, I simply would not have captured this many photos. I just don’t have $100,000 to spend! So, it is incorrect to claim that I have actually *SAVED* a hundred thousand dollars by shooting digital instead of film.
* But the figure still implies many things. At the very least, it means I was allowed to do something that I would not have been able to with film. Did I learn a lot by clicking those pictures? You bet! Did I gain experience on all those photo shoots with fellow photographers, those family / friend events and parties? Absolutely.
* Bottom line: digital gave me the confidence I needed to learn new things I might never have tried on film. I like to use the example of star trails and time-lapses. Would I have ever gone out and tried to shoot photos of the stars on film? Probably not. And if I did try, my first few rolls would probably be completely black or completely white, and I would have been very discouraged. I would have had to work VERY hard to note exposures, learn reciprocity, etc. etc. …instead of just going out with my DSLR, shooting 30 second exposures, then trying one minute, then two, four, eight, sixteen, thirty two, …and yes, I’ve made a 64 minute exposure on a DSLR at least once or twice…
* What digital saved me wasn’t exactly money, but time. I’m sure my film+processing tab would have *eventually* reached a hundred grand, but not in just a few years. It might have taken me two, three, or four decades maybe? My point is of course something we already know- digital changes the learning curve for photography in a drastic way.
* But of course, what about the fact that sheer numbers do NOT imply gift, talent, or skill? I wholeheartedly agree. Nobody should ever throw around a number as if it is some sort of trophy, or mark of quality. I have most likely shot a quarter or half-million digital images over the past few years, but it would be foolish to think that qualifies me for any title other than “guy with a twitchy finger”… So, I hope everyone can remember to always let their images speak for themselves, and avoid getting into a numbers contest. Personally, whenever I see someone talking big on the internet, I don’t listen to a word they’re saying if I click on their website and their pictures stink.
Thanks for reading; I hope I didn’t waste your time with this rambling. I’m just an information junkie, I guess…
Take care,
=Matt=
(~2-4hr film exposure capturing a lunar eclipse in it’s entirety, on a Nikon FM2 or N65. …AFTER having learned a lot on digital.
Comments (2)
I *MISS* film… That said, I was there when you shot that eclipse… it was a 6 hour+ exposure
WOW!!!!