View Full Version : Cost of Film VS. Digital Cameras
I sat down early today and did some math on film vs digital cameras.Now these prices are base on walmart cost the cheapest i found so far. To get a roll of 35mm done it is
3.79 for 24 pictures that come out to 15 cent a picture not bad. For the Digital Camera it is 28 cents ea. 22 cents ea. if you do fifty or more at 28 cents the cost of 24 pictures is 6.72 at 22 cents 5.26 to print 24 pictures. One more item are the batterys with my film camera i can shoot 6 rolls of film with 50% flash on one set of AA batterys that is 144 pictures this is just normal batterys like everready or durcell.Now what i like to know is have any of you guys done a cost vs digital camera and what you came up with :-?
_terrapin_
11-14-2007, 19:59
Something's not right about your numbers, partinj. The cost of the actual prints should be the same regardless of how the photo originated. The digital camera should be cheaper in the long run because there's no film to buy or process. Plus, with digital, you only make prints of the images you like. As for batteries, consider getting a set of NiMH batteries and a charger (usually around $15 to $20 for a kit, at places like Costco.) NiMH batteries have somewhat more stored energy than your usual alkalines, and of course they can be used over and over again.
The cost is base on one roll of film with 24 exp. the cost on the digital was base on useing the device at walmat you put the card from your digital camera in they charge you 28 cents for each picture you print out. if you base the cost on this film is cheaper. and i was gone to use NiMH batterys but they like the cold ever less than reg. batterys. i try NiMH batterys this past weekend it was 33 deg. out when i when hiking took the fully charge NiMH batterys olny got fifty pictures before i got the low battery display. Got home 3 hours late they came back to life. I am leaving on Feb 5 2008. I do not think the Nimh will do the job.
Some how i don't get it you are on a computer and you cant print your own and have control over it make the bad ones better etc. Plus you can e mail them to friends and they can print there own.:confused: :confused:
I upload shots to www.ofoto.com (http://www.ofoto.com) (now www.kodakgallery.com (http://www.kodakgallery.com) )
Probably not the bes/cheapest site, but you can upload a ton of stuff at no charge, share albums, etc.
Plus as a former Rochester boy, Kodak gives me the warm fuzzies.
In any event the prints I have ordered look good, and I think the 4 x 6 are .15 each regardless of quantity.
One big advantage is you only print the good ones.
Get a digital that takes 2 AA's. For batteries at home get a charger with rechargeables. On the trail get lithium. Even though they're somewhat expensive they last an incredibly long time and you don't have to deal with bouncing a charger.
I sat down early today and did some math on film vs digital cameras.Now these prices are base on walmart cost the cheapest i found so far. To get a roll of 35mm done it is
3.79 for 24 pictures that come out to 15 cent a picture not bad. For the Digital Camera it is 28 cents ea. 22 cents ea. if you do fifty or more at 28 cents the cost of 24 pictures is 6.72 at 22 cents 5.26 to print 24 pictures. One more item are the batterys with my film camera i can shoot 6 rolls of film with 50% flash on one set of AA batterys that is 144 pictures this is just normal batterys like everready or durcell.Now what i like to know is have any of you guys done a cost vs digital camera and what you came up with :-?Millions of people used to own 35mm cameras. About 99% of those 35mm users who bought a digital camera never used their 35mm again.
Oh on my camera on start up the flash loads up i shut it off if its not needed some thime even in good light it goes off
Fiddleback
11-14-2007, 20:57
With the box stores such as WalMart, and maybe all photo processors, you turn in your roll of film and pay for all 24/36 photos to be printed. With digital you have much more personal control...printing only the pictures you want. Depending on your printing habits, one method may or may not be cheaper than the other.
But that's not the reason I switched to digital. I switched because I like to take pictures while hiking/backpacking. I'm particularly interested in wildlife photography on the trail and in Yellowstone NP. The digital system I use more than doubles my zoom range for about a third of the weight or my 35mm system. Further, the digital has a pretty good image stabilzation feature which allows that larger zoom to be used at slower shutter speeds.
But what continues to make me smile is the storage media. My system uses SD cards. The size of a large postage stamp, they are about an 1/8" thick. I use one of the smaller capacity cards yet it records/stores 140+ photos. Compare that 'postage stamp' to its equivalent six rolls of film.:D And given the ever dropping prices of storage media, those six rolls of film now cost more than that SD card which, of course, can be used over and over again.
To my eye, digital does not yet yield the same quality pictures as film. In general, film is less grainy/noisey. But the other benefits of digital far, far outweigh the noise issue (much of which is preventable/correctable at the time of the photo or during post processing).
Take a look at the Panasonic FZ18 (it's not the camera I use) to see why digital cameras excite me. About palm size, it's zoom range is the 35mm equivalent of 28-504mm yet it weighs only 360 grams. On top of that, I've seen some pics posted online that were taken at the full 18X zoom at 1/30sec shutter...and they were sharp!
FB
bigcranky
11-14-2007, 21:08
That $3.79 includes the original cost of the film, and the film processing, and the 24 4x6 inch prints? Wow. I can't find film for much less than two bucks a roll around here in bulk, so those prints are awfully inexpensive.
At Costco 4x6 prints are $.19 each, whether film or digital. Film and processing are additional (and add up quick if you shoot a lot). My local lab is $.24 for digital prints in bulk, and $.50 for prints from film. Again, film and processing additional.
Depending on how many pictures you plan to shoot in a day, the bulk and weight of the rolls of film can add up. A 2-gig memory card is effectively weightless and holds upwards of 800-2000 photos. That's between 30 and 100 rolls of 24-exposure film -- a substantial outlay of money for film and processing, not to mention a couple of pounds of metal and plastic. (I can shoot several hundred photos on a long weekend hike without thinking twice. Well over a thousand on my last section. No, I didn't print them all.)
Try Lithium AA batteries for cold weather. They are expensive, but work better in the cold.
Cookerhiker
11-14-2007, 21:24
Computers and technology improve the quality of things and in general, save us time. I enjoy my digital camera for all the reasons already cited. But time savings.....forget it!! Instead of dropping off film for someone else CVS etc. to do the processing, now I'm doing it. I'm editing most photos, making them darker or lighter, cropping, adding captions, other enhancements....and then printing them on my printer.
I don't know what the cost differential is - there are so many factors like paper, ink cartridges, film, batteries, etc. Another factor where digital is cheaper is if you want umpteen copies to give your friends - with digital, just send them via KodakGallery.com or Snapfish.com. All I know is the whole cradle-to-grave process of photography takes more of my time.
But I'm not complaining.:D
I went to digital a couple years back. I wouldn't go back for anything. Why? My digital has a rechargable battery. It is waether resistant, light as air and tiny. It shoots 8 MP, does great close ups. And more so....I shoot SO MANY more photos now. My memory card holds 515 photos in full res. It takes me a few minutes to upload to my computer, where I dump a good half of the sucky photos, no cost to me.
My husband shoots his photos on digital SLR's...and honestly? There is little difference in quality over film at that level. My digital point and shoot takes better photos than any of my old film cameras did. The quailty for me is amazing.
As for printing photos? I don't do that much anymore....if I do, I just go to Sams Club or Walmart and print out the ones I need. I find I share my photos on my website, on forums, etc. Since I can host the photos for free at say, Photobucket, life is easy.
Cost wise? Husband bought me camera and memory card. That is it. One time fee.
Go digital, you won't regret it!
_terrapin_
11-14-2007, 21:34
An important fact to remember... with the advent of digital cameras, many more photos are being taken, yet fewer are being printed. Making prints is generally more expensive than the cost of the film plus processing. If you're shooting digital, you can share your photos without prints, by posting them on the web, via email, etc.
It is a fact. In the hands of a skilled photographer, film is far superior to virtually all digital systems.
But for us amateurs, even those like me who have been experimenting for 65 years, digital is better. Why? Because with a good digital camera with a decent sized screen, we can see our mistakes immediately. And make adjustments.
Today I was taking photos of a trail crew that was working on some of our town land trust lands. I took several photos that I thought would be great. As I walked away, I thought to preview what I had shot. I quickly saw that I was shooting from too far away and had neglected to zoom in.
