----- Original Message ----- From: "George Sinos" Subject: Re: Paid For
> These comparisons are fun. When I bought my first digital camera I > built a spread sheet that calculated my total cost per shot for both > film and digital. > > More or less the same thing, just expressed differently. > > Cost per shot on digital continues to decrease with time. Cost per > shot on film levels off and remains relatively constant. If you keep > your equipment long enough, digital cost per shot is lower. > > By the way, I didn't include the cost of my computer or photoshop. I > use it for both digital and film. > > When computing the cost of film I didn't include the cost of the > plumbing in my darkroom. It came with the house. I'm pretty sure I would still be on my second computer (I'm up to #5 now), had it not been for digital photography and it's ever increasing vacuuming up of resources, so for me I can add around 7K for that, plus another 2K for a laptop for onsite use. However, I like toys, so I don't begrudge that, but I seem to be spending a lot more time in front of my computer working on digital imaging than I spent in the darkroom producing silver prints, and am producing fewer pictures of lower quality than I did when I was shooting medium and large format film. The tendency to shoot more has some drawbacks. When I was shooting film, I might have shot 10 rolls of 120 film on a portrait session, now I'll shoot 4-6 times that amount of digital frames, and have to sort through that many pictures, at 4-6x more time. My keeper % was way higher with film, approaching 100% with 4x5, 20-25% with 120 film. I'm finding my keeper % with digital is around 5%, and I'm having to fish through a lot of images to find them. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
