|
Film vs. Digital…do the math!
I used to routinely shoot 20-25 rolls of film on a one-week vacation. The cost of film and developing was part of my travel budget (just behind the Wonderful Wife’s formal night dress and shoes!) and was accepted as such. I packed two Maxxum bodies and three or four lenses. One of the reasons for the two bodies was two different speeds of film, ISO100 and ISO400. The other reason was to reduce the need for lens switching, but it was mostly the multiple film speeds. Let’s take a math break and take a look at the “budget”:
Even if I stopped right here, after two trips and a year of family events, I have spent the equivalent of an entry-level DSLR in film and developing. There were more and better reasons to go digital, though. When I used to shoot weddings or other events and the film was part of the price tag, I would explain that I would be taking many shots of the same thing using different lighting and angles to give the customer a variety to choose from. Every shot was still carefully composed and thought out, but the final choice was made from several options. When I was shooting for myself, I was limited by cost of film and processing to whatever the budget was for the trip and had to ration my shots and compose what I thought would be the best shot in my head then take it. Digital changed all that! I now shoot a vacation like an event photographer. (It is an event for me!) I still compose carefully and compensate for lighting, climbing out on a pile of rocks to get “the” shot, but digital has freed me from counting the cost of each image. Just that has allowed me to have a lot more fun and get shots that I might have missed while shooting on a “budget”. Let’s look at what I would have spent on our two-week Panama Canal transit in 2005 where I have 1900 photos from the ship, six ports and eight hours transiting the Canal. I’ll round up to 55 rolls, since the number of photos represents “keepers” only and not the total number of images taken. (I probably deleted 300 blurries, dupes and what-the-hecks, so 55 rolls is pretty conservative.)
I was able to shoot what I wanted, when I wanted without worrying about having to pawn anything when I got home so I could develop my photos. Yay, digital! It has also freed
me from the limitations of film. If it’s a bright day and the wide
expanse of a beach with azure waters beckons, I can shoot ISO100 to
my heart’s content. If I turn from the beach and walk back into the
jungle to shoot flowers for a while, I can switch to ISO400 or
ISO800 to adjust for the dimness under the canopy in the blink of an
eye. While we’re on the subject of adjusting the ISO, what about
ISO1600 or ISO3200? Films with that kind of sensitivity are
uncommon, costly and often displayed grain so large that and 8x10
print sometimes looked as if it were printed on sandpaper! I
actually like the harsh, grainy look in some situations, but it’s
better if it’s by choice. Both my Minolta 7D and the new Sony A700
DSLRs shoot ISO1600 with results equal to or better than ISO400 film
and the Sony can shoot at ISO 6400 and produce good images. The
recently announced Nikon D3 will go to ISO25600 which, to a guy like
myself who was raised on film, is simply astounding! Another
limitation digital eliminates is making the choice between shooting
black and white or color. Some shots just look better in B&W, but
once you load a roll of film, you are committed to 36 frames before
you can change your mind again. Granted, some of the more
sophisticated film cameras could rewind the film halfway through the
roll and leave the leader out so you could switch film and reload it
later, but
Which box or album are your 2002 vacation pictures in? Let’s see the one of the jet passing low over the lighthouse on Kauai! I just did a search through 60,000 or so images and retrieved that picture in less than 20 seconds, including opening Picasa! Digital stores well and searches easily. Do you have off-site backup copies of all of your slides and negatives in case of fire or flood? Imagine what that would cost! I can make a complete copy of all my digital images, including the scanned slides and photos onto a sub-$100 hard drive and keep it anywhere I want. Concerned about image quality? This has been debated since the first "pro" digital cameras hit the shelves. In the late '90s, digital was still a novelty and very few serious photographers would consider it for anything other than proofs or journalism. In early 2002, both Canon and Nikon's consumer digital SLRs had hit 6MP and produced results virtually indistinguishable from 35mm film at a price that was within reach of non-professional enthusiasts. Later that year Canon introduced the EOS 1Ds at 11MP and Kodak announced the 14MP DCS-14n. After that, the argument was pretty much over. By the time I considering digital printing, I was already completely sold on buying a digital camera and the tremendous benefits of printing your own enlargements were pretty moot. They are, however, significant. If you have ever had to go to a lab and circle or cross out areas on a proof print so the tech could dodge (lighten) and burn (darken) areas of a print so it came out “just right”, you realize how liberating digital editing and printing is. Sure, it takes a while to become adept with the new tools, but compared to wallowing around in toxic chemicals and hand-painting a photo and re-shooting it to remove crow’s-feet from a portrait, it's a walk in the park. A good photo printer that will handle letter-sized paper and produce stunning color 8x10s that will last for 80-100 years costs less than $200. Inks are expensive, but even so, you can produce an 8x10 for about $1, including high-quality photo paper. For larger prints, you can buy photo printers that can handle up to 13x19 prints for $500-$700. Still not too bad, but if you don’t print sizes larger than 8x10 too often, having your digital file printed in any size locally or over the internet is increasingly economical and convenient. The benefits of going to digital vary with the type of photographer. If you are the kind that buys a disposable camera and finds two of your child’s birthday parties on the roll when it’s developed, stick with the disposables. If you are a frequent travel snapper, an avid amateur or part-time pro, digital can save you a lot of money! Beyond the money (at least in my experience), it can make photography new and exciting and provide inspiration to get out there and take pictures. Just that makes a $1,500 DSLR or a $350 point & shoot seem like a bargain! Happy Shooting!
|
You want to buy a
DSLR, but think that $250 for a film camera would be a better deal.
Maybe you already have a film SLR (FSLR?) and, while tempted by
digital, are put off by the $600-$1,500 price tag associated with
making the leap. Here are some thoughts and numbers that went
through my head when I was agonizing over which direction to take.
This line of reasoning would also apply if you were considering a
$300-$400 point
& shoot digital camera.
what a pain!
Speaking of committing to 36 frames, that gives me seven one-second
bursts while out on a whale-watching trip or shooting at my
grandson's sporting event. I remember seeing 250-shot backs for
motorized film cameras, but a 1,100 shot back? That's what I can get
with an 8GB card shooting full-rez/fine JPEG. I've never shot
8GB in a day, so running out of "film" is one less worry, thanks to
digital.