This is a great editorial regarding the cost of digital vs. film from ‘About Photography.’ I made the plunge into digital when I purchased the Sony Alpha 100 DSLR back in September of 2006. So far I’ve taken over 3000 images. Of course not all of those are keepers. But then again neither were all of my film negatives. If I factor in that an average roll of decent 36 frame 35mm color negative film would run anywhere from $2-4 dollars each (for the cheap stuff) if purchased using popular online retailers, and development only (no prints) of those rolls would be around $2 each at my local lab; I would have spent around $400-500 dollars on film and development so far. If calculating for the higher end film like Kodak Portra, I would be looking at a minimum of 650 dollars for the same amount of film and development. These costs obviously would vary and buying film in bulk would reduce those costs as well. But just in film and development alone my price per shutter click has been well worth going to digital. I already had the computer, scanner, printer, etc., before switching to digital as I believe you can’t have an online presence or even accommodate clients without those items regardless of using film or digital. With the price of DSLR’s dropping every week it seems, even the Alpha is cheaper now then when I bought one back in September, digital is much more viable for any photographer. The Pentax K10D is arguably one of the best buys right now for a 10MP DSLR especially if you aren’t already invested in a specific line of lenses. I’m a Minolta Maxxum shooter so the Alpha was the logical choice. The workflow using digital is so quick and easy, it is well worth any initial investment in the camera, memory cards, software and any other additional accessories. I still love film and believe it is a viable format, but digital has improved my workflow dramatically. 
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Film vs. Digital Continues...
This is a great editorial regarding the cost of digital vs. film from ‘About Photography.’ I made the plunge into digital when I purchased the Sony Alpha 100 DSLR back in September of 2006. So far I’ve taken over 3000 images. Of course not all of those are keepers. But then again neither were all of my film negatives. If I factor in that an average roll of decent 36 frame 35mm color negative film would run anywhere from $2-4 dollars each (for the cheap stuff) if purchased using popular online retailers, and development only (no prints) of those rolls would be around $2 each at my local lab; I would have spent around $400-500 dollars on film and development so far. If calculating for the higher end film like Kodak Portra, I would be looking at a minimum of 650 dollars for the same amount of film and development. These costs obviously would vary and buying film in bulk would reduce those costs as well. But just in film and development alone my price per shutter click has been well worth going to digital. I already had the computer, scanner, printer, etc., before switching to digital as I believe you can’t have an online presence or even accommodate clients without those items regardless of using film or digital. With the price of DSLR’s dropping every week it seems, even the Alpha is cheaper now then when I bought one back in September, digital is much more viable for any photographer. The Pentax K10D is arguably one of the best buys right now for a 10MP DSLR especially if you aren’t already invested in a specific line of lenses. I’m a Minolta Maxxum shooter so the Alpha was the logical choice. The workflow using digital is so quick and easy, it is well worth any initial investment in the camera, memory cards, software and any other additional accessories. I still love film and believe it is a viable format, but digital has improved my workflow dramatically. 
No comments:
Post a Comment