Rob Studdert wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 at 13:04, Toralf Lund wrote:
I've never been able to believe that the cost is quite zero, though. Not
for the pictures you want to keep (whether you print them or not),
anyway. Storing & maintaining data on a digital medium costs something,
too - especially if you want any kind of security.
Care to make a real estimate of your cost per picture? [ ... ]
Not John but I'll put my 2c worth in as I am always amused when this type of
discussion pops up.
Always glad to amuse ;-)
Personally I must say I'm slightly amused when people talk about how
much money they save on buying a digital camera, because I always get
the feeling that they are rationalising their buying decision after the
fact, rather than giving a real reason why they bought one. And that the
cost is *nothing* is also part of the somewhat annoying digital hype, I
think.
Good DVD-R media is now less than AU$1 per disc and even creating duplicate
discs and storing the bloated *ist D RAW files the cost works out at less than
AU$0.006 per image.
I take it as given that people on a list like this would want to store
*uncompressed* files. I also assume CD/DVD backups are good enough for
most purposes - if you want true professional grade backups, you may
actually end up with a price higher than the one of film. I don't think
I could find DVDs I would trust at quite as low a price as you quoute.
I've been figuring more with a *CD* cost of something like that, perhaps
a little more (between 5 and 10 NOK). A nice thing about using CDs as a
basis, is that you can essentially fit one film's worth of uncompressed
files on a CD. So it all becomes a comparison between a film and one (or
possibly two) CDs... And *maybe* I'd use CDs rather than DVDs just
because they hold fewer files each, and I'd thus reduce the impact of
disasters like complete disintegration (or "separation") of the media.
Prints are less costly as I don't print anything myself and my print bureau
(and most others) charge less to print (to photo paper) from a finished file
than they do from film.
So you *really* save that money? Around here, they both do and don't
print cheaper from files. I mean, they do tend to quote lower prices in
advertisments, but those prices are sometimes only applicable if you
print in very high volumes. And I have found mailorder services that
offer "package prices" on film development that will give print costs at
least as low as the ones on digital.
Yes the initial fixed costs for equipment were higher than for a similar
quality of film camera. However if you are willing to discount the purchase of
a computer (which most of us have in any case and which by all rights isn't
strictly necessary)
This is what I'm not quite willing to do. Yes, most people do have a
computer, but if you say that handling digital images doesn't lead to a
higher cost of ownership because you want more powerful equipment and/or
need to upgrade more often (and possibly get new problems of various
kind), then I don't believe you.
And you do need some kind of a computer, I think, at least if you want
to save money. If you let the labs do the job for you, you will easily
end up with a higher cost than for film. I guess you have one really
low-cost option in the stand-alone camera media/CD/DVD/camera i/o units,
though...
At the end of the day, I think the real issue is the "cost" of having
to do *some* kind of data management task, or differently put, one of
the most important reasons why I haven't got a digital camera, is that
I'm not sure want to have equipment where I *have to* do a lot of work
on digital images (but then again, *I* do a lot of that in my job, so I
prefer to avoid it on my spare time.)
I've been thinking that digital cameras *really* start to make a
difference as and when the media used in the camera itself becomes so
cheap and reliable that you can simply keep that as a "master copy"...
and the camera is used to shoot regularly the savings in
film purchase and processing can be significant and easily reconciled.
For instance I've shot the equivalent of nearly 500 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm
film since I purchased my DSLR. At the prices I was paying for film and
processing prior to my DSLR purchase (Fuji Provia 400F 135-36 RHP AU$24.24 +
DnD processing AU$8.80)
Surely, you have to pay that much only if you purchase one film at a
time? Seems like it would be wrong to use that price for purposes of
comparison, unless you also assume you are buying one CD or DVD...
I've never used that film myself, but I think I could easily get a pack
of 10 for a little more than NOK600, or 120-130 AU$. If I shop around a
litttle and/or order from abroad, I can do even better. Generally, I
reckon really good film is about NOK50 a roll. Somewhat less
professional one is perhaps NOK30, and you can get a cheap no-brand roll
for as little as 15...
The last time I did processing only, I paid about NOK30 for it, i.e.
around AU$7.50. That was a the local lab; the mail order ones probably
do it for less. I'm tempted not to count the processing in, though, as I
figure I actually pay less than what the value of not hvaing to spend
time on data transfers etc...
I only had to shoot the equivalent of about 60 rolls of
film and processing to break even.
... so by my reckoning it's more like 200 right now, down from perhaps
as much as 500 when the *istD was introduced. I obviously shoot less
than you, so I would spend several years on making the money back. I
also feel that the avarage casual shooter won't be able to save as much
as the camera cost before it is obsolete (well, that probably takes less
than a couple of months if you really want to keep up...) or just isn't
usable anymore - so the argument about cost savings doesn't have much
merit *when used in a general way*.
And before you ask would I have shot the
equivalent of 500 rolls of film in the same time had I not gone digital, I'll
say no, but solely due to financial constraints.
Fair enough. I don't feel that I would shoot more than now, which is
perhaps a roll a week, in any case...
- Toralf