None of today's shots will ever win a prize. But digital enables me to correct my mistakes and show my several board members tomorrow night what the crew has accomplished. Had I been using film slides it would have been weeks before either I or anyone else saw the results, and we all would have noticed my failure to use my zoom lens.
Tomorrow, thanks to digital, I can pretend to be an expert and show my board some pretty good shots of a pretty good trail maintenance project.
Very few true professionals will totally make the swirtch to digital.
The wise contingent of us reasonably skilled amateurs, will join the masses and make the switch.
Weary
Jim Adams
11-14-2007, 21:54
I got a digital camera this past spring and used it on the PCT. I like the instant viewing and now tend to shoot far more photos.IE: better photos through quantity.
I still use film if my goal is simply very good printable photos as not only do I have control over the camera, I also have control over the film, it's latitude and also the lattitudes of printing by hand with an enlarger.
Digital is handy, film is better quality.
geek
Hikerhead
11-14-2007, 22:10
When I shot film I always used the one hour service and ordered double prints. The last couple of years after going digital, I've saved over $1,000.00. I have almost 3,000 shots on my webshot site. I take a lot of stupid pictures.
wrongway_08
11-14-2007, 22:23
digital.
- check your shots
- send cd's to people
- edit photos
- dont have to carry 10 rolls of film
- Not as bulky as a 35 camera
- prints are easier to do at home
- crop/edit/customize on your computer
- share through Photo Bucket and such
- down load to White Blaze and share
- down load to home from the trail and still keep your card to go over while hiking
- easy to use, simple deisplays to use
- most have menus that you can just hit enter to adjust for the shot
Digital cameras are just easer to use for me.
LostInSpace
11-14-2007, 22:31
I have two compact film camers, both of which take excellent pictures. However, after leaving ten rolls of exposed film in my checked baggage and having them fogged by the airport x-ray machine, I switched to digital.
I found it much easier to keep all my pictures on the computer. This means paying for a high quality film processor to scan developed slide film. Cheap processors do a terrible job, particularly at maintaining a dust-free environment.
There are many merchants that will accept online uploads and print your pictures. This is a very competative business, albeit all merchants are not equal in quality or service. However, you can probably get better value that at Wal Mart. I suggest you search for reviews online.
Consider printing your own on your computer printer. A critical element in quality printing is using paper and ink from the same manufacturer, which usually means from the printer manufacturer. The reason is that the ink and paper are matched. Using Staples proto paper and some UI refilled ink cartridge will not cut it. Even if you are interested in archival quality prints, it doesn't take long recover the cost of a high quality photo printer over the cost of having a studio do the prints. Of course if you are a professional photographer making a living at it, the are a bunch of other factors to consider.
Obsidian
11-14-2007, 22:42
First off don't get your photos done at Walmart, go to someplace like Ritz where the lab people actually get paid to make sure your pictures get printed the best (lightening them or darkening them so forth) yeah it costs more but your pictures are going to be better quality. Secondly don't print your digital prints at the kiosks, go to a place like Ritz where they send them back through the lab for as little as 19 cents a print.
Also you have to realize that with digital you don't have to print the bad picture and it's easier to upload to use on the Internet. Also you don't have to deal with the hassle of carrying around film..
_terrapin_
11-15-2007, 00:03
It is a fact. In the hands of a skilled photographer, film is far superior to virtually all digital systems.
That's really quite debatable, Weary. By no means a "fact" without further qualification. 35 mm format (and all smaller film formats) have already been rendered obsolete by affordable digital cameras. Most digital SLRs yield demonstrably better images than 35mm SLRs using Velvia film. 35 mm film SLRs are no longer being made.
I know of several professionals who have ditched their Hasselblads for high-end digital SLRs (eg. Canon 5D and 1Ds) And medium-format digital cameras (megabucks!!) rival the output of 4x5" view cameras.
Five, six years ago I would have agreed with your blanket statement. Nowadays, it's bunk. OTOH, I might agree, for the foreseeable future, no single-shot digital image capture will match the output of an 8x10" view camera. ;)
_terrapin_
11-15-2007, 00:16
Digital is handy, film is better quality.
Once you move to medium format (6x6 cm) or larger, film still has its place. But there's almost no point shooting 35 mm film these days. A four year old Canon 10D makes a better image (fewer pixels, but better quality) than a Nikon-scanned (4000 spi) 35 mm film frame. A Canon 5D puts 35 mm to shame.
IMO, Photoshop beats the tar out of darkroom work, for any conceivable purpose -- assuming you're starting from a decent digital capture or film scan. I've done both.
For long-distance hiking, film makes no sense at all. For day hikes, maybe.
No one has specifically mentioned it, but one of the major reasons why I switched from film to digital was the availability of film, especially slide film. Many retailers have discontinued carrying film, especially slide film.
We actually somewhat switched back to 35mm. Reason why was because we didn't have time to clean off the memory cards and for our 2 digitals (both Sony) that type of memory stick has been discontinued. And we found a good locally owned 1-hour place that would burn several rolls onto the same CD. Unfortunately that place is now closed. :(
Fiddleback
11-15-2007, 12:03
First off don't get your photos done at Walmart, go to someplace like Ritz where the lab people actually get paid to make sure your pictures get printed the best (lightening them or darkening them so forth) yeah it costs more but your pictures are going to be better quality. Secondly don't print your digital prints at the kiosks, go to a place like Ritz where they send them back through the lab for as little as 19 cents a print.
Also you have to realize that with digital you don't have to print the bad picture and it's easier to upload to use on the Internet. Also you don't have to deal with the hassle of carrying around film..
Many of those 'stores' and 'labs' have the same print equipment...there's only so many models out there.
FB
That's really quite debatable, Weary. By no means a "fact" without further qualification. 35 mm format (and all smaller film formats) have already been rendered obsolete by affordable digital cameras. Most digital SLRs yield demonstrably better images than 35mm SLRs using Velvia film. 35 mm film SLRs are no longer being made.
I know of several professionals who have ditched their Hasselblads for high-end digital SLRs (eg. Canon 5D and 1Ds) And medium-format digital cameras (megabucks!!) rival the output of 4x5" view cameras.
Five, six years ago I would have agreed with your blanket statement. Nowadays, it's bunk. OTOH, I might agree, for the foreseeable future, no single-shot digital image capture will match the output of an 8x10" view camera. ;)
I agree...my husband shoots professionally and he hasn't used film in nearly 6 or 7 years. Now granted he runs his photos on a very fast computer, with very large monitors, and he color calibrates his monitors often. That is work there to keep up. Most people he knows who shoot pro, shoot digital now. The sad thing is...he has boxes of old camera gear he paid a ton for (all film). It does pain him when he looks at those boxes!
His newest SLR is amazing in the quality. But more so, the lenses didn't change much. Only the body of the camera did. When people see him shooting, they rarely realize he is using digital, as the SLR's look the same as film ones.
Really, the only place film rules still is large format....and for how long?
And on the comments about getting prints made? It is the machine that matters! If the pictures look bad, chances it is the machine, not the human. Go to a different store. The best photos around for printing here where we live is at Sams Club. They have good machines. (In other words, high end machines! Well taken care of as well).
Critterman
11-15-2007, 20:54
Now what i like to know is have any of you guys done a cost vs digital camera and what you came up with :-?
1 vacation, 6 rolls film bought and developed - about $70
out of 6 rolls of film - 5 pictures I will look at again.
Next vacation - $130 camera, $35 memory card, about 261 pictures taken 4 printed.
not having hundreds of prints I will never look at again but wife will keep forever - priceless
Obsidian
11-15-2007, 21:31
Many of those 'stores' and 'labs' have the same print equipment...there's only so many models out there.
FB
sure same or similar equipment but not the same quality trained people. My friends who have worked at the walmart lab know how to throw it in the machine then put it in the packet, I've worked in a lab and we've been able to correct the brightness and contrast and actually know more than just how to put it in the machine then the packet.
Tennessee Viking
11-16-2007, 14:00
Digital is way cheaper in the long run. And people can have more control over their photos.
For Film,
-one has to buy the camera
-one has to buy batteries
-one has to by the film (which is one time use, plus you have to use the whole roll before processing)
-one has to pay for processing
-one has to pay for set of photos
For Digital
-one has to buy the camera
-one has to buy batteries
-one has by a memory card (unlimited use)
-only pay for selected photos
Digital is way cheaper in the long run. And people can have more control over their photos.
For Film,
-one has to buy the camera
-one has to buy batteries
-one has to by the film (which is one time use, plus you have to use the whole roll before processing)
-one has to pay for processing
-one has to pay for set of photos
For Digital
-one has to buy the camera
-one has to buy batteries
-one has by a memory card (unlimited use)
-only pay for selected photos
I find my batteries last longer with digital -- probably because they don't have to move the film.
_terrapin_
11-16-2007, 19:24
I find my batteries last longer with digital -- probably because they don't have to move the film.
Hehe. Not all film cameras have (or had) motor drive or auto focus. My Nikon FE used to go several years on a pair of button cells -- but all they had to do was power the light meter and control the shutter timing. Brute power for the camera was provided by the film winding/shutter-cocking lever.
Use of flash will have serious impact on battery life, regardless of whether you're shooting film or digital. With digital, use of the LCD will also have a major effect.
Tennessee Viking
11-16-2007, 23:29
I find my batteries last longer with digital -- probably because they don't have to move the film.
If you get rechargable batteries. It usually takes me about 300 photos to completely drain mine.
But regular single use batteries drain very fast on digital. Its usually because of the LCD display.
Use of flash will have serious impact on battery life, regardless of whether you're shooting film or digital. With digital, use of the LCD will also have a major effect.
What I find intresting is that was true with my first 2 digitals (a clunky 7 or 8 year old Kodak and then a Canon Power Shot). The LCD screen would eat through batteries.
But! My current camera doesn't do that. It, like most P&S digitals has no viewfinder, and 90% of the back of the camera is a massive screen. I can shoot for a week straight on a trip and my battery is fine. With the Canon I had a backup battery, with my Olympus Stylus 810, I don't worry anymore. The batteries are so much better that come with the new cameras these days.
I have realized that I carry my camera with me everywhere now. I wouldn't have done that before. The old digitals I had were heavy. :banana
Here is a hint for a easy tripod get a thumb screw 1/4-20 thread put 2 nuts on saw off extra thread take of first nut leave other on drill hole for ring use paracod or string of some kind some knots at bottom. To use just step on string pull up tight
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d52/oops62/stoves%202/stringtripod.jpg
NICKTHEGREEK
11-18-2007, 12:07
I sat down early today and did some math on film vs digital cameras.Now these prices are base on walmart cost the cheapest i found so far. To get a roll of 35mm done it is
3.79 for 24 pictures that come out to 15 cent a picture not bad. For the Digital Camera it is 28 cents ea. 22 cents ea. if you do fifty or more at 28 cents the cost of 24 pictures is 6.72 at 22 cents 5.26 to print 24 pictures. One more item are the batterys with my film camera i can shoot 6 rolls of film with 50% flash on one set of AA batterys that is 144 pictures this is just normal batterys like everready or durcell.Now what i like to know is have any of you guys done a cost vs digital camera and what you came up with :-?
Apparently quality isn't an issue.
Here is a hint for a easy tripod get a thumb screw 1/4-20 thread put 2 nuts on saw off extra thread take of first nut leave other on drill hole for ring use paracod or string of some kind some knots at bottom. To use just step on string pull up tight
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d52/oops62/stoves%202/stringtripod.jpg
Unless I'm missing something, it's not really a tripod, but it certainly makes for some extra stability. My conversion of a hiking staff to a monopod also uses a 1/4-20 screw. I use a hex head with two nuts leaving just a quarter inch protruding for the tripod threads on my cameras.
Then i cut the end of my wooden hiking stick straight across and drill a 7/16th inch hole. The 1/4 -20 screw and nuts are epoxied into the hole. When not used as a monopod, I restore a smooth top by epoxieing a hex head nut into a round wooden ball available from most lumber yards. Use a screw to hold the nut stable until the glue sets.
It's not as stable as a tripod, but it makes for great landscapes and group people shots, especially if you also use the anti-shake setting available on most good digital cameras today. The whole rig weighs around 10 ounces if you use a light but strong wood. I use alder cut from a swampy area on one of our trails.
Weary